Confessions of a Moderate Progressive
Nov. 19th, 2002 11:01 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ravencallscrowsIn some ways, i'm a bleeding heart liberal. I always try to temper it with common sense, though.
It's easy to be a social conservative in Suburbia. There simply isn't the same exposure to some of the darker sides of society, and accordingly easy to ignore them or brush them aside as someone else's problem. It's a lot more difficult to look the other way when you see them on a daily basis.
Every weekday, i take a bus from my home in Magnolia downtown and walk four blocks to get on another to go to work. Coming home, the route is a bit different, but the walk is about the same. Not a day goes by when i don't see people living on the streets in the morning, and it's a rare occurance to not get asked by at least one person for change in the evening.
I can't help but feel sorry for these people, especially the homeless. I realize that some, if not many, of them are there through consequences of their own actions, but it doesn't change the reaction on a very visceral core level. No one deserves to have to sleep under discarded newspaper on a sidewalk grate.
The question then, is what to do about it? Giving these people money directly isn't a solution (on the rare cases when i'm actually carrying any). Nor do i think it's the responsibility of municipal, state or federal governments, at least not in the long term. Because of the nature of the welfare state, and the way programmes have evolved, though, it probably needs to be an increased priority as a short-term stopgap measure- a safety net, if you will- much like the way Social Security was designed.
Shelter, food, basic healthcare and the like are things which should be the rights of every citizen. I think most of the electorate would agree that these are essential building blocks leading to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
I don't think, though, that expanded governmentally-funded welfare is the long term solution.
Charity is the mission of the private sector. Within this, there is a group of organizations which exist tax-exempt and allegedly with the goal of serving humanity. They're also generally funded internally by their membership. Places of worship. Churches, synagogues and so on. I'd like to see (and the right, especially its religious wing would probably scream foul) tax exempt status lifted, or at least scaled back- a parsonage and meeting place is probably reasonable, and larger congregations will require larger spaces, but passing the plate to build newer and fancier houses of worship isn't something which should be tax-exempt. I don't recall seeing the Nazarene carpenter the Christian faiths claim to follow saying anything about needing a really fancy place of worship, and a tent in the desert sufficed quite adequately for his Jewish ancestors.
Here's the radical part of the proposal: Assess the value of the assets of the congregation, including the tithes received, and tax them accordingly- with the exception that money spent on tzedekah and charitable work in the community is exempt from taxation. Clothe the needy, feed the hungry, house the homeless, heal the sick, and the monies spent in that manner are not taxed. Build a new sanctuary vlaued at $105 million (before i moved here from the Tampa Bay area, there was a church which built a new facility for its large congregation specifically to be visible from the I-4 freeway through town, right in the middle of the downtown Orlando commercial district reputedly priced at that amount, and several newspapers in the region noted this, and illustrated the place with its lavish furnishings, and, if i recall correctly, rosewood pews) and you can damn well pay taxes on it.
One more restriction. Although offering spiritual services is allowed, there can be no compulsory quid pro quo. Minister to the spirit as well as to the body as the individuals in need seek it, but selling your faith as the ticket price to obtain charity is simply reprehensible.
This doesn't even have to be a faith-based solution. Caritas can exist outside the boundaries of religion, and should. Humanitarianism can wear completely secular guises as easily as it can religious vestments, and organizations doing so simply out of caring for others are to be highly commended and deserve tax exemptions as well.
It's easy to be a social conservative in Suburbia. There simply isn't the same exposure to some of the darker sides of society, and accordingly easy to ignore them or brush them aside as someone else's problem. It's a lot more difficult to look the other way when you see them on a daily basis.
Every weekday, i take a bus from my home in Magnolia downtown and walk four blocks to get on another to go to work. Coming home, the route is a bit different, but the walk is about the same. Not a day goes by when i don't see people living on the streets in the morning, and it's a rare occurance to not get asked by at least one person for change in the evening.
I can't help but feel sorry for these people, especially the homeless. I realize that some, if not many, of them are there through consequences of their own actions, but it doesn't change the reaction on a very visceral core level. No one deserves to have to sleep under discarded newspaper on a sidewalk grate.
The question then, is what to do about it? Giving these people money directly isn't a solution (on the rare cases when i'm actually carrying any). Nor do i think it's the responsibility of municipal, state or federal governments, at least not in the long term. Because of the nature of the welfare state, and the way programmes have evolved, though, it probably needs to be an increased priority as a short-term stopgap measure- a safety net, if you will- much like the way Social Security was designed.
Shelter, food, basic healthcare and the like are things which should be the rights of every citizen. I think most of the electorate would agree that these are essential building blocks leading to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
I don't think, though, that expanded governmentally-funded welfare is the long term solution.
Charity is the mission of the private sector. Within this, there is a group of organizations which exist tax-exempt and allegedly with the goal of serving humanity. They're also generally funded internally by their membership. Places of worship. Churches, synagogues and so on. I'd like to see (and the right, especially its religious wing would probably scream foul) tax exempt status lifted, or at least scaled back- a parsonage and meeting place is probably reasonable, and larger congregations will require larger spaces, but passing the plate to build newer and fancier houses of worship isn't something which should be tax-exempt. I don't recall seeing the Nazarene carpenter the Christian faiths claim to follow saying anything about needing a really fancy place of worship, and a tent in the desert sufficed quite adequately for his Jewish ancestors.
Here's the radical part of the proposal: Assess the value of the assets of the congregation, including the tithes received, and tax them accordingly- with the exception that money spent on tzedekah and charitable work in the community is exempt from taxation. Clothe the needy, feed the hungry, house the homeless, heal the sick, and the monies spent in that manner are not taxed. Build a new sanctuary vlaued at $105 million (before i moved here from the Tampa Bay area, there was a church which built a new facility for its large congregation specifically to be visible from the I-4 freeway through town, right in the middle of the downtown Orlando commercial district reputedly priced at that amount, and several newspapers in the region noted this, and illustrated the place with its lavish furnishings, and, if i recall correctly, rosewood pews) and you can damn well pay taxes on it.
One more restriction. Although offering spiritual services is allowed, there can be no compulsory quid pro quo. Minister to the spirit as well as to the body as the individuals in need seek it, but selling your faith as the ticket price to obtain charity is simply reprehensible.
This doesn't even have to be a faith-based solution. Caritas can exist outside the boundaries of religion, and should. Humanitarianism can wear completely secular guises as easily as it can religious vestments, and organizations doing so simply out of caring for others are to be highly commended and deserve tax exemptions as well.
