Spreading the Wealth

John McCain recently ridiculed Barack Obama for telling “Joe the Plumber” – in reality “Sam the Contractor,” behind on paying his taxes – he wanted to “spread the wealth.” McCain said he wanted “Joe” to keep his wealth – actually much less than reported – to himself. McCain insisted that Obama’s tax plan would hurt Joe’s goal of buying his employer’s plumbing business when all indications are that Sam would actually benefit from Obama’s plan. Such is the continued misrepresentation that has become a hallmark of the McCain campaign. Obama’s desire to “spread the wealth” deserves more consideration.

Spreading the wealth is actually what we should be doing individually and as a society, rather than hoarding wealth as John McCain and the Republicans suggest. Those who suggest McCain is uncomfortable with his own message may have merit to their position, judging by his campaign demeanor. The accuracy of this observation will become obvious following the election. Our best response now, however, is to treat the Arizona senator with compassion for the entrapped position he may have provided for himself and to address the overriding morality of the issue he now presents as an attack on the Obama campaign.

Hoarding wealth simply flies in the face of all accepted human wisdom, no matter what the culture may be. Some strands of Jewish teaching value wealth as a sign of divine favor, but good stewardship and generosity are required of the worthy recipient. Some aspects of modern Buddhist teaching seem to reflect wealth possession and creation as a value, but classic Buddhist teaching focuses more on avoiding material wealth as a spiritual distraction. Still, as with Jewish teaching, stewardship and generosity are valued qualities. Personal blessings are to be shared with others in the community.

Christians specifically are urged not to hoard up treasure on earth but rather to gather spiritual treasure. While Christian teaching and its Jewish antecedents may provide the most cogent admonition against John McCain’s campaign position, it is certain that his call for individuals to hoard wealth contradicts the deepest strands of world moral teaching. No spiritual teaching views wealth hoarding as a value.

The dragon in western culture hoards wealth but has no idea what to do with it. He imprisons the virgin but has no idea what to do but frighten her. His obsession with the goal of possession inhibits knowledge. He can only learn by releasing his self-absorbed concentration on the tantalizing beauty he hoards to become a part of the larger community, no longer threatening civilization by fiery annihilation. He then becomes the oriental dragon, a source of communal wisdom and an expression of communal wealth. The oriental dragon brings blessing, in essence spreading the wealth.

The responsibility of tithing is the principle behind communal contribution through taxation. The object is to show concern for and stewardship of the community by giving back a portion of personal income to support community needs. This commitment acknowledges that religious and also civil communities sustain personal activity and well being. Contributions to supporting communities are therefore as much acts of self interest as they are of generosity.

Personal philanthropy is quite a different thing. Here generosity is shown to chosen people, organizations or communities by generous benefactors. Philanthropy is implicit in Republican ideas that high financial achievers should keep their wealth to dole out to worthy causes as they choose. This is the principle of “trickle down” economics. While this attitude values personal generosity, it provides little or no sustenance for the larger community.

Philanthropy is selective and limited in its scope by the awareness and generosity of contributors. Philanthropic individuals and organizations tend to address immediate rather than chronic conditions and overall maintenance concerns. Through the shared tithe-like contribution of general taxation, governments are able to distribute resources over the broad range of concerns affecting civil and social wellbeing.

Shared representation in governing bodies, such as congress, state legislatures, county and municipal councils, provides the broad consensus needed to identify shared concerns. While no one citizen may agree with all areas of social concern, each individual has power to express opinion through persuasion and ultimately through the ballot. This is, in essence, the social contract underlying our democracy. The “bottom up” economics modeled in Obama’s proposed tax plan reflects the idea that we will all contribute most effectively from positions of well-being.

Starving animals or people may eat any proffered morsel but they will still die of starvation unless the overall lack of resources is addressed. While we may each offer food to an individual through personal generosity, world hunger can only be effectively addressed by our concerted action as individuals within a world community. This simple example demonstrates the difference between philanthropic contribution, no matter how laudable, and united social action.

The past eight years have provided sufficient evidence of the ineffectiveness of “trickle down” economics in addressing civil and social issues. Our physical and social structures are crumbling from fiscal neglect as a result. The “bottom up” approach of sharing wealth through responsible taxation is the only means to effectively address these issues.

Hoarding is never a good idea. For this reason McCain’s idea of reducing taxes and freezing spending will only serve to cripple our economy more effectively than ever. Paul Krugman’s recent New York Times article encouraging infrastructure investment as a means of job creation and economic renewal in response to the current crisis is an example of creating and spreading wealth from the bottom up, the only way wealth creation can effectively work for the good of all.

Positive response to taxation does in fact become an act of patriotism as Joe Biden recently suggested. While qualifications may be applied to provide overall fairness in tax assessment, depending upon individual circumstances, tax loopholes allowing those with means to avoid contribution are harmful to the social structure. Anyone choosing to use such loopholes to avoid the shared civic duty of contributing through tax assessment is as unpatriotic as religious observers refusing to pay for the upkeep of religious institutions are unfaithful.

We all benefit from the society in which we live. Here in America we pride ourselves on living in what we consider the greatest nation on earth. But America will only be great as long as we unite to make it what it is. It is simply a matter of giving back to the society that sustains us so that we all experience wealth together without deprivation.