People are often surprised to hear that The Atheist Missionary is a fiscal conservative. This little story which was sent to me recently nicely sums up why:I recently asked my friend's little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be Prime Minister some day. Both of her parents, Liberals , were standing there, so I asked her, 'If you were Prime Minister what would be the first thing you would do?'
She replied, 'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.'
Her parents beamed.
'Wow...what a worthy goal.' I told her, 'But you don't have to wait until you're Prime Minister to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my driveway, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.'
She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?' I said, 'Welcome to the Conservative Party.'
Her parents still aren't speaking to me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAh, yes, all homeless people are just lazy. They just want to lie around all day, and none of them have any mental disabilities that would prevent them from keeping a job and functioning in society. Certainly none of them are veterans with any afflictions incurred while serving our country. This heartless, stupid mentality is a good example of why Republicans and conservatism are in a death spiral. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
ReplyDeleteBrent, I anticipated a comment like yours. It sounds like you live in the US. I live in Canada where our taxation system creates a disincentive for people like me to earn more money. In Canada, the government already takes more than half of what I earn in direct and indirect taxation. As a result, it is hard to be attracted by parties who would increase my taxes. If the government reduced my taxes, I have more to spend and, ergo, more to spend on charitable causes.
ReplyDeleteCanadians (like Americans) receive an income tax deduction for charitable donations which, for me, worked out to 27% of what I gave last year. So, for example, if I donate $10,000, the government allows me to deduct $2700 from my taxable income. This reduces the amount of tax that I pay (in the highest taxable income bracket) by approximately 50% of the deduction or $1350. My point is simply that Canadian tax rates have reached the point where people like me would rather stay at home and play with their kids (not that that is a bad thing) than work overtime to earn money which they could donate to charitable causes. I’m not complaining – I realize that I am a very fortunate person living in one of the world’s most prosperous democracies. I am a fiscal conservative because I can do more good with my money for those in need than the government can.
If the point you were trying to make was that you think you are overtaxed, I think a different story would relate that better. The story you chose to share instead implies that homeless people could help themselves if they would only work, and says nothing about the role of private charities vs. the government. Your story ignores people who are unable to help themselves (the mentally ill, children, etc.), implying that they are lazy instead, and says nothing about why you think individuals and private organizations could handle that better than tax funded programs.
ReplyDeleteBrent, your point is well taken. I think if you review my posts in their entirety you will see that I am an avid supporter of secular philanthropic efforts.
ReplyDeleteSo, are you going to approach a homeless person and offer him/her the same money for the same work?
ReplyDeleteRosemary, I have never given money to panhandlers. In fact, until I began my atheist mission, I never gave much of anything away to anybody.
ReplyDeleteRecently, I have been giving away a significant percentage of my disposable income to charities that I consider to be worthwhile such as The Smile Train and the Worldwide Fistula Fund.
Everything is relative. $100 donated to a Canadian charity might fill a food bank cart whereas that same amount might save a life if properly targeted by Oxfam International in a third world country. I am inclined to choose the latter as I try to get the most bang more for philanthropic dollar.
I am not a conservative but nor am I a hard liberal either. I don't give money to panhandlers myself, but I do refrain from judging their situation. (Which I don't think you're doing btw.) I just think everyone should be given opportunity and so often the homeless person is just simply not given those chances and so often for what reason...money! You can't earn money if you don't have it. Too often it's a lose lose situation for many folks. That's not to say there aren't lazy people out there. But our system to *help* those who need it seems horribly broken. Thus, I lean toward the more liberal mindset than conservative.
ReplyDeleteThe govt takes far less than 50% of my income, but it's enough to make me an anti-tax liberal. I'd be ok with increasing it to 50% in order to fund Canadian-style government, but using it to blow up little kids in the Mideast, not so much.
ReplyDeleteWhile you may be a fiscal conservative I do not see how that translates to being a supporter of Conservative parties. I have not seen evidence that Conservative parties are especially fiscally conservative, in fact recent history is showing it to be quite the opposite (except for a few token, and purely political tax cuts, like the GST cut).
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I have never seen any evidence that lower taxation rates promotes greater philanthropy across society as a whole. You compare the US and Canada, as examples of more conservative and liberal tax policies, but the social benefits in Canada are far greater than the US. People of lower socio-economic status have a far more difficult life in the US than in Canada. Why hasn't a great wave of charity in the US elevated their status above Canadians. Simple answer, because in general when tax rates are lower people keep the money and spend it on luxeries that they soon consider necessities.
I will not get into the rather obvious arguement that taxation pools large amounts of money, which undoubtably makes social programs more equitable and easier to administer.....
Maybe fiscal conservatives should come up with a two new terms, one to denote fiscal conservatism in regards to the prudent spending of tax dollars, and another to denote cutting taxation and social programs.
Glad to find another fiscally conservative Atheist, I added you to my slowly growing list. Mind you, I am American and a libertarian, but we agree on economics ! Thanx for the post.
ReplyDeleteDo you know other blogging economically conservative atheists -- there has to be a catchier and more playful soundbite than that !
I am away for Gay Patriot, Atheist Conservative, Godless Republican and you.
Whooo Hooo...I am not intellectually able to comment as I have a somewhat parasitic lifestyle in terms of taxation, I live in a municipaly owned building, and the same said organization now pays me a cheque every two weeks, and as a house dad for almost a decade I paid no federal tax, my kids go to a public school that because of the french component might as well be a private school in terms of class size, teacher ratio and per student funding, my wife has a very well paid position in provincially funded health care, but what makes me smile is that at a local level, at least until the next election I get to spend some of AM's hard earned money any way I want as long as I get five out of eight of my "friends" to agree.
ReplyDeletePraise be to God! I love living in Canada.
@Connecting: of course there is a link between fiscal conservatism and Conservative political parties. In Canada, the two other national parties spend money like drunken sailors. Their mantra is essentially that I cannot be trusted with my own money; Big Brother. Let the brain drain continue.
ReplyDeleteCKDC: I could be wrong, but please check the federal budgets over the last 10 years, and tell me which governments have brought about the biggest increases in federal spending. I am pretty sure it is the Conservatives (Canada) and the Republicans (US). I was also suprised with the "their mantra...." comment. You are quoting the simplistic party lines put out by public relations firms. I would hope for a higher level of debate.
ReplyDeleteOn a positive note, I am heartened to see athesiest fiscal conservatives, not for any particular allegiance to either viewpoint, but because it indicats that people are thinking for themselves and not just accepting the core policies of any particular group.
I assure you, Connecting, that I do not concern myself with public relations firms. If you really think that socialists do not believe they can spend my money better than I, then your socialist contacts are very different than mine.
ReplyDeleteYou sound like Paul Martin in his book. He and Chretien constantly tout their own fiscal accomplishments in terms of erasing deficits and curbing the national debt. But spending under the Chretien Liberals had very little to do with those surpluses - record-high revenues were the primary cause. If you want to see spending cuts, look to Harris in Ontario (PC). If you want to see spending glutony of the highest order, look no further than Bob Rae and his socialist regime in Ontario (NDP).
The American experience is also not what you indicate. Take a guess who the President was when American spending increased at a higher percentage than any President since Harry Truman. Reagan? No. Bush senior because of the first Gulf War? No. Bush junior because of two wars? No. It was Jimmy Carter - Democrat. It may become Barrack Obama, another Democrat.
I DO agree that the current Conservatives in Ottawa are trying their hardest to spend like Liberals. Too bad.