Spokane7
67°
December 31, 2011 in City
Rich fail to show proper gratitude for entitlements
I used to think social programs were a good idea.
Not perfect. Not without problems. But, on balance, good. In the sense of right and wrong. Of ethically and socially desirable.
That was before I understood the moral threat they posed.
I know, I know. It seems like food stamps and Medicare and Social Security and other programs actually help people – especially children and the elderly – who are poor. Helps them, I don’t know… eat. Or learn. Or go to the doctor. It seems like the humane thing for a glitteringly wealthy society to do. Complaining about help for the poor on behalf of the rich seems like it ought to be just too shameful for decent people.
But that was before I considered the moral threat.
I used to think that people opposed social programs out of a philosophical objection, or anecdotal experience with the “undeserving” poor, or a Darwinian economic view, or simple hard-heartedness – reasons that were, at root, about getting and keeping money.
But it turns out that it’s the moral threat that really gets people worked up. Government programs for the poor threaten our ability to be properly compassionate.
I came across this notion in an op-ed piece written by Ryan Messmore of the Heritage Foundation. It ran here in the S-R on Christmas Day. You know the Heritage Foundation – the gang that always takes pains to point out that some poor people own televisions and microwaves, whenever new statistics about the nation’s poverty come out.
In his Yuletide piece, Messmore identified the problem with trying to help those people: “An entitlement mentality – a sense of being owed something for nothing – settles in when people interpret wants as needs and then view those needs as rights. And once something is understood as a ‘right,’ people tend to hold government responsible for providing it.
“This ‘government-owes-us’ mentality threatens not only the spirit of Christmas but the very fabric of a just and prosperous society.”
It is important to understand this moral threat. Otherwise, you might jump to a mistaken conclusion. You might think people with a lot of money are leaping through rhetorical hoops to make themselves seem unselfish. You could, conceivably, conclude that some people are gilding their resentment of helping the less fortunate with a parsimonious parsing of the way that help is delivered. You might decide that these morally fibrous folks believe poverty is simply the way the free market and the Lord punish immorality.
But poverty is not the problem, Messmore argues. Or not the important one, anyway. Not the one that demands our attention in this, the season of giving. No – it’s government help that is so very threatening to our morality. Helping people through church or charity is fine, of course. If that’s your thing. But government assistance is downright corrosive.
“Gifts create a kind of momentum of good will that bind both giver and receiver in a more personal relationship,” he wrote. “Entitlements foster a different social relationship, mainly because governments typically deliver the benefits through impersonal, top-down programs.
“Entitlement programs are funded by taxes, which government mandates under threat of penalty. The requirement often fosters a sense of resentment among taxpayers rather than a desire to help others.
“And on the other side, an entitlement mentality tends to undercut the feeling and offering of gratitude. In fact, sometimes that sense of entitlement tempts recipients to ‘play’ the system, leading to waste, fraud and long-term dependence on the dole.”
He is undoubtedly correct. If you continually give people something for nothing – a break that other people do not get – they come to feel they deserve this something. Soon, they expect this something all the time.
Modern society is filled with examples of this. Here are two:
• Certain people have come to believe they are entitled to pay far less in taxes on their income, proportionally, than others. For example, if you earn income working for a company, you will pay a certain tax rate on that income. If the owner or CEO of that company earns income via the stock market, he pays a far, far lower tax rate on that income. This tax rate has gone down continually, for decades and decades and decades. It is now at its lowest point in history. And yet the entitlement mentality among those whose taxes have been cut and cut and cut again has tended to undercut their feeling of gratitude. Their entitlement mentality is such that they continually argue that their continually lowered taxes are continually being raised. That the appropriate tax rate for this type of income is actually zero.
• A lot of us think we’re entitled to a tax break because we borrowed money to buy a house. Incredible! We count up our interest expenses and once a year deprive the treasury of this tax money, which we would otherwise owe under threat of penalty. The bigger your house, the bigger your tax break. In other words, the less you need the “relief” the more relief you get.
The moral fabric – it frays and frays. I guess that’s just what happens when people interpret wants as needs, and then view those needs as rights.
Shawn Vestal can be reached at (509) 459-5431 or shawnv@ spokesman.com. Follow him on Twitter at @vestal13.
The draw of the unknowable 
Orphan on December 31 at 9:07 a.m.
Shawn
A family of 4 earning 100K only pays a tax rate of around 5% assuming an average mortgage and day care for 2 kids. If you look at it that way the capitol gains rate of 15% looks pretty high.
I know you said “Modern society is filled with examples of this. Here are two:” Why not list 2 other examples on the other side of things. I know that would undermine your headline so you couldnt do that could you that would put entitlements into perspective and we cant have that can we.
Lets get rid of deductions for kids, spouses, child care, mortgages and all of the other itemized deductions.
Why should someone pay less taxes because they have kids or get money back over and above what they paid in because they have a lot of kids.
Until everyone has skin in the game and pays something in taxes someone will feel entitled. A flat tax with a deduction for the 1st 10K of income is the way to go.
One last thing the rich are paying most of the taxes, you are attacking the very people that foot the bill.
skime on December 31 at 9:51 a.m.
Vestal is doing his best to make social class war fair. He does his best to paint a picture that every person that is successful did so by some sort of cheating. This is killing the notion of the American dream, to start a business and to achieve success, then have people in the media say the only way you did this was you, had to cheat someone out of something. This thought process by the media is splitting this great land of ours apart. Shame on you Shawn, you are a big part of the problem with the economy.
gmorton on December 31 at 9:59 a.m.
Shawn Vestal wrote,
“It seems like the humane thing for a glitteringly wealthy society to do.”
No, Shawn. It is humane thing for you, as an individual to do, per the guidance of your own conscience. When “society” – i.e., gummint – undertakes it, however, it ceases to be humane, since gummint must first seize the money to pay for it from someone else, by force.
There is no humanity involved in armed robbery, whether the loot is given to “the poor” or not. You do not evidence your “humanity” by hiring thugs to steal others’ money and then donating it to your favorite charity. Virtue cannot be attained by proxy, or by force.
Pat O'Leary on December 31 at 10:15 a.m.
Maybe since the wealthy own 80 or 90% of the country’s wealth it only be fair that they pay 80 or 90% of the country’s taxes. Is there something illogical about that?
Pat O'Leary on December 31 at 10:17 a.m.
Oh, excuse me….I forgot they are the job creators so should be exempt from taxes.
gmorton on December 31 at 10:21 a.m.
Pat O’Leary wrote,
“Maybe since the wealthy own 80 or 90% of the country’s wealth it only be fair that they pay 80 or 90% of the country’s taxes. Is there something illogical about that?”
Yes, there is. It is the wrong criterion. Each person should pay for gummint to the extent he benefits from the services it provides. How much wealth he has is irrelevant.
The_Seer on December 31 at 10:33 a.m.
gmorton: You keep using the term “by force” when it comes to government and taxation.
I can’t recall ever being “forced” to pay taxes. I CHOOSE to live in the U.S., which has decided taxation isn’t stealing and people willingly contribute to their government.
You are free to move at any time to your panacea kingdom. I’m pretty sure internet service is fairly limited in those few places on earth (because of lack of subsidies wrung from the sweat of the unwilling) so at least we won’t be entertained as often with your libertarian wish lists.
If only…
richard on December 31 at 10:49 a.m.
Just another example of the consistent liberal drumbeat from those who write for the SR.
Where is the balance within this paper?
The_Seer on December 31 at 10:53 a.m.
richard: The “balance” you desire is dished out each election cycle when the publishers hand pick their next batch of water carriers.
Claiming the SR is a liberal newspaper would be like claiming you are capable of cogent, independent thought. Never shall the twain meet!
Happy New Year!
gmorton on December 31 at 11:03 a.m.
The_Seer wrote,
“I can’t recall ever being ‘forced’ to pay taxes.”
Probably because you have never refused to pay them. You have submitted to them like a good sheep. Try refusing to pay one and see what happens.
“I CHOOSE to live in the U.S., which has decided taxation isn’t stealing and people willingly contribute to their government.”
Sorry Seer, but taking others’ property by force is stealing, by definition. The meaning of the term is not subject to democratic decision-making or popular opinion. Nor can certain acts of stealing be exempted from its meaning by fiat.
Choosing to live in the US does not constitute consent to theft, any more than a woman walking alone at night constitutes an invitation to rape.
I willingly contribute to the costs of government too, to the extent I benefit from the services it provides. The rest I pay under duress, because of the threat of force.
The_Seer on December 31 at 11:35 a.m.
gmorton: Nonsense. You could move to where there isn’t taxation. It sounds like you need a better accountant too.
DickAdams on December 31 at 1:24 p.m.
gmorton, I agree with your argument with seer. I refuse to join the good sheep cowards.
cryssT on December 31 at 1:43 p.m.
The rich may pay more in taxes but it’s less percentage wise. It’s what’s left of the middle class that pays taxes and feels it far more than the rich do. $8000 out of an $80,000 income is 1/10th. $16K out of $320,000 is 1/5th.
AnalyzeThat on December 31 at 4:56 p.m.
Talk about hypocrisy - in this same issue SR printed an editorial supporting wind energy subsidies - another form of corporate welfare!!
I agree with Orphan - every one should have “skin in the game”, which is why this country needs to adopt a flat tax.
gmorton on December 31 at 6:11 p.m.
The_Seer wrote,
“You could move to where there isn’t taxation.”
I have no desire to live where there is no taxation (if there is such a place). Nor would I move there if there is, any more than I would avoid the streets because muggers prowl them. I prefer to remove the muggers instead.
Orphan on December 31 at 6:29 p.m.
CryssT The only way someone would pay $8000 on an $80K income would be if they were single and did not own a home or have kids.
Go to the IRS web site and do some faux income tax returns and you will see what I mean. most that earn less than 100K are only paying about 5% under 50K its even less. Yet the libs want to increase taxes on the rich.
nslopeofw on January 01 at 12:30 a.m.
The big problem is that income tax is very unfair. If one makes $100K or more a year, they get to pay 30%-35% in income tax. Not to mention if one makes $100K or more a year, they also end up paying far more in SS tax, property tax, probably buy more stuff, resulting in paying more in sales tax, yet are using far less or nothing in government entitlements.
If one makes $50K a year, they get to pay no more than 10% in income tax, less actual $$ amounts in SS tax, and probably pay less in property tax due to the amount of loan they can afford for their home. They probably buy less stuff, and pay less sales tax, but, are getting a larger amount of entitlements from the government ( the government which gets its money from taxing its people) than the $100K worker
So, when someone writes a piece like this, they are obviously either a liberal, or someone who believes they are entitled to more than anyone else because they are less successful. Only a liberal would think its OK to pay way more of your hard earned wage in taxes, and get way less in return from the entity you are paying YOUR money to. Then, because you make $100K or more a year you are somehow defined as doing so well that you should just want to pay for those who make less, or dont even try to make anything. But, then you find out you are not rich, because $250K has somehow been determined to be rich in this country, and therefore, evil, uncaring and deserved to pay a pile of money with no return because they are morally wrong……somehow….or something..