Choice

                                                                                 

Sometimes it seems there are contradictions in American life. For example, a woman is free to choose to have an abortion, but her government, through its control of her taxes, can choose for her whether to support policies which favor, or oppose abortion itself. Although tax money is used at varied rates, for many charitable purposes, from the provision of the necessities of life for the poor to the support of the Arts, those choices are outside her control, and people or organizations she may favor might be overlooked while her “contributions” to the public weal are used for purposes to which she objects. Indeed, some politicians object to a wide variety of taxes, declaring that individuals should be given the opportunity to manage their own money. They are assumed to know better than the government how to use it.

Well, yes and no. I've noted in the past that there are certain governmental responsibilities for which taxation is specifically permitted, like defense and the repayment of debts.ⁱ The debt, however, keeps getting larger, while there are perennial disputes about the budget for the military. Nonetheless, our government keeps initiating new programs to dispense the funds that it will demand of taxpayers and which will enlarge the debt. What follows is a proposal aimed at revising the system of taxation for one set of programs: those that are, in the usual sense, considered charities – supporting people and causes not listed in the Constitution and, historically, paid for by the families of those in need, by individual people, and by charitable organizations. As I've stated before, similar mechanisms might be considered for other governmental expenses as well if they are for programs considered valid and useful. What follows are my opinions, and you may not agree. I suspect that very few will agree. They entail major changes in our society, and will certainly have major repercussions – both anticipated and unanticipated. But so does the way we now do business.

In “Foundations For Charity”ⁱⁱ I raised seven questions to consider when discussing reformⁱⁱⁱ and for the first, regarding our global responsibilities, at this time I'll choose to limit the benefits to our own citizens, although a future discussion of the issue would be reasonable. It's just too complicated for the first go 'round.^iv Questions two through six – who should decide what needs to provide, whom to support, and what should be given – will be covered together, although the last question – what are the obligations of those who receive aid – will also play a part in that discussion. As I mentioned last week,^v the UCDC, by the substitution for money of a universal credit/debit card and account (originally described in “The Route Of All Evil” on April 21, 2013), will make the process easier and fairer, leaving less opportunity for fraud and failure to pay justified taxes.

Let me state at the outset that I believe a society like ours has the obligation to provide some help to the needy, whether or not they make any contribution to that society (as I believe they should). Part of that obligation reflects the humanity of our citizens; part exists because we have already taken it on and can't eliminate it entirely. So some limited taxation is unavoidable.  (From my perspective, those who receive aid from their fellow citizens also have an obligation – to those providing assistance.) It seems to me that independent committees (ICs)^vi can and should be chosen outside the usual political process to make decisions regarding the minimum needs of our citizens (and other qualified individuals) in terms of services (such as housing and medical care) and tangible products (food, clothing, and the like), those who qualify for the benefits,^vii and the value of the different parts of the package.^viii

The payment to each individual or family should be based on the demographics of the family, whether and how many members are employed,^ix assets, and location.^x A block grant^xi would be credited to each recipient's UCDC, and a suggested allocation of those funds allocated to him. Significant deviations from that suggestion would trigger an automatic audit and, if considered necessary, the issuance of certificates redeemable for necessary services and products instead of UCDC credit. In those cases where the suggested allocation is insufficient to provide the service (for example, there may be no housing available for the amount suggested), the required service should be provided through a government program. In the case of the example given, employing those receiving government assistance to build low-cost housing would mean the availability of more jobs and more housing.

But these guidelines don't deal with the issue of the individual who doesn't want to support the entitlements program. To the extent that the benefits exceed the minimum need (and the charity provided by private organizations should be factored into tax calculations) that should be his right. Those who do, however, should be rewarded for their generosity. While many will give via the IRS minimum,^xii additional donations should be deducted from the the donor's tax, according to a diminishing schedule.^xiii And for those who give through their taxes, if they are not satisfied with the government's own priorities, the option should be given to specify the services or organizations they wish to support.

In recognition of the American principle that we are all equal, a flat tax seems reasonable. And in view of the fact that we are all receiving the same services, it is logical that the payment per person should be flat – not a percentage of income. Just as “bulk discounts” are unfair to those who don't require them, “bulk tax increments” are unfair to those with higher incomes. And other services should be supported by those who use them – whether they are rescue services from those who take on unwise risks like smoking or yachting, or “normal” services like those for drivers who use public roads or those sending their children to school – public or private. It may take a rise in “risk taxes” (like those on tobacco or gasoline) or UCDC payments for specific services brought on by an individual, but (like education) it is not the responsibility of everyone else. Taxation is fair, legal, and necessary, and the allocation of taxes can be used to promote public policy. That public policy, however, should not simply be a way to take from the rich and give to the poor. Even Robin Hood, for most of the time since the legends about him have been retold, did not do so.^xiv

Will people cheat? Of course they will. But the removal of cash and the substitution of a credit account system will lessen the likelihood of this happening. Bartering will be hard to monitor as will the direction of credit payments through “dummy” entities, but we must not make the mistake of maintaining the current system until we have decided on a perfect one. That will never happen and we'll continue with the dysfunctional one we have now.

You can't choose whether or not you pay for what you get, but you can choose what you want.

Next episode: “A Chip Off The Whole Block” – Silicon and you.

i      Article 1, Section 8.

ii     May 12, 2013.

iii    The specific reforms relate to what entitlements should be paid for by taxation, and how should the needed taxes be assessed.

iv    It's easy, and, perhaps, justified, to suggest that our obligations don't end at our borders. After all we're a rich country, but it's a sure way to end the discussion before it begins.

v     “You Pay For What You Get”

vi     Choosing the membership of “independent” committees will be the most difficult aspect of such a program. No one is unbiased it will be necessary to rely on the good will of committee members to make the initial decisions and a computer to go further. Perhaps the membership would include the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and two other Justices chosen by the Court, knowledgeable people from designated charitable organizations, and experts from several designated fields like medicine, nutrition, economics and the like. The membership would be selected by peers with all views, and members would have to be insulated from political pressure later on – perhaps by making lobbying and other prejudicial contact with them a punishable offense with harsh penalties. A single, long term would lessen the pressure exerted on them.

vii    This would allow differential payments based on marital status, family size, ownership of a home, health insurance, and similar criteria.

viii   Ideally the funds would be given as a block through the UDCD and the recipient would choose how to distribute it, using his account to do so.

ix     A significantly higher payment should be made to those considered needy but employed, and related to the number of hours employed weekly. They've earned it. It (the higher payment) should not be taxed but the income itself will be. If jobs are unavailable, the government should employ those seeking work as was the case with the New Deal. If child care is required it should be provided free to those employed. All these factors should be monitor-able by the UCDC system, and changes in payments made automatically.

x      The cost of living in different parts of the country varies.

xi     Limited in time and amount. The credit account can monitor total income and its sources, as well as indicating who receives the money paid out. If cash is eliminated from the market, it should be possible to limit the number of people “gaming” the system. (The Big Brother question has been discussed in the past.)

xii    Whether individuals or organizations.

xiii   Such a schedule will prevent taxpayers from listing donations up to the total tax bill, believing that it will cost them no more to do so. Perhaps after the mandatory governmental deduction, charitable deductions of up to 20% of taxable income should receive full credit and there should be a diminishing tax thereafter until, for example, 30%. Larger contributions are laudable and should be encouraged, but if all taxpayers devote their entire tax bill to charity there will be no money for other permitted uses. Even so, large donations, such as those between 30 and 40% of gross income, should have a greater than equivalent deduction to encourage the private provision of services (like those for arts programs and sports in schools, concert halls, museums and the like). Organizations like churches that provide assistance to individuals (soup kitchens, housing, etc.) should receive dollar for dollar deductions from taxes – which they should pay. Not everyone supports religion and believes the government should do so as well.

(Remember -- actual numbers would be decided based on desired outcomes, and not be imaginary like mine.)

xiv    According to Wikipedia, “Although not part of his original character, since the beginning of the 19th century, [Robin Hood] has become known for 'robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.'" Although legends about him date back at least to the 14^th century, he was simply an outlaw before that.

You Pay For What You Get

We resent having to pay for what we don't want and what, often, we don't get. But those in power can decide for us how our money is to be used. The majorityⁱ can impose their will on the minority. That's what happens in a democracy.ⁱⁱ However we all know that, “Rules were made to be broken” – or, at least – circumvented. In this case the rule book is the Constitution, and those getting around it are the three branches of government. The matter in which I'm interested at the moment is the use of taxing power to fund whatever strikes the government's fancy, and a significant method of evading any bars to their action is the creative interpretation of what the Constitution says.

But that's the way it is. So until we change the rules – and that includes convincing the Executive and Legislative branches that we won't reelect them if they continue to ignore the Constitution, and make it clear to the Judiciary that they will be impeached if they continue to make up the law as they like and as they go along – and until we change them so that they can't be misunderstood, misrepresented, and misinterpreted, that's the way it will remain. If it ain't broken, don't break it. But they do. And in order to ensure the outcome we desire, it may be necessary to pass laws that will be sufficiently clear that we will all know when they are misinterpreted.

And that's what I'll try to do next week with a specific tax program. Next week. This week I want to make a few final points in a discussion that would take far too long were I to attempt a complete exposition of all the issues. So I'll only deal with a few, and I'll minimize the discussion of these, leaving it to the reader to fill in the many blanks I leave. The points I make will not be listed in any logical order because I can't voluntarily affect my stream of consciousness, but they're all important from my perspective. At some time in the future I'll return to them and to some of the subjects I'm omitting.ⁱⁱⁱ

1. When Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread he was doing wrong. The punishment was certainly too severe, but that's not the point I want to make. The price of the loaf was the same for all – rich or poor. That's the way it is today. There is no sliding scale for lottery tickets depending on your income, nor is there one for a new car, string beans, or a cloud account. But income taxes are based on such a scale, with some paying nothing and others paying percentages of their income based on its level. The IRS (in obeying Congress's wishes) follows the philosophy of Robin Hood,^iv and takes more from the rich to support the poor.
2. The universal credit/debit card (UCDC) discussed a few weeks ago,^v will be a big help in implementing the tax service I propose. In fact, its use is presumed in the program I shall be offering.
3. I shall be discussing a change in the system of entitlements – governmental charity – to a system based on user fees and private charities, with the government only acting as the philanthropist of last resort. Similar considerations could be used to put in order other governmental services.
4. Lowering taxes for everyone and cutting out some of what are now (inappropriately) considered governmental services, will make more money available to pay for enlargement of other (more necessary)^vi services as well, and also shift the costs to those using the services^vii – especially if they are unnecessary or unwise^viii services or products. The elimination of unneeded services will surely put some government officials out of work, and they'll have to look for honest employment.
5. There is extensive discussion of a “flat” tax, meaning the same percentage for everyone, irrespective of income. Thought should be given to a flat tax which amounts to the same amount for everyone. It is recognized that there will be many who cannot afford to pay for what they get – after all, that's why they require aid – but that can be monitored with the UCDC which can be used to encourage the payment of taxes before money is spent on less necessary items. (Who will decide what is necessary is, itself, an important question.)
6. Removal of unneeded expenses from the government, and the taxes now used to pay for them, will free up funds to deal with projects that have been on hold for long periods.^ix Many of these will be projects that will create jobs, especially for those who are unemployed and receiving governmental benefits, although those who are following the rules and working should also benefit from those new programs.^x Whoever works, however, will be a taxpayer.
    

Not much, but a start, as I mentioned more than once. I'll be a little more specific next week. Then I'll leave the subject for a while so I can deal with other topics that are on my mind. This whole series has been a little taxing. And you're really paying for it.

Next episode: “Choice” – A “right” currently limited to the pregnant, but, at least for the moment, not to others who are burdened.

i       Through their elected representatives.

ii      At least those in power. They don't really have to represent those who elected them. Once in office they can serve their own interests, and often do.

iii     And I'm omitting a lot. What follows are only a few of the questions that have crossed my mind in terms of the reining in of government costs and the distribution of the savings more appropriately.

iv      Actually, in the early legends he was a political dissident and a thief. Later, in the nineteenth century, he took on the aspect of socialist – “redistributing” the money of the rich to the poor.

v        See “The Route Of All Evil,” April 21, 2013, in this column.

vi     Such as more construction of infrastructure and better implementation of inspection of food, drugs and other consumer products. And I'm certain the reader can come up with other useful tasks.

vii    For example, the cost of roads could be provided by tolls and increased gas taxes, rather than taxes on all citizens. That way drivers would pay for the roads they use and others would pay, through increased prices, for the products transported on those roads.

viii   Health care costs would be lessened, and health improved, by removing subsidies and raising the taxes on alcohol and tobacco to include such medical costs as they necessitate. The higher tax would discourage their use, and, in addition, removal of subsidies would discourage the use of corn to make ethanol when it could be better used as food.

ix      Ideally, the cost of all new programs will be listed along with the names of those officials who supported them and who opposed them. That will be important information for voters at the time of the next election.

x       As should those former civil servants formerly doing unnecessary work at the taxpayers' expense.

Foundations For Charity

                                                                                   

Let me return to the issue of tax money as the source of funding of governmental programs which many would consider to be charity. Many contend that the decision to give charity should be their own – not forced on them by zealous public officials.

As far as I'm concerned, there's a lot to be said for their contention.ⁱ On the other hand, however, it is difficult to justify a society that leaves the hungry to starve, the homeless to live on the street, the naked to remain unclothed, or the sick to suffer and die without treatment. In all candor, we cannot disregard the needy. There's a lot to be said for that position as well, so some “middle ground” must be found that will allow us to address the problems without penalizing taxpayers as much as we are doing now. But first we have to clarify what the problems are that we have to solve.

There are several questions that come to mind immediately:

1. There are poor and needy around the world. If our society is obligated to care for the needy, whom should we help?
2. What kind of help should we offer?
3. What is the level of help we should provide?
4. Who should decide the nature and extent of the assistance?
5. Who should be helped and to what level of aid?
6. Who should make these decisions?
7. What, if any, is the obligation to society of those helped?

If there is to be any equity in the continuation of an entitlement system supported by taxpayers, these questions must be answered. But there are other sources of funding and there are different kinds of aid that can be provided; and there are different requirements that can be imposed on the recipients. Let me give some examples to clarify these thoughts. Not all of these examples are of what most people consider entitlements,ⁱⁱ but the result is that certain individuals and groups are having their needs and wishesⁱⁱⁱ met at the expense of all taxpayers.

In terms of examples (and I'll suggest only one – or at most, two – for each category) there are, first of all, some constitutionally mandated functions of government, like defense and the payment of debts, that are all of our responsibility. But of those that fall into the category of “general Welfare,” as decided after the Constitution was written, there are certain needs that can be considered basic, and sometimes are life-saving. An example of that is food. To use a trite expression, we can't live without it. Second are the important, but not life-saving, needs of society, like education. What constitutes education, however, is not defined.^iv And third are the “niceties,” like art, that don't provide life but make it more pleasant. And all of these, at least to some degree, are provided by tax money.

But there are other ways to fund such projects, in large part related to those who require those services. Some examples of this are also in order. Certainly all taxpayers are obligated to share in the cost of defense.^v And the taxpayers responsible for these services pay both Federal (Army, Navy, etc.) and State (Militia, Police) taxes. Private support for such security is not anticipated, although commercial security services are sometimes chosen in addition, by some firms, and even by some individuals.

Of the needs that have been assumed following the writing of the Constitution, there is, currently, a mix of sources to provide funding. Local, State, and Federal governments help provide food for those needing it, but so do individuals, foundations, and other institutions, like charities and religious institutions. So, too, is there mixed support for “luxury” services, like museums and concert halls, however a larger percentage comes from private sources and less from the government.^vi There are many who believe that the cost of these luxuries should be entirely private, coming from “The Patrons of the Arts,” and from those who attend specific programs.^vii Their view is that those who seek these extravagances should be prepared to pay for them.^viii Others, however, believe that the arts are so important to society as a whole that the government is responsible for supporting it – and that includes non-commercial “public” broadcasting stations, and music and arts programs in the public schools.

Somewhere between the life and death needs, and the luxuries, are infrastructure and services that many, but not all, of our population needs or wants, but the needs vary very much from individual to individual. For example, everyone may wish carrots that are trucked in over our highways, but they may not drive or ever use the roads themselves. In addition, there are many like me who pay school taxes but never send their children to public schools; and there are those who pay “list price” for higher education with no assistance from scholarships or government subsidized loans. It is often difficult to determine why some citizens should pay the costs so that others can benefit; why they should give mandatory charity mediated by Congress and the IRS.

I'm conscious of the fact that I've intertwined various issues that are sometimes connected and sometimes not. Among them are taxes, entitlements, charity, programs, subsidies and the like. And I know that the consequences of a program may be other than what was intended. I also know that the different recipients of the benefits^ix have a variety of expectations.

Consequently there is no simple solution to the problem. And there is no single solution either. The different kinds of costs require different kinds of funding. And the last question raised above^x – regarding the responsibility of the recipients of society's charity – is an important one to consider as we work toward resolution of some of the inequities. I'll suggest some paths in the next essay^xi that may help lead us to an answer while lowering the amount we pay as taxpayers to provide the services we want.

Next episode: “You Pay For What You Get” – Or for what someone else gets.

i      Some of it can be found in the essay dated October 24, 2010: “Giving And Receiving.”

 

ii     If it's something you demand be there when you need it, either free or at a reduced price, it's an entitlement. It may be clean water, government inspection of food and drugs, public education, the GI Bill of Rights, or clean streets, but it's an entitlement – something to which you're entitled. Your expectation may be justified or not, and that judgment will be based on each giver's and recipient's point of view, but it's something you expect and something to which you feel entitled.

 

iii    See: com/2013/04/21/world/europe/danes-rethink-a-welfare-state-ample-to-a-fault.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ei=5043&partner=EXCITE

 

iv    Does it include classes no larger than 25 students each? How about football, debating team, and French Club? Should there be separate classes for “special” students? Or advanced classes for the gifted? If education is a basic human need that the government should support, what about features that add costs?

 

v      Perhaps better management is in order (no overpriced toilet seats for the Pentagon) but the function itself isn't in issue, nor is the question of funding.

 

vi     Foundations and other private sources are among the most important of the providers for educational institutions, museums, medical research, and concert halls and other music venues. Their contributions supply significant aid for their causes. And their contributions are voluntary. Indeed, whether they are individuals or institutions giving tens of millions of dollars or whether they are “working stiffs” who help out in their church's soup kitchen, voluntary donors play an important part in humanizing our mechanical society.

 

vii    On television it's called “pay per view.”

 

viii   As they do for a sports event.

 

ix     That includes rich corporations, industries, organizations, and individuals for whom special provisions are surreptitiously slipped into legislation designed to help others

 

x       Number 7.

 

xi      And, I hope, the last (though I'm not yet sure – I may need two more). I'm tiring of the subject, and there are others about which I'd like to write.

Buyer Prepare

                                                                                      

Every now and then I read in the papers of some outraged citizen withholding part of his income tax payment. It's usually his calculation of the amount that supports the Defense Department because he is opposed to war and the preparations for it. But it doesn't work that way. That's not the way we do business, and I take issue with his act.

Not so much because our tax systemⁱ is fairⁱⁱ and that it's appropriate to keep it as it is,ⁱⁱⁱ and include all government expenses in it,^iv but because defense is one of the very few things that the Constitution actually lists as a justification for taxation.^v

 

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

With that in mind, it is hard to justify the citizen's actions.

It's harder, though to understand what is meant by the “general Welfare of the United States.” In view of the context, to “provide for the common Defence [sic] and general Welfare of the United States,” I've always assumed that it related to intelligence and police functions. Those would be activities affecting the general Welfare of the United States as it relates to defense. That would make it the responsibility of all taxpayers. There's no way to opt out of those expenses either.

Members of our three branches of government – legislative, executive, and judicial – have viewed the general Welfare to include anything they thought should be done, especially those actions that would bring them popularity. What they advocated might be “good things,” but it was not always clear that the government (ie the taxpayers) should fund them. Like the arts. They may make our lives “better,”^vi but not everyone likes them or can patronize them. Should everyone pay? And while no one would argue against the importance of education, in the 43 years I have been living in my house I've paid several hundred thousand dollars in school taxes even though none of my children ever used the public schools. The cost of their education was in addition to what the government charged me.

Other similar examples abound, from all levels of government, like all taxpayers supporting the building of roads even if they don't have cars; or the payment for public transportation by people who don't use it; or the subsidization of tobacco by those who abhor smoking;^vii or the “bailout” of a company that's “too big to fail;” or even garbage collection. Our needs as individuals, and as a society, are great, however it's not unreasonable to question who should pay.

But perhaps the most egregious example of taxpayer support for the “general Welfare,” at least as understood by Congress, is welfare itself. The entitlement system. The question is not whether we should feed the hungry, house the homeless, or treat the sick – of course we should^viii – but how should it be financed. The current system makes the “haves” pay for the “have-nots.” It's one that requires that those with resources pay for the needs of their fellow citizens. And by its graduated nature, it demands more of those who have more. It is, in reality, a redistribution of resources; it is a form of socialism, although its proponents see it as a matter of “fairness” and “equality.” So it works out that everyone has an obligation to pay for what used to be the responsibility of the individual and his family. We are the “village” that is not only raising the child, but supporting him throughout his life.

Similar considerations apply to other governmental programs, but I'll deal with entitlements, and if there is any merit in my suggestions, they can be applied to those others as well. Over the next few essays^ix I'll review the subject and offer some ideas about how to change it. Until then, watch whoever's hand is in your pocket or pocketbook.

Next episode: “Foundations For Charity” – Some basic considerations.

i       That's a generous description, but I'm a generous man.

ii     It isn't. And its long (I think at last count it was about 78,000 pages) and incomprehensible to boot.

iii    You've got to be kidding. Only an accountant or government official wouldn't want us to simplify it. In fact they'd gain by making it more complex.

iv     That's not my view at all. As you'll see presently.

v      See Article 1, Section 8.

vi     At least I think so. But that doesn't mean I always agree with the “experts” who decide what constitutes the art that should be supported.

vii   As well as the second-hand smoke and the cost to society of health-care for the treatment of diseases that the user brought upon himself.

viii   At least that's my opinion. Not everyone would agree.

ix     Three at most, but I'll try to do it in two.