Evangelical Christians and budget cuts

Interesting report from the Pew Research Center published in Christianity Today magazine.  What do you think?

Polling Evangelicals: Cut Aid to World's Poor, Unemployed

Tobin Grant
posted 2/18/2011 02:08PM

A Pew Research Center survey suggests evangelicals prefer the government spend on schools, the military, and police.

The House of Representatives is working day and night in its effort to cut more than $60 billion from the federal budget. The House is considering a continuing resolution, a bill used to fund the federal government for the remainder of the year [passed earlier this week]. The bill includes deep cuts for environmental agencies, education, and foreign aid (except those related to security). It makes modest reductions for defense, homeland security, and police. These cuts are in line with the spending priorities of most American evangelicals.

Click here to read the entire report with helpful graphics.

All Americans are wealthy, or so they believe. . .

Recent wisdom from New Yorker magazine cartoon:

Taxes are necessary. . .

Gerald Britt, my dear friend and partner in the work of community renewal at Central Dallas Ministries, offered a courageous opinion published in The Dallas Morning News earlier this week. 

Click here to read.

Let me know what you think.

Of course, I think he is dead on with his point of view.  Quality of life matters in a city.

Income moves upward, gap grows

Where has all the income gone? Look up.


March 3, 2010
By Lawrence Mishel

The 400 American households with the highest incomes also have enjoyed a much faster pace of income growth than the vast majority. And, because tax rates applied to their income have fallen by a third, their after-tax incomes grew substantially faster than their pre-tax incomes. The figure looks at inflation-adjusted pre-tax and after-tax income growth for the 400 top-income families between 1992 and 2007, based on new data recently released by the Internal Revenue Service. It shows that while pre-tax income grew by a staggering 409% over that 15-year period, after-tax income increased even more, by 476%.

The third line in the figure offers some perspective by showing the change in the pre-tax median household income over the same period, which grew just 13.2%. The median pre-tax household income for a family of four in 2007 was $50,233, while the top-earning 400 households earned a median $345 million, almost 6900 times as much income. In contrast, in 1992 the ratio was just a sixth as large, with the top 400 households having 1124 times as much income.

The First Family, taxes and charity. . .

Interesting report on America's First Family, taxes and philanthropy.

Obamas: $5.5 million income, $1.8 million tax bill
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Thanks to revived book sales after he became president, Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, made $5.5 million last year. They paid about one-third of it in federal income taxes.

The Obamas gave $329,100 to charities in 2009. The president, who released his tax returns Thursday, also donated his entire $1.4 million Nobel Peace Prize award to 10 charitable groups. He never received the $1.4 million, and it was not included in his 2009 income.

Obama, a former law school instructor and U.S. senator, became a millionaire a few years ago through sales of his 1995 memoir "Dreams From My Father" and his 2006 political book, "The Audacity of Hope." He earned about $4 million in royalties in 2007, the year he launched his presidential campaign.

To read complete report click here.

Wealth keeps moving upward. . .

The chart above pretty well sums up economic reality in the United States these days. Poverty, personal and family options and equity are all shaped by this report. The chart comes with the following report from the Economic Policy Institute.

Here's what the report reveals: 

Where has all the income gone? Look up.
March 3, 2010
By Lawrence Mishel

The 400 American households with the highest incomes also have enjoyed a much faster pace of income growth than the vast majority. And, because tax rates applied to their income have fallen by a third, their after-tax incomes grew substantially faster than their pre-tax incomes. The figure looks at inflation-adjusted pre-tax and after-tax income growth for the 400 top-income families between 1992 and 2007, based on new data recently released by the Internal Revenue Service. It shows that while pre-tax income grew by a staggering 409% over that 15-year period, after-tax income increased even more, by 476%.

The third line in the figure offers some perspective by showing the change in the pre-tax median household income over the same period, which grew just 13.2%. The median pre-tax household income for a family of four in 2007 was $50,233, while the top-earning 400 households earned a median $345 million, almost 6900 times as much income. In contrast, in 1992 the ratio was just a sixth as large, with the top 400 households having 1124 times as much income.

Sugar tax for improved national health outcomes?

Sidebar poll from The New England Journal of Medicine:

Do you favor taxing sugar-sweetened beverages as a way of helping to finance health care reform and improving public health?

No (26.0%, 493 Votes)

Yes (74.0%, 1,419 Votes)

Total Voters: 1,912 (as of 9/17/09)

Your vote???

Penny wise, pound foolish

My dad always believed that you usually got what you paid for. As a result, he was never shy about paying a little more to move the quality needle upward. He knew that the additional investment would usually return to him, and then some.

I guess I've carried that notion into my own life. Certainly, I've not always been able to go for the best or the most expensive, but I have recognized the value of paying more today for an expected payoff later on.

All of the recent reports about the budget shortfall facing the City of Dallas and the City's plans to meet the funding shortage have me thinking about my dad.

So, I've done a little research on the City of Dallas, the current shortfall and the tax base for the city.

We are told that the shortfall will amount to $190 million for the next fiscal year. That represents 1/10 of the city's $1.9 billion spending plan to be approved by the City Council in September.

I got to thinking about that $190 million gap.

The City of Dallas' Tax Office told me when I called (they were extremely helpful, by the way) that the city received property tax payments from 390,932 taxpayers last year.

The city also receives funds from sales taxes and fees for various services, fines and permits. I realize that funding for the different departments and positions flows from various funds, each with complicating limitations and restrictions. The City's budget process is complicated.

Forgetting about these other sources of funding and the inherent complications for now, I calculate that if the property tax payers, all 390,932 of us, paid $486.02 more in property taxes this year lots of good things would happen in the city.

For example, all of the city employees (variously reported at between 900 and 1,300 individuals) who lost their jobs last Friday could be retained. Wonder what that would mean to their families and to the same tax base that pays their wages or to the status of their mortgages? Based on what I read in the news reports last Saturday morning, it sounds to me like the extra funds might not be needed for the entire year to maintain the city's full workforce. The City expects to be able to hire back many of those laid off within a few months, likely due to expected new sources of funds.

What's up with that? Why not raise taxes now, save all the jobs now, and next year pass along a tax reduction if that turns out to be possible?

No hours would need to be eliminated from the city's libraries or the swimming pools next summer or the recreation centers during the school year or the public health clinics. . .the list goes on and on.

$486.02.

Not an inconsiderable amount. And, I know, some would pay more based on the value of the home in question, but it's not a regressive system of taxation.

$486.02 at most. . .that works out to $40.50 per month or $9.35 a week or $1.33 daily. . .to save hundreds of jobs now, lost by my neighbors here in Dallas.

It appears to me that all of this pain and strain is being inflicted and endured so that we can all boast, "We balanced the budget without a tax increase!"

My dad wouldn't buy it. And, come to think of it, I bet my fellow citizens who lost their jobs wouldn't be celebrating either.

Lots of things are worse than an increase in taxes to support the common good, like, for instance, the overall decline of the common good.

I'd find it refreshing if our leaders reconsidered the challenge, got really responsible and levied a tax increase.

Maybe I'm just weird. But I come by it naturally. I got it from dad.
.

Secession

Texas Governor Rick Perry got everyone fired up last week at a tax day "tea party." You can read The Dallas Morning News report on the event and the Governor's involvement in it here.

Talk about something that makes you go "hmmmm"?

The last time a state leader talked about secession was right before the Civil War when South Carolina took steps to lead the entire South out of the Union. The breach in the fabric of the Republic that followed in 1861 had been preceded in 1832 by the so-called Nullification Crisis, a conflict based largely on differences of opinion about federal protective tariffs and economic policy at the time, with a obvious connection to the institution of slavery.

I'm wondering how this talk of and sympathy for secession as a state fits into any guidelines for "how to be patriotic" as citizens at the beginning of the 21st century?

It also seems most curious, but possibly not so outlandish on second thought, when one considers how the State of Texas ranks on "quality of life" issues for those at the bottom of the economy.

I understand that Jay Leno had some fun at our Governor's expense last week (watch the monologue here). No doubt a sure sign that Mr. Perry has made the "big time" on the national political stage!

Ain't politics something?





This post is dedicated to the memory of Morris Franklin James (April 24, 1920-December 16, 2007). We love you, daddy. Rest in peace.

.

What could the new President do to promote philanthropy

Recently, I was contacted by The Chronicle of Philanthropy with an assignment:

How would I answer this question?

"What can the next President do to support philanthropy, volunteering and civil society overall?"

Here's my answer:

My work takes place in the inner city of Dallas, Texas. So, my perspective is more narrow than what one would expect from someone writing about philanthropy in general or at-large.

Because "poverty" is my issue of concern, I must begin by saying that philanthropy will not solve the problem, at least not on its own. No doubt, philanthropy will need to play a prominent role, but only when combined with more progressive, comprehensive public policy decisions that “take the battle” to poverty and its various attendant evils and challenges. As the title of a provocative volume of essays on the issue declares, "the revolution will not be funded."

Public funds must be increased and strategically directed toward public education, higher education, housing, hunger and nutrition, health/wellness and health care, jobs and employment training, livable wage policy and many other important issues. Philanthropic dollars can follow, supplement and enhance, but without a new view of how public policy can impact poverty and provide solutions, philanthropic approaches will continue to struggle to make substantial progress for and among the poor.

That said, the new President could make philanthropy more powerful and effective in our struggle against poverty. Reforming tax policy that incentivize charitable contributions directed toward non-profits devoted to challenging poverty would be a place to begin. As long as non-profits whose mission involves serving the poor stand on the same platform as organizations devoted to the arts, health care institutions, and higher education, progress will not be realized as quickly as could be the case.

What if Congress devised a stratified deduction scale that provided a dollar for dollar deduction (100%) for funds given to organizations working with the poor? In other words, what if donations aimed at helping the poor could be considered 100% "excluded" from taxable income, rather than a simple deduction linked to one's tax bracket? No doubt, such a change would drive up donations given to serve the poor and or communities affected by poverty.

Volunteers are extremely important in many areas of our work in the inner city. For example, volunteer physicians and dentists offer wonderful service to thousands of patients every year in our various community-based health care efforts. What if the hours donated by doctors, dentists, nurses, lawyers (in our public interest law firm), legal aids, architects, professional fundraisers, entertainers, real estate professionals and developers, accountants--the list is long, were deductible and tied to a value scale that would establish the tax deduction such a professional volunteer could claim?

Forgive me for really meddling with my last suggestion. What if it became a federal/IRS requirement that tax-exempt organizations, like churches and faith communities, had to prove up the amount they invested in their communities to overcome poverty in order to maintain their tax status. The requirements to protect their tax status could be formulaic and tied to their size and budget history. As a former pastor, I realize this one will not be too popular with some church leaders, but I've always wondered why faith groups didn't have to do more to prove up their actual public/community benefit.

.

Work and the Earned Income Credit

The very best program for social uplift is a job. With the exception of persons dealing with severe, chronic disabilities, employment must be the central piece in any strategy to overcome poverty.

The basis for the highly successful Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) initiative is this fundamental belief in the supreme importance of work. Here at Central Dallas Ministries we have encouraged the low-income working men and women that we know to file a tax return to secure this credit. At one point, our public interest law firm secured a grant from the Internal Revenue Service that allowed us to do this work more effectively.

As a tax strategy to reduce poverty and its ill effects on the nation, the EITC was the idea of Richard Nixon, and was signed into law by Gerald Ford in March 1975. The program has received broad bipartisan support from its inception and has been expanded over the years.

The EITC provides a tax refund to all workers in poverty, who earn less than a certain amount annually--regardless of whether they pay income taxes. The EITC is designed to move people aware from federal welfare assistance and into lives of work. Bottom line: the EITC establishes a minimum annual salary for workers. If a worker earns less than the baseline minimum, she or he receives an earned income credit that raises annual earnings to the established minimum.


Ronald Reagan referred to the EITC as "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress." He increased funding for the effort, as well as the minimum baseline several times. George H. W. Bush expanded the EITC as well.

Senator John McCain has been a consistent supporter of the EITC. Last Saturday (October 18, 2008), the Washington Post reported that, "In fact, in 1999, Mr. McCain opposed efforts to change the earned-income tax credit, which gives payments to the working poor, and called it a 'much-needed tax credit for working Americans.' And in this campaign, he has proposed to use the tax code to do more such 'wealth-spreading."

The Hoover Institute describes the EITC as: "...probably the most cost-effective anti-poverty program the federal government operates."

Using the federal tax code to incentivize work, lift families and promote economic growth is sound policy. The EITC has been supported by leaders from both major political parties. It is an effort that works, while rewarding work!


.

Taxes

Wonder how the presidential candidates compare on their tax plans going forward?

Check out The Washington Post article here to see for yourself.

I'm more than confident we have varying, conflicting opinionsabout Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama represented in those who read this blog!

Good to see the two plans in black and white or, better, red and blue.

I suppose I don't need to encourage feedback on this one, do I?

.

No taxes?

Did anyone read The New York Times report last week on the fact that 2 of 3 corporations doing business in the U. S. don't pay income taxes? Must be nice, huh?

Worth reading.

Lot's to consider, I'd say.

How about you?

.