Posts Tagged ‘Money and Spirituality’

Money Talks: Sermon from May 30, 2010

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

The Rev. Sarah C. Stewart

Sometimes it seems like it’s hard to see clear examples of classism.  We try to avoid looking at the markers of class, try to pretend that differences in class don’t exist, that while there may be poor people or rich people “out there,” everyone we know is just like us.  But class differences are all around us, and we confront them at a personal level and a societal level all the time.  We confront a diversity of family incomes and personal financial backgrounds in this congregation alone.  Apart from diversity of belief, diversity of class may be the way in which Starr King Fellowship is most diverse, but we may not even be aware of all the differences among us.  Class differences can be covered up and ignored if we wish to.

As you probably know if you have been reading, watching or listening to the news at all lately, New Hampshire’s legislature has been working to close a budget gap of nearly 300 million dollars (Fahey).  Our state makes almost all of its money from a very few sources.  We pay property taxes to the state–all of us, since those of us who rent have landlords who pay property tax, and landlords presumably pass that cost on in rent.  If you’re a business owner, you pay taxes on your real business property as well.  Individuals can be subject to an interest and dividends tax.  There’s a rooms and meals tax, a gasoline tax, and a business income tax.  The current budget is trying to extend the business income tax to limited liability corporations.  The state liquor stores make money off the sale of wine and the exclusive sale of hard liquor.  There are fees on everything–fees for parks, for hunting licenses, for car registration.  We don’t have sales tax or a personal income tax.

Much of the budget gap has been closed with cuts and new revenue sources in the tens of millions.  Services will be cut by thirty-two million dollars.  The state will seek private development of the rest areas off I-93 in Hooksett in order to bring in more revenue.  The government will sell bonds and sell some other pieces of property .  The two biggest items, however, which could have brought in more revenue, are the most controversial: an income tax and expanded gambling (Fahey).

I’m not going to talk about an income tax this morning.  I support a broad-based, progressive, fair tax structure for our state, and I personally would be willing to pay more in taxes in exchange for more services from the government.  But the possibility of a new broad-based tax is far from the legislature’s mind and will right now, in part because they have been seduced by another possibility: expanded gambling.

It took me a while to figure out what I thought about expanded gambling.  Then I had a personal moment where I came face to face with my own classism, and I began to figure it out.  I was stopping in the convenience store at one of the gas stations on Holderness Road, by the entrance to the freeway.  Standing in line to buy my drink, I saw two women come in, talking to each other about what they were making for dinner.  I made two assumptions about them right away, as soon as I saw them and heard their conversation: they were coming from office jobs (judging from their clothes) and they were native New Englanders (judging from their accents).  Then they headed to the lottery ticket side of the counter, and I added one more assumption: unlike me, in my enlightened state, they didn’t understand the futility of the lottery.

Not entirely futile, as it turns out: one of the women had won 40 dollars on a scratch ticket, and had it with her to turn in for her prize.  She didn’t even take the money from the clerk.  She waved him off when he reached to open the cash drawer and used her winnings to buy more lottery tickets instead.  I couldn’t believe it.  Forty dollars!  Once you’ve won forty dollars on the lottery, you should stop playing forever.  It will never get better than that.  I began to think of all the things I could do with forty dollars, paid for my soda, and left the store feeling very self-righteous.

It didn’t take long to deflate that sense of righteous indignation.  I told the story to my husband that night, and I began to think out loud about what I would do if I won forty dollars.  Let’s assume that I don’t need to spend it on necessities like housing or food.  I might buy a book or two.  I might buy a board game.  I might go out to eat.  I might buy yarn for a knitting project.  In other words, I would spend it on entertainment.  I assume the woman in the convenience store didn’t need the forty dollars for necessities, either.  I had already made the assumption that she had a job she was coming home from, and she didn’t hesitate to spend her winnings on more tickets.  So it stands to reason that I should see her lottery purchase in the same way I would see my own purchases: entertainment.  She had forty dollars to spend, and she spent them having a good time.  Who am I to judge what she does with her entertainment dollar?

Now, as entertainment goes, it doesn’t matter to me if one person spends her money on yarn and another spends it on lottery tickets.  Learning this has been part of getting rid of one piece of my class blinkers.  It is easy to deride the choices of different groups simply because they are not the same as our choices.  More lower-income people play the lottery than higher-income people.  This doesn’t mean that I should look down my nose at options other people choose.

That is not to say that there are not problems with gambling.  The kind of gambling New Hampshire already has–a state-run lottery, horse-racing, and bingo–and the type that senators, especially Senator Lou D’Allessandro, are proposing to close the budget gap–video slot machines–are favored by poorer people.  In addition, video slot machines prey especially on lower-income groups.  Video slot machines are more likely than other forms of gambling to promote addiction, and, according to a study on the relationship between demography and gambling addiction, disadvantaged neighborhoods are ten times more likely to experience gambling addiction than wealthy neighborhoods.  In the poorest, most disadvantaged neighborhoods the researchers studied, ten percent of the residents were found to be problem or pathological gamblers, compared with less than one percent in the richest, most advantaged neighborhoods (Welte 418).  This same study found that a person’s chance of being a problem or pathological gambler was more than twice as high if a casino was located within ten miles of his or her home (419).

Still, as a society, we condone making some forms of discretionary behavior available to everyone, even though a minority abuses those behaviors.  Alcohol and cigarettes are legal, for instance–and much like the proposed expanded gambling, the state regulates and benefits from the sale of liquor and wine, and taxes the sale of cigarettes.  Coffee, a substance much more addictive than alcohol (although much less harmful in its addiction), is not only legal–we build temples to it on street corners all over the country.  Non-addictive, but potentially dangerous, activities are also legal: riding motorcycles, using chainsaws, climbing Mount Washington, hunting, eating raw fish, even driving a car.  So it’s clearly not in the state’s interest to ban all potentially addictive or all potentially dangerous behavior.

The difference here is that Senator D’Allessandro and others are proposing to balance the state’s budget on the back of expanded gambling.  Instead of considering a broad-based tax, whether a progressive tax like income tax or a regressive one like sales tax, expanded gambling would create a tax base dependent on compulsive and addictive behavior, used more by poor people than by rich people.  Our state, the place where we all live and contribute to the welfare of the whole, would be saying that it was willing to finance its shortfall on the backs of the poor and the addicted.  This would be in addition to the thirty million dollars in cuts already made to state services, including the Department of Children, Youth and Families and the state child care subsidy.  My yarn and my books–the ways I spend my entertainment dollars–would continue to go untaxed.  As a non-gambler, I would not be asked to make any greater contribution to the state’s welfare than I do now.

Understanding the dangers of expanded gambling asks us to look at class difference clearly and without prejudice.  It is easier than ever for households to acquire the trappings of a middle-class life.  Consumer goods once thought to be luxuries, like DVD players (or even televisions), cable service, and electronic gadgets of all kinds are now easier and easier to purchase.  Ironically, these “luxuries” are priced within reach of people living on a tight budget–or perhaps, are priced within the credit limits of their credit cards.  These consumer goods make poorer people feel like they are part of the next class up, part of the America they see represented in commercials.  They allow many people to “pass” as a member of a higher income bracket than they are.

In the meantime, investments in a secure future and a future for one’s children are increasingly out of reach.  In 1960, minimum wage was one dollar per hour, or two thousand dollars per year (U.S.).  A color TV cost $500, or 3 months’ wages (Genova). In-state tuition at University of Minnesota was $213 per year, or only 1.2 months’ wages (“University”).  (I’m using the University of Minnesota as an example of a state university because their tuition information is available on-line.)

In 2009, minimum wage was $7.25 per hour, or $14,500 per year (U.S.).  A LCD HDTV, a state-of-the-art TV comparable to a color TV in 1960, still costs about $500, or two weeks’ wages. In-state tuition at the University of Minnesota, however, has risen to $10,320 per year,  or two-thirds of a minimum wage worker’s gross annual salary (“University”).

When I preached on class a year and a half ago, I framed this problem in terms of a society that did not reward frugality and good choices.  But now I see our problems go beyond that.  A person used to be able to pay for college with a summer job; now it takes debt and the sacrifice of an entire family for one person to get an education.  Consumer culture is built on the idea that you can get what you want.  Credit is easy and toys are cheap.  Businesses don’t profit if people say to themselves, “Nah, I can’t afford that.”  But our state is not in the business of making a profit.  Our state ought to represent the best interests of the people who live here, rich and poor alike.

We must recognize that whatever a person’s standard of living looks like from the outside, there are real differences of means between the lowest and highest earners in our society.  For high earners, college for one’s children is a foregone conclusion, and gambling is likely to be an occasional entertainment.  For low earners, valuable goods like college may be completely out of reach, and gambling may be seen as a form of investment, however unlikely the payout.  We cannot, as a state, balance our budget on the backs of the least fortunate among us.  Gambling as entertainment is a personal choice.  Gambling as public policy is predatory and unfair.  We owe ourselves better than that.

Please join me in prayer.

Our hearts are charged with the spirit.  We reach out in thought, and love and warmth to those around us, sharing our spirit with others.  Together, we extend the spirit of this community beyond these walls and out into the world.

We ask for the courage to see those struggling in poverty as our kindred, not as a nameless “other,” but as brothers and sisters to our own hearts.  We ask for help with our own financial worries and struggles, that we may be freed from the cycle of want and debt, and that we may find the means to pay for the necessities and investments in our lives.  We ask for a spirit of generosity, that we may give out of our abundance of wealth or spirit to those who have less.  We ask for strength as we continue our various works for justice and equality in our communities.

We ask the leaders of our nation and our state to feel this same compassion when they exercise their power and make choices for us all.  We ask that the fire in our own hearts burn brightly for justice, helping us to do our civic duty.  We ask that they, and we, have strength to remember our sacred calling: to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with the Eternal.

We ask that this community remain united in its zeal for justice beyond the divisions of politics.  Let us work together in common cause for the good of all the people in our community, our country, and our earth.  Many things seek to divide us: politics, class, race and geography.  May we ever seek to overcome these divisions and live as a more complete humanity together.  Amen.

Sources

Fahey, Tom.  “Deadline Approaches for Budget Negotiators.”  Unionleader.com.  26 May 2010.    Accessed 28 May 2010.  http://www.theunionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Deadline+approaches+for+budget+negotiators&articleId=da82e104-8240-48dd-b9ef-1b407ecacb05.

Genova, Tom.  “TV Selling Prices.”  Television History–The First 75 Years.  Accessed 29 May 2010.  http://www.tvhistory.tv/tv-prices.htm.

U. S. Department of Labor.  “Federal Minimum Wage Rates, 1955-2009.”  Infoplease.  Pearson Education.  Accessed 29 May 2010.  http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html.

“University of Minnesota Annual Tuition Rates: 1960-61 to 2009-10: Twin Cities Campus.”  University of Minnesota, Office of Institutional Research.  22 July 2009.  Accessed 29 May 2010.  http://www.irr.umn.edu/tuition/.

Welte, John W., et. al.  “The Relationship of Ecological and Geographic Factors to Gambling Behavior and Pathology.”  Journal of Gambling Studies 20.4 (2004): 405-423.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Giving Gifts: Sermon for December 20, 2009

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

Economics is called the “dismal science,” and while I like economics news, every once in a while it deserves its reputation. I heard on the radio a week or two ago a report on the economy of gift-giving. The economist, Joel Waldfogel, has written a book titled Scroogenomics: Why You Shouldn’t Buy Presents for the Holidays. In his book (and in the interview) he argued that people never value gifts as much as the giver does in paying for them. In fact, there’s a loss of value of about twenty percent in the process of giving a gift. In other words, if I give my husband a twenty dollar book for Christmas (and politely cover up the price on the dust jacket), and then you asked him how much he would pay for that same book, he would, on average, say sixteen dollars. This seems to be true across the board, regardless of the price of the gift. So don’t give gifts, Waldfogel advises. Give cash instead (Waldfogel).

Dismal. It’s the delight of gift-giving reduced to barest economic utility and efficiency. But Waldfogel does have a point. Last year, during the depths of the worst recession in America since the Great Depression, the average American spent $616 on gifts. This was a disaster for the retail sector, because $616 spent per person represented a 3.4 percent decline over 2007. Forecasts are mixed for this year. A Gallup poll found that people plan to spend slightly more this year, $638, on holiday gifts. However, the Conference Board, a non-profit marketplace think-tank, estimates that American households will spend an average of $390 on gifts this year, down from last year’s average of $418 per household (Adams). Any dip in American spending–really, any delay in returning to pre-recession levels of spending–is disastrous for our economy, which is driven by consumerism. The spiritual gifts of this season, like spending time with family, enjoying good food and good songs, and maintaining our families’ financial security, do nothing to keep the engine of the economy moving along. For the marketplace, it’s all about the dollars.

Now, the author Waldfogel probably does not hate the holidays. His economic wake-up is trying to get us Americans to examine the value of all that gift-giving. It runs the economy! It’s part of the season! But it doesn’t make your loved ones as happy as you think it will. If you have turned on your television during the past month, or gone out in public at all, you have been bombarded with marketers trying to get you to buy, buy, buy for the holidays. Some things are not as expensive as you think, according to advertisements for discount retailer Target. Other retailers try to convince us that some things are worth the splurge, like a new car or diamonds. If you believed your television, overspending on gifts is what the holidays are made out of.

Wise families know this is not true. Marketplace, the same radio show where I heard Waldfogel interviewed, has also featured a family who have paid off $100,000 in debt over the past five years. The Hildebrandts have won the Professional Achievement and Counseling Excellence 2009 Graduate of the Year Award for their work in finding financial stability for their family. They had $89,000 in credit card debt and another $17,000 in a car loan. Their debt came from a combination of unnecessary spending and medical bills. To pay it off, Russell Hildebrandt, an industrial chemist, took a second job as a janitor. His wife, Kandy, took on all the management of their home, on a tight budget and with one car for the family of five (Kroll). They continued to give Christmas gifts to their children, although not to each other or other family members. They continued to tithe to their church. Now, the family is debt-free except for a mortgage on their three-bedroom home. They say that they continue to spend less, buy fewer things and buy things used, even at Christmastime. The quick high that spending brings cannot compete with the good feeling of being debt-free. This Christmas, even though they could afford more gifts, Russell says that the thing he looks forward to the most is spending time with his family without being exhausted, a luxury he did not have when he worked two jobs (Hildebrandt). The Hildebrandts have learned that the riches of the season are not found in any store or bought at any price, but are at home, with family and friends.

Still, I can’t help but think with dismay on some of Waldfogel’s holiday economics. He places a value on gifts according to what the giver spent on them, and on what the receiver would spend on the same item with his or her own money. He says studies show that twenty percent of the item’s value is lost between those two figures. He admitted freely on the radio that economics cannot place a value on the simple act of giving and receiving a gift. While I usually have a budget in mind when shopping for holiday presents, money is not primarily what I look for. For me, both as a giver and a receiver, the value of holiday giving is not in the money. How can I find out what a family member would like without asking them directly, to delight them with just the present they want? How can I show my attention and give time to those I love? This year, I’ll give my aunt for Christmas a counted cross-stitch piece I have been working on for her for years. I probably spent sixty dollars on materials five years ago, and will spend perhaps that much again to have it framed. But it is by far the most valuable gift I will give this year, because I have put about a thousand hours of my time into it, and because it is unique and irreplaceable. And I have no worries that my aunt will not like it or will value it less than she should (she chose the pattern, after all, and the gift is not a surprise). The gift is full of my love for her, like all the best gifts. Love has no value in the marketplace, yet has infinite value in our hearts and our homes.

I am also put off by Waldfogel’s suggestion of cash as the ultimate holiday gift. There are times when giving money is the right thing to do–when financial support is the way we want to show our love and attention to members of our families who could use it. The holidays even make that kind of giving easier, since gifts are expected and the recipient has a way of understanding the money as a gift and not as charity. During graduate school, my parents usually gave me a plane ticket to Michigan for Christmas, so that I could spend the holidays with my family. When I received these tickets as a gift, I knew I was also receiving the gift of time to spend with my family and friends.

But however useful money can be as a gift, because of its fixed value between the giver, receiver, and the marketplace, it is not the only thing that shows our love and appreciation and understanding of another person. The delight of gift-giving is to discern what the other person would like, and what we would like to give. Treating the exchange as purely utilitarian misses the spiritual value of giving gifts entirely. Gift-giving at the winter holidays is largely a tradition found in celebrations of the Winter Solstice. The Romans celebrated Saturnalia from December 17 through 24, a festival including the giving of gifts. In Judaism, even before the minor holiday of Chanukah had become, by necessity, a rival to Christmas, parents gave children gelt, or chocolate candy, to use in playing dreidl. According to the Christian myth, the wise men brought gifts to the infant Jesus, although this story almost certainly already reflects borrowing from pagan traditions. We have been giving and receiving gifts at the winter solstice for millennia.

We are accustomed to think of generosity as a virtue. I think of the children’s song, “Love is something if you give it away, give it away, give it away, then you’ll end up having more.” Giving moves money and resources from people who have more than they need to people who do not have enough. Nothing makes us feel good like giving does. The Hildebrandts continued to tithe, or give ten percent of their income, to their church while they paid off their debt. To some, that may look foolish, but there must have been a reason for that generosity. I imagine their church supported them and their family during the hard times. Their church may have been a place where they were accepted for who they were, regardless of their financial means. I also imagine that giving helped the Hildebrandts feel good about themselves while they endured the shame of past mistakes and the burden of doing without. I think that the joy we get from giving to others is what keeps the cycle of holiday gift-giving going. It’s that joy the retailers are trying to latch on to when they encourage us to spend more and buy more gifts. Too bad the joy comes from the act of giving, whether it is a child’s handmade card or a pair of knitted mittens. It does not come from spending more.

Yet there is a companion to the virtue of generosity, and it is the virtue of gracious acceptance. It’s telling that we use the word “graciously” to describe the ideal way to receive a present, when “grace” means “gift.” By accepting gifts with grace, we are indeed giving a gift back to the giver. A society can’t have gift-giving without gift-acceptance, as well. This is part of what we teach our children about good manners. The right response to receiving a gift isn’t, “Oh, you shouldn’t have,” but, “Thank you.” Instead of saying, “Please don’t get me anything. There’s nothing I need,” receiving gifts reminds us that there is always something we need, even if it’s not a thing. Receiving gifts reminds us that we are all, at different times, in need of something that someone we love could give us. None of us is so self-sufficient as not to need any gifts at all. By receiving gifts with grace, we affirm those good feelings the other person has for doing something for us. We show our basic humanity and neediness. We become vulnerable–and human–and connect with the person giving us the gift in the best way.

Giving and receiving gifts at its best is not about status, or wealth, or bargains. It is about showing our love for each other and reaffirming our basic, shared humanity. I am all for reducing the presence of the marketplace in holidays that are fundamentally about family and faith. But I don’t think it’s helpful, either, to try to take the exchange of gifts out of the holidays. Gifts do not need to be expensive, or even purchased, to be meaningful. The best thing about giving a present is thinking of the other person, and the best thing about receiving one is knowing the other person thought about you. A year ago, it looked like we were in danger of the collapse of our system of credit and banking. Even if our economy had come to a halt, families and friends would still have shared the joy of gifts at the holidays.

Please join me in prayer.

Spirit of the waiting dark–the dark that cradles the unborn child, the spark of winter’s chill, the dark against which our candles burn–hold us in your comforting embrace. Remind us of the joys of your season: the giving of gifts to show our love, the lighting of candles in our windows and on our tables, the meal, however modest, which can always be shared with one more. Give us your blessings for the new year which is to come. At this moment of solstice, let us pause before we turn back towards the light, and revel in the mysteries of winter. Amen.

    Sources

Adams, Katie. “Christmas 2009 Vs. 2008: What Can We Expect?” Financial Edge. 1 Dec. 2009. Investopedia.com. Accessed 19 Dec. 2009.

Hildebrandt, Kandy and Russell Hildebrandt. “Celebrating Christmas Debt Free.” Interview. By Tess Vigeland. Marketplace. APM. W217BH, Plymouth, New Hamp. 18 Dec. 2009.

Kroll, Karen. “The Biggest Losers (of Debt): How a Family Shed $106,000 in Debt.” Financially Fit: A Guide to Saving Smart and Living Well. 18 Sep. 2009. Yahoo! Finance. Accessed 19 Dec. 2009.

Waldfogel, Joel. “Rethinking the Idea of Gift-Giving.” Interview. By Kai Ryssdal. Marketplace. APM. W217BH, Plymouth, New Hamp. 24 Nov. 2009.

Tags: ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off