Contact
Envy me not, nor me you
Michael Swickard
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house… or anything that is your neighbor’s.” – Exodus 20:17, ESV Bible
While the “envy your neighbors” card has been played often by politicians for several decades, it seems the current class warfare dialog has gone mainstream this political season. Talking about who has what is the Washington rage, despite the fact that members of Congress are quite wealthy and have been made so by holding the reins of power.
Also, the rules of Washington ensure that the holders of the power are not subject to the same rules as the masses. The people pointing out the inequities of life are themselves treated to different health-care and retirement programs than the masses. Is it envy that I say these things? No.
It is central to political speak that in our society everyone has a different amount of resources. Some people always have more than others. Some citizens work harder and or smarter and are rewarded for those actions. For every person who inherited wealth, a thousand created it in their own generation. But that does not get votes; what gets votes is class warfare.
Backlash against people who have worked hard
Rather than celebrate that a candidate for president, without being compelled, gave about $3 million to charity last year, the donations are met with, “They should have given more.” Really? Someone gives $3 million without being compelled to do so and it is not enough for some envious people? Sad.
In the political class warfare it is hard to imagine a country like ours without envy. Being aware and attracted to the possession of others is the hallmark of our nation; the driving force in our tax code. We refer to our envy as to the issue of fairness; it is not fair one person has more possessions than another. This is still envy and it is very dysfunctional to our society.
Envy has taken over our culture to the point that there is a backlash against people who have worked hard all of their life and have accumulated possessions. Regardless of what one person has that another does not, be it a nicer house, a better car or a debt-free existence, those who have more are more likely battered by the political elite. Example: Tiger Woods.
When I see golfer Tiger Woods I do not feel any envy for him or his possessions. Yes, he is a much better golfer than I. Tiger has a plane and yacht and palatial house. I suspect he does not balance his checkbook himself or a myriad of other things I do, but I consider myself much wealthier than him.
I walk in crowds without trouble while he has dozens of photographers who will do everything possible to take his picture at all times. For him a nice relaxing walk is out because of the attention. He is trapped in his own world without any chance to experience a life without those intrusions. More to the point, there are many who say that since Tiger Woods has millions of dollars the government should just confiscate most of the money since he has more money than other people. He is the subject of envy trash-talking.
But they do not take more
Where things get sticky in our world is the progressive nature of our tax code, whereby, if someone works longer and harder or smarter, the government takes more of their possessions since they possess more than those people who work less or not at all. Again, the fairness code comes into the discussion — since someone has more they should give more. Really? Why? They do not take more; in fact, at a flat rate they give more automatically to the government. So why give more as a percentage?
Our nation spends much of its time calculating who has more than another and how to take the legal possessions of one person and give to another for the purpose of politics. The shows on television are constructed to inspire envy, which is why I do not watch them.
Nothing good comes from the political envy with which someone votes for the person who says they will take the legitimate property of one citizen and give it to another for the purpose of votes.
Swickard is co-host of the radio talk show News New Mexico, which airs from 6 to 9 a.m. Monday through Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. His e-mail address is michael@swickard.com.
8 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dr. Swickard’s thesis seems to be contained in these lines:
since someone has more they should give more. Really? Why? They do not take more; in fact, at a flat rate they give more automatically to the government. So why give more as a percentage?
A few months ago, Elizabeth Warren basically explained the reasoning why progressive taxation makes sense: “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.”
Because people who make more take and/or use more of the country’s resources, they should pay more for the privilege.
I think Republicans who think they are rich and defend the Bush tax cuts are funny. They don’t seem to understand that the class warfare is actually being waged against them by their own party.
There is rich and then there is rich.
No matter how you spin $3 million in charitable giving its hard to measure up to Biden’s $369, that’s for sure.
Well said carlotta, but you mean you don’t consider the 10% tithe he gives to the Mormons to be “charity that helps people who need help”?
For those who MIGHT admire Romney for his $3 million charitable donations I suggest they take a look at what he actually donated to:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mitt-romney-charity-philanthropy-lds
The list hardly bowls me over; a relatively minute percentage is devoted to actually helping people who need help.
I had to laugh at a recent editorial by the Santa Fe New Mexican (aka propaganda periodical of the People’s Republic of Santa Fe), where she states that we need to tax the rich much more and return to our “egalitarian” roots as a state and nation. I have no idea where that woman grew up in NM, but where I grew up we had vast economic and social differences from the wrong side of the tracks (my neighborhood) and the country club set. I grew up in a meritocracy known as America, where anyone can make it big, but not everyone can or will. That has not changed in the last few decades as people seem to think. We were never an egalitarian society and never will be, but some people long for a a return to a dream world that never existed.
When I pay taxes (and being that my household is in the top 20% bracket for New Mexico, it’s a fair amount) the government isn’t taking my “legitimate property” and giving it to someone else. My tax money goes to pay for the things that benefit me—and all Americans—on a regular basis (roads, clean drinking water, national defense, education, public health, etc.). Sure, a tiny percentage of my tax dollars go to assist others who are not as fortunate as I am—namely the elderly, disabled, and the working poor. As far as I’m concerned, that benefits all of us as well. The more desperate poverty there is in a country, the more crime, unrest, and instability there is. I believe that’s what Oliver Wendell Holmes meant when he said “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.”Like Dr. Swickard I, too, would not trade my non-fame for Tiger Woods’ wealth, although for somewhat different reasons: The more wealth a person has, the more money seems to exert an inordinate amount of power over their life. I don’t aspire to be ‘rich’ and I feel a bit sorry for those who do. Nor do I ‘envy’ the wealthy. However, like many Americans, I am angry at those who attained their wealth by stealing from hard-working people and then allowing their greed and recklessness to trash the global economy. That is not envy. That is a longing to see justice prevail—and that is the sentiment that is behind much of the national dialogue on income inequality.
A recap …
To envy those with more money than you, in the name of fairness (hey, i want their stuff!) is bad.
But to envy those with less money than you, in the name of fairness (hey, I want their marginal tax rate!) is good.
That about right, Michael?
The Bible verse you quote seems to be a tad more general than that. Maybe that’s just me.
•••
Thank you for the CNN link you provided about charitable contributions by Obama, Romney — it’s OK to say that — and Gingrich. Hadn’t seen that.