Tax Me to Death So That Others May Live?

“Am I my brother’s keeper?” Thus spake the alleged first child of the alleged first couple of the world. Apparently, even then, kids were shitheads. But more to the point at hand, as far back as Christian recorded time goes, we weren’t quite sure how much we owed one another.

The recent healthcare debate has centered around two ideas on which the left and the right disagree. One of them is a matter of difference and one merely of degree. The first is whether one believes more in the power of unrestrained markets or in the power of government. The second is the Cain & Abel problem: am I my brother’s keeper?

Do You Want the Invisible Hand or Big Brother?

As to the first problem: Democrats look at Republicans and think they must be insane to believe that markets can regulate themselves. The idea that for-profit industries could possibly have something in mind other than their stockholders seems odd to them. And, indeed, as we have seen with the Savings and Loan scandal, the housing crash, the banking collapse, and anyone who has ever dealt with a large company’s customer service hotline, unfettered capitalism doesn’t always give people the best bang for their buck. (Though to be fair, uneducated and greedy non-rich people who maxed out their credit cards and bought houses they couldn’t afford do share in the blame for the housing/banking woes.)

Republicans, on the other hand, look at slothful, gargantuan government agencies and see nothing but waste and inefficiencies. Anyone who has ever stepped foot in a DMV or a large city’s post office instantly becomes a bit more Republican. Except Bill Maher who aptly pointed out that he would prefer if the government were in charge of more things because, honestly, who else charges you 42 cents to ship a letter from Bar Harbor, Maine to Los Angeles… and generally gets it there in one piece? (Statistics God Nate Silver also had an interesting take on why conservatives hate government that merits reading. See “Why does a Person Become a Republican?”) By their very public nature, government agencies suffer from the lack of a “fire under the ass” that the cruel but sometimes effective business world can provide. I’m reminded of a story of a beer bottling factory in China, a country where the government has tried to shift its economic model from communist toward capitalist. A Western observer was shocked when he saw bottles going down the production line with leaves inside… and no one cared. When one’s job is guaranteed, obviously there’s little incentive to do one’s job right. If Karl Marx was woefully wrong about anything, he was woefully wrong that in a communist society people would be, to use his words, spontaneously fond of work. Um… yeah. It wasn’t true then, it certainly isn’t true in the Age of Entitlement.

Where the Democrats might hold the upper hand in this argument, in my humble opinion, is that even if government’s slothful heart isn’t in the right place, at least it’s not in the wrong place. I have no doubt that in future centuries, people will look back on a for-profit healthcare system whose obvious goal was to exclude the sick and thereby drive up stock prices and wonder, “WTF were these people thinking?” Bureaucrats undoubtedly suck… but at least they don’t truly want to pull the plug on grandma by denying her care.

“If You Bring Gum to Class, You Must Bring Enough For Everyone.” Um, Why? It's My Gum.

But if the first point (government vs. free market) is the intractable point that separates the two political parties into well-defined camps, then the second point is at least one where people can begin to find common ground: just how much do we owe to our common man?

We see this argument played out in law over the centuries. All law students must learn something called the Rule Against Perpetuities (“RAP”) . RAP, in a nutshell, is a way to make it much harder for people to pass down all their wealth to distant descendants under the theory that people should work for their money and if they’re spoiled rich brats who inherit everything, they won’t work. (Think: Paris Hilton, although I guess she does pull her own weight by doing reality shows and “designing” expensive purses.) RAP, however, is nearly gone. Most states in the U.S. have done away with it (as has the U.K., where it originated). Nowadays we tend to think: if you’ve earned it, you can keep it. Which begs the big question, “What does ‘earned’ mean?”

President Obama got a lot of shit when he was on the campaign trail and used the unfortunate phrase “spread the wealth” around. Honestly, at that moment, I thought his goose was cooked. But people tend to forget that taxes—all taxes—are form of wealth redistribution. My grandparents in rural Pennsylvania piss and moan that all the state’s taxes go to Pittsburgh and Philly. “Yes,” I reply, “but that’s where all the money and most of the people are. Are there any people making seven figures in your small town?” They also moan about money going toward public transportation systems since they have cars. Why should they have to pay for someone’s bus? “Yes,” I reply, “but if fewer people in Philly drive and take SEPTA instead, that means fewer cars on those roads. Fewer cars on the roads mean fewer repairs and fewer expansions of Philadelphia-area highways. Less money spent on Philly roads means more money can be spent on your roads in rural PA. Not to mention the valuable time lost in traffic jams that lowers economic productivity and hence lowers tax receipts.” But I digress. All taxes inconvenience some people more than others. Taxes will never be “fair” because we will never all agree on what “fair” means.

If we’re going to “spread the wealth,” how much is too much to spread, without getting into Laffer curves and all that theory? Part of the doctrine of being a conservative is generally to view the status quo as not-so-bad and to view change as scary. Part of the doctrine of being a liberal is to see the inequities in the world (social and financial) and consequently view change as quickly needed. So it makes sense that today—in an era of historically very low tax rates for wealthy people—conservatives tend to think the status quo is the appropriately place to be. But not too very long ago, the wealthy in this country paid over 70% of their money in taxes. The middle class was stronger. And a CEO made roughly 20 times what an average worker in that company made as opposed to the 160+ times the worker’s salary he makes now. To Democrats, this disparity is unacceptable.

To Republicans, income disparity tends to be seen as a function of effort: work more, get paid more. But not even the most diehard conservative can truly believe that preferential tax treatment, inflated wages, and undeserved nepotism don’t have something to do with high wages. Though, still, conservatives do have an excellent point, according to a recent Wall Street Journal piece, that when you raise taxes on the rich, the rich will (1) work less (because they can), (2) evade more (because they can), and (3) move out of the country (because they can). We can see this in states that have high tax rates: rich people leave and go to Texas. Which never made sense to me because you’re rich but then… you fucking live in Texas.

WWJD?

What would Jesus say about all this? What’s “fair”? In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus teaches, “And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury. And He saw a poor widow putting in two small copper coins. And He said, ‘Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them; for they all out of their surplus put into the offering; but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on.’” Luke 14:1-4.

Jesus also said “render unto Caesar what is Caesar and unto God what is God’s.” Mark 12:17. In other words, pay your damn taxes and then devote your spiritual self to the Lord. Finally, Jesus also said, “Sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven.” Luke 18:22. Greek philosophers (I’m straining to remember which ones) weren’t quite so extreme. They tended to believe one should live simply but still retain enough to get by comfortably. What remains mindboggling to me, however, is that a large portion of conservative voters can attend a rally on Saturday about how they deserve to keep all their money from those evil people in Washington who want to give their money to the poor. And then on Sunday they attend a sermon where the minister quotes verses about living humbly and… giving money to the poor.

What Would the Commonwealth Do?

When does giving more money to others actually help society and, in turn, help you? I, after all, attended two state universities. My education was subsidized by the taxpayers of Pennsylvania and Ohio. We have state universities because we generally believe that a more educated citizen will be a more productive member of society (and a higher earning taxpayer). Most people seem to agree that that expense is worthwhile, though when times get tough, state money for those pesky kids always seems to be first on the chopping block because we forget its long-term taxable value.

Virtue Itself Turns Vice Being Misapplied, and Vice--By Its Action--Sometimes Dignified

But what about more controversial government programs? What about needle exchanges for heroin addicts? The city of Vancouver runs a needle exchange program where addicts can not only go to a government building, not only get a clean needle, but there’s also a nurse there to watch them shoot up and make sure they don’t die. Amazingly to many Americans, even the local police force in Vancouver favors the program. While it’s easy to think such a program is a horrible waste of money because people shouldn’t be doing heroin anyway (or, if you’re a bit more—shall we say, opinionated—heroin addicts don’t deserve to live because they’re not contributing anything to society), the counterargument is persuasive too: at least they’re not getting dirty needles, getting AIDS, infecting others, and dying in the streets. Garbage men dislike collecting corpses, I’m told.

What about giving prisoners access to education? I used to be vehemently against this. Hell, I pay for my education (well, most of it), why should lawbreakers get it for free? But then I learned about recidivism rates and how they are tied to the ability of ex-prisoners to return to the workforce upon release. Honestly, we have these people locked up with nothing to do, we might as well get them some books and some teachers so they believe that they have choices other than a life of crime when they get out of the clink. If it keeps them from coming back and turns them into taxpaying citizens, it was money well spent. And, forgive me for being a tad cheesy here, but… it shows them that someone cared.

I Keep Bleeding, Keep Keep Bleeding Love

Maybe this is where the “bleeding heart” liberal moniker comes from. But I’ve known some downtrodden people in my life. And many of them didn’t want a handout… but they needed a handout. Even a small one. A little unemployment. A smile. A mentor. Maybe even a little healthcare.

It’s remarkable that when you ask most non-poor people what is important in their lives, they rattle off the predictable list: education, money, wife/husband, kids, nice house, a car or three… but so few ever say “health.” Why? Because health is a given. It’s expected for so many people. But when you don’t have it, nothing else matters. Companies don’t hire sick people. Sick people don’t get out of bed to put on a suit for an interview. Sick people rack up medical bills instead of working and paying taxes. Yes, I know I’m overgeneralizing here, but you see my point: if someone doesn’t have his health, he’s got nothing. The least we can do as a society is to help give someone that without which they can do nothing else.

But Does the Fat, Smoking Baby Mama Really Deserve My Money?

“But it’s not my problem he smoked two packs a day!” the response will come. Well, no, it’s not. And this is a problem for which I do not think anyone has a good answer. We can discourage bad behaviors, like taxing the shit out of cigarettes and soda. We could ban things entirely like illegal drugs if we think they’re really harmful. And we can tell people to use condoms. But if someone gets HIV, do we tell her that it’s her fault and she’s on her own? What if she was raped? Can she get government-sporsored treatment then? Do we need to set up rape panels to determine who was innocent and therefore “deserving” of life-saving medications? Who sits on the panels? A good mixture of left and right, Christian and athiest? Do we need an economist on there to see if she could really afford to raise the child?...

Putting aside the religious part of the “I don’t want to pay for your abortion with my federal tax dollars” argument, look at the other part of that sentiment that’s often bubbling with venom underneath: “You slut, you should have known better.” Should we make someone have a child that she cannot support? As the book Freakonomics teaches us, women who tend to have abortions are women who would tend to have the types of children that grow up to be lawbreakers and end up in jail: single, poor, uneducated. That’s certainly not a moral argument for abortion because I do realize how powerful the religious objection is, but it is, at least, an economic argument. And no matter how strong your religious hatred for abortion, an unwanted child punishes not only the mother, but more importantly, that poor child suffers. That’s not love.

Greed: Among the Gravest of Sins

The Bible lists greed among the gravest of sins. Mark 7:22; I Cor. 6:10. I recall a story a few years ago about a bitter fight between Taco Bell and the providers of its tomatoes. The migrant farmers wanted a penny-per-pound raise because, well, they were paid like shit and their working conditions sucked. (Side note: does it astonish anyone else that one of the very few exceptions to the minimum wage laws are seasonal farm workers? The people who do the hardest, backbreaking work can be paid less than a kid selling V-necks in an air-conditioned Abercrombie?) Anyway, back to the story. Taco Bell resisted the meager raise. It was only after Taco Bell got negative press and some groups began to boycott them, that they relented. You see the problem with ruthless capitalism is simple: It’s all about the stockholders… until you piss people off so royally that the customers stop coming in, and then that affects your bottom line and you have to behave like humans instead of board members.

Can Ruthless Enforcement Be Common Ground?

I don’t want lazy pieces of shit taking my tax dollars either. And, recall, the poor were already taken care of via Medicaid. Thus, the benefits of the new healthcare law accrue mainly to the middle class. But in the end, I don’t mind if the single mother of three who suddenly finds herself unemployed gets some of my tax money. Many conservatives I’ve spoken with in the past few days seem to agree. It seems, then, that the left and the right are truly arguing over a matter of degree: who is deserving, and how much do they deserve? One way to meet on this issue would be to combat fraud.

Medicaid—I think we all can agree—is a horribly monitored fraud. I once saw a woman wearing a fur coat use food stamps at a grocery store and then hop into a waiting Lexus in the parking lot. These are the stories Republicans like to focus on when they decry the government taking “your” money, while Democrats focus on that single mother who lost her job. The truth is, of course, that both types exist in our system. Why not spend more money—a lot more money—rooting out fraud? Every dollar spent on an investigator could save untold money over the lifetime of a fraudulent recipient. And why not stiffen penalties? If you’re caught committing fraud when receiving access to any government program, you lose all assistance… forever. Might that send a chill down the spine of anyone wanting to fleece the government? I’d sure think so.

Republicans and Democrats may never see eye-to-eye on the government vs. unregulated markets theories of enterprise, but we can at least come together to agree that some people sometimes need help. I think both sides should push for more enforcement and Draconian punishments for those who abuse the systems. I’d love for such a program to be so effective that one day a far, far right politician will attempt to use a story about some lowlife who defrauded the system… and he will be laughed at. Because fraud will have been eliminated and the idea of pulling a fast one on the government will be laughable. Wishful thinking, I know, but an admirable goal to aspire toward.

Ask Not For Whom the Bell Tolls. It Tolls For Thee. Eventually.

The press reported this week that if you make more than a million dollars a year, your taxes might go up $46,000 to help pay for healthcare. Stop and think about that. And your response will say a lot about yourself. I hope to make more than a million per year eventually. And to me, if I’m making that much, if I must pay an “extra” $46,000 in taxes so that someone who can’t see a doctor can get healthy on my dime, well, that’s OK with me. But if you think the millionaire “earned” all of that money fair and square, and you view those trying to take it away from him as freeloading sloths, then you’d naturally be up in arms about this new healthcare law.

One of President Kennedy’s many memorable quotations is “For those to whom much is given, much is required.” And when you’re middle class and struggling to make ends meet, it might not seem like you have very much. And I get that. I’ve been there. Hell, I’m there now. My student loans cost more than the value of my parents’ house. (My five pounds of grey matter costs more than a three-bedroom ranch in economically depressed Pennsylvania!) But if you’re reading this, you have a computer and Internet access, and that means you have more than a lot of people. Take a minute and truly think about that before you gripe about your taxes the next time: “For those to whom much is given, much is required.” Somber words. And they ring just as true today as when Kennedy spoke them. And just as true when Kennedy spoke them as when the original speaker first uttered them two thousand years prior. Jesus. Luke 12:48.