[Dialogue] Spong on taxes

[carl larsen]

Dear Richard Kroeger:  I am enjoying your John Selby Spong contributions. 
Say hello to Amelia for me.  Carl Larsen, ie Cannonball.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <KroegerD at aol.com>
To: <MICAH6-8 at topica.com>
Cc: <Dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 5:07 AM
Subject: [Dialogue] Spong on taxes


>
> April 20, 2005
> Dear Friends,
> The College of Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church has made its 
> decision
> in the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the See of Rome. That 
> action
> occurred after the deadline for this column, so I simply take note of it 
> today
> and will comment next week on both the pontificate of John Paul II and the
> direction indicated by the choice of the one who will be known as Benedict
> XVI.
> -John Shelby Spong
> Whose Money Is It? A  Meditation on April 15th
> "It is time for the government to give you back some of your own money."
> These were the words of President George W. Bush when he was campaigning 
> for a
> massive tax cut that Congress voted into law during his first term.
> "I am very much in favor of our youngest workers having the ability to set
> aside a small portion of their own money to invest in a personal account 
> that
> will build equity for them and a sense of ownership in America." These 
> were
> the  words of President Bush at a press conference in March of 2005 as he 
> sought
> support for his proposed plan to reform Social Security.
> April 15 each year is the due date for tax payments to the Federal and 
> State
> Governments based on the previous year's income. We have just gone through
> it.  It is a day dreaded by many, looked forward to by few. Taxation is 
> the
> place  where citizens feel the burden of citizenship. In listening to 
> political
> figures, however, one gets the impression that some of them believe that 
> no one
> ought to pay any taxes. It is certainly politically popular to lower 
> rather
> than  to raise taxes. This nation, guided by this mentality, has moved
> significantly  to lessen that burden in recent years. The tax rates on 
> dividends and
> capital  gains have both been cut substantially. The percentage of the 
> total
> amount of  all taxes collected from the wealthiest citizens of this nation 
> has
> decreased  notably in the last 50 years. The amount of inheritance tax due
> upon the death  of those citizens, whose wealth is in the tens of 
> millions, is on
> a schedule to  be phased out completely over the next few years. These are
> popular strategies  until the nation begins to understand that the quality 
> of
> life is impaired when  we move too far in that direction. As part of the
> campaign for tax cuts the  claim is always made that the money collected 
> in taxes is
> really 'your own  money.' The government is therefore guilty of 
> 'confiscating'
> your property. It  is an interesting argument. It sounds fair to allow 
> those
> whose money it is to  retain more of it. No one seems to notice or perhaps 
> to
> care that while these  wonderful tax breaks have been received, the budget
> deficit of this country has  risen to an all time high and is growing 
> daily. That
> deficit does not yet  include the cost of the Iraqi war, nor is there any
> amount included to offset  the new deficit that will be established if 
> private
> accounts are taken out of  the Social Security system. It is in the
> juxtaposition of these realities that  an enormous moral question must be 
> raised. There is
> no better time to do it than  while the April 15, 2005, tax due date is 
> still
> fresh in our minds.
> "Whose money is it?" Is there a claim that the whole society has a right 
> to
> make on an individual's wealth that is the legitimate basis for taxation?
> Where  is the line to be drawn between private wealth and public good? Is 
> it a
> patriotic act to avoid legitimate taxation by sending your corporate
> headquarters to Bermuda? Is there not a basic legitimacy for the payment 
> of fair  and
> equitable taxes on the part of every citizen? Do we not realize that 
> America  is
> still today the least taxed country in the developed world? Is it not also
> the nation with the highest percentage of people without health care? Are 
> these
> things not related? Does it matter?
> If we receive benefits for our tax dollars that none of us would be 
> willing
> to sacrifice, then are not our taxes something we owe? Can it then be said 
> to
> be  'our money'? Do any of us want to live in a nation that has no parks 
> for
> its  citizens, that does not guarantee the quality of the water we drink, 
> the
> air we  breathe, the food we eat or the medicine we take? No citizen can
> provide these  things for himself or herself and yet our individual lives 
> are
> dependent on each  of them. Do any of us want to live in a nation that has 
> no feder
> al or state  roads, highways, bridges or tunnels over which or under which 
> we
> may travel in  our cars to pursue business or to see family and friends? 
> Do any
> of us want to  live in a nation that has no regulations governing airline
> security and no way  to guarantee the safety of the planes on which we 
> fly? Do we
> want to live in a  nation that cannot secure its people from enemies, 
> whether
> that be by providing  our armed forces against those who might wish to 
> harm
> us from abroad or by  giving us adequate police and fire protection 
> against
> people or events that  might harm us internally. All of those things cost 
> money
> but all of them are in  my mind worth whatever they cost. Since our lives
> depend on our government to  provide these basic services to us, are the 
> taxes we
> are required to pay really  'my' money or do they represent the natural 
> and
> normal cost required for our  lives to be lived, a legitimate expense that
> guarantees to us a quality of life  that we want and desire?
> I, for one, do want our seniors or our parents who worked and saved all of
> their lives to have a government that will guarantee them a pension called
> Social Security, designed to provide them with a floor of security and 
> dignity
> in the final years of their lives. I do want a government that will 
> provide for
> me and for my family basic security from terrorists who seek to enter this
> nation. I do want a government that will guarantee the solvency of my 
> savings
> in  banks and the honesty of the financial industry that issues stocks and
> bonds. I  do want a government that will certify that when the pump says I 
> have
> received a  gallon of gas that I have actually received a full gallon. I 
> want a
> government  that will support education, make it possible for my children 
> to
> attend public  schools and, if their ability allows it, to receive a
> university education at a  cost that an average person can afford. I want 
> a government
> that will encourage  the unbounded human spirit to press new frontiers, to
> explore space, to fund the  search to find cures for cancer, heart 
> disease,
> diabetes and thousands of other  diseases that snuff out life for many and 
> affect
> the quality of life for all. I  want the opportunity of choosing to live 
> in
> this kind of world so should I not  also expect to pay for it? Does that 
> make my
> taxes, "my money?"
> I believe that the taxes I pay in this country are the best bargain in my
> entire budget. I would not trade the benefits I receive in order to get 
> back the
> taxes I pay and I think it is time for someone to say so publicly. Taxes 
> are
> not  "my money" that some alien government seeks to extort from one of its
> citizens.  Taxes are the price I pay for the privilege of living in this 
> land of
> freedom  and opportunity. I treasure my citizenship in the United States.
> This does not  mean that I am now, or have been in the past, supportive of 
> every
> decision that  a particular government of my nation might make. Individual
> political decisions  are issues that I as a citizen can fight in the 
> appropriate
> political arena.  Some of those decisions are major, life-altering 
> decisions.
> I think the decision  not to provide health care for all is wrong. I 
> grieve at
> the plight of the poor  when illness strikes. I think Social Security 
> should
> be fully funded not  dismantled. Social Security, which was created only 
> in
> 1935, kept my family  afloat when my father died in 1943 and I was not 12 
> years
> old. He had paid into  that fund for only eight years. Yet it supported my
> mother and her three young  children when there was nothing else on which 
> to
> depend. I also think that  giving tax reductions to our wealthiest 
> citizens while
> refusing to raise the  minimum wage for our poorest citizens is quite 
> simply
> immoral. I think the  "contract with America" that removed many government
> restrictions that  guaranteed the honesty of American business practices 
> is what
> has given us the  corruption found in the Enrons, the World Coms, the 
> AIG's,
> the Quests and the  Health Souths of recent years. I think there are some 
> things
> so basic to life  that they ought to be federalized, not so that they are
> profitable but so that  the citizens may be well served. Even when I list 
> all of
> my complaints about the  way this nation has been and is now being
> administered, even as I fight and lose  on some of these issues, I still 
> would not swap
> America for any other nation I  know in the world. Since that is so I 
> count it
> an incredible privilege to pay  the taxes that I am required to pay to my
> city, to my state and to my federal  government.
> Patriotism takes many forms. To me it is far more than saluting the flag 
> or
> observing the Fourth of July. It is more than supporting our troops who 
> are
> deployed in faraway places. Patriotism means that I place the common good 
> of my
> nation on a par with my assessment of my own personal good. It means that 
> I
> rejoice in my annual opportunity on April 15 to do my part to keep my 
> nation
> free and strong. It means that I must constantly recognize that my 
> security
> has  no meaning outside the security of my nation. My well-being has no 
> meaning
> outside the well being of my country. Patriotism also means opposing a
> militaristic foreign policy that diminishes the reputation of my country 
> among
> the nations of the world. Patriotism certainly does not mean seeking to 
> destroy
> the common good in order to enhance my personal worth. That is why I am
> always  amazed at the number of our citizens, who speak as super patriots, 
> and yet
> who  seem to believe that patriotism does not include the willingness to 
> pay
> one's  share of a fair and equitable taxation program that makes it 
> possible
> for this  great nation to be what it is.
> When I wrote my check to the Internal Revenue Service of the United 
> States, I
> did so thinking of the great things that my taxes bring me. I did so as 
> one
> still privileged to be critical of the political decisions of this 
> particular
> government. I did so hopeful that a war in Iraq that I thought was not 
> only
> disastrous but morally wrong, might still turn out to bring freedom to the
> Middle East, to allow a Palestinian state to be developed and may yet 
> still
> guarantee the security of Israel for centuries to come. I wrote that check 
> with
> the hope that politicians may yet come to understand that one does not gut
> the  public good in order to give tax breaks to the wealthiest citizens. I 
> did
> so  with the conscious awareness that my taxes will inevitably have to be
> raised at  some point in the not so far distant future to address the 
> deficit and
> protect  our nation's financial competence in that future. When that day 
> comes,
> the  patriotic thing to do will be to vote to raise those taxes. Then we 
> will
> see the  difference between the patriots of conviction and the patriots of
> rhetoric. It  costs money to live in the United States. I treasure that
> privilege so I  willingly pay the price required. April 15th was my time 
> to give
> thanks for the  joy of citizenship in this land!
> -- John Shelby Spong
> Question and Answer
> With John  Shelby Spong
> Katy from York, PA, writes:
> I recently read intently your article about God and the tsunami. Yes, you 
> are
> so correct that we are in the process of a "God" revolution. I studied Job
> at  the Lancaster Theological Seminary and at last realized that we humans 
> are
> just  that - human. God is God and we have little comprehension of who God 
> is
> or what  God's purpose is. Job was not patient as was commonly believed 
> but
> suffered  mightily in spite of his "good" deeds and godly life. I don't 
> care for
> the magic  ending; however theologically the book offered many insights 
> into
> the age-old  question of what kind of God could allow the tsunami to 
> occur.
> Perhaps if we  view life as a Pollyanna, we can say that the world has 
> come
> together to assist  the suffering people and that the lives lost were 
> martyred to
> that cause.  Perhaps the disaster points into the direction that the 
> hideous
> war in Iraq has  no meaning and should end immediately.
> Dear Katy:
> Like you I regard Job as one of the special and insightful books of the
> entire Bible. However, I do not think that Job addresses the theological 
> issues
> raised by the tsunami. Job and his comforters are still stuck in a 
> theistic
> definition of God so they seek to make sense out of life's tragedies 
> without
> sacrificing theism. I no longer think that is a possibility. Once you 
> define God
> as a being, supernatural in power, dwelling outside the world but capable 
> of
> intervening from time to time to reward or punish, then you must spend 
> great
> amounts of time seeking to explain why God did this or did not do that. 
> That
> is  the Job debate and it ends about where your letter does. You say we 
> will
> never  understand "because we humans are just that, human."
> It may be both real and comforting to contemplate that God is present in 
> the
> human response of coming together to address the need. But that does not
> really  answer the question raised by the tsunami. That question is, "Is 
> God in
> charge?"  Is there a Being who has the power to direct the affairs of 
> history?
> If your  answer to that question is no, as I believe most contemporary
> theologians are  prone to say, then people assume you are saying that at 
> worst, there
> is no God  or if there is, it doesn't matter because God has no power. 
> That is
> what drives  us to recognize that theism, as a definition of God, is a 
> human
> creation and  that the time has come for us to lay our creation aside and 
> to
> move beyond it  into a radically new theological quest. I am working on a
> column now that should  appear before June, on a question addressed to me 
> several
> years ago: Can one be  a Christian without being a Theist? My answer is a
> resounding yes, but I will  try to put more flesh on those bare bones 
> later.
> Thank you for continuing the probe.
> --John Shelby Spong
> _______________________________________________
> Dialogue mailing list
> Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
> http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
>