Theories on Religion, Government & Taxes!
I have a thesis I've been working on for some time but haven't written down In a nutshell...
In early society everyone was equal (think desert island). As
time moves on some people wanted more than the average. By definition, if
someone has more then they are in the minority. In other words, if all the
"don't haves" were to force the issue, they would have no problem taking money
out of the "haves" pockets because they out number the "haves."
The "haves" thus have a problem. How do they protect their
stake? Two schools of thought..."stick" or "carrot"? Why not
both? The "stick" is government. The "carrot" is religion.
Government was put in place to keep the money that the "haves" have in
the "haves" pocket. By creating laws and enforcing them they create rules
of order that protect the minority interest. I believe our government is all
about defending the few.
Religion, on the other hand, was created to keep the "have nots" in line. Build on the
natural fear of the unknown (death) and sell them some hope. Teach that if
they behave, let the "haves" keep their above average wealth, and generally
accept their lot in life, then they'll be rich in the after life--otherwise
burn in hell. It's a tough marketing
assignment. While I lack religion in my life, I have a deep
marketing respect for the church because they have seemed to sell something that people
only get after they die! Wish I was that good of a marketer.
Ok, so now that we have Government and Religion in place and thus the "haves" are in good shape,
right? Nope. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the "haves" can't be
happy with simply above average wealth. Instead there is a constant need for
more and more. With every redistribution toward the "haves" it comes a the
expense of the "have nots."
One of Government's primary roles
is the redistribution of wealth. It turns out that too much redistribution to the "have nots",
however, has the impact of reducing the average quality of life for all (I
think).
Humans are naturally very selfish people and frankly that's just how the world
works. A capitalistic system that rewards performance is obviously the
right answer. If my effort doesn't produce a strong incremental benefit to me,
then why put in the effort? Too much going to the "have nots"
creates a disincentive to the "haves" and they produce less.
I think the key is to create a system that is fair but where "entitlements"
are few and far between. While there should be a baseline that covers
basic human needs (shelter, food) there is no clear line that crosses from
"basic" to something more.
Our country was founded on a few principles. Give everyone equal
opportunity under the law and let those that perform will get and could become
"haves" and those that don't will have to accept a lower quality of life.
I can't draw the line. While this is my basic philosophy, it would be
difficult for me to put this approach into practice.
On a somewhat related topic...
How about a system that offers people who inherit their money a
choice. You can pay ridiculous amount of taxes on what you inherit
(because you didn't earn the money) or instead you can perform a significant
amount of community service and avoid the taxes. Something like 100 hours
for every million dollars you inherit.
The labor would be targeted locally. Community governments would have
an influx of free labor. Rich people would have a sense of pride that they
earned their inheritance.
November 9, 2004
? Greg Harris, 2004