This third segment of a three-part Op Ed concerning recent tax articles in the Great Neck News responds to Senior Editorial writer Karen Rubin and Congressman Ackerman’s effort to convince us that paying higher taxes is a moral/religious duty, especially for the so-called “rich.”
According Ms. Rubin’s Great Neck News article, Congressman Ackerman stated during a holiday party this past December that he voted against extending the Bush tax rates because all religions recognize a duty to be one’s “brother’s keeper” and the “rich” should pay even more taxes than they do now.
Mixing G-d and taxes is odd. As political pundit Larry Sabato said: “I doubt God would want to touch America’s tax code, since it is already located in the third rung of Hell.” And it’s a bit surprising that Congressman Ackerman would invoke the Bible as a justification for anything in Congress, in light of the fact that he voted against the resolutions honoring Christmas, citing separation of church and state. However, I’ll leave that aside for now.
It’s important to respond to Congressman Ackerman’s and Ms. Rubin’s pseudo-religious “values” argument. A basic strategy of the big-spender crowd is using “values” arguments to support high taxation and depicting fiscally-conservative Republicans as lacking values. (Apparently, Congressman Ackerman was following this strategy when he portrayed Larry Penner as heartless in the pages of this newspaper three weeks ago, simply because Mr. Penner explained that earmarks were unaffordable and would overburden future generations with high taxation and enormous debt.)
It’s also important to note that while Ackerman claimed that he wants the “rich” (individuals making $200,000 and up) to pay more, Ackerman’s vote against the Bush tax-rate extension was against everyone’s interest. The two-year extension of the Bush tax rates helped taxpayers at every level. And, virtually every economist considered the extension to be absolutely essential during these difficult economic times.
Moreover, “soak the rich” tax increases are a fraud.
Tax increases supposedly aimed at the rich virtually always end up hurting the middle class. For instance, the alternative minimum tax was enacted for the purpose of making sure that the richest 155 Americans paid enough taxes – but ended up hurting people making $60,000 and up. In addition, the government rarely gets additional revenue from taxes enacted for the purpose of “soaking the rich.”
Instead, lower tax rates usually substantially increase tax revenues. The Bush tax cuts substantially increased federal tax revenues from 2001 through 2007. Cutting federal capital gains taxes to 15 percent increased the willingness of taxpayers to recognize capital gains instead of holding assets for long periods of time. By contrast, in New York, the fact that taxpayers are hit for state income taxes at high ordinary tax rates (up to 9 percent) on capital gains, in addition to their federal taxes, has resulted in New York investors leaving New York in droves for states with reasonable state capital gains tax rates.
In any event, Congressman’s Ackerman’s “religious/moral” justification for even higher taxation is nonsensical and wrong. High, sharply discriminatory taxation conflicts with important religious, moral, and democratic (with a small “d”) values.
Moderation and Taking Care Of One’s Family: First, religious teachings do not favor requiring people to impoverish or endanger themselves, or to neglect their own families’ financial needs in order to send funds to the government. Religious tithes are only 10 percent. The 50 percent or even more in taxes that many people pay today, when one adds together federal, FICA, state, property and sales taxes, far exceeds religious charitable obligations. The Bible also speaks of leaving a corner of one’s field to the poor to harvest. Again, this is a small portion of what American taxpayers pay today.
The Judeo-Christian tradition teaches moderation and a reasonable balance between one’s own needs and the needs of others. As Rabbi Hillel said, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I?”
In addition, the “brothers’ keeper” command asks us to help one another directly. Forcing people to pay high taxes prevents people from being true “brothers’ keepers.” Today’s high taxation makes it difficult for many taxpayers – including taxpayers earning substantial salaries – to provide for their own families’ educational, housing and other vital needs. The misdirection of funds is also especially concerning in light of the just-released Government Accounting Office report (2011), which demonstrated that billions of our tax dollars been supporting of waste and useless duplicative programs.
Obama, Ackerman and Schimel would make it even harder for overburdened taxpayers to pay for their own families’ essential needs. Ackerman and Obama (and Ms. Rubin) try to portray their “soak the rich” federal tax increase proposals as aimed at “billionaires,” reminiscent of former Sen. Russell Long’s famous quote about the definition of tax reform: “Don’t tax you, don’t tax me. Tax that fellow behind the tree.”
However, ending the Bush tax rates would raise tax rates for everyone who pays taxes. And Obama/ Ackerman proposals to focus on the “rich” still contain capital gains increases that would end up affecting everyone, and define “rich” as individuals making $200,000., the very people who create the most jobs in our economy.
Moreover, a $200,000 earner can already be in the 50 percent marginal tax bracket under the current Bush rates, as a result of the combination of federal, FICA (especially if he is also paying the self-employed portion) taxes, and high New York State, city, property and sales taxes. Yet, Ackerman and Obama would raise the $200,000 earner’s federal taxes by thousands of dollars per year, plus impose additional taxes under the so-called Affordable Health Care Choices Act.
Sadly, today’s ever increasing expenses mean that many people whom Obama and Ackerman define as “rich” are struggling. College costs now reach $55,000 per year per child (and many people have several children). And then there’s paying for a mortgage, household expenses and repairs, attempting to save for retirement in an era when almost no one in the private sector will receive a pension, putting a little money away to be able to survive a layoff, $4.40 per gallon gas, commuting, insurance, helping unemployed and recently divorced children who return to the roost (a frequent occurrence these days), helping ill parents, paying parochial school tuition for children and grandchildren, repaying the taxpayer’s own college loans, etc., etc. Life throws lots of curve balls at people. High taxation denies people the wherewithal to handle them.
A hard-working local practicing doctor, who probably would be considered to be “rich” by Obama/Ackerman standards even though she lives quite modestly, recently told me that each of her children is borrowing $250,000 for college and will need to borrow another $150,000 for graduate school, because she cannot afford to help them. What in the world is moral about taxing people so heavily that a hard-working taxpayer cannot pay for her own children’s education, causing her children to start out life deeply in debt?
Equal Treatment: Second, treating people equally and fairly, regardless of their circumstances, is a matter of basic morality. One of the most famous lines in the Bible is “Justice, Justice, you shall pursue.” Commentaries on why the word “justice” is repeated twice explain that there should be no different standards of justice for rich and poor. Indeed, the Bible directly states that judges must not favor the rich or the poor. Both are entitled to a fair shake.
Moreover, the Bible’s “brother’s keeper” phrase doesn’t justify singling out one group for exorbitant tax burdens, as Congressman Ackerman essentially argues. The Bible doesn’t say that only people making over $200,000 are our “brothers’ keepers.” All of us are.
A moderate amount of progressivity in a tax system makes sense because the impoverished cannot afford to pay, and first dollars earned are needed for absolute essentials. Our current system is already quite progressive – more progressive than many people realize. The current system combines progressive tax rates with other progressive features such as “phase outs” (losses) of critical tax deductions and credits once income reaches certain levels. (For instance, student loan interest deductions begin to phase out when single filer income reaches $65,000. Personal exemptions begin to phase out when single filer income reaches $156,400.) Further progressivity is not needed. Basic fairness means that a particular group should not be singled out for extortionate taxation.
Covetousness: Third, the Judeo-Christian tradition condemns covetousness. The Ten Commandments prohibit coveting one’s neighbor’s belongings. In Christianity, covetousness or envy is one of the seven deadly sins. As my father used to say: “There will always be someone who has more than you do, and someone who has less. The key is to view the glass as half full, to appreciate what you have, and to not always look at those who have more.” Or, as the Talmud says it: “Who is rich? The man who is satisfied with his lot.”
The incessant demands for tax increases in Ms. Rubin and Congressman Ackerman’s articles and statements in this newspaper reek of inappropriate jealousy. These individuals apparently believe that if someone has more, the government must take much of it away and redistribute it – a view which conflicts with the commandments to not covet what belongs to someone else.
Stealing: Fourth, of course, is the commandment against stealing. There is a point at which taxation becomes extortion, particularly if it is highly discriminatory.
The Fruits of One’s Labors: Fifth, there is a religious/moral duty to pay people fairly and promptly for their work. For instance, the Bible in two places (Leviticus (19:13; Deuteronomy 24:14-15) requires employers to pay workers on the very same day that their work is performed. Jesus also spoke out strongly against failing to pay workmen their wages. Taking away huge portions of people’s earnings via taxation conflicts with this basic notion that people are entitled to the fruits of their labors.
Putting aside all of the above, there are numerous practical and economic reasons for not raising taxes – and for instead focusing on reducing spending. Raising taxes destroys the incentives to work, to create jobs, to remain in the tax jurisdiction, and to report income honestly. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Any tax is a discouragement.” Taxpayers are tired of paying for waste, government bureaucracy, and earmarks. The joke, “taxes are what you pay so your Congressman can hand out favors to get re-elected” has the ring of truth to it. And taxpayers are tired of President Obama sending millions and billions of our tax dollars to questionable regimes, including Gaza. As Dick Gregory joked, “I wouldn’t mind paying taxes . . . if I knew they were going to a friendly country.”
There’s much more that I could add . . . but April 15 is coming, and I need to go now to start filling out my 1040 form.
Liz Berney
Great Neck
