bailout had been agreed on, but at what cost to Syriza, and the poorest of the Greek taxpayers and pensioners, as well as national pride in the meaning of democracy?
Even so, summer 2016 saw that bailout demanding the increase of VAT (purchase tax) from 16 to 25 percent on all goods and services, inflicting further damage upon Greek tourist income, precipitating further hardship.
Was it not Aristophanes who had his Athenian hero, Dikaiopolis, say of the conflict with the Spartans: “Greeks will never be free until we sack the clowns who rule us”?31 As the condition of Spartan austerity hurts more Greeks, there is much more to come as increasingly that proud people questions what it means to be ruled from afar. As Joseph Stiglitz, the World Bank’s chief economist, maintained: “Europe’s austerity measures are a suicide pact.”
Taxation
A major part of Greece’s recent problems has been the (political) inability to create and sustain a progressive but uniform taxation across all its people. The lesson for us is in the key question: what kind of society and state intervention do we want?
Religious/church taxes
The Bible is full of encouragement to bring of our best before God. At harvest time we are to “put the first fruits in a basket and go to the altar” (Deut 26:1–10). Yet we are also enjoined by Jesus that if we are at enmity with a sister or brother, we should leave the basket and go and seek reconciliation first. The Hebrew practices of offering animal sacrifices are still part of what we often call “pagan cultures.” It is unsurprising that human nature seeks to get away with the minimum and so there was almost a temple tariff of what needed to be sacrificed to expiate for one’s individual sin. It was graduated or progressive: the poor man might need to sacrifice only two doves while the rich man might need to offer a goat.
Alongside this, the biblical practice of “tithing” occurred. This means giving the first 10 percent of one’s income or harvest to God or his earthly representative! My friend, Stuart Murray, has written a penetrating analysis of this practice, in Beyond Tithing, arguing that although tithing may be biblical, it is not Christian. The promotion of tithing by evangelical Christians must be interrogated, not just on those grounds, but also because it creates a minimalist attitude to Christian generosity. It allows tithers to say “job done” easily—particularly if US tax breaks are involved. This is in marked contrast to the generous lifestyles of my politically radical friends, family, Anabaptist and Mennonite compañeros.
Before the Industrial Revolution, every English parish had its tithe barn so the priest could oversee and collect the due tithes from every parishioner. In Lutheran countries, the tithe was converted into a tax and collected by the state authorities, who passed it on to the church. Gradually Lutheranism has moved from an “opt-out” to an “opt-in” church tax policy, across Germany and Scandinavia, massively reducing denominational income and its stewardship theology built upon tithing.
Learning from “secular” Europe
Late nineteenth-century Germany provided a model of “state socialism,” which found echoes in US “progressivism” and the UK’s “social liberalism.” Chancellor Bismarck’s policies then have evolved into present-day Germany’s welfare state. Benefits apply equally to all German citizens but it is an individual’s contribution and positive taxation history that determines what they receive. Similarly in France, French nationals (or more precisely their employers) pay highly to provide social benefits and high-quality health care to workers and their families, both during employment and in retirement. However the French have “top-up” payments for everything, including doctors’ appointments, health tests, and medication; the French poor can reclaim some or all of those payments through a convoluted bureaucratic process. In other words, benefits are “means-tested” for all citizens but refugees, incomers, etc. in both France and Germany receive fewer automatic benefits.
This is unlike Britain, where the post-1945 Beveridge Report created a nationwide system of non-means-tested benefits, including the National Health Service. That was fine when most health care was palliative, surgery was risky, and life expectancy lower. In today’s UK, the country cannot afford universal health care without making difficult choices:
• What treatments should be freely available to all? E.g., should infertility treatment or cancer care or diabetes clinics take priority? What happens when different regions (therefore zip codes) have different answers?
• Should there be automatic “means-testing” (anathema to UK socialists) of all benefits? The British already pay for much dental and optical care and prescriptions in England.
Those who favor a universal “Obamacare” health provision need to recognize these arguments, as well as the growing US problems associated with diabetes and advancing medical science, when making their long-term policy decisions.
To return to the key question: what kind of society and state intervention do we want? Crudely, the choice lies between a “high taxation-high welfare-free education” society or a “low taxation-low welfare-basic education” package. Scandinavia and the Netherlands favor the former. In Sweden, taxation is progressive, rising quickly to 50 percent. For a single person, with subsidized housing, this level bites at a US$45,000/UK£32,000 salary level. Little is means-tested, except housing subsidy and city taxes. Philosophically, the USA, Canada, Australasia, and Germany have few problems with means-testing, whereas Britain and Scandinavia do.
How we encourage (and vote for) society’s organization not only determines its financing and social polity but often also our thinking about how we share both monetary and community wealth with others than our historic citizens.
Both US Republicans and UK Conservatives would disagree with me but, for the record, I am a “high taxation-high welfare-free education” advocate. But I am also a vocal supporter of the debate that says that every country should have both a minimum and a maximum wage, incurring 95 percent taxation beyond the top hourly level. Elsewhere, I have already detailed my much lower income needs32 but essentially I believe in simplifying our lifestyle and needs sufficiently to thrive on the state-recognized living (minimum) wage while using any surplus for charitable and other pro bono work.
Finally, I want to commend the Irish system that enables artists, musicians, sports stars, actors, etc., who are relatively temporary high earners, to spread their income over several years, paying the appropriate level of tax in each of those years. With a maximum number of applicable years, dependent upon career length, this seems equitable to both the individual and the wider society.
What would Jesus do?
Jesus shared our human nature and well understood the innate desire to get something for nothing that afflicts us all. Indeed, he reminded his closest followers to “render unto Caesar . . .” (i.e., pay the due taxes), he confronted the corrupt tax collector Zacchaeus, inspiring the latter’s reparation, and taught many parables about the value of money. Jesus taught that money, resources, and food are to be shared if God’s intentions are to be fulfilled—and those who follow his words and ways now must share that same intention.
Therefore, I believe that the Western world must increase taxation to provide both overseas aid and interest-free development loans. Failure will bring the alternative that rich nations get richer and the poor countries poorer. The current European migrant crisis is symptomatic of that. Tragically, the guys in my local bar who complain about such migration are not always the first or worst to avoid paying tax. Rich people pay accountants to do that for them.
Serving God and Mammon
Jesus was very clear in declaring the dilemma between the intentions of God’s reign and serving one’s self-interest in pursuit of money: “You cannot serve God and money” (Matt 6:24). Unequivocal! Jesus declared God and money to be two distinct masters, between whom choice has to be made. For the disciple of Jesus, there is no choice but to accept God’s intention, as revealed in the words and ways of Jesus.
For too long, there have been many rich men (and women) metaphorically stuffing camels through the eye of needles to try to prove otherwise (Matt 19:24). But “Go sell all that you have and give it to the poor” (Luke 18:22), “If anyone has