Tag: taxes

Bill Gates vs. Elon Musk

Bill Gates and Elon Musk are both massively wealthy innovators.  They have also become divisive figures to large swaths of the population. 

Mr. Musk, of course, riled the left by heading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which had as its goal to cut government spending and help our country be more fiscally responsible. 

Mr. Gates is known for his charitable giving through his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  While many conservatives take issue with some of the left-wing causes that Gates contributes to, most people would praise much of the giving that deals with feeding children in third world nations.  In May, he announced that he would donate almost all of his fortune, nearly $200 billion, by 2045.

Conflict arose after Gates announcement when he took a shot at Musk.  Gates accused Elon of “killing the world’s poorest children” with his proposed cuts in USAID programs.  While Mr. Gates is right that we should help the poor, there are some big problems with his criticism of Elon. 

First, while Gates might have good intentions wanting to help people through USAID, it is a very unwise use of our money.  The United States Government does not have the money to spend.  It would be one thing if the government had a large budget surplus.  Unfortunately, the government is operating on an estimated budget deficit of $1.83 trillion!  It is not a good idea to spend money that you do not have.

Second, and more importantly, there is the issue of freedom.  One of the main differences between conservatives and leftists is what we do about disagreement.  Conservatives say, “I disagree, so I’ll do what I want and you do what you want as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.”  Leftists say, “I disagree, so the government should force you to do what I say.”  In short, conservatives believe in freedom.  Leftists do not. 

This criticism by Gates denies the American people of their freedom.  If we cut USAID, it does not deny the people the ability to help people through foreign aid.  Any person who wants to donate money to the causes that Gates supports can do it the same way he does, through private donations.  There are, in fact, many good reasons for a person to prefer individual charitable donations to going through the government.  If we have learned anything from DOGE, it is that government is wrought with waste and fraud, and highly inefficient. 

There is a recent TikTok that went viral by a woman named Jen Hamilton, where she makes a similar argument.  She even tries to make the case that the Bible backs her position.  In the video, she is responding to a comment that said, “Whoa.  Be careful there.  I am happily MAGA and absolutely love Jesus.  We are exhausted from liberal nonsense.”  Hamilton opens her Bible and reads from Matthew 25:31-45, which culminates in Jesus explaining, “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.”  As she reads the passage, she overlays on the screen headlines that say things like, “Millions of Low-Income Households Would Lose Food Aid Under Proposed House Republican SNAP Cuts,” “Trump’s new spending bill includes reducing federal funding for SNAP food program by nearly $300 billion,” and “Exploring the potential impact of Medicaid cuts in Trump’s big budget bill.”  Then she says, “I don’t know.  Sounds pretty liberal.”

This woman and Gates make the same mistake.  They equate care for the needy with government spending.  What she forgets is that the Bible also advocates for free will.  The Bible is very clear about this.  2 Corinthians 9:7 says, “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”  When you push for government spending to fund your pet causes, you are using compulsion through taxes to pay for what you think is best.  Government spending does not even count towards what the Bible says to do, because it is not by choice.  You are basically saying, “I care about this cause, so you should be forced to pay for it.”  That is not caring.  It is controlling.

When it comes to the giving that the Bible actually calls for, conservatives dominate the left. Statistics show that while conservatives earn 6% less income, they give 30% more to charity.  The fact that Elon wants to save money for taxpayers is the opposite of greedy.  It actually helps people, and respects their freedom to choose where to give their charitable dollars.  Those charitable dollars are far more likely to be spent wisely when not being filtered through government bureaucracies. 

Bill Gates has the right to give his fortune to whatever causes he chooses to.  Some of those causes are probably great.  Likewise, you should have the right to give to whatever causes you choose to.  Here lies the big difference.  While conservatives would love it if Bill Gates gave to causes of our choosing, we respect his free will.  Conservatives think that freedom must be protected, even if people choose to use their money differently than we want.  It is their money, not ours, and not the government’s.  Elon Musk respects this fact, and should be praised for his work at DOGE, not attacked.

A Compromise to End the Divisiveness

On the morning of June 14, 2017, James Hodgkinson went to a park and opened fire on Republican lawmakers at a practice for the annual congressional baseball game, injuring 4 and leaving Majority Whip Steve Scalise in critical condition.  To many people, this was not surprising because of the polarized climate of political discourse in the United States.  According to a 2022 NBC News poll, 80 percent of Americans believe that their opposing political party poses a threat to the country, and if not stopped, will destroy it.  Most politicians claim to want to end the divisiveness and bring people together.  Many regular Americans are fed up with the division in our country, especially in Washington.  We should all want to stop this division from becoming violent.

In light of this polarization, I thought it would be the perfect time to propose a compromise that should unite Americans on one major issue.  It turns out Hodgkinson was a strong supporter of Senator Bernie Sanders, who ran to be the Democrats’ presidential nominee in the last two elections.  His Facebook page was reportedly covered with posts about a major talking point of Senator Sanders and the Democrats:  income inequality.  For years now, the main strategy of Democrats to win elections has been to divide people into groups and tell one side that they are victims who need to vote for Democrats to fight for them.  They divide people into black vs. white, male vs. female, gay vs. straight, and Christian vs. non-Christian, but maybe the biggest division they push is rich vs. poor. 

You have probably heard Senator Sanders or other Democrats talk about “the top 1 percent” or how “the rich need to pay their fair share.”  Democrats consistently propose that we raise taxes on whoever they deem rich.  They want us to keep our progressive tax system, where the percentage of income that you are forced to give the government in taxes goes up as you earn more.  Not only that, but they want to raise taxes at an even steeper rate.  In fact, the shooter at the baseball practice was shown in a photograph holding a sign that reads “Tax the rich like Congress did for 70 years till Reagan’s Trickle Down.  We need 20 brackets – $20 million.” 

Republicans often refer to this rhetoric as class warfare.  They note that somebody else’s success does not hurt the people on the bottom, and in fact, it helps them.  Most Republicans prefer a flat tax system, where everyone pays the same percentage of their income in taxes.  This still means that people with higher incomes pay more taxes, but not at a higher, disproportionate rate.  A flat tax is without a doubt the most fair tax system.  Unfortunately, there is too much opposition by Democrats to get a flat tax system in place. 

This is where my compromise comes in.  This may even sound like a lopsided win for Democrats at first glance.  I propose that as a compromise, we keep the Democrats’ progressive tax rates that we currently have.  The current tax brackets range from 10% at the bottom up to 37% at the top.  Here is the catch that should unite Americans.  We should lock all of the tax brackets together on a sliding scale.  By this, I mean that if the top rate is raised by 5%, to 42%, the bottom bracket goes up equally to 15%.  If the top rate is lowered to 32%, the bottom rate is lowered to 5%.  The result?  Every American would now be on the same team.

Many Republicans are going to balk at this idea because it is unfair and a progressive tax system punishes achievement.  I agree.  As I said, the only fair tax system is a flat tax.  Hear me out, though.  Think about the results of this compromise.  No longer could someone say, “Raise taxes on that guy over there, as long as you don’t raise mine.”  Very few people will want to raise your taxes if it also raises theirs.  Democrats would not be able to pit people against each other like they always do.  At least, not on this issue. 

This is, ultimately, the best way to unite Americans.  Align their interests.  That way, when Democrats fret that Republicans want tax cuts for “the rich,” people will all be happy because that means lower taxes for them too.  When Democrats want to raise taxes on the rich, who will support them if that also means raising their taxes?  While at first glance this idea might seem unfair, the practical effect would be to unite rich and poor, eliminate tax hikes, and likely end the career of politicians who try to raise taxes. 

When Americans are united on a cause, it generally leads to success.  This is one of the rare instances that unity can be easily achieved.  I do not make a lot of money, but I want to lower your taxes.  Do you want to lower mine?

Ay Caramba!  What Happened to The Simpsons?

As an 80s kid, The Simpsons has to be in my top ten TV shows of all time.  We grew up with Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa and Maggie getting into all sorts of crazy situations.  Who can forget when Bart cut off the head of the Jebediah Springfield statue, or when Bart was being bullied at school by Nelson, and Homer advised him to hit him in the family jewels?  What about when Homer became “Dancing Homer,” the mascot for the Springfield Isotopes baseball team?  Just a few weeks ago, my sister was sitting at the top row of stadium bleachers and was freaked out that she might fall, and I said, “Isn’t that how Maude Flanders died?”  (I was right.  It was.  Check it out here.) 

Many of you probably do not remember that The Simpsons was very controversial and edgy when it started, way back in 1989.  Before that, cartoons were played on Saturday and Sunday mornings, or after school on weekdays.  They had innocent, fun, playful stories, and were geared towards kids.  Then came along a dysfunctional cartoon family with a foul-mouthed, troublemaking son on the airwaves during prime-time television.  Some families at my church would not allow their kids to be exposed to such a show.  Despite the controversy that surrounded The Simpsons, the show was a massive success.  It was too funny not to be.

Surprisingly, The Simpsons remained funny for about 25 years, and even more surprisingly, it is still running today.  It is impossible to keep a show funny forever, and The Simpsons did eventually lose its edge.  The big laughs became chuckles, and then the chuckles started getting fewer and farther apart.  It is rare that I watch anymore, but last Sunday I decided to flip over to The Simpsons.  I was very disappointed.  Unfortunately, it was not because it wasn’t funny.  I expected that.  What I did not expect to see was leftist, anti-religion, anti-charity, big government propaganda.

The episode, titled “Write Off This Episode,” starts with Marge and Lisa starting a charity to help the homeless.  Then, Marge gets sucked into fundraising and “raising awareness” instead of actually helping anybody.  The problem comes at the end of the episode, when the charity is holding a ritzy gala to celebrate the opening of their giant, glamourous, new headquarters.  When Marge sees her folly, she opens up the center to the homeless to come in and eat.  The rich donors are upset, and the villainous Mr. Burns stands up and gives this speech:

Enough of this do-goodery.  Open your eyes, rich people.  We’re not here to help the less fortunate.  We’re here to bask in our fortunateness.  If we really wanted to make a difference, we’d do the one thing we spent our lives avoiding… paying our taxes!  Then, one organization, the government, could tackle all of society’s ills.  Instead of leaving it to 1.5 million separate, ego-driven, micro-bureaucracies called charities, including, get a load of this scam, religions.  But no one here wants the rational way.  We all want the United Way, because that’s the American way.

 

Ay caramba!  Not only was it irrational and not true, but it was unfunny.  Look.  It is OK to make fun of charities and religions. (Or, most religions.  Some may chop off your head.)  Most Christians have a sense of humor.  However, it has to be funny!  The Simpsons, in fact, have done it since the beginning.  One of the most familiar characters is the goody-two-shoes, hyper-religious, next-door-neighbor, Ned Flanders, and he is funny.  There have been many episodes based around church, or Reverend Lovejoy, that are hilarious.  This episode, on the other hand, was not even intended to be funny.  It was just a setup for a government propaganda speech based on a dangerous, flawed premise.

As someone who started and ran a charity to help addicts, I know something about this.  While there are some bad charities and some bad churches, there are some major problems with the message that The Simpsons was clunkily shoving down our throats.  Here are three big ones:

  1. Efficiency – Government is HIGHLY wasteful, inefficient and ineffective.  Bureaucracy is defined by Investopedia as “a complex organization that has multilayered systems and processes.  The systems and processes that are put in place effectively make decision-making slow.  They are designed to maintain uniformity and control within the organization.” The government is slow, and to get anything done, you have to cut through red tape like you were hacking your way through the jungle with a machete.  It is expensive to do this.  Good charities, on the other hand, often only spend 20% or less of their donations on administrative costs, meaning that 80% or more of what you donate is used towards the cause.
  2. Choice – Taxes are coerced, so when the people see how inefficient the government is at solving problems, they cannot withhold their funding.  The government has little reason to be efficient because they can take your money either way.  Since taxes are mandatory and people cannot choose whether to give, the bureaucrats in charge of programs actually have an incentive to make problems worse, so that they can say that they need more funding.  Conversely, charitable giving is voluntary, and people can choose which charities they give to.  This is a massive difference.  As I said, there are some bad charities and some bad churches, but you are not forced to give anything to them!  This makes the charities accountable to their donors and forces them to show results.  If they do not show results, they will lose donors.  If you are looking into donating to a charity, there are watchdog organizations, like Charity Navigator, where you can find out what percentage of their donations are actually used for the cause.
  3. Proximity to the problems – The government, especially the federal government, is far from most of the problems in our country.  This leads to impersonal, cookie-cutter solutions to problems that only work for very few of the people who need assistance.  Churches are, without a doubt, the best, most effective organizations to deal with societal problems.  Contrary to Mr. Burns’ assertion, they are not generally as bureaucratic.  Most have boards of deacons or church elders to run things by, while other churches just have pastors with broad decision-making authority.  After that, the people involved are the members of the church, who live in the affected communities and often know the people who need help.  They are close to the problems and can deal with them in a much more personal way. 

These three things just scratch the surface as to why charities and churches are far superior to the government when it comes to helping people.  When Alexis de Tocqueville traveled through America in 1831, he was impressed by how Americans gathered together in charitable associations to help each other and thought that this was one of the big reasons why the young country was so successful.  He noted, “I have often seen Americans make large and genuine sacrifices to the public good, and I have noted on countless occasions that, when necessary, they almost never fail to lend one another a helping hand.”  He was correct.  If you want to make a difference and help people, give to charities and get involved at your church.  If you want to waste your money, give it to the government.  Actually, you have to.  D’oh!

Give Us the Same Courtesy That We Gave You

The first paragraph of this article is here for a very specific reason. To promote the article on social media I had to make sure that there was no political speech in the first couple of lines so that it wouldn’t be censored. The original started here:

Democrats now control the White House and both chambers of Congress.  They are calling for unity, but what they mean by that is, “Now everybody needs to agree with us.”  That is not going to happen.  I am not saying that in an obstinate way.  I’m just being realistic and honest.  People disagree and that is alright.  Republicans were in charge for the last four years and many people disagreed with them, and I expected that as well because that is how life works. 

This leads me to my one request to Democrats.  Now that you’re in charge please give us the same courtesy that we gave to you when we were.  That courtesy is this:  When people disagree with you, don’t force them to do what you want. 

This may surprise some of you after being told by the media for four years that President Trump was a fascist dictator, but I cannot think of anything that he forced us to do during his term.  If you disagreed with President Trump and the Republicans, they did not make you do anything against your will.  Republicans let people agree to disagree.  

If, for example, you disagreed with the tax cuts that were passed, Republicans did not force you to go along with it.  They implemented no penalties for people who wanted to keep paying the higher tax rates voluntarily.  Yes, you can do that.  Surprisingly, wealthy Democrats who complain that rich people don’t pay their fair share do not opt to pay more themselves when given that choice.  Alright, maybe not so surprisingly.

Ultimately, this is the main thing that Republicans want:  to be left alone.  We want to control our own lives and let others control theirs.  Another example; we may understand that homosexuality is immoral, but we do not block people from the practice.  In fact, the Trump administration started a global effort to end the criminalization of homosexuality.  (In contrast, Democrats kowtow to countries like Iran who put homosexuals to death.)  Republicans also disagree with divisive groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter, yet do not want them prevented from speaking or kicked off of social media.  Another Republican belief is that God is central to the American way of life and necessary for our success, but we do not want to require church attendance.  In other words, Republicans would like everybody to act in particular ways but think that people should be free to choose for themselves.

This approach is not a new one.  It is actually one of the principles that our country was established on.  Our Founding Fathers were wise men who understood that people would not always agree as to what should be done.  They also knew that throughout history, when the powerful forced those who disagreed with them to conform to their will it sowed contempt, division and conflict.  Their solution was liberty.  If one group wants to do “A” and another group wants to do “B,” the answer is not to have the group in power force the other group to do what they command.  Instead, the first group can do “A” and the second group can do “B.”  They can try to use persuasion to win the other side over but they should not use coercion.

If Joe Biden really wants unity this is what he should do.  Refrain from taking away our liberty.  Allow people to have free will and do what they think is best for themselves.  He can disagree with our choices but he should not overrule them.  Here are ten great suggestions that the Democrats can do to respect the liberty of Americans:

  1. If you decide to raise taxes, make it optional to pay the old rate like the Republicans did for you. 
  2. If you want people to wear masks, make it optional like the Republicans did.
  3. Let scared restaurant owners who want to shut down do so, and let the ones who want to remain open choose to do that.  If patrons want to show up they can but if they are afraid they should also be free to stay home.
  4. Let churches decide whether to remain open or close down.  If congregants do not want to attend they should not be forced to, but those who do should be allowed in.
  5. President Trump stopped enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, which threatens to take away tax-exempt status from churches if the pastor endorses a political candidate.  Continue with that policy and allow pastors to decide for themselves what to say from the pulpit without threat of retaliation from the government.
  6. If somebody wants health insurance that covers pregnancy and drug rehabilitation they should be allowed to purchase it.  If another person wants less expensive insurance that does not cover those things they should be allowed to choose that.  If someone else prefers to pay out of pocket for medical care instead of buying insurance they should be able to do that.
  7. Do not force law abiding citizens to buy guns.  Likewise, do not prohibit them from buying guns.
  8. If someone wants to do a job for $8 per hour, do not prohibit them from doing so and force them out of a job.  Let people decide for themselves what wage to accept.
  9. Do not force people who are against murdering babies to pay for the murder of babies.  Do not use taxpayer money for Planned Parenthood.
  10. Refrain from banning or restricting us from using certain products like incandescent light bulbs, straws, grocery bags, soda, and shower heads with good water pressure.

These are all things that Democrats have tried to dictate in the past.  If they truly want unity this list would be a solid first step.  Instead of using tyrannical power to control those of us who disagree with them, try going back to our founding vision of liberty.  It’s the least they can do after Republicans did it for them the last four years.