Legal Tax Ethics - Meal Deductions

Here's an interesting legal tax question to ponder:

Typically businesses can deduct costs of running a business from their gross income. This includes situations where business personnel take clients or potential buyers out to lunch or dinner.*

In 1986, with the advent of the current tax system, the rule was changed to allow deductions of only 50% of the cost of food and beverages. Why?

Allowing tax deductions essentially subsidizes business costs, which makes sense so that gross income is equivalent to normal wages. However, allowing (more often than not wealthy) folks to spend time in nice restaurants and then deduct the total from the company's gross income was considered unfair since normal personnel had to bring in lunch or go to cafeterias/vending machines. Thus the 50% limit was to prevent a social inequality among workers and still allow a reasonable deduction schematic.

My question is, for a Christian ethical system, is it right to deduct the 50%? I suppose this addresses more than this narrow tax question.
------
Source: [*] Internal Revenue Code Section 274(n)(1).

CNN Analyzes Religion

I don't have much time today for a new post, but I highly recommend First Things' interesting blog entry about CNN's new series on religion.
--------
Source: First Things [Nathaniel Peters]

Electoral College: A Keeper?

I have always been partial to the electoral college--the system we use in this country for presidential elections. A National Review Online article* by Matthew J. Franck* describes California's wish to revamp their individual electoral vote process. Instead of the vote winner receiving the entire state, they would only receive the electoral votes for each district.

It seems to me this is a slippery slope trend towards a populist outcome, which doesn't really affirm state rights as much as the present system does. Perhaps I am wrong, and a political guru out there can explain otherwise, but it seems to me that if California sets forth this transition, then there is nothing stopping New York or Texas, leaving an all-or-nothing run by the states to join suit. What would stop the exodus from the college?

----------

Source: [*] National Review Online [Matthew J. Franck].

Professional Responsibility: Series Goal

It has been several days since the last update, and a new year in law school begins.

For starters, my earlier postings on Law & Christianity should give a good refresher for this series: my goal is to determine how Christian ethics can be implemented into the legal practice. Of course, ethics is a broad term: it encompasses the range of morality types. My hypothesis is that while a number of ethics systems will serve the public good, the Christian set is one of the best.

Of course, this blanket statement will bring the ilk of many who might believe that Christian ethics are too strong and divisive for society. Yet my goal will be to provide some weekly updates on how professional responsibility is taught, and then apply some basic Christian principles to compare.

My guess is many will match up, though the stringent level of the match may vary.

As an aside, this series would function much better as a stepping-off point for discussion--to this extent, I humbly request all viewers (or readers, as it were) to offer their thoughts on my analysis, or provide commentary regardless of your theological knowledge or basis. I think we could get an interesting dialogue if people across the faith board weigh in.

A New Day

Today I will be starting a new year at law school--I will be sure to give regular updates on the Law & Christianity series!

Ad Hominem Arguments Revisited

You might recall my earlier post regarding ad hominem arguments. I made the point that "[t]he 'chickenhawk' style of argument is merely a superficial trap to bait targeted individuals into giving equally superficial answers."

Over at DailyKos we're unfortunately seeing the same thing again, with the same results. We've seen it before. Typical scenario: a few young war-proponents give apparently superficial excuses for not enlisting, opposition ensues. Of course, it is extremely easy to discredit someone in the public's emotional opinion by having them give a "lame excuse." The only difficulty here is for the discredited to try and remain credible in the public's opinion (not that such an effort is always noble, I concede).

But is it really logical to make this leap: the hesitation that young war-supporters have morally--or even logically--demonstrates the war's lack of foundation. Perhaps, if one's basis is moral relativism. Simply put: the debate doesn't even consider natural or absolute truths, only the relative authority of people to hold their own opinions. Sadly, it seems the only consistency in that argument is an adherence to moral relativism.

The Weekend Five Ruminations - 8/18/07

Author's note: since this blog is currently updated only weekdays, I thought I would start a perpetual weekend post series as well, designed to give a glimpse of my thoughts on five (sometimes random) topics.

[1] It seems Hamas is continuing a show designed to instill martydom wishes amongst Palestine's youth. While this deplorable story speaks for itself, this quote tells the show's previous incarnation best: "'Tomorrow's Pioneers,' a weekly, hour-long Hamas television children's show [is] best known for bringing the world a militant Mickey Mouse look-alike and then having him killed off by an Israeli interrogator." Source: Foxnews/Associated Press.

[2] On a positive note, I will take an opportunity to give an unsolicited plug to LiftKids, an organization dedicated to bringing disadvantaged communities educational systems. They are pursuing some pretty amazing ambitions, and we will keep their efforts in our prayers. Source: LiftKids.

[3] The current Chinese toy recall is a reminder that despite our advances domestically in safety, there is always room for improvement, and we must be vigilant with imports from countries lacking similar regulations and standards. Here is little guide for parents regarding the recall. Source: Time Magazine [Katie Rooney/M.J. Stephey].

[4] An excellent article by Thomas Sowell on NRO discusses the ramifications of improving our nation's infrastructure by raising taxes. In economics, it is well known there are points on the scale whereby increasing taxes can actually decrease tax revenue for a variety of reasons. Source: National Review Online [Thomas Sowell].

[5] To close out this weekend, while Barroco Cervantes is a start-up blog intended mainly to aid Christians in applying faith into day-to-day activities and current events, we realize there is potentially a broader audience. There are those who may not share the faith; those who are seeking it, or those who may not even have considered it. Our prayers always are with all of you, no matter who you are, so that God will open all of our hearts and comfort those who suffer, and that all of us will come to know Christ more--no matter our background.

Building Past Excess

Everyday we hear of bigger and grander buildings. We are well versed with mansions rivaling major universities in space and Versailles in extravagance.

Case in point, BusinessWeek has an article* on these behemoth estates (with slide show for the unbelieving). Groundbreaking is the roughly 60-story building to be constructed in downtown Mumbai; built to house India's richest man, his family, and (of course) the-better-half-of-a-thousand servants.

Most of us are, unfortunately, desensitized to the wealthy: we expect commerce's multi-billionaires to inhabit obscenely immense properties. But usually they reside in suburban upstate New York, a quaint bay in Northwest Washington, or yes, even a downtown metropolis. But near sacred land? While we can be sure that rental rates near the Vatican are high, we are nonetheless still sensitive enough to be shocked if another building overshadows St. Peter's square.

Michael Linton notes in his First Things** blog entry, "there are those trinket shops next to almost every Christian sacred site, but I think that a lot of Christians view them as embarrassments." We can likely claim this with a degree of certainty for St. Peter's, or the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, or Mecca.

Well, actually perhaps not Mecca. An enormous mall and luxury living compound is under construction adjacent to the holy mosque--or over and above, depending which cardinal direction you're facing (we can assume to the chagrin of many Muslims, to be fair). To truly comprehend this, one must read Linton's blog entry (with many links to pictures and articles concerning the complex).

As Linton notes: "My guess is that the memory of the story of the Lord whipping the temple money changers makes us edgy about linking religion too closely with commerce."

It should.
-------
Sources: [*] BusinessWeek [Maya Roney]. [**] First Things: On the Square [Michael Linton].

Educational "Tolerance"

National Review Online (which, by the way, is an excellent and highly respectable website) has an article* today on the concept of tolerance and its boundaries as a peacemaker. I can't possible summarize the article and then keep this post short, so I simply submit that it really deserves a look. I do offer this quote from the article:

"Tolerance is a cardinal virtue when it entails parties disagreeing over questions of beliefs, values, and culture, but respecting the rights of their opponents to live and politic within the confines of the American constitutional order. However, in today’s colleges and universities, tolerance has too often evolved into a watery, uncritical acceptance of illiberal behavior." (emphasis supplied).
------
Source: National Review Online [Frederick M. Hess].

Anger in Atheism

I realize this will be my second post on atheism today, but here goes. I do enjoy keeping up on current events, which leads me to read diverse opinions. This in turn leads me to sites such as DailyKos, which perhaps best (or worst it seems, in some cases) represents the far left's blogosphere. Anyways, there are often angry posts on this site and unfortunately many delve into emotional anti-religious tirades, usually accompanied by even more vitriolic comments and superficial debates.

To tie in with the earlier post, I suppose my question is why such anger is often directed at religion itself. Maybe it is noble to try and minimize events that cause people to react with anger at Christianity, but at the same point, one can't make the goal of pleasing everyone. After all, our ultimate mission isn't to uphold some relative secular sense of "anger" but instead to glorify God.

Interesting First Things Link on Atheism

As is increasingly apparent, I am becoming quite attached to the excellent blog on First Things' website (this blog has a newsfeed from First Things below right). Along these lines, I also would like to encourage you all to read this journal, there are always extremely insightful commentaries and articles.

I highly recommend this very intriguing post on atheism,* which--among other items--contains this story from physicist Steve Barr**:

"... a lecture Daniel Dennett gave last year at the University of Delaware, in which he claimed that Darwin had shredded the credibility of religion and was, indeed, the very “destroyer” of God. In the question session, a philosophy professor named Jeff Jordan suggested to Dennett: "If Darwinism is inherently atheistic, as you say, then obviously it can’t be taught in public schools.”

“And why is that?” inquired Dennett, incredulous.

“Because,” said Jordan, “the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution guarantees government neutrality between religion and irreligion.”

Dennett, looking as if he’d been sucker-punched, leaned back against the wall and said, after a few moments of silence, “clever.” After another silence, he came up with a reply: He had not meant to say that evolution logically entails atheism, merely that it undercuts religion."
--------
Sources: [*] & [**] First Things: On the Square [Joseph Bottum/Steve Barr].

Ad Hominem Arguments: "Chickenhawk"

It is crucial that one practices what he preaches: it is a Christian duty to live like Christ and pursue his message. Yet ad hominem arguments are levied too often in today's controversial issues. Too often it seems that pointed-out hypocrisy is then spun to abrogate the message itself: if someone doesn't fulfill their duty then the entire system they adhere to could subjected to ridicule.

Aside from the morality of war (worthy of posts or a series itself!), let's analyze a common "anti/pro-war" dialogue. I have witnessed many labelings of "chickenhawks"--those who support a war effort, but then not sign up for duty. It used to refer to the Vietnam era, where many sought to avoid the draft in various ways. Today it adapted to a non-conscription society and applies to those who support the war but do not voluntarily sign up for it.

Many correctly see this as superficial logic at best. Extending this argument to other facets shows that moral authority does not necessarily rest on intimate knowledge or experience. If this were the case, then people couldn't--or morally shouldn't--opine on our complex tax systems without obtaining economic degrees or CPA licenses. Likewise people couldn't demand more police or fire brigades without signing up to enter the dangerous situations inherent in them. Even if this argument at best stretches the analogy--the point is clear.

While there are some opinions that are morally questionable or even reprehensible, it does not always follow that the moral answer is to act upon the opinion to be qualified to hold it. If an anti-war individual brands someone a hypocrite for not fighting in a "immoral war", is the hypocrite thus redeemed by fighting the immoral war? Few would fail to see past this catch-22. Some might take my point and argue they are demonstrating the immorality of war. Point taken, but I would counter that there are better ways to go about it.

Nonetheless, ad hominem arguments lend themselves to claiming a type of superficial moral authority. Mind you, not by the morality of the cause itself, but by some personal connection to the cause. Claiming moral authority--as opposed to mere opinion-- only by means of experience and knowledge necessarily forebades or stifles opinions held by those outside of this grouping. The "chickenhawk" style of argument is merely a superficial trap to bait targeted individuals into giving equally superficial answers. Yet it trumps nothing about the opinion, just the person. And that keeps the debate at square-one.

Anti-war activism should legitimately attack the war, not simply its adherents. Likewise, those pointing out hypocrisy likewise must be capable of distinguishing the falliable individual and the message.

Credit Crunch Crisis

By now most have heard of the mortgage failures rippling throughout housing markets, with both domestic and worldwide effects.

One can argue that it is the duty of the homeowner to ensure a logical and reasonable mortgage when purchasing real estate. Many live beyond their means, or choose adjustable rate mortgages which often become dangerous in times of rising interest rates. "Too much house" can be tempting for those starting out, likewise for those who have worked for a long time to save up for a down payment.

However credit companies have themselves to blame as well, issuing too much credit to large segments of populations that may not be able to weather tougher economic labor or market periods. Some companies have fallen to the foreclosure explosion, thus filing for bankruptcy.

Companies and consumers alike must choose for themselves the smartest and most reasonable path in terms of issuing/obtaining credit, not only for their own lives but also for the security of our economy in general. Central to this would be scaling back on extravagant lifestyles via a refocusing of morals, but also smarter housing programs to ensure that the credit pinch does not keep those worthy of receiving credit from obtaining their own homes. Central banks can bail out the markets in the short term, but our society must rethink its position on real estate as investment and status tools.

The New Dual Atheism

There is an excellent post on First Things’ blog* (see also “First Things: On the Square” feed lower right) concerning the “modern” atheism. Joseph Bottum relays an excellent series of quotes in his entry from Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield's recent Weekly Standard** article:

“Mansfield notes: ‘Atheism isn’t what it was in the eighteenth century ... the focus of the attack is not the Church, which is no longer dominant, but religion itself. [Historically] atheism uncovered tyranny behind the mask of religion, but it was content to point out the power of injustice.... Today’s atheism rejects this serene attitude and goes on the attack....

[Yet it] is not religion that makes men fanatics; it is the power of the human desire for justice, so often partisan and perverted.... In the contest between religion and atheism, the strength of religion is to recognize two apparently contrary forces in the human soul: the power of injustice and the power, nonetheless, of our desire for justice. The stubborn existence of injustice reminds us that man is not God, while the demand for justice reminds us that we wish for the divine. Religion tries to join these two forces together.

The weakness of atheism, however, is to take account of only one of them, the fact of injustice in the case of Epicurean atheism or the desire for justice in our Enlightenment atheism.’”

Bottum succinctly summarizes Mansfield's thoughts with this conclusion:

“It’s a nice point: the two styles of atheism—the angry and the wry—like half-religions on either side of religion. Each getting only part of the human problem, each convinced in its partiality that it sees beyond religion.”
--------
Sources: [*] First Things: On the Square [Joseph Bottum]. [**] Weekly Standard (by way of First Things) [Harvey Mansfield].

School for Money

Here is a poster story of incentives (courtesy of KVOA News)*:

"More than 20,000 Arizona teens dropped out of the class of 2006. To fight the problem, 75 students from low income families at Amphi High and 100 from Rincon high were picked for the new program. The students will get $25 a week as an incentive to stay in school. A local nonprofit will pay for the project."

Is monetizing a reward for attending mandatory school the best--or even good--answer? While it may be rewarding to the number of students in the program, it does not serve as any sort of long-term educational system fix. One can't really blame local officials, given their limited arsenal of tools. Even so, throwing money at a problem will--at best--keep something temporarily static.

Stepping back, we can see a bigger picture. Take a look at these statistics:

[1] Spending - when one converts international education expenditures into equivalent units, U.S. "education expenditures as a percentage of GDP" for primary schooling in 2000 was 3.9%. Germany: 3.4%. Japan: 3%. France 4.3%.**

[2] Results - "U.S. 9 and 13-year-olds performed at a level higher than most of their peers in other countries in reading, roughly the same in science, and lower in mathematics."***

Even if this point on spending and results is at all misguided because spending in this country tends to support administrative ends and not necessarily teachers and materials, then perhaps the over-arching lesson to be learned is that we must necessarily adapt the school system instead of simply attempting to increase funding. More studies need to be done to determine if current changes such as charter schools or other programs have merit.
--------
Sources: [*] WorldNow & KVOA [Ed Tribble]. [**] & [***] United States Department of Education - Institute of Education Sciences.

Honesty and the Profession: Part I

When people speak of the legal profession, off-color yarns will sometimes be spun. Notwithstanding the tiresome "note-worthy" cases in the media or the oft-popular neighborly anecdotes, it can be said with some degree of certainty that lawyers as a whole tend to follow ethical standards as a rule rather than the exception. Nonetheless, in Minnesota roughly 1,100 complaints* were filed annually from 2001 to 2005 concerning legal or ethical malpractice/misfeasance. To put this in perspective, in 2006 Minnesota retained roughly 21,100 attorneys in the state bar.** The ratio--or probability (for those concerned)--of lawyers having complaints filed against them speaks for itself and merits no additional discussion.

In light of this data, what should legal professionals do to minimize the risk of having their actions audited? What should lawyers hold as their model of conduct?

All states have their own codes of professional conduct in some form or another. Yet this raises an interesting question: what does one do when personal morals/beliefs are not always in line with the code? Of course, one can always set his or her personal bar higher than the legal standard. There should be no problem with actions under that regime so long as convictions are made clear at the beginning to potential clients or employers. Yet given our society today, professionals may find that a higher bar can lead to diminished business--not all potential cases can fit neatly into one's comfort zone of "ethical" practice. From this we must analyze the troubling notion of what "ethics" even means in an increasingly relativistic and pluralistic world.

This leads me to the question that will dominate this and later post series: what can a Christian lawyer do to ensure that they not only uphold the law and "ethical" code of their state, but more importantly that they also serve for God's glory?

A seemingly simple question at the outset, but one I imagine must be fraught with difficult questions and periods of reflection when encountered practically. Throughout this series I will provide some of my viewpoints as I learn more.
----------
Sources: [*] Annual Report of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board June 2006 (Table II). [**] American Bar Association.

Plastic Tithing: Adaptations of the Church

Time Magazine has an interesting article today on the increasing prevalence of ATMs in churches, allowing their non-cash-carrying congregations to offer from credit or debit cards:

"[I]n 2007, the IRS will demand documentation for charitable contributions under $250. Once, all one needed was a diary entry to vouch for such donations.... [A]s a result of the new IRS rule, credit card donations and tithing are likely to increase too because such electronic fund transfers leave a paper trail.

The ... kiosks were [created by] Dr. Marty Baker, pastor of Stevens Creek Community Church in Augusta, Georgia.... [He notes] that total income from contributions has increased 18% since the first kiosk was installed in 2005. Coins and paper money now account for less than 5% of that total."

It is--on one hand--reassuring that the church is moving to adapt to the modern macro-economic financial situation. Aside from this, questions remain: will this inspire Christians to give back to God and their community, or will a church kiosk only bring further cynicism by outsiders and parishioners alike towards the the concept of tithing?

While it is one of our most important duties to offer our given blessings back to God, the process really is two-fold. Historically, the church was the bulwark of community support--government has replaced much of this foundation. Perhaps due to an increasingly secularized world or simply the governmental intervention precedent set with the New Deal, the fact remains that the church has been supplanted.

Unfortunately for many, the idea of the church having a real hand in community affairs frightens many; it invokes the memories of church power after Roman decline (cemented until early modern society). Even more unfortunate is that we often forget that some decades ago the church in the USA usually was the epitome of community support.

Nonetheless, in order for the church to adapt, there must be re-focusing throughout, not simply on monetary intake methods. Not only could--or should--tithing meet the financial methods of today's society, but there must also be a renewed promotion of the church's given role via outreach/serving/evangelizing efforts. While tithing ease-of-use technology may bring about additional resources, the true proverbial fishing lesson will be taught in the outreach effort itself.

---------
Source: Time Magazine [Rita Healy/Denver]

The blog has returned.

This blog has undergone some renovation and reworking. Gone are the days of the obscure and unclarified line rantings. In its place I hope will be somewhat frequent updates on my thoughts on various topics--under the patronage and influence of my Christian faith. Let me know what you think by leaving your (polite) comments and criticisms.

Disclaimer

This blog ("Barroco Cervantes") is subject to the following disclaimers:

1. Definitions

[1a] "Author" means any person or entity expressly authorized to submit posts within this blog. Authors may submit comments and therefore assume "commentator" status for such content.

[1b] "Commentator" shall mean any person or entity submitting comments to authorized posts within this blog.

[1c] "Outside parties" shall mean person(s), websites, groups, organizations, institutions, companies, or others whose blog content does not originate via posts or authorized (i.e. non-spam or non-malicious) comments.
[1d] Any person or entity not deemed to constitute an "author" or "commentator" shall be deemed an "outside party".

2. "Post" & "Comment" Content

[2a] Post content within the blog represents the personal viewpoints only of the individual author(s) submitting the post(s).

[2b] Comment content represents the personal viewpoints only of the specific commentator submitting that specific comment to a post.

[2c] Comment content does not represent the viewpoints of the post's author(s) or other commentators who did not leave such content.

[2d] Post and comment content within this blog does not represent the viewpoints of employers, companies, partnerships, organizations, institutions, groups, or other person(s) (including "outside parties") that may or may not be associated with any author(s) or commentator(s).

3. Alteration

[3a] Authors reserve the right to remove or edit any posts, comments, or outside party content within this blog at any time with or without cause; cause including (but not limited to) offensive or profane material submitted by authors, commentators, and outside parties.

[3c] Submitting content to Barroco Cervantes as an author or commentator demonstrates intent to be subject to these disclaimers within this post.

4. Outside Content

[4a] Outside parties submitting content within this blog cannot be deemed to constitute either authors or commentators.

[4b] Authors and commentators shall not be held responsible for the content of outside parties linked or expressed either by outside parties, authors, or commentators within this blog.

5. Citation

[5a] Authors and commentators shall take reasonable steps to ensure that all sources quoted in their content within this blog are cited appropriately to the original source location.

[5b] Quotations and citations referred to in posts should appear in red font.