Suggesting voluntary contributions to the Treasury are a
viable alternative to a more equitable tax system reveals an ignorance of the difference
between charity and taxes, between individual and communal action. Charity and
taxation, though both indispensable components of a civilized society,
nonetheless represent very different principles and scales of action. A cynical
conflation of the two does an injustice to them both. Charity is good for the world and good for the soul. It springs from personal conviction and can
achieve great ends, especially from the power of example. But charity by its very nature is
capricious. Certain favored causes gain,
while others equally or more deserving languish. In a democratic republic such as ours, taxation and the
pubic investment it funds represent, however imperfectly, the collective decision
of the populace. As in a family, club or
organization, once a course of action is agreed upon, every member is expected
to contribute to its success according to individual ability, not individual choice.
Moreover, the capacity of the two processes—charity, and
tax-supported public spending—are of entirely different magnitudes. The assets of the world’s largest charity, the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—the entire assets, mind you, not the merely
the annual income they produce—would fund the federal government for a grand total
of three days. Achieving big and
important things requires public investment; the tax system that pays for it is
only stable and reliable if it is fair. Wealthy people who advocate for higher taxes on themselves
and people like them, but abstain from making voluntary contributions to help
retire the federal debt, are being perfectly consistent. Their aim is an
improved system of taxation in which everyone takes an appropriate part, not
haphazard, insufficient acts of charity that fall entirely to the most
generous. It is the critics who know
better but pretend not to understand the difference between taxes and charity
who are the hypocrites. |





