A few days ago, I finished compiling our family's federal and state tax information for 2024 and sent it on to our preparer. These hours of accounting for our income and relevant expenses over the previous year are a chance for reflecting on our stewardship, our evident priorities ... and where our tax money goes.
Over the years, the subject of taxes has come up several times in this blog. Back in 2006, I linked to a post by Julia Ewen of Atlanta Friends Meeting that I republished with her permission. She reframed the issue of conscientious payment or nonpayment of taxes. Among other points, she said:
We have to accept the fact that life—paying or not paying taxes included—is not neat and clean. And take responsibility for our choices—and their fall-out—good and bad together.
The biggest danger, though, lies in getting confused about who in charge of things: Caesar? The religious establishment? or Jesus/God? And that confusion can happen whether Caesar is involved or not (hence the story about the Temple Tax).... [See her full essay for the "Temple Tax" context.]
In fact Caesar is probably the smaller problem. Jesus talks very little about Caesar, but inveighs a great deal against people in the religious establishment: people who like to appear to be good while in fact committing injustice and evil, people who acquire money and power at the expense of those they are supposed help and protect, people who live motivated by fear, greed, selfishness, addiction to power, instead of love and concern for others...
When we get that right, then we will know when to pay taxes and when not to. Neither is wrong. Neither is right. In and of itself. It is like the Torah admonition not to pick grain on the Sabbath ( Matthew 12:1-8). Yes, scripture says not to do it. But scripture also says that we can pull an ox out of the ditch if he has fallen into it on the Sabbath... "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath". Thus the he issue about taxes is not simply about paying or not paying. It is about why we are paying—or not—about being responsible for our choices, and about who we are letting run our lives, our souls!
Here's what I wrote back in 2022, when anti-tax rhetoric was at one of its periodic peaks:
In this political season, both in the USA and in the UK (and no doubt elsewhere), politicians are trading on the dislike of taxes to gain popularity. Republican opposition to Democratic initiatives are routinely blasted with the old "tax and spend" epithet, and the Conservative leadership campaign in the UK has featured competitions for who can cut taxes the most.
A biblical view of taxation might be hard to pin down. We have God's sour view of what a king would do to the people of Israel (1 Samuel chapter 8), but also the attributes of good rulers (Psalm 99:4; Proverbs 16:12). We have examples of the positive uses of taxation (to support the central institutions of the nation, particularly the Temple, and to prepare for drought; more generally, to maintain the nation's leaders so they can protect the people and serve justice). John the Baptist tells tax collectors to collect only the required amount (Luke 3:12-13). Jesus treats tax collectors positively (especially Matthew) and tells his followers to pay Caesar what is Caesar's (Mark 12:17 and parallels).
In the USA and similar democracies, the fundamental functions that governments must do, and pay for, are described in a constitution (written or unwritten) and in subsequent legislation. We vote for the people in the legislature and authorize them to draw up budgets based on the commitments we have made to each other, all based on those authorized purposes of the government. We then have to pay for those commitments that keep our nation viable and livable. The sum total of those costs represents the amount we have to raise, one way or another.
Right now our national conversation seems to be "what commitments can we slash to save money?" A more honest conversation would admit that we're often actually asking "what commitments to others can we slash to save money, while keeping the commitments that benefit people just like us?" A popular variation: "What commitments can we privatize so that we can buy them if we want, and those who can't afford them ... well, we just won't worry about them."
The conversation I truly want to have across political lines is: "Who do we [and who do our critics] want our policies to bless, and who are we willing to leave out?" Once we've decided what we're willing to pay for these blessings to ourselves and our fellow human beings, we can then figure out how to divide the burden with equal attention to fairness. Evading our fair share is not an honest blessing.
 |
| Source. |
Too bad it doesn't end there!
First of all, we rarely have unanimity on the tasks themselves. A huge example: many countries recognize that health care is an inelastic demand that affects every single person—precisely the sort of thing that the marketplace cannot provide equitably—but, in the USA, we don't. We differ as to whether various essential tasks of community maintenance should be federal responsibilities or best left to local governments, the marketplace, or private charity. What is the best balance between governmental provisions for social and economic justice, on the one hand, and entrepreneurial incentives on the other? Even with perfect goodwill on all sides, we are guaranteed some robust debates. And once the commitments have been made and the budgets established, some will still resent paying those costs.
To complicate things further, as the Bible and the Federalist Papers remind us, we are not angels. The collection and disbursement of taxes is subject to corruption. Some of us evade taxes; some of those who spend the people's money find ways to divert it. And even among honest people, inefficiencies can creep in. So ... we have to spend some of our tax money on auditors, prosecutors, and inspectors-general, just so the rest of the money can go to its original purposes, and (hopefully) trust among taxpayers can largely be preserved.
Even with all those complications, the general covenant can prevail as long as we can see that our taxes pay for the promises we have made to each other, with reasonable allowances for audits and safeguards. But it's a vulnerable covenant. All it takes to break it is for enough self-serving demagogues to make enough noise, generate enough cynicism, trigger enough popular resentment, in order to make people forget the covenant altogether. Instead, those manipulators treat "TAXES" [scary music] as a special category of evil that has no connection with those constitutional purposes ... except for those purposes that have taken on exaggerated rhetorical sanctity—most usually, the Military, which is sometimes given even more than it asks for!
Aside from this cynical practice of breaking the connection between promises and taxes for political gain (example: the traditional Republican slogans about those "tax and spend Democrats"), there are at least three other techniques for weakening the essential covenant trust between people and government, and thereby diverting resources from the "general Welfare" to benefit those who resent sharing their wealth. All three are very popular in this current season of chaos.
First: raise an alarm over waste and corruption, without providing for a deliberate process of finding specific instances, or using the facilities already provided for that purpose. The current DOGE chainsaw campaign may accidentally and randomly eliminate some defective corners of the bureaucracy, but there seems to be no corresponding eagerness to find out what promises, honestly made and honestly kept, could end up on the butcher's floor in the process, and what those now-broken promises might cost in human life.
Second: sabotage the promise-making process, namely the work of the legislative branch. Our Constitution explicitly assigns the budgeting task to Congress, which also establishes the major branches of government and has, in the Senate, the "advice and consent" role of approving high officials. The president must not encroach on the legislature's lawmaking responsibility but instead, in the Constitution's words, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...." Now these encroachments are made on a daily, sometimes almost hourly basis.
Third: act as if the wealthiest among us should never fear even modest increases in the taxes they pay. Those who arguably benefit the most from the governmental structures that protect their wealth and (by providing infrastructure at taxpayer expense) make that wealth even possible, too often use that wealth to exercise veto power over suggestions of increased taxes. No matter how worthy or urgent our proposed promises to each other might be, revenue must only go down! Best of all, from their point of view, the savings gained by mercilessly degrading "general Welfare" can actually reduce their taxes.
(I recognize that there are ultra-wealthy people who do not agree with this agenda.)
I'm relatively sure that you already know all this, and probably know it in greater depth and detail than I do. I only record it here, and in the framework of a covenant, because I would like to do my tiny part in reinforcing that original connection between promise and payment in a season that, instead, threatens to overwhelm us with a tidal wave of misdirection and cynicism.
Related: The socialists are coming!! Paying for health care.
How ethics can deteriorate: Cabinet member openly urges television audience to buy Tesla stock. "Danielle] Brian [of Project on Government Oversight] said Lutnick’s comments indicated that Trump’s previous flouting of ethics norms may be affecting how his officials behave." You think?
At NASA, too ... Eric Berger (Ars Technica):
[I]f we're going to start lying about basic truths like the fate of [astronauts Butch] Wilmore and [Suni] Williams—and let's be real, the only purpose of this lie is to paint the Trump administration as saviors in comparison to the Biden administration—then space is not going to remain apolitical for all that long. And in the long run, that would be bad for NASA.
Matt Levine (Bloomberg): Even deregulation needs regulators.
The alleged dangers of the "empathy exploit" (Elon Musk) and two Christian responses: Michael C. Rae (Religion News Service); George Demacopoulos (Orthodox Christian Study Center, Fordham).
And now, for a cosmic change of perspective courtesy of the European Space Agency, namely 26 million galaxies and counting. Be sure to watch the extraordinary video.
Can't say I didn't warn you ... "The Hustle Is On." (With the late Little Charlie Baty.)
No comments:
Post a Comment