The Colosseum..Site of Bread and Circuses

On a recent trip to Rome, I visited the Colosseum. Emperor Vespasian began its construction around 70 AD, coincidentally the same year Solomon’s Temple was destroyed by the Romans. What remains of the Roman amphitheater was, in its heyday until the sixth century, capable of seating 50,000 spectators.

It provided entertainment in the form of gladiatorial contests, races, slaughter of Christians, animal hunts, mock naval battles, and a place for the public dole of bread. It was hoped that by appeasing the crowds with bread and circuses, they would not rebel against the emperors.

The images of what went on in this, the largest Roman edifice, can only be in the realm of conjecture today, but the movie “The Gladiator” brought the debauched history of Rome’s central attraction to life again.

Fast forward to 2009. We have many great stadiums in our country for the entertainment of the public with such benign contests as baseball, football, and soccer. And there are the special nights for free baseball hats and other promotional gimmicks. I once went to a Pistons game at the Palace where pizzas were thrown to the crowd. However, the chief entertainment for the evening was when the helium-filled balloons that were released caught fire in the skylights. Anyway…I digress.

There are plenty of opinions around on whether or not rich Americans pay too much, or too little, income tax. But CNN Money’s Jeanne Sahadi talked about the hard numbers April 15th of this year, and wrote:

“The U.S. tax code is progressive, meaning that higher-income tax filers pay more in taxes than those lower down the income scale.”

Morally, I have no problem with a progressive tax. The wealthy should pay more than the poor widow in the Gospel. Offsetting the burden on the wealthy is the fact that their accountants have the knowledge to take advantage of ever tax loop hole available, so the sting isn’t as bad as it seems.

But just how much more should the wealthy pay than those in the middle class?

The highest earners pay the lion’s share of the dollars Uncle Sam collects.

The top fifth of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected, according to the most recent data available from the Congressional Budget Office.

Narrowing in further: The top 1% of households, which made 19% of pre-tax income, paid 39% of all individual income taxes.

The trend is similar if you count income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes and corporate income taxes (such as capital gains) combined. The top fifth of households paid 69% of all federal taxes. The top 1% paid 28%.

Still think the rich should be paying more income tax? What if someone were to argue that low- and middle-income tax filers aren’t paying enough taxes?

From the CNN senior writer:

“A Tax Foundation survey found 56% of Americans think the amount of federal income tax they pay is too high.

“Those most likely to feel that way, according to the survey, include those making between $35,000 and $50,000.”

Once the various tax breaks to which they’re entitled are counted, the burdens of low- and middle-income tax filers as a group has been fairly low.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that for 2009, 43% of tax units (most of which are lower income households that may or may not file a return) will have no income tax liability or will have a negative income tax liability, meaning the government will actually pay them.

Brian Griffiths of the U.K. recently wrote a piece for the London Times on Pope Benedict XVI’s latest encyclical, a 44-page document titled "Caritas in Veritate" or "Charity in Truth." In the Catholic tradition, encyclicals are open letters written by the pope to the bishops of the church, addressing big issues ranging from dangers to the world at large or the souls of church members. Lord Griffiths of Forestfach is a trustee of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Lambeth Trust and Vice-Chairman of Goldman Sachs International.

According to Griffiths, the encyclical suggests six major ways to make global capitalism more human.

First, it calls for “the management of globalization” and a reform of international economic institutions. They are needed “to manage the global economy, to revive economies hit by the crisis, to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis . . . to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration”. Not surprisingly, for this huge task we need “a true world political authority” through reform of the United Nations.

Next, there needs to be greater diversity among the enterprises that create wealth: mutual societies, credit unions and hybrid forms of commercial organization.

Third, globalization has weakened the ability of trade unions to represent the interests of workers, something that needs to be reversed.

Fourth, the scandal of inequality requires countries to increase the proportion of GDP given as foreign aid.

Fifth, because the environment is the gift of the Creator we have an intergenerational responsibility to tackle climate change.

Finally, everyone involved in the market, traders, producers, bankers — even consumers — must be alert to the moral consequences of their actions. “Development is impossible without upright men and women, without financiers and politicians whose consciences are finely attuned to the common good.”

As a theologian, I agree in principle with the encyclical’s main proposals.

However, as a voting citizen of the greatest free market country, I have always had a theory about liberal political parties, here and abroad. A liberal politician, in order to get elected, promises to help those on the bottom of the economic ladder. Fair enough. So, if, as we approach the coming time when half the population will not pay any income tax, but actually gets a low-income subsidy, the trend toward keeping liberals in office may continue because the votes will be there.

On the other hand, conservatives oppose bailouts, higher welfare, and more government. Yet, if those who pay income tax falls below 50% and those who do not surpasses 50%, it doesn’t take a political genius or a theologian to figure out that we are headed for bread and circuses once again.

I don’t think Benedict had this in mind.