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:
- There are poor and needy around the world. If our society is obligated to care for the needy, whom should we help?
- What kind of help should we offer?
- What is the level of help we should provide?
- Who should decide the nature and extent of the assistance?
- Who should be helped and to what level of aid?
- Who should make these decisions?
- 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 benefitsix
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 abovex
– 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 essayxi
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.
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.
ix That
includes rich corporations, industries, organizations, and
individuals for whom special provisions are surreptitiously slipped
into legislation designed to help others
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.