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.