Private Philanthropy vs. Public Taxation
Recently, Warren Buffet donated $30 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation (read about it here). This is an amazing feat in itself, but to me, it serves to make a larger point about philanthropy (as does the Gates Foundation itself).
Liberals argue that we MUST tax more and more because Capitalism breeds selfishness and glorification of the individual. How, they ask, can you expect a system that rewards individualism and greed and the amassing of wealth to also take care of the needy? How, finally, can you logically believe that people will merely GIVE money to those who need it when they earned it through selfish methods?
The liberal argument assumes that a person is incapable of critically dividing his life's pursuits intellectually, spiritually, and ethically. A cursory glance at the football stadium would prove them wrong, where players strive to win by physical force, only to shake hands and share a beer afterwards.
Moreover, counter-evidence from my own years is plentiful. When I was growing up in Tyler, TX, one of the most expensive gifts ever given to our church's youth group, an air-conditioned bus for travel to various youth outings, was donated by one of the shrewdest businessmen in our congregation. He delighted in succeeding in the marketplace so as to help his church financially.
The conservative arguement is simple: my money is mine. The government has no moral right to take it from me in order to equalize and redistribute wealth in this country. This fact is not a comment on my selfishness or greediness. But even so, the argument that people would not help the needy on their own falls flat on its face against the examples such as Buffet and Gates.
One final note: some will say "You can't hold up Buffet and the Gates and expect us to believe they're representative examples. They're only three people."
Response: You're exactly right. Just like the liberals aren't allowed to interview and highlight Joe New Orleans to prove that all poor people are being ignored.
Liberals argue that we MUST tax more and more because Capitalism breeds selfishness and glorification of the individual. How, they ask, can you expect a system that rewards individualism and greed and the amassing of wealth to also take care of the needy? How, finally, can you logically believe that people will merely GIVE money to those who need it when they earned it through selfish methods?
The liberal argument assumes that a person is incapable of critically dividing his life's pursuits intellectually, spiritually, and ethically. A cursory glance at the football stadium would prove them wrong, where players strive to win by physical force, only to shake hands and share a beer afterwards.
Moreover, counter-evidence from my own years is plentiful. When I was growing up in Tyler, TX, one of the most expensive gifts ever given to our church's youth group, an air-conditioned bus for travel to various youth outings, was donated by one of the shrewdest businessmen in our congregation. He delighted in succeeding in the marketplace so as to help his church financially.
The conservative arguement is simple: my money is mine. The government has no moral right to take it from me in order to equalize and redistribute wealth in this country. This fact is not a comment on my selfishness or greediness. But even so, the argument that people would not help the needy on their own falls flat on its face against the examples such as Buffet and Gates.
One final note: some will say "You can't hold up Buffet and the Gates and expect us to believe they're representative examples. They're only three people."
Response: You're exactly right. Just like the liberals aren't allowed to interview and highlight Joe New Orleans to prove that all poor people are being ignored.
posted by Cole @ 6:45 AM
5 Comments:
At 6:28 PM,
Beverly said…
Hey cole
At 6:56 PM,
laura g said…
good post, cole. it isn't boring - i've just got nothing profound to add from nashville.
At 2:33 PM,
Anonymous said…
This is quite unrealistic. If you remove the taxes that provide a check on such wealth - and the attendant tax benefits (deductions) that engender such philanthropy - then morality alone is left to provide for the inevitable losers in our capitalist economy. Surely you're familiar with the history of the Industrial Revolution and the atrocious realities faced by the American "working man" during that time (let alone the unemployed). That's capitalism unchecked. And now, even, there are ample examples of corporate wealth caring nothing a/b those who rely on it (thank you: Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Anderson, and the list goes on). Those people are taking obscene compensation packages and, instead of responsibly managing their companies and rightly rewarding their employes, they're adding more golf holes to their back yard and more helicopters to their fleet. Why? HUMAN NATURE. THE CONDITION OF MAN. That's the reason we can't be left to ourselves. I'm optimisitc a/b Man's potential (largely b/c of my Faith, which many do not share), but not to the point of irresponsibly sacrificing our much needed self-constraints. That, with all respect, is naive.
Now, I must point out, it's also naive to believe America will remain an economically vibrant (dominant) country if we go too far to bridge the wealth divide in our country. That's simply not true. The profit interest - which results in job cuts, ridiculously large executive salaries, and other less than lovable realities - deserve most of the credit for our fantastic quality of life. While we do have many poor citizens in our country, there's a reason that people from less wealthy parts of the world STILL flock here searching for a better life. Over-taxing and over-regulating would kill that. It would provide too much disincentive to success and would put too much in the less-than-productive hands of gov't. However, taxing and regulation (as opposed to OVER-taxing and OVER-regulation) doesn't do that. The last 75 years of US history should teach anyone that the gov't can still "interfere" with the free market and maintain economic vibrance. There's a balance b/t the poles of pure free market capitalism and socialism, and that balance, I believe, provides the best economic realities for everyone. As the saying goes: good economists have TWO hands" (on the one...but on the other).
At 4:46 PM,
Cole said…
Hey Michael,
Great to hear from you...please leave your email so we can chat.
Your post here is quite interesting, and, while you are wrong for judging me "naive," you are at least logical in your argument; congratulations.
Here's where your argument breaks down: first, you list some corportate giants, but you leave out some, such as Bill and Melinda Gates, who have given more money through philanthropic efforts than any Democrat ever has. Billions. They do this on their own, not through forced taxation.
However, and think about this: a rich person who has succeeded in business has the RIGHT to gather into barns and hate poor people. Just like I have the right to give, he has the right not to. I should NOT have the right to pass legislation to force him to give. That's called tyranny.
The easiest thing Jesus could have said during his 33 years is "Form this kind of political party" or "vote this way to equalize wealth." Instead, he said, "Help the man in the ditch." The end.
At 12:19 PM,
Anonymous said…
I will email you at your ACU address for chat purposes. I know it's more convenient to do so here, but I'm little anxious a/b dropping my email address in a public forum.
Of course, I didn't intend to judge you - personally - as naive. I certainly don't believe you to be so. Naive people (naive adults, more accurately) tend not to leave favorable impressions with me. You, on the other hand, left me with perhaps the most favorable impression of any ACU professor I had (Dr. Weathers, though, competes for that title). I thought the "naive" line might be a little harsh when I originally wrote it, and your response confirms that my fears were correct. I apologize for not listening to them.
To explain, it is the thought that our society can be "reasonbly just" without some form of wealth distribution that strikes me as naive. Bill Gates, sure, is one good example. He is certainly a emblem of corporate responsibility and civic duty. But I tender that he and his wife are the exception, not the rule. And as I noted in my previous post, there is a history in America of unregulated wealth abusing its power (and thereby gaining more wealth), rather than being so generous as to make taxation unnecessary. That sort of generosity I can't find in the history of ANY developed country. In churches, sure, but not in nations.
As for Christ, I agree that he was apolitical. Many folks, Republicans and Democrats alike, wrongly believe otherwise. He did, however, render some thoughts on the subject of taxation: "give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's." Does that sound Libertarian to you? Does it sound like anything else? Or was He merely diverting those inquiries to a more important ideal?
I liked your "gather in barns and hate the poor" comment. Hilarious.
Post a Comment
<< Home