Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Greenspan's Gambits Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/greenspans_gambits#5538 Post contents: I am an employer and I know who signs the check to the government for the employer's portion of Social Security; I know that it shows up on my P&L statement as a tax paid to government, not wages paid to employees; I know that it does NOT show up on the employees' W-2 forms as a tax paid by them. These are matters of legal and accounting fact. Joe cites the Congrssional Budget Office, which is at least as partisan an institution as the Tax Foundation which Joe derides, as to the opinions of economists. Well, let us hope readers of this blog understand the difference between the facts of the tax code and the opinions of CBO economists, and recognize also that there are other economists who have opposite opinions to those of the CBO. More humorously, Joe states that the progressive income tax is "...an extention [sic] of the teachings of Jesus..." Somehow I missed Christ's endorsement of the New Deal in my reading of the New Testament! Anyway, this reminds me of an anecdote told by the British author John Buchan, who witnessed this exchange between a parliamentary candidate and one of his constituents: The candidate, speaking in favor of Lloyd George's National Insurance Act of 1911 (the foundation of the British welfare state), concluded his speech by asserting that the Act was motivated by the purest of Christian principles as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount. A questioner rose in the back of the room and asked the candidate, "Is it no' true that the Act contains a maternity benefit?" The candidate responded that it did. The questioner then asked, "And is it no' also true that the benefit is paid whether the mother is married or not?" The candidate replied, yes, it did. "Well, sir, how d'ye explain this?" came the riposte. "The Bible says the wages of sin is death, but the Act says forty shillin's!" This is one of the great problems of taxation for purposes of redistribution through the welfare state. It gives perverse incentives to people to engage in behavior that is contrary both to Christian morality and to common sense. The very failing that Buchan's story so aptly illustrates is disastrously seen in our own welfare system in the United States. The rate of illegitimate birth in the black community, which alarmed Pat Moynihan when it was around 30% back in the 'sixties, now exceeds 75%. The number of these children, growing up without stable homes in which their fathers are present, foreshadows many serious social pathologies to come. And what is to blame for this situation? Largely the incentive given to poor women by AFDC, paid for by taxes on productive citizens. Christian charity differs from the welfare state in that Christian charity is voluntarily given to deserving recipients, whereas the welfare state is financed by compulsory exactions and its benefits are given indiscriminately to people whose own aberrant behavior is the principal cause of their poverty. Why should I as a taxpayer be compelled to give over funds for the support of petty criminals, dope addicts, people with venereal disease, and other scoundrels whose only due from any just society ought to be a rod for their backs - or a halter for their necks? Sent at: 2008 11 22