Last April 15, when I handed my tax payment to the post office clerk, she said, "I hate tax day." I replied, "Not me. I don't love parting with the money, but I kinda like it. That check is a bargain -- roads, schools, medical care, social security, and the freedom of living in a great country. It is patriotism by checkbook, a sort of American tithe. Why should I hate it?" She replied, "Why, I've never heard anybody say that! It isn't such a bad deal when you put it that way."
Taxes aren't such a bad deal. Nor are they, as the Tea Party rabble have claimed throughout the year, at odds with Christianity. Indeed, tax day is a day that progressive people of faith should celebrate, as we participate in one of the greatest social reforms of the twentieth century: the progressive income tax.
In 1916, Wellesley professor Vida Scudder, a social gospel theologian argued that:
The hour has come for Christian thought to give definite sanction to the new social ethic that has been developing for the last half century. The check by common will on private greed, the care for public health, the protection of childhood and manhood, the securing of fair leisure from the monotonies of modern labor, form a program hardly to be called radical any longer.
Part of the new social ethic was the idea of a progressive income tax, whereby the richer members of society would pay a greater share to care for those of lesser means and provide for meaningful social reforms. The progressive income tax was passed, but many conservative Christians complained about it -- a bit like today's Tea Party folks.
Thus, progressive theologians made a Christian case for taxation. They believed that progressive taxes would increase the overall morality of society. For example, Professor Scudder argued that "the Church, like her Master, is in a way more concerned over the spiritual state of the prosperous than over that of the poor," because the rich "countenance unbrotherly things." In other words, the rich were not likely to practice Christian holiness unless someone -- or some institution -- prompted them away from sin. "It may be good for the soul of Patrick to subsist on a starvation wage," she says of a hypothetical worker, "but it is very bad for the soul of Henry the mill-owner to pay him that wage." The spiritual scales needed to be balanced: Henry needed to share a portion of his wealth to better the lot of his brothers and sisters. "It is spiritual suicide for the possessors of privilege to rest," Scudder continued, "until such privileges become the common lot. This truth is what the Church should hold relentlessly before men's eyes; it is what makes indifference to social readjustments impossible to her shepherding love." A progressive tax expressed Christian accountability and charity.
The income tax, she wrote, "does not attack private property, but merely limits it at a point far above what most people reach, and no Christian mind would surely stoop to the meanness of claiming that it would unduly lessen incentive. It would deliver many men from fearful temptations -- a result for which we are told to pray." She reminded readers that even "non-Christian moralists are pleading for self-limitation in wealth as the next step in the higher ethics."
Scudder appealed to Jesus' teachings: "Now in view of Christ's persistent feeling that it is dangerous to be rich -- a feeling that no subtle exegesis has ever succeeded in explaining away -- one might have expected to see His disciples, His Church, eagerly welcome the plan and press it with enthusiasm." That, she lamented, was not always the case. Although many progressive Christians understood the spiritual aspect of taxes, other church people didn't get it. "Again," she insisted, "no Christian can remain indifferent or non-partisan toward movements for the protection of the weak." The Church should -- and must -- press for social justice.
Sure, the progressive tax system hasn't always delivered on its promises of social equity. People lie and cheat, and the tax codes need to be reformed. It isn't perfect, but I'm glad for student loan programs, decent roads, national parks, great universities, Medicare, retirement funds, and soldiers' family paychecks. It is hardly radical, but it is moral and decent.
Last year, I left the post office in a celebratory mood, went to Starbucks, and ordered a cup of tea. I raised my Earl Grey in salute to Vida Scudder and Uncle Sam. This year, I think I'll order coffee. But the sentiment is the same: happy progressive tax day!
Follow Diana Butler Bass on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dianabutlerbass
I am a Christian but do not attend church. I also prefer to tithe to an organization that uses the money for those needing it, and keeping the administrative costs down.
Just me, but I just don't see a tithe going to elaborate buildings, program after program.... seems to me it ought to go to those who need it, rather than all the "stuff" the churchgoers like to have.
What is really sad is how the "church" seems to hardly resemble the principals of the early church in the New Testament.
How many churches are sitting empty for so many hours of the week. Why are mega church leaders flitting around in jets and living the life of the rich and famous?
sad to say, but I avoid "church", partly because I don't want to be "guilty by association". Christians are instructed to discipline those within the Church. I don't even know what "the church" is anymore. I believe it is the body of believers scattered all over the world who follow the teaching of Christ.
If you create a clay model of an airplane and call it an airplane, it still ain't gonna fly. Problem with doing this with the "church"
Christians claiming they are the true keepers of moral action as usual.
One issue we faced today is when 70% of the people own less than 10% (5%?) of the nation's wealth, there are a whole, whole lot of people who have nothing to lose from the collapse of the economy. Would we take care of each other if suddenly the unemployment rate went up to 50% or more? I think we would. I think we know when and how to work together.
Yes, the levels of dangerous domestic violence would increase. If you were around during the several riots in cities in the 60s or more recently such situations as the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, you know how dangerous it can get. No, that is not desirable. But is letting people die one by one from injustice, economic injustice, OK? I think not.
The GOP was warned over the last 40 years that we were creating a proletariat. So do not be surprised if the inevitable consequences of using economic advantage to take advantage of the weak erupts.
I don't like all these tax write offs for people. They want the money and benefit's from school, they should pay for it and all the other stupid tax write offs.
What you don't get is that almost 50% of all Americans don't pay any income tax!!!
The top 2% of all Americans pay 40% of all the income tax and Obama wants more!!
Here is a thought... as my taxes go up I don't think about charities as much...
ITS NOT ABOUT PAYING TAXES AS MUCH AS THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNTRY.. AND HOW ARE HARD EARNED MONEY IS BEING USED
And yes it is shameful that nearly 50% of Americans don't make enough income to have to pay income tax; although when you add up sales taxes, FICA taxes etc, most of them still may a greater percentage of their income in taxes than the rich.
As for your thirtd comment I suggest you look up what percentage of income the top 2% make before you shed any tears for them. And since charities are tax deductable I would thing you would want to make more donations as your taxes go up.
As for the direction of the country, I think it's on a much better track than under Bush, when we were headed to hell in a handbasket.
So that is 2% of the 50% who DO pay, right? So that'd be 1% of the total population paying 40% of all income taxes? Wow! They must be freakin' billionaires.
Quite a burden to bear. Maybe the Tea Party rightists could examine the corporate tax share having shifted from one-third of the tax base in 1960 to 10% today. I doubt it'd set anyone screaming to "Tax Big Business," though.
Oh, and as actually tracked by the National Council of Churches: those with the highest incomes give the least proportion of their income to charities and churches. Conversely, those who can least afford to give do so at a proportionately higher rate. It's an old concept: go look up "the Widow's Mite."
Now--is that so Christian, y'all?
Secondly, any church that preaches politics should lose their tax exempt status, no exceptions!!! Under Bush 43, his minions sicced the feds on a small, poor Episcopal church in California because the minister criticized the immoral actions of the president. They were, I believe, the only church in the country at that time being threatened with losing their tax-exempt status. Meanwhile, all these Evangelical churches that combined theology with politics were allowed to go blithely along, mixing incendiary political warnings about the demonic progressives on the left with the one true way to God--through the Republican Party.
Obviously, this doesn't work, and obviously they should be taxed.
And I have no problem paying my taxes. I just want fair value for it. I need to pay for my food too, but if I pay $40 and only get Top Ramen back in return, I'm gonna get mad.
Thats my problem with govt and taxes. They don't value my money. They just piss it away however they want then ask for more and I get accused of being unpatriotic or not caring about the poor if I balk.
He saw these programs as practical force for Christianity and the bricks of a solid wall against Marxism.
Das Kapital.
Moral thought is not the preserve of religion.
People inevitably become aware of fairness because of our makeup; we are not solitary creatures, but depend on one another to various extents to fufill our needs. So if one is inherently selfish, at some point - when that level of luxury or indulgence cannot be met or sustained - we must either develop an understanding that we can share, or we engage our baser instincts and take things we desire through force.
Blowing the lid off that cap seems like a good place to start in order to support the general welfare.
People argue against a radical Marxist redistribution of wealth as I've advocated above. But don't we experience exactly that every day? Except, those who argue the former point, are arguing against the money being moved around for the bottom. Yet, the status quo is for the money to go up and stay there.
Interesting article: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/31/boeing-tax-break/
Also good news, interest income will be subject to FICA taxes soon-good for those of us footing the Medicare bill of people who don't need to work for a living-their money works for them
So it is with our tax dollars - we can invest in ourselves and our future for a return that will benefit not only us, but others ... or we can be miserly, hoarding our money to ourselves, for no return.
Look at it another way. If there was a major disaster and your community was cut off from help/support for several days, and you not only knew how to make bread, but had the flour and means necessary, would you do so and share with your neighbors? Or would you be saying, "Hey, buzz off. It's my flour, and I'm not giving handouts!"?
It's not a tithe, it's an investment. What needs to accompany this investment, then, is strong leadership - moral, ethical, sensible leadership (which isn't necessarily what we have in strong stock in Washington, D.C. and/or among some self-professed Christians) to build upon what we have been given in blessing and ability.
Of course, if you don't believe in God and/or Jesus Christ, this is still a rational proposition - you are enabling the community at large for the greater pool of genetic diversity, and, thus, the better odds of survival long term.