Various Ideas VII

I've given this series additional consideration, and I suspect that “Various Thoughts” would be a better title for it. I'll call it that in the future. There's not all that much difference between the words “ideas” and thoughts,” at least in the denotations, but there is one (of many) dissimilarity that suggests that “thoughts” may better characterize my goals as I “write” this.

“Idea” is an active word. It presents a situation which may benefit from action. “Thought,” on the other hand, is far more passive. It, too, refer to something crossing the mind, but ”feeling” is all that is is necessary. There's no need to act on some of these views – though you can if that's your wish.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My cancer antigen level is decreasing. It's been doing so for the last three months. It gives me hope. Perhaps this represents real improvement which will result in “cure,” or perhaps not, but in the meanwhile it is encouraging. In addition, my appetite is getting better, as is my capacity – not necessarily for a particular meal, but in toto. Those are additional causes for hope.

It's common for people to look for hope wherever they can find it – to find clues, auguries, or other signs that their optimism is well supported. They are likely to see these signs whether or not they are there. And to pick and choose the signs they find, selecting those most favorable to them.

The oracles of ancient Greece understood this and they pronounced their prophesies in terms that could be, in fact would be, interpreted to suit the wishes of the listener. The opposite of what was anticipated was at least as likely, but the listener wasn't interested in any possibility that was contrary to his interests. Seekers of hope chose to understand and believe what they wanted to.

Hope doesn't come with a guarantee. It's only an offshoot of denial, a well-established defense mechanism and it keeps us “up” when we might otherwise be “down.” When we have hope, negative possibilities seem less likely.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DNA perplexes me. Not so much the concept of transmission of data as the idea that somehow the particular genes manage to form organism for which they were designed. Take the human being for example (I'm more familiar with that than with Euglena for example). Eye color is clearly a feature that is determined by one or more genes, but each, as far as I know, controls the production of a certain chemical. How does that dictate the color of the eyes? And how does one (or more) chemicals determine the angle of the femoral neck? Or the shape of the stapes?

I can do my calculations about gene frequency, or the likelihood of a particular feature. It's simply and extension of what Mendel taught. But I'm completely unable to understand how the code is translated into structures. And I'll never know.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Why do people give charity? There are certainly those who see a need or an injustice and consider it their obligation to try to help, I suspect, however, that they're in the minority. I'd guess that more give out of a sense of guilt. And even more because of pressure, from their friends or from others.

There are also some who give in the expectation of honor they'll receive. I remember, from college days, plaques on buildings, classrooms, and even smaller items, like microscopes. It was important that we see the name of the person who had made the donation. And there may have been a tax advantage for them as well.

Some give willingly – even without being asked. Others not so. And many not at all. There is clearly a religious component to it. The religious give more often and in larger percentages of their earnings than the others. (It's a general rule and is not always correct. Maimonides listed the charitable in the order of their merit. The highest level often involved helping someone find employment so he could support himself and his family.)

And, surprisingly, the “lower classes” often give greater percentages of their income than the rich. That, of course, doesn't describe all of the rich. Many of them have joined together to attack the problems of poverty, disease, and the environment. And there are the wealthy of the past who have established foundations that are still helping those in need. But relative to income, they're in the minority.

Whatever the reasons, society would suffer if no charity were given. There will always be poor – in your community and around the world. And, to the degree possible, we should all help those in physical, educational, and spiritual need, wherever they are..

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More to follow.  And Happy Flag Day!

May 15, 2017

Various Ideas VII

I've given this series additional consideration, and I suspect that “Various Thoughts” would be a better title for it. I'll call it that in the future. There's not all that much difference between the words “ideas” and thoughts,” at least in the denotations, but there is one (of many) dissimilarity that suggests that “thoughts” may better characterize my goals as I “write” this.

“Idea” is an active word. It presents a situation which may benefit from action. “Thought,” on the other hand, is far more passive. It, too, refer to something crossing the mind, but ”feeling” is all that is is necessary. There's no need to act on some of these views – though you can if that's your wish.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My cancer antigen level is decreasing. It's been doing so for the last three months. It gives me hope. Perhaps this represents real improvement which will result in “cure,” or perhaps not, but in the meanwhile it is encouraging. In addition, my appetite is getting better, as is my capacity – not necessarily for a particular meal, but in toto. Those are additional causes for hope.

It's common for people to look for hope wherever they can find it – to find clues, auguries, or other signs that their optimism is well supported. They are likely to see these signs whether or not they are there. And to pick and choose the signs they find, selecting those most favorable to them.

The oracles of ancient Greece understood this and they pronounced their prophesies in terms that could be, in fact would be, interpreted to suit the wishes of the listener. The opposite of what was anticipated was at least as likely, but the listener wasn't interested in any possibility that was contrary to his interests. Seekers of hope chose to understand and believe what they wanted to.

Hope doesn't come with a guarantee. It's only an offshoot of denial, a well-established defense mechanism and it keeps us “up” when we might otherwise be “down.” When we have hope, negative possibilities seem less likely.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DNA perplexes me. Not so much the concept of transmission of data as the idea that somehow the particular genes manage to form organism for which they were designed. Take the human being for example (I'm more familiar with that than with Euglena for example). Eye color is clearly a feature that is determined by one or more genes, but each, as far as I know, controls the production of a certain chemical. How does that dictate the color of the eyes? And how does one (or more) chemicals determine the angle of the femoral neck? Or the shape of the stapes?

I can do my calculations about gene frequency, or the likelihood of a particular feature. It's simply and extension of what Mendel taught. But I'm completely unable to understand how the code is translated into structures. And I'll never know.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Why do people give charity? There are certainly those who see a need or an injustice and consider it their obligation to try to help, I suspect, however, that they're in the minority. I'd guess that more give out of a sense of guilt. And even more because of pressure, from their friends or from others.

There are also some who give in the expectation of honor they'll receive. I remember, from college days, plaques on buildings, classrooms, and even smaller items, like microscopes. It was important that we see the name of the person who had made the donation. And there may have been a tax advantage for them as well.

Some give willingly – even without being asked. Others not so. And many not at all. There is clearly a religious component to it. The religious give more often and in larger percentages of their earnings than the others. (It's a general rule and is not always correct. Maimonides listed the charitable in the order of their merit. The highest level often involved helping someone find employment so he could support himself and his family.)

And, surprisingly, the “lower classes” often give greater percentages of their income than the rich. That, of course, doesn't describe all of the rich. Many of them have joined together to attack the problems of poverty, disese, and the environment. And there are the wealthy of the past who have established foundations that are still helping those in need. But relative to income, they're in the minority.

Whatever the reasons, society would suffer if no charity were given. There will always be poor – in your community and around the world. And, to the degree possible, we should all help those in physical, educational, and spiritual need, wherever they are.

Charity And Philanthropy

When my children were young I gave them allowances. That's the norm, isn't it? I stipulated, however, how the money was to be used: half could go as spending money, a quarter was to be savings, and the remaining quarter was for tzedakah. That's charity. No “earnings” wholly belonged to them. From the first time they received an “income” they knew that they had a responsibility to share it with those not so fortunate. Helping others is a never ending duty. Even now, every morning at religious services I set aside money for tzedakah. It has nothing to do with other charity I give, but is a daily obligation.

Supporting the less fortunate is a religious obligation that derives, for western faiths, from the Bible (though I'm certain the same view is a part of eastern cultures as well). According to Deuteronomy (11:15), For the poor shall never cease out of the land; therefore I command thee saying: “Thou shall surely open thy hand unto they poor and needy brother, in thy land.” (Jewish Publication Society, 1951) Although tithing is a way of life among many, especially Mormons, initially it was primarily for the support of the Levites who were caring for the Temple when it existed. In Judaism the Rabbis made it clear however that, even though the Temple no longer existed, we were all responsible for supporting the needy. That's what charity is all about. Indeed, the poor themselves were obliged to set aside a portion of the funds they received as charity for the support of those even less fortunate than themselves.

Philanthropy, however, is different. It is practiced, for the most part, by those with large incomes – though even those of modest means can participate – for the goal of philanthropy is to establish means to help communities, rather than individuals, although individuals will benefit from the efforts. A philanthropist may support a university, a hospital, an orchestra, or some similar kind of endeavor. Andrew Carnegie, for example, established libraries around the United States while Bill Gates funds organizations dedicated to improve health care globally. When I was in college – a long time ago – we joked about the plaques that decorated virtually everything around us, whether buildings or microscopes, and which attested to the generosity of the philanthropists who made our education possible. They didn't give us money, but they aided us as we learned how to earn our own. And that philanthropy is the highest form of charity. Maimonides compiled a list of charitable acts in order of their significance and the highest was Giving money, a loan, your time, or whatever else it takes to enable an individual to be self reliant. That's the way the American Institute of Philanthropy (https://www.charitywatch.org/charitywatch-articles/eight-rungs-of-the-giving-ladder/73) phrased it.

The same idea, of course, exists in other cultures. While its origin isn't clear, the meaning of the following adage is: Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. Charity is certainly useful and necessary for dealing with an immediate and compelling circumstance, but it is not a long-term treatment. That's what philanthropy is. The Hershey Trust, established by Milton Hershey in 1905, for example, administers a twelve billion dollar endowment for the Milton Hershey School, and thereby underprivileged children are able to get a level of education that would have been denied them. The long-term benefits of that education for the many generations of children involved, and for society in general, are incalculable. Philanthropic gifts like that are far beyond our individual abilities, but they provide services not funded by the government.

It begins as charity for those who start out with only a little, but it may ultimately turn into philanthropy. The same people who give a little, give a lot when they have it. Every now and then you're likely to read in the paper about someone with a low-paying job who died and left a huge amount, a lifetime of savings to some important cause – often a university or a hospital. There may have been smaller charitable contributions along the way but they're of no interest to anyone but the recipients. They may have an impact on the individual beneficiaries, but it's nothing compared to what society gets from the larger philanthropic enterprise.

According to Professor Arthur Brooks (Syracuse University) in his book Who Really Cares, contributions of money, time, and expertise are more likely to come from church-goers than those who don't attend. And those with a close family life and givers as role models. That's not much of a surprise. It's interesting, however, that even many of the poor give (what they can, even it it's a small amount) – usually those who have earned what they have, rather than received it through welfare or another program that doesn't require their work. Similarly, those who have earned fortunes rather than inherited them are more likely to help both individuals and institutions, as are political conservatives.

Liberals tend to be less liberal with their own money than with that of others. (It should be noted that Brooks's work is based on many surveys of donations to individuals and institutions.) There is a common view among them that the government should care for the poor, and that the part of their taxes that supports these efforts constitutes their charity, so they are obligated to little else. (There are, of course, numerous exceptions to these rules, but the profiles of both the non-givers and the generous are well supported. And “exceptions” are exceptions.) But if the government is not doing enough, higher taxes on the rich (who already give proportionally more besides what they pay in taxes) should solve the problem.

The aid given by governments, however, is neither charitable nor philanthropic. It is merely the furtherance of a “right” to be supported. And governments are usually less interested in supporting the efforts of larger institutions that may be serving the public good, unless it is in the interest of a group of a lawmaker's constituents, or a generous lobbyist.

There's a place for both charity and philanthropy. A valued place. Voluntary rather than coerced giving ranks far higher in any rating of the levels of unselfishness, and it is our generosity as individuals that defines us – not our expectations of the government or of others. If we expect others to do it, it won't get done. If you want something done properly, do it yourself.

Trick Or Treat

I heard on the radio a few days ago that Americans will be spending 3.1 billion dollars on Halloween costumes this year.

For children and adults, as well as dogs and cats and other pets. 3.1 billion dollars.

People around the world are starving, thirsty from lack of clean water, suffering preventable diseases – and we have set aside 3.1 billion for Halloween costumes.

Our problem is focus. We think, primarily, about ourselves. We rarely pay attention to the problems of others. If we tolerate someone else telling us about his problems, we're not really listening: we're mentally preparing what we'll say about our own difficulties – a description intended to show how much worse off we are than he. We have to be better – or in this case worse – than anyone else. We're always competing.

So it is with our Halloween costumes; and fashion; and technology and everything else. We have to be best. We have to be better than anyone else. It's not enough to keep up with the Joneses, we have to do better. The cost isn't important. Nothing is too good for us. And there's nothing left for others – for the Smiths locally or for the poor elsewhere. Charity? It begins at home.

I'm not a fan of the UN. It exemplifies bias and Realpolitik. Right and wrong are irrelevant to it. But they got it right with “Trick or Treat for UNICEF.” (Actually they get credit for something they didn't really do. The event was created by the U.S. Fund for UNICEF.) Not that it's so successful – they've raised 188 million dollars since 1950 which is far less than we spend on ourselves – but it has taught the lesson that even when we're celebrating we should be mindful of those who are suffering. There is a concept of hiddur mitzvah in Judaism – of enhancing or beautifying the observance of a commandment or “good deed” that this represents (even though Halloween is emphatically not a Jewish observance). An observance is enhanced by caring for others, not just for yourself. Perhaps the extra money that we spend to beautify the commandment would be better spent if we used it to better the lives of others.  Sadly, however, a concern for others is far from universal.

Perhaps the reason for this is that we don't think about others and the difficulties they face. Perhaps we'd be more generous if we faced the problems which confront others daily. Every year in my synagogue, and in many others, on Yom Kippur, a fast day on which we seek atonement for our sins, there is an appeal for support of charities that have the mission of feeding the hungry. On a day that we are hungry we can better relate to the issue and the people who suffer from it. Our hunger is but a “taste” of theirs, yet it is enough to remind us of its pain, and to prompt us to do our part to help those in need. However we should not need such prompting; we should be concerned about all of the needs of others at all times. And we should not only be concerned, but we should offer help to those who require it – wherever they are, and without the prompting to do so.

On January 20, 1961, John Kennedy, in his Inaugural Address, said

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

The same is true of our other obligations. It is a challenge to fulfill our human obligation to others not as fortunate as we. People as well as country. We're blessed to be in a rich country, not controlled by a dictator and, for the most part, not subject to the hardships faced by so many people around the world. It is our obligation to help when we can. It is better to be a superhero than to dress up as one.

All's For The Best

“All's for the best in this best of all possible worlds.” Dr. Pangloss may have thought so but in all likelihood no one else did (except, perhaps, Leibniz) then, and no one does now. Well, maybe some do, but they need to clean off their rose-colored glasses. Voltaire was satirizing Leibniz, but there are some who take it all seriously – at face value. Their worlds are, perhaps, ideal, but only a small minority would take that point of view.

There are two thoughts contained that are, at the very least, susceptible to dispute, and I'd like to devote a little time (and space) to them: “All's for the best,” and “this best of all possible worlds.” Starting with the second, there are many – perhaps most people – who would not accept the idea that this is the best of all possible worlds. The religious, for example, would certainly raise the argument that there is a “world to come” and it will surely be better than the one in which we live, while those who deny that concept would maintain that this is not the “the best of all possible worlds,” it is the only world – and the only possible one. We “only go around once,” and those who believe there will be a world after this one are only fooling themselves.

It's also worth remembering that the world in which we live at this moment (and it really is only a moment in view of the earth's longevity) is of no special consequence since it existed for billions of years before we were born and will likely last for quite a while after we are no longer here – unless Mankind destroys it. So even this world has had numerous incarnations.

Additionally, there are many who believe that there are millions or billions of other worlds besides ours – inhabited and uninhabited – and we are foolish to claim that ours is the only one. Perhaps it will take decades or centuries to start identifying other inhabited worlds, but sooner or later our scientists and engineers will probably do just that. Moreover we are arrogant to think that ours is superior to all the others. In view of the number they assume to exist, that would be unlikely.

More of a problem, however, is the first part of the statement: “All's for the best.” Pangloss obviously didn't read the morning paper. Candide (“Candide, ou l'Optimisme”) appeared in 1759 and early French newspapers (actually all newspapers) were published weekly, or even less frequently, and they were heavily censored by the ruling powers, so they would only have contained material that wouldn't threaten public peace or royal views. There wasn't the kind of easy availability of international news we have now, so he wouldn't have known what was happening elsewhere. Of course he probably wouldn't have cared anyway. His only concern was for the world in which he lived. There are different worlds for different people. (Even today we don't always hear about problems in the “Third World” or under tyrannies, because of lack of journalists in those locations or because those there are prohibited from reporting unfavorable stories.) But we do hear, on a daily basis, of the natural and man-made disasters so common to our existence. We learn of earthquakes and tsunamis, disease, poverty, and starvation, and, when permitted, of wars and murders, and other forms of mayhem. People seem to die before their time, or to be maimed or to suffer some other form of injustice. All this in “the best of all possible worlds.” But were those calamities to impact on us we obviously wouldn't view them quite so favorably.

We don't understand why everything happens. We certainly don't view all as for the best. Bad things have always happened to good people, and good things to bad. And although we seek an explanation, we wind up confused both about the events and the causation. Some consider the events to be random and without any explanation; others – the religious – often suggest that there is a divine explanation, but it is not for humans to comprehend. In neither case, however, is there a satisfactory answer to our question, and we're left with the need to make a decision about something we don't understand.

The extremes, in terms of response, are to turn inward or outward, although a wide variety of possibilities are available in between. We may choose to limit our concern to ourselves and our circle (family and friends) or we may suffer with all of the world's tragedies, and try to address them all. Or we may adopt an intermediate position and offer help when the problem involves our community or our people or some other category with which we identify.

But “There is no more neutrality in the world. You either have to be part of the solution, or you're going to be part of the problem.” (Eldridge Cleaver [1935-1998]: Writer, political activist, and a leader of the Black Panther Party) That would suggest that if we don't suffer, identify, and work to solve all misfortune, we bear the guilt of being part of the problem involving most of them.

Sadly, however, we cannot solve all the world's problems. They are too numerous. Unfortunately all is not for the best. But we can't withdraw from it except by suicide, and that probably won't make things better, though there are some who choose that course. However they usually do so because of how they feel about themselves, not because of evil they see in the world.

Eldridge Cleaver, moreover, wasn't addressing all the world's problems, only those faced by blacks: it was primarily his circle that was of interest to him. And he devoted himself to the situation he faced. Perhaps that's a good starting point for us – though we should not view it as the end. Even if we cannot save the world, we can do our best to assist in some efforts. Perhaps as he did we should start with our own community (but we must not stop there). According to Deuteronomy, “The poor shall never cease from the land. … Thou shalt surely open they hand unto they poor and needy brother in they land [15:11]. “ But even if you feel that you cannot solve the problem, be aware of the remarks of Rabbi Tarfon (Pirkei Avot, 2:21): “It is not up to you to complete the task, but you are not free to desist from it.” And that obligation applies to us all, whether religious or not. Some believe care of the needy is the responsibility of the government through welfare and foreign aid. For the most part those who hold this view are those who favor large government and those who are non-religious (see Who Really Cares, by Arthur C. Brooks), but it is their obligation individually as well. None of us is free to desist from it. In the world in which we live, however we view it, we are all responsible for one another.

Especially if we don't consider this to be the “best of all possible worlds” we're obliged to make it better, and that is best accomplished by the “giving” of aid – preferably to many individuals and groups. How can this be done? How can we provide the help whose value Pangloss didn't recognize? What follow are a few (a very incomplete list of) suggestions which may be helpful. They're only a starting point, but include ways that even the least well-off can use to help improve this world.

Helping others – some examples (and they're only examples):

Money

Give

Convince others to give

March or run to earn money for a cause important to you or others

Time

Volunteer for a soup kitchen

Help an old lady cross the street. That's Boy Scout code for offering individual aid to         those you see need it. Such assistance may consist of just talking to them, helping them cook or do something else that offers them satisfaction. You'll be satisfied too.

Other ways to help

Support a cause, whether local or beyond – carry social or political signs, distribute leaflets, get signatures on petitions, attend meetings

Join volunteer groups

Write a letter to the editor or other advocacy of local, national, and international causes

Offer expertise in management or in delivery of other specific services (eg pro bono legal aid, plumbing, or other skill)

There's a lot that can be done, and we must not rely on others to do it. We're all obligated to make this at least one of the better of all possible worlds.

Entitlements Of The Rich

If you've been reading these essays you know that I'm opposed to the use of tax money to provide entitlements to the underprivileged. It's not that I'm opposed to helping the needy and the burdened, but I have other views about how this support should be obtained. Some of my thoughts can be read in earlier efforts. For a start, try “Giving And Receiving,” (October 24^th, 2010) and parts one and two of “You Get What You Pay For?” (August 7^th and 14^th in 2011). In short, I decried the use of tax money as the source of such aid.

My ideas were not new: those who pay taxes should not be forced to give “charity.” However important the goal, obligatory payment is not charity. And that's just what “entitlements” are. Whether as welfare, food stamps, free medical care, “negative tax,” shelters and other housing, or whatever, they reflect the use of tax money for charity, and represent a shift of American values. Perhaps it was a “necessary” shift, but we ought not sugar-coat the change. There was a time in our history when Americans were fiercely independent. The “pioneer spirit” dictated people's behavior. They viewed it as their responsibility to make a living and fend for themselves. If that wasn't possible where they were, they moved somewhere else.

But to understand our actions it is necessary to understand the terminology. What does “underprivileged” mean? What does “burdened” mean? What does “needy” mean? Think about it.  Maybe I'll cover it more fully some time. 

The Progressive Era – and especially actions intended to end the depression – marked a new approach to the situation. Although those actions were, by and large, unsuccessful, and it took World War II to spur economic growth, the legislation of the (Franklin) Roosevelt administration, and expansions of it since, have created a society in which the government has undertaken to provide for the needy. Employment increased, at least for bureaucrats, civil servants, and “experts.” But the fiercely independent became the frighteningly dependent.

Many years ago I read an article that addressed this kind of situation. As I remember (and it's been decades, but even if I have some of the facts incorrect this retelling illustrates the point) it was published a few years after World War II and was framed as a narrator educating an ex-serviceman. The former soldier was complaining about how he had to work for a living while others were getting welfare – a “ free ride” at his expense. I don't remember the specifics at the time (it was several decades ago) but it included benefits for food and shelter and for the kids and for medical care and more. And it was paid for out of taxes.

The one who was complaining was really angered by what he considered an injustice until the narrator, the voice of reason, pointed out to him that he, too, received welfare. After all, he had received an education through the “GI Bill of Rights,” he benefited from road construction he was entitled to Social Security, he got veterans' medical care, was protected by the military, the police, and fire fighters, the cushion of unemployment insurance, as well as the gains received from the various governmental agencies and from research of all kinds which the government supported. All the wiser for the points made to him, his position softened regarding the use of public funds to “promote the general welfare,” as the Constitution promises us. The soldier was convinced.

As a liberal, I was heartened by the statement, and all doubts that I had – and I did have a few – faded. Those who complained about the support the poor were getting were either mean-spirited or hypocrites. Or both. And while the benefits to the underprivileged have increased over the years – and to the privileged as well – the arguments are the same, and most Americans condemn our government's failure to make the problems disappear. The haves want more, and they would deny the needs of the have-nots.

The answer was obvious. Justice and basic fairness demanded more assistance from taxes for those who were poor. So I forgot about the problem, leaving the government to address it. But over time it resurfaced, along with the doubts I had. And now, the more I think about it the more I realize that the narrator's sophistry might have been filled with convincing rhetorical flourishes, but it lacked substance. It was misleading, and I was misled.

The basic flaw of the argument is that the “privileged” pay taxes and the “underprivileged” do not. The serviceman in the essay about which I spoke earned the benefits he received, or paid for them in his taxes. The “needy” receive the benefits they get – and they're eligible for the ones provided for the “mean-spirited hypocrites,” even if those who pay taxes are not entitled to welfare or “negative income tax.” It's a system of income redistribution. Those who pay taxes are supporting those who don't pay. Winners lose and losers win.

That's not to say that I envy the needy or would voluntarily change places with them – I wouldn't – but it alters my perspective regarding the way we deal with the problem of poverty. It made me consider the definitions of “privileged” and “underprivileged,” of “poor” and “entitled.” And it made me wonder whether our current policies encourage some of the poor to remain so, or to find ways to convince government agencies that they're in need of help. (I also wonder if members of unions – governmental and other – who receive disability or large pensions while they take other jobs, aren't also “playing” the system.) One conclusion is that the way we are using money to try to solve the problem doesn't work. Like farm subsidies, using money to support those who don't pay taxes, or who don't produce, doesn't encourage work and production. If we're determined to redistribute taxpayer money, we should do it more intelligently and in a way that might decrease the temptation to take rather than earn. And it might increase the temptation to become taxpayers rather than depend on them.

How might that be done? Let me suggest one possible tax code change which could also motivate improved job performance and productivity among lower salaried employees – the ones most likely to be taking advantage of unearned government benefits. Contrary to every principle we've been taught, rather than a graduated income tax we ought to consider one for lower incomes that decreases as earnings go up, so there's an incentive to earn more. There might be a plateau at some particular rate, or an eventual increase to the level of a plateau, with a flat or graduated tax beyond that, but for individuals with lower incomes there would be a good reason to try to increase (and report) them. That would also lower the need for entitlements and for the agencies that administer them.

Providing more day care and care for the disabled would increase the number of salaried positions and would free more people for work. Tax benefits for families that stay together would encourage that practice and allow families in which parental care of the children is desired to be able to offer it. If our schools pay bounties to students who are improving, and many do, we can offer bounties for improving family life.

Lowering entitlement payments as time went by might also be tried. Perhaps it would spur some to try harder to gain employment. Private enterprise could be “bribed” to provide jobs for the unemployed at a higher “minimum wage,” increasing tax revenues and the number of jobs while tempering the cost to the employers. There will, by the way, still be entrepreneurs and others with high earnings, since they'll want more and put in the effort and expertise to earn it, and everyone will benefit from their creativity in the formation of new products, industries.

We should also use some of our taxpayers' money to improve our educational system, starting with districts that can afford the least per student. It should emphasize the new skills that are anticipated. It can be viewed as the beginning of the rising tide that lifts all boats – a kind of trickle-up economics.

Charitable institutions would take much of the burden off the government. There are inducements already in our tax codes, and new mechanisms can be written into it, to encourage individuals to give to charities, and charities to provide additional services. Right now we make charities tax exempt. Perhaps they should be considered for some kind of negative tax. Although individuals should not be obligated to give charity, those who do should be aided.

I suspect there are numerous other ways to increase our tax base – both in terms of industries and employed individuals. But simply distributing tax money to the poor isn't the solution. We have to try something new.

Rich And Poor

The greatest spread between rich and poor was recorded in 2015.

And before that in 2014.

And 2013.

In fact, all humans started out as equal. If, at the time that our species appeared, all were similarly involved in obtaining sustenance and working to survive, and there was no concept of currency or wealth, it is obvious that the economic spread has been increasing from the very beginning. Everyone started poor, and many remain so. The Bible (Deuteronomy 15:11) tells us “For destitute people will not cease to exist within the Land.” Now, however, there is an economic hierarchy – not simply a single level of poverty.

Why did this happen? Why are there rich and poor? We tend to attribute it to inherited wealth and the oppression of the poor by those with property and money. But that situation did not always obtain. Once we all were poor. In times we can only imagine, some became wealthy while others did not.

Perhaps the causes for this were brute strength and theft. Perhaps people were not equal in all respects but there were differences in, among other things, physical power and avarice. History has certainly shown this to be the case. Warriors and greedy people have established religious, political, and economic empires by force, and they have often passed them on to their children, or to others who shared their philosophy. That might be the case – indeed, it is undeniable that this happened – but it isn't the entire story, and leaves several questions unanswered.

For example, does that explain all the differences? If inheritance is the cause of inequality, is it justified? Should there be equality and socialism?

But more important, is it all really true? Are the rich well-off because of inheritance? Is there such a thing as incentive? Should there be a reward for improvement? People are, by nature, competitive. There are winners and losers. Should that normal impulse be reinforced, ignored, or penalized?

It is noteworthy that the truly rich, people like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, didn't inherit their wealth. Actually “65% of the world’s UHNW individuals are self-made.” (businessinsider.com) The UHNW (Ultra High Net Worth) group, which includes various entertainment and sports figures, the computer pioneers, assorted inventors, numerous entrepreneurs, and those who invest in their projects, are a large part of the folks we love to hate and blame (anyone better off than we are). Yet less than twenty percent are living solely off inherited riches. Put otherwise, the vast majority are rich because of their looks, talent, ideas, hard work, and willingness to take risks. And luck. That's doesn't fit the image of the one percent so often reviled. The ones we envy. (Interestingly, in 2013, the last year from which I have figures, the most rapidly growing UHNW economies were Pakistan, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Kenya, and the United Arab Republics. There are others we can hate besides our fellow Americans.) It is individual creativity, incentive, and hard work that have caused humanity to reach its current state. People want to advance and should be encouraged to do so.

It is a common, though regrettable, characteristic of humans that whatever problems we have we consider the fault of someone else. We're not responsible. That's not to say that there isn't some truth to this view. We're not all equal, and there are some who are better looking, more muscular, more creative, or intellectually superior to others, and they have used their gifts to succeed. Nor can it be denied that there are, among the rich, some who capitalize on their position to exercise control over those who are less fortunate. But if all members of Homo sapiens started out on the same rung of the economic ladder, if there are differences now, somewhere along the line the sorting must have taken place because of someone's talent, hard work, and willingness to take risks. That's true even in families with inherited wealth.

Of course society has the obligation to provide for the needy. Whether the need is for food, medical care, shelter, or something else, we cannot deny our responsibility for the “destitute people [who] will not cease to exist within the Land.” Ideally though, the necessary assistance will be provided by all of us voluntarily, and philanthropic endeavors by some of the “super-rich,” Gates, Zuckerberg, Buffett, Rockefeller, and Carnegie among them, are noteworthy in this regard. The foundations they established have offered substantial assistance to those in need. (Indeed, they have aided us all.) But there are times, sadly too many, when compulsory assistance, derived from more fortunate taxpayers, is required because voluntary help is insufficient. And when it is necessary there should be no hesitation in providing it.

Charity, however, as exemplified by government support, though it may serve as a necessary bridge, is not the answer. It promotes and rewards dependence. Independence is a better solution. Philanthropy – the provision of funds to establish conditions that will allow the needy to thrive and to enrich themselves using their own talents and hard work – is more likely to furnish a continuing benefit for recipients and their children. It's far better to help those in need to succeed, than to aid them in failure. In his discussion of charity, Maimonides (twelfth century) wrote that “The greatest level [of charity], above which there is no greater, is to … strengthen his hand [that of the needy person] until he need no longer be dependent upon others.” Someone else, probably more recent despite the claims regarding Lao Tzu, phrased it differently: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” And by his efforts in whatever field he chooses he may even become wealthy.

There is a responsibility as well, therefore, of the needy to find ways to improve themselves. Success is certainly not assured, but there is still the possibility of going from rags to riches. Or at least to self-sufficiency. However it requires effort. Society is duty-bound to provide the conditions for success. Those who desire advancement, though, must invest themselves and their ideas in seeking it.

Give 'Til It Hurts

President Obama will give his State of the Union address later today, but he's been advertising its themes on social media and in speeches for several days. He will propose a variety of programs and benefits aimed at propping up the middle-class and the poor. The purpose of his proposals, we are told, is to set his agenda for the coming years and to initiate action so that we will know it, as will Congress, with which, he asserts, he is ready to work.

For the first time in many years both houses of Congress are Republican. The likelihood of passage of these measures is minimal – especially since his plan for funding them is to increase taxes on the “rich.” Remembering the Occupy Wall Street movement, as well as the demands of large parts of our population for more benefits and entitlements, and the threats of action by unions around the country, it cannot be denied that there is a pervasive feeling that American society is divided between the few who are rich and the many who are struggling at best, or flat out poor. The number of voters who feel put-upon is huge.

As far as cooperation with Congress, he has already threatened to veto several measures which as yet aren't even on the table. His vow to work with the Republicans, therefore, is one which many people question. The agenda he is proposing seems to be both the beginnings of a platform for 2016 and a populist heritage which the President would like to leave for the history books. It seems likely that he has neither the possibility nor the anticipation of accomplishing what he states to be his agenda, and that of the Democratic Party, but it appears to be aimed at getting votes in the next election.

Raising the stakes is Oxfam, which announced yesterday that the “Richest 1 Percent [around the world] Will Dominate Wealth Next Year.”ⁱ The problem of income inequity is international. Not only are we concerned about the one percent and the ninety-nine percent in the United States, but it is a problem everywhere.

In the article announcing the sitution, it was noted that “More than a billion people live on less than $1.25 a day.” That's $456.25 per year. In addition to other amenities which the President receives,ⁱⁱ both during and following his service, he gets a $400,000 annual salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account, and $19,000 for entertainment.^iii,iv In terms of the global one percent with which Oxfam is concerned, the President is certainly a member.^v

And so are all those in Congress, for their base salary is $174,000 annually. Add in all the sports and entertainment personalities who earn far more than the rest of us.

But speaking of “the rest of us,” it's worth mention that the majority of all Americans are members of the international one percent^vi so, in Oxfam's view, we're part of the problem. And if the “rich” of America should be taxed to pay for support of our own poor, it is reasonable to wonder to what degree the United States is responsible for ameliorating the world's poverty. Should the programs which we seek for ourselves be offered on an equal basis to all the people on earth? Should that be part of our heritage?

But there is more. There is an important, if undiscussed aspect of this situation which should be considered before we fund our own programs and spread our resources around the world. What will it accomplish? Can we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and provide housing for the homeless, or is all we're doing punishing those who have more than we do? Might we anticipate other negative effects of such policies: whether the impoverishment of our own people – the poor as well as the rich – or the removal of the stimulus to succeed? Some – Conservatives of course – question whether taxing the rich will solve America's problems. Even if they're wrong, having only five percent of the world's population, it doesn't seem probable that our resources can solve everyone's problems. But we are the one percent. And if we are responsible to our own citizens, we have a similar obligation to all who share the world with us. If I have the right to decide that anyone with more than I is rich and should help me out, don't others have that right as well?

The problem is clear. There isn't enough to go around in a would of over 7.2 billion people. The solution is not obvious. As I pointed out, if we can decide that those who have more than we should share what they have with us, aren't others entitled to call upon us and our resources to support them? According to the Bible,^vii “For destitute people will not cease to exist within the Land; therefore I command you, saying 'You shall surely open your hand to your brother, to the poor, and to your destitute in your Land.'” Charity. It's not a very good solution since there are many who don't believe (and never will) that they have enough for themselves. But it's a solution in which each of us retains the right to decide for himself – not to have others^viii decide for him. Once people lose this right and once everyone has the “right” to decide what he needs and who will pay for it, we face the anarchy of competing demands.

It is a sad reality that short of relocating billions of people from areas in which weather conditions make them vulnerable, increasing food production, and providing sufficient industry to guarantee jobs for all – goals that are, at least for now, unattainable – we are left to rely on the hope that charity can provide some of the needs of the poor. Or we can allow others – who have their own agendas – to make all the decisions about reallocating the resources of those whom they accuse of responsibility for the world's ills.

As I noted, the solution isn't obvious. But I'm not convinced that the best way of dealing with the problem is to pander to populism.

I        © Copyright 2015 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.

ii       Lodging, food, health care, transportation, pension, security, etc.

iii      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States

iv       Whether this level of compensation is justified is not for me to judge. The point is to put matters in perspective.

v        Indeed, his salary and benefits put him in the top one percent of American earners as well.

vi       Even our poverty-level income is more than eighty-seven percent of the world's population makes. See http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/09/the-top-1-percent-of-the-world/ Admittedly the article comes from a Conservative publication and the numbers may be off a little. But the problem cannot be denied.

vii      Deuteronomy 15:11. The translation is from the Artscroll edition.

viii     All too often a faceless bureaucracy.

More Food For Thought

                                                                                                  

When was the last time you had a good home-cooked meal?

I asked that question last weekⁱ as I bewailed the change in food preparation methods in our country in recent years.

But it was the wrong question. It made too many assumptions – most of them either incorrect or too smug. Let's start by taking apart the question itself:

     a. When was the last time

     b. you

     c. had

     d. a good home

     e. cooked

     f. meal?

“When was the last time” – The implication is that it was some time in the past.

“you” – It's not clear, but this probably includes your family, or others for whom you are responsible.

“had” – Once again there is the assumption that you did. And that means that it is no longer the case.

“a good home” – Indeed. Any home. Too many of our own citizens, let alone others around the world, lack any home at all – good or otherwise.

“cooked” – Whatever home they have would need cooking implements and fuel which aren't necessarily available and affordable.

“meal?” – As opposed to whatever – if any – food can be found.

Those, however, are only details. More important questions revolve around the assumption that you have had a “good home-cooked meal” at some time. If so, it seems that it must have been some time back. But there is also the implication that such a meal is desirable and that you are entitled to it. Why should that be the case? Is anyone “entitled” to have such a meal, and if so, aren't we all entitled to it?

The original question seemed straightforward, but there are implications that require some comment. Whoever is asking the question seems to assume that he deserves such a meal, and on a regular basis. It's likely that he expects someone to make it for him and that the failure is not his own. He probably has to go out to some (expensive) restaurant in order to enjoy the kind of meal that is his due.ⁱⁱ Presumably his cook (who may be a spouse) has been cutting corners.

At this momentⁱⁱⁱ there are over 7,137,291,000 people in the world. The original question would probably never occur to most of them. And many among them would have no other experience than making rice, or some other cheap staple, with little else to nourish them. They only have home-cooked meals, if they eat at all. Indeed, some would have little to eat of any sort, apart from what they find in the fields or forests. When we wonder about home-cooked meals, we are dealing with a quandry of the privileged.

We are privileged. And we are responsible. It's easy to say that the poor – even those in our own country – should fend for themselves.^iv Or that their own governments should provide for them. The United States gives aid to many countries that are in need, but many of our own citizens resent the sending of their tax dollars elsewhere. Charity begins at home.

But that view has its own problems. Many of those same people resent paying the taxes that fund such home-grown programs as food stamps, and other plans to assist the poor. For them, “home” is the address at which they live, and while they are happy to accept government benefits, they are reluctant to pay for them. Another problem is that for many of them, charity doesn't begin at all. And whether or not we agree with their perspective, it is easy to understand a view that says that others have no right to give charity in their names – to give away their money. Moreover, if anything is given, they should have the right to choose the recipients. After all, it's their money.^v

So a better attitude is for you to choose the charities and donate before you are asked.^vi And, before you ponder the complexities regarding the issue of your own home-cooked meals, it would be appropriate to give some thought to those who don't even understand the question.

Next episode: “Complex Problems” – Do they require complex answers?

i       “A La Whatever,” January 19, 2014.

ii      Even then, there's no guarantee that it's made from scratch. More likely there are partially prepared products for restaurants. There may be many dishes on the menu, and it may be difficult to prepare them from fresh ingredients every day. “In Season” is often used to suggest that the product is fresh, but don't forget that it's always in season somewhere.

iii     Ten thirty AM on December 30, 2013.

iv      We are quick to find ways to blame the victim and to justify our own behavior.

v       Decisions of this sort are difficult, and legislators and regulators use their own preferences and biases to make them. Sometimes the choices are based on voter preferences, but not very often, and only after the legislators have told the voters what is “good” and what is “right.”

vi      You. Not the other guy.

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.