The Taxman Cometh

Well, here's an oddity.

As I was doing research for a class I'm teaching this quarter, I ran across an article on the accumulation of wealth in America.

The sociologist was trying to show that most of the wealth (stocks, land, etc) in the country was held by a very small subpopulation (top 1%). 

Darned Plutocrats!

So, he built the first three columns of the two tables below: Total Net Worth and Financial Wealth.

As I studied the tables, I wondered how the amount of taxes paid by the top 1%, 20% and bottom 80%  corresponded to Total Net Worth and Financial Wealth. So I added the last three columns to each table and did a quick Google to try to find the numbers.

I couldn't find the exact numbers, but I found some approximations.

I plugged the rough numbers into the appropriate slots in the left-most columns of each table.

That's why many of those cells are blank - I couldn't find all the data I wanted.

Now, there's a couple of interesting things here.

One:

The politicians and the pundits on both the left and the right seem to be misrepresenting the situation.

The left insists the rich don't pay enough.

The right insists the rich pay 'way more than their fair share.

But if you look at just these rough numbers, on a per dollar wealth/tax ratio, it looks like the current federal tax code is actually not that far off from essentially fair.

The top 20% own 85% of the wealth and pay about 87% of the taxes.
The bottom 80% own 15% of the wealth and pay about 15% of the taxes.
Yes, I know the percentages don't exactly add up correctly, but I'm working off other people's rounding errors, so we can only do ball-park work here.
But even so, you can't ask for much better than that.

Of course, these numbers only account for federal tax, not state, local or - worst of all - sales tax.

All of that would definitely affect the tables, and probably not in a good way for the poor.

But as far as the federal tax goes, it actually works.
Of course, we're not done yet. 

Two:

At least as far as the federal tax goes, another interesting thing seems to be happening.

It looks like the MORE the rich pay in taxes:

(a) the WEALTHIER the rich get and 

(b) the LESS the lower 80% share in the wealth.

Look at the table below.

In 1983, the top 1% owned roughly 34% of the country's wealth, but paid only 19% of the taxes. 

In that same year, the bottom 80% owned nearly 19% of the country's wealth.

But, by 1989, when the federal taxes paid by the top 1% went up to 25%, the bottom 80% saw their share of the country's wealth drop to just 16.5%. 

Today, the top 1% own nearly 35% of the country's wealth and pay 40% of the taxes.

Meanwhile, although the bottom 80% pay less taxes than they ever have, they also own less of the wealth than they ever have.

Now, call me crazy, but I find that somewhat counter-intuitive.

If you're rich, paying more taxes makes you richer.

If you're poor, paying less taxes makes you poorer.

Now, you could argue that I have it exactly backwards - the rich pay more because they are rich, and the poor pay less because they own less to tax. 

Unfortunately, from the few numbers I've been able to find, that interpretation doesn't really fit.

For the 25 years covered in these tables, the rich have always owned between 33% and 38% of the country, but the actual percentage of taxes they pay has fluctuated anywhere between 19% and 40%.

There's no obvious correlation between the two. A low rate of taxation (the 19% in 1983) yields a wealth ownership for that top 1% that is not much different from a high rate of taxation (the current 40%). 

That is, the percentage of wealth held by the top 1% doesn't really change regardless of how much you tax them. 

Instead, what does change as a function of taxation on the rich is how much wealth the rest of the country has. The more taxes the wealthy pay, the less wealth everyone else has. I don't have all the numbers, but all the numbers I have show that effect.

It's almost like Reagan was right about this whole "trickle-down economics" thing. 

It's also got very obvious repercussions for the political arguments over taxes that currently shake the airwaves.

It makes me yearn for a low rate of taxation on federal income and corporate tax... say something around 9% for each...

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).

Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2007

	Total Net Worth
	Top 1 percent	Next 19 percent	Bottom 80 percent	% Fed Tax Paid by Top 1%	% Fed Tax Paid by Top 25%	% Fed Tax Paid by Bottom 80%
1983	33.8%	47.5%	18.7%	~19%
1989	37.4%	46.2%	16.5%	~25%
1992	37.2%	46.6%	16.2%
1995	38.5%	45.4%	16.1%
1998	38.1%	45.3%	16.6%
2001	33.4%	51.0%	15.6%	~38%	~83%	~20%
2004	34.3%	50.3%	15.3%	~37%	~85%
2007	34.6%	50.5%	15.0%	40.42%	87%	~15%
	Financial Wealth
	Top 1 percent	Next 19 percent	Bottom 80 percent	% Fed Tax Paid by Top 1%	% Fed Tax Paid by Top 25%	% Fed Tax Paid Bottom 80%
1983	42.9%	48.4%	8.7%	~19%
1989	46.9%	46.5%	6.6%	~25%
1992	45.6%	46.7%	7.7%
1995	47.2%	45.9%	7.0%
1998	47.3%	43.6%	9.1%
2001	39.7%	51.5%	8.7%	~38%	~83%	~20%
2004	42.2%	50.3%	7.5%	~37%	~85%
2007	42.7%	50.3%	7.0%	40.42%	87%	~15%

Total assets are defined as the sum of: (1) the gross value of owner-occupied housing; (2) other real estate owned by the household; (3) cash and demand deposits; (4) time and savings deposits, certificates of deposit, and money market accounts; (5) government bonds, corporate bonds, foreign bonds, and other financial securities; (6) the cash surrender value of life insurance plans; (7) the cash surrender value of pension plans, including IRAs, Keogh, and 401(k) plans; (8) corporate stock and mutual funds; (9) net equity in unincorporated businesses; and (10) equity in trust funds. Total liabilities are the sum of: (1) mortgage debt; (2) consumer debt, including auto loans; and (3) other debt. From Wolff (2004, 2007, & 2010).

Send in The Marines

Hey, just call me Cassandra.
Quite a while ago, I predicted that Obama would try to suspend elections.

My prediction hasn't come entirely true.
So far, they're just floating the idea.

In order to actually suspend elections, they would need the military.
Historically, politics has never been something the American military has been interested in.

Changing that attitude would take a couple of decades of constant infiltration.
Besides, it would be kind of gay if the military were to change now.

We should get serious.
This is America.
Really, what are the odds?

Slouching Towards Honesty

Father Pavone is beginning to sound like any of a number of Catholic bloggers who regularly beg for cash to feed themselves, their birds, their neighbor's cats, and what-have-you.

September 27, 2011
(Thank you for your support of Priests for Life. If you already responded to the following appeal online, I appreciate your support. This email is intended for those who did not respond when we sent it previously.) 
Dear Steve and Veronica,
I sent you this urgent email because I have some important issues that concern you, me, our work together at Priests for Life, and the entire pro-life movement here in the United States.
In light of all that’s happened in the past couple weeks – and again, I’ll discuss this with you in just a moment – it is vital that you maintain your unconditional support for Priests for Life and the fight to end legalized abortion-on-demand in America.

Right now that means doing whatever is necessary to click here and send Priests for Life the largest gift you can possibly make today.

Not an hour from now.  Not later this evening.  Not tomorrow.  But right now!

Notice that Father has finally taken the opportunity to clarify his bishop's motivations.

4. While Bishop Zurek wants to clear up any and all misunderstandings, he made it clear that he does not want the work of Priests for Life to be harmed.  

Wow - that was generous of him. 


It only took him to .... what? .... the fourth or fifth appeal for funds before he laid that out?


So, for all of you who are laying malicious allegations at the bishop's door, Father Pavone is saying you should stop. 


According to Father Pavone, his bishop has no ulterior motives, just genuine concern about Father Pavone.


Now, Father Pavone has still NOT explained why anyone should trust him after he:

1. attempted to found a religious order that Rome herself ended up having to suppress,
2. collected money for a seminary he promised to build but never did,
3. collected money for seminarians who came to him to be formed, but with whom he almost never met,
4. collected money in July, August and September for a 501(c)(3) that turns out to have lost it's tax-free status in June.
5. has come up $1.4 million short despite having been given tens of millions by gullible donors.

I'm sure there's an excellent explanation for all that. I'm sure he can explain: 

• where the missing seminary money went, 
• why he let the tax-exempt status lapse, 
• why he didn't tell donors the truth about the seminary funds, 
• or tell his donors the truth about the missing tax-exempt status, 
• or even the truth about his rocky relationship with his own bishop.

And if you pay him enough money, maybe he'll tell you what all those explanations are.


But I doubt it.




UPDATE:
Oh, LOOK!
He's asking for money again today:

September 28, 2011

....As you can see, there is a lot of work for us to do. And it can’t possibly get done without your immediate help today!   So please click here and provide as much financial support to Rachel’s Vineyard as you possibly can. 

His bishop obviously isn't back yet...


UPDATE II:
Oh, LOOK!
He's got his friend (Troy Newman, Operation Rescue) asking for money on his behalf:

September 29, 2011

That said …… I urge you in the strongest way I can to click here and send Priests for Life a much-needed contribution!And please do this RIGHT NOW … before you hit the “delete” button and go on to your next email.

And you know he's serious because the post was titled "It's About the Babies".
It's also about four major appeals for money in less than 2000 words.

Three days, three appeals for cash.

Update III:
Sigh.... At least they took the weekend off...

October 4, 2011That said …… I urge you in the strongest way I can to click here and send Priests for Life a much-needed contribution!And please do this RIGHT NOW … before you hit the “delete” button and go on to your next email.

Comparing Priests

If you want to see another example of the useless dissonance that Father Pavone has caused, one has just come to hand.

Father Pavone is publicly fighting with his bishop over money.

Father Rodriguez is publicly fighting an entire town over sodomy.

But when his bishop punishes Fr. Rodriguez by removing the good priest to the farthest reaches of the diocese, when the parish Fr. Rodriguez administers is essentially shut down for three days (no Masses, no confessions, no substantive responses from the chancery office when parishioners call), when that parish - whose coffers have become full through his orthodoxy, his preaching, his administration of the Extraordinary Form Mass - when all of that is stripped away and he is required to move everything he owns with roughly 24 hours notice, Father Rodriguez responds by saying,

"I was ordained to the Catholic priesthood to offer sacrifice and teach the only truth which brings salvation and happiness. The priesthood is my greatest joy. In the present circumstances, I intend to try even harder to be a good, holy priest. Obedience to my bishop is essential to the priesthood."

Anyone who can look at Fr. Pavone, compare what he's said publicly to Fr. Rodriguez' public statements, and call Fr. Pavone's performance anything other than a disgusting travesty by a showboating, money-grubbing narcissist has me completely at a loss.

Fr. Rodriguez fought over doctrine, not money.
He did not fight his bishop - if he did, we have no public evidence of it.
He stuck to the fight that mattered - the dissemination of bad theology.
Father Rodriguez is a good and holy priest.
Father Pavone is not.

It saddens me to say that the Bishop of El Paso is morally in the wrong on this one.

The bishop has the legal and canonical right to move his priests wherever he wants for any reason he wants, but what he's doing - backing away from a fight through fear of the IRS - is simply wrong.

UPDATE:
Fr. Pavone NEVER disappoints.
He begs for money again today:

September 22, 2011
Dear Steve and Veronica,
Below you’ll find some updates about some of our recent Priests for Life activity. Thank you for being involved.
We are working out all the misunderstandings with my bishop here in Amarillo. As we do so, I’m amazed at how many people think they know more about the situation than I do, and pontificate on blogs and websites all over the place. If anything that anyone says raises questions in your mind, please know that you can get the updates and accurate information at www.priestsforlife.org/update.
I encourage you to get to know the presidential candidates by watching tonight's debate on Fox News at 9 p.m. ET.  We are to be smart, attentive, and informed, and we need to get to know the candidates as far in advance as possible.
We are happy to bring your attention to the fact that next month, our friend and colleague Teresa Tomeo releases her newest book, “Extreme Makeover,” which talks about women transformed by Christ, not conformed to the culture. Our own Executive Director, Janet Morana, is featured in the book. Janet and Teresa co-host the new EWTN series “The Catholic View for Women,” along with Astrid Bennett-Gutierrez, of Hispanics for Life.....

I aslo encourage you to do two things:
a) Keep focused on the work and the projects, such as the developments I mention below and will continue to update you about, and
b) Please increase your donations to Priests for Life so that despite the efforts of our detractors to slow us down, we can speed up instead!
One final word. One commentator was silly enough to state that Priests for Life, as my “baby,” had to be given for adoption or would die. I have news for that person: Priests for Life isn’t a baby anymore; it is an adult, and a highly respected one. People like Alveda King, our fulltime priests, Janet Morana, Marie Smith, Bryan Kemper and others are fully engaged in the leadership of this family of ministries, and are fully accountable to and cooperative with Church authority, not only in individual dioceses but at the level of the Vatican. Moreover, as we recently announced (but some bloggers apparently missed), we have formed an International Private Association of the Faithful in full accordance with Church law.
So thanks for your support. Forward we go, to victory for the unborn!

Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director

Waiting for Pavone

Some of the more unreflective Catholic bloggers on the Internet are calling for Catholics to sit out the fight between the Bishop of Amarillo and Fr. Frank Pavone, the head of Priests for Life.

"I can't choose sides," says the Catholic, "there aren't enough facts for me to decide who is right. I will show how virtuous I am and simply wait for Rome to rule."

This position is absolutely absurd.

Consider:

The bishop of Amarillo has asked all of his brother bishops in the United States to stop their support for Priests for Life until he gets the situation straightened out.

Father Pavone, on the other hand, has sent no less than three (3) mass e-mails blasting out asking... nay, demanding... that we, the lay faithful, give him money and give it RIGHT NOW.

So, if we sit back and "wait for Rome to respond," then we are refusing Father Pavone's three-fold demand.
If, on the other hand, we send money to Father Pavone, we are refusing to accept the bishop's judgement.

Do you hear the rooster crowing?

It doesn't matter that you don't have as much information as you would like to have.

By sitting idle, you have chosen a position.
By doing something, you have chosen a position.

Everyone in this fight has already chosen a position because the principles in this fight have, through their conflicting demands, forced each one of us into one corner or the other.

I'm not even going to ask that you choose.
You already have.


UPDATE:
Catholic Culture appears to agree with me.

SHOCK - Fr. Pavone Asks...

For MORE MONEY!

And it's only Sept 19!
8:58 PM!
(Time stamps seem only appropriate, given how quickly the interval between appeals is shrinking):

September 19, 2011
(Thank you for your support of Priests for Life. If you already responded to the following appeal online, I appreciate your support. This email is intended for those who did not respond when we sent it previously.) 

Dear Steve
I sent you this urgent email because I have some important issues that concern you, me, our work together at Priests for Life, and the entire pro-life movement here in the United States.
In light of all that’s happened in the past couple weeks – and again, I’ll discuss this with you in just a moment – it is vital that you maintain your unconditional support for Priests for Life and the fight to end legalized abortion-on-demand in America. Right now that means doing whatever is necessary to click here and send Priests for Life the largest gift you can possibly make today. Not an hour from now.  Not later this evening.  Not tomorrow.  But right now!
Forgive me for being so blunt, but there’s a reason for it. 

Let's see.... how many direct appeals for cash has Father Pavone and his minions made since Sept 9, when he got reeled back into Amarillo by the bishop for financial improprieties?

We're going to run out of fingers soon...

UPDATE:

Some people have asked how Fr. Pavone's situation differs from that of Fr. Corapi's.

Here's how.

Fr. Corapi was part of a religious community. Religious communities typically encourage all members of the community to pool resources. Indeed, it's not unusual for members to have to ask the head of the order permission even to have pocket money.

In Fr. Corapi's case, he has said (and no one has denied) that, although the rules indicated that all members were to contribute financially to the upkeep of the community, the original interpretation of the rules for his community was that each individual member was to financially support himself and contribute some of what he earned to the general funds. As far as we know, Corapi held to the letter of that law, even if evidence exists that holding to the full spirit of that law was not undertaken.

Now, we don't know exactly how the rule read, nor exactly what the original intrepretation of those rules were. But, when his superiors changed the interpretation, called Fr. Corapi back to live in community and demanded funds from him, they were conceivably acting within their rights, and certainly acting within the historic outlines of what religious communities typically do.

Fr. Pavone, on the other hand, is a diocesan priest. While the pastor of a parish has some freedom on how he spends funds, there are limits on that freedom. He can spend money any way he sees fit, up to a point. Typically, any purchase over a certain size has to be cleared through the chancery office (generally fifty or a hundred thousand - something like that). All books have to be well-kept, and dioceses typically order a full accounting of books every few years. In addition, it's almost always done at the end of a pastor's term in order to keep track of any possible fiscal malfeasance. The only lay advisory council any parish is required to have by canon law is a fiscal council to help oversee the books.

Now, Pavone is not running a parish, he's running a private corporation. Since the corporation was not started by the bishop, the corporation itself is not subject to the bishop's direct fiscal oversight. But, the bishop has not just a right, but a duty to make sure his priests are fiscally responsible. This is not just nosiness, it is a question of scandal on himself as bishop and on the diocese and the priesthood as a whole. Every priest is subject to a bishop somewhere.

Because the bishop has this duty, the bishop has every right to inquire about Fr. Pavone's handling of finances. In point of fact, because Pavone is running a private corporation, Pavone can spend the money any way he wants in any amount he wants and bishop has no legal oversight ability. However, he DOES have moral oversight ability.

If he doesn't like how the money is being spent or accounted for, he is well within his rights to assign to his priest such duties as will make it unlikely or impossible for the priest to continue to run his private little side business. This is especially true given that the diocesan priest's first duty is to do whatever his bishop directs him to do in reference to sacraments, the celebration of Mass and the care of souls within the diocese.

Furthermore, there is a sacramental bond between every bishop and his every priest. The sacrament of Holy Orders binds bishop and priest together in a father-son relationship.

If a 17-year old young man lived at home and owned his own car, but Dad was concerned about his driving, Dad might say to say, "Son, I'm concerned about your driving. Give me your car keys for a week." If the son complied and handed over the set of keys he normally used, but then used his spare set of keys to drive the car on whatever personal errands the son was interested in, Dad would be understandably upset.

Most people would recognize that the son's "obedience" was in word only - he hadn't obeyed the spirit of his father's directives, and so had sinned against the Decalogue. Since Dad didn't own the car, we might argue about what level of legal authority Dad had to ask for the keys, but no one would argue that he has moral authority to oversee his son's actions and a strong duty to act on his concerns. Obviously, the young man's teenage friends (fans) would be enraged by Dad's demands and argue that the son was really a responsible man who had done nothing wrong, but any mature adult would recognize the authority Dad had to make those demands.

Father Pavone has obeyed the letter of the bishop's directives, but that's about it.

Contrast this to Fr. Corapi, who at least had the integrity to say, "Rather than give you the car keys, I'm  moving out on my own."

While the bishop has no legal authority over Pavone, he has moral authority that finds its source in the sacramental bond between bishop and priest. Pavone has a duty of respect to the bishop and a duty of respect to the sacrament whose marks he bears. By re-doubling his appeals for cash, he is flouting that sacrament, both in himself and in his bishop.

Corapi felt he needed to quit in order to continue his form of preaching.
Pavone feels he needs to keep asking for cash in order to continue his form of preaching.
Corapi had the integrity not to pretend to keep his vow - he openly broke with it.
Pavone pretends to keep his vow while actually breaking it.

So, Pavone is a money-grubbing worm in a way that Corapi never was precisely because he is a priest who has a duty to show respect and he's actually flouting that respect.
1) By refusing to provide timely information to the donors from whom he begged of the bishop's concerns,
2) By continuing to beg for cash at least three times in less than a week despite the bishop's well-known and public concern,
Pavone demonstrates his refusal to obey his bishop in more than minor ways.

Yes, he returned to Amarillo diocese, but he's clearly more interested in running his company than in listening to his bishop's concerns. That's a direct violation of the sacramental bond between himself and his bishop.

Now, Catholic apologists who make their living by begging for cash have given kind and gentle interpretations of Fr. Pavone's actions, lest they offend Pavone's large cult-like following and lose their own rice bowl.


But Corapi, perversely, showed more respect for the sacrament than Pavone has.

Corapi formally recognized that he was not being obedient in a way that Pavone has so far refused to acknowledge and in a way that Pavone's supporters have so far refused to admit.

Herpes: The New NFP?

I teach a college class on contemporary ethics, in which we examine different ethical systems and the ways in which they affect decision making.

During the course of one discussion, a class exercise involved the consideration of a man with genital herpes who has not yet told his girlfriend of his affliction. His sister knows about her brother's situation. Since the brother's girlfriend is a friend of hers, she debates whether or not to inform the woman of the problem or whether she should rely on her brother to do so.

As we discussed the problem, it occurred to me that the situation with herpes is in nearly every respect identical to Natural Family Planning and periodic abstinence.

As the State of Illinois says, for instance,

The symptoms of recurrent episodes are usually milder than those of the first episode and typically last about a week. (emphasis added)

Odd... isn't that the amount of time an NFP couple typically abstains?


And what about this?

Avoid sexual contact from the time symptoms are first recognized until the sores are completely healed, that is, until scabs have fallen off and new skin has formed over the site of the lesion...

Not having sex is the best protection against herpes and other STDs. Having sex with only one uninfected partner who has sex with you is also safe. 

That is, couples can have sexual relations for years without one partner transmitting the virus to the other, as long as the couple agrees to abstain from sex during those times when open sores are in evidence. If sex is put off until the sores heal, the virus is much less likely to be transmitted.

As it turns out, condoms prove only about a 30% protection against herpes.


Now, no one thinks that periodic abstinence is outrageous when it comes to herpes transmission.
But lots of people openly scoff at periodic abstinence when baby-making is involved.

It's almost as if they realize there's a major difference between opening a monthly discussion about trying to avoid a disease, versus opening a discussion each month about whether or not to welcome a child into your life.