This morning, at 9:00 a.m. sharp, I took my tax payment to
the local post office. When I
handed it to the clerk, she said, “I hate tax day.” I replied, “Not me.
I don’t love parting with the money, but I kinda like it. That check is a bargain–roads, schools,
medical care, social security, and the freedom of living in the greatest
country in the world. It is
patriotism by checkbook. Why
should I hate it?” She replied,
“Why, I’ve never heard anybody say that!
It isn’t such a bad deal when you put it that way.”
No, taxes aren’t such a bad deal. Nor are they, as might be heard today at the ersatz “tea
parties” around the country, at odds with Christianity. Indeed, tax day is a day that
progressives should celebrate–as we participate in one of the greatest social
reforms of the twentieth century:
the progressive income tax.
Writing in 1916, Professor Vida Scudder, a social gospel
theologian (respected in her day and now largely forgotten) argued that:
The hour has come for Christian thought to give
definite sanction to the new social ethic that has been developing for the last
half century. The check by common will on private greed, the care for public
health, the protection of childhood and manhood, the securing of fair leisure
from the monotonies of modern labor, form a program hardly to be called radical
any longer.
Part of the new social ethic was the idea of a
progressive income tax, whereby the richer members of society would pay a
greater share to care for those of lesser means. The progressive income tax was passed in 1913, but many
Christians grossed about it–a bit like today’s conservative Christians holding
“tea parties.”
Thus, progressive theologians developed a Christian
argument for taxation. They believed
that a progressive tax would increase the overall morality of society. For example, Professor Scudder pointed out that “the Church, like her Master, is
in a way more concerned over the spiritual state of the prosperous than over
that of the poor” because the rich “countenance unbrotherly things.” In other words, the rich were not
likely to practice Christian holiness.
“It may be good for the soul of Patrick to subsist on a starvation
wage,” she says of a hypothetical worker, “but it is very bad for the soul of
Henry the mill-owner to pay him that wage.” Thus, the
spiritual scales needed to somehow be equalized–by Henry surrendering some
portion of his wealth in order to better the lot of his brothers and
sisters. “It is spiritual suicide
for the possessors of privileges to rest,” Scudder argued, “until such
privileges become the common lot. This truth is what the Church should hold
relentlessly before men’s eyes; it is what makes indifference to social
readjustments impossible to her shepherding love.” A progressive tax was an expression of Christian love.
Scudder pointed
out that the income tax “does not attack private property, but merely limits it
at a point far above what most people reach, and no Christian mind would surely
stoop to the meanness of claiming that it would unduly lessen incentive. It
would deliver many men from fearful temptations,–a result for which we are
told to pray.” And she went on to
remind readers that, “Incidentally, non-Christian moralists are pleading for
self-limitation in wealth as the next step in the higher ethics.”
The force of
Scudder’s pro-tax argument was based in Jesus’ own teaching: “Now in view of Christ’s persistent
feeling that it is dangerous to be rich–a feeling that no subtle exegesis has
ever succeeded in explaining away–one might have expected to see His
disciples, His Church, eagerly welcome the plan and press it with enthusiasm.” That, Scudder lamented, was not always the
case. Although many progressive
Christians understood the spiritual dimensions of taxation, other church people
lagged behind. “Again,” she
insisted, “no Christian can remain indifferent or non-partisan toward movements
for the protection of the weak.” The church should–and must–be on the frontlines of social justice.
Sure, the progressive
tax system hasn’t always delivered on its promises of social equity, people lie
and cheat, and the tax codes need to be reformed. But I left the post office in a celebratory mood, went to
Starbucks, and ordered a cup of tea.
I raised my Earl Grey in salute to Vida Scudder and Uncle Sam. Happy Progressive Income Tax Day!



posted April 15, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Amen! A far cry for the responses I received from the article I posted off Tom Paine about who is actually behind the 2009 Tea party. Thank you, Diana.
posted April 16, 2009 at 10:06 am
I love this post. My grandfather always said it was an honor to be able to pay taxes. I send my kids to private school and when I hear people complain about having to pay for school taxes too I usually reply that it’s not just my kids that I care about, it’s the whole community. I’m happy to help send others to school if these are our future leaders. It’s about building a commuity and everyone pitches in!
posted April 16, 2009 at 9:21 pm
What a beautiful way to look at paying taxes! I’ll remember this every quarter when I send in my payments.
posted April 17, 2009 at 3:42 am
I find the reasoning presented in this post quite ridiculous. According to Ms. Bass it is “patriotism by checkbook” to pay her progressive income tax. To her I ask, if it is so patriotic, why not pay more than required??… the government would gladly accept your donation!!
Perhaps she shares Prof. Scudder’s concern for the “soul” of the “rich?” If so, why remove all virtue in the potential donation of money, by instead taking it from the “rich” by force of government? Is it somehow good for the soul of the “rich” to simply to be made poorer, no matter how it is accomplished?
Similarly, if the monies are to be used for the redistribution of income and not just for the general welfare, as is often the case nowadays, how is that good for the recipient? Under those circumstances the recipient is acquiring wealth through not through hard work, and not by the kindness of others, but through a collective force exercised through government on their behalf… a method, whereby if they acted alone, they would be called thieves and hauled off to jail.
Finally, how is it good for the “soul” of anyone to take from one group by force and give it to another by force? Especially if they had not first sacrificed all they could.
posted April 17, 2009 at 7:06 am
The reforms of collective support for public education, old age pensions, public health, unemployment insurance, etc., were the achievements of progressive Christians over the past 150 years. These people wished that everyone in their nation should have the kind of care they would wish for their own families. Of course we’ve always had critics, who say these care structures only subsidize losers who deserve nothing. And these defenders of self-interest over compassion commonly call themselves the real Christians.
posted April 7, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Unfortunately, the goodwill about paying taxes that the author tries to get across disappears for me pretty quickly when I think about WHO is collecting the the $$$ and HOW they will spend it. If you really think that the Republicans and Democrats in Washington are going to be good stewards of your tax dollars, then you are naive to the extreme. They will squander your hard-earned money on buying votes, kickbacks, and pointless projects that all amount to one thing – keeping themselves in power.
Let’s face it, the IRS basically has us all at the point of a gun and you want to sit their in a Starbucks taoasting them with overpriced coffee? PLLLUUUUUZZZEEE!