[Dialogue] Spong on taxes

[Lucia Ann McSpadden]

Dear Dick Kroeger,

I, too, am enjoying so much your Spong contributions.  I pass them along
to colleagues.  I do not know if we have ever meant:  Cannonball,
Richland.

Shan 


Lucia Ann McSpadden, Ph.D.
Coordinator of International Student Support 
Adjunct Faculty
Pacific School of Religion
1798 Scenic Avenue
Berkeley, CA  94709
1-510-849-8250
1-510-845-8948 [fax]
lmcspadden at psr.edu
check our website at www.psr.edu
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net
[mailto:Dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of KroegerD at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 4:07 AM
To: MICAH6-8 at topica.com
Cc: Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
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