Page 32 - issue
P. 32
in avodas hakodesh professions, there tax rates of 80 or 90%, but if this fam- like unemployment and healthcare
is also help in the form of reduced ily receives benefits like parsonage subsidies) to carry people through the
tuition and special Yom Tov “sales” of (clergy housing allowance), Medicaid, tough times. And though there are
food and clothing. In addition, reli- food stamps, etc., the tax rate of 80% many in America who take advantage
gious workers can take advantage of turns out to actually be low! This fam- of the system, I am puzzled as to why
federal housing allowances and other ily’s effective income is greater than an observant community would want
tax deductions. that of many highly-paid professionals to build a lifestyle on what was intend-
who have no access to these benefits. ed to be short-term coverages for gaps.
While these programs certainly ben-
efit religious life and those who engage Our communal organizations defi- 2) We are givers not takers. This is a
in it, it is not often recognized that they nitely provide much chesed. But my notion repeated throughout Sefer
exert a more subtle influence on both question is, is it a Jewish value to rely Bereishis in obvious and subtle ways.
the lives of individuals and the forma- on such chesed, whether from commu- By taking advantage of these pro-
tion of community values. For individu- nity funds or government programs? grams, whole parts of the community
als, the programs factor into major life Mr. Pollock’s conclusions seem to be have transitioned into being takers.
decisions. People take them into confusing, and his points are more The implications of this are many and
account when deciding whether to political than financial. Nor does he serious, not least of which is that, as
take a new job, whether and when to address the harm incurred by takers, we are modeling a paradigm for
leave kollel, and whether to pursue a approaching these programs as a per- children and grandchildren. One won-
career in rabbinics and chinuch or a manent component of one’s financial ders whether the chilul Hashem of
secular field. And leaving a rabbinic wellbeing. financial crimes perpetrated against
career comes at a cost. So the detri- fellow shomrei Torah umitzvos of the
ment of earning more incremental dol- In the absence of his commenting scope and proportion that have hap-
lars can be significantly higher than on these questions, I would suggest pened in the frum community over the
just the higher tax rates and loss of four things to consider: last decade or two is just one of the
welfare benefits that Mr. Pollock men- byproducts of the attitude of “it’s com-
tioned, and have a huge impact on a 1) While there is no shame in par- ing to me.” The lesson that it is okay to
family’s bottom line. ticipating in any of these programs, if take on a large scale may be amplified
one qualifies, few were created to be as the generations go on.
Mr. Pollock mentioned exorbitant there for an individual or family forev-
er. They are intended (as are programs
28 u www.wherewhatwhen.com u
is also help in the form of reduced ily receives benefits like parsonage subsidies) to carry people through the
tuition and special Yom Tov “sales” of (clergy housing allowance), Medicaid, tough times. And though there are
food and clothing. In addition, reli- food stamps, etc., the tax rate of 80% many in America who take advantage
gious workers can take advantage of turns out to actually be low! This fam- of the system, I am puzzled as to why
federal housing allowances and other ily’s effective income is greater than an observant community would want
tax deductions. that of many highly-paid professionals to build a lifestyle on what was intend-
who have no access to these benefits. ed to be short-term coverages for gaps.
While these programs certainly ben-
efit religious life and those who engage Our communal organizations defi- 2) We are givers not takers. This is a
in it, it is not often recognized that they nitely provide much chesed. But my notion repeated throughout Sefer
exert a more subtle influence on both question is, is it a Jewish value to rely Bereishis in obvious and subtle ways.
the lives of individuals and the forma- on such chesed, whether from commu- By taking advantage of these pro-
tion of community values. For individu- nity funds or government programs? grams, whole parts of the community
als, the programs factor into major life Mr. Pollock’s conclusions seem to be have transitioned into being takers.
decisions. People take them into confusing, and his points are more The implications of this are many and
account when deciding whether to political than financial. Nor does he serious, not least of which is that, as
take a new job, whether and when to address the harm incurred by takers, we are modeling a paradigm for
leave kollel, and whether to pursue a approaching these programs as a per- children and grandchildren. One won-
career in rabbinics and chinuch or a manent component of one’s financial ders whether the chilul Hashem of
secular field. And leaving a rabbinic wellbeing. financial crimes perpetrated against
career comes at a cost. So the detri- fellow shomrei Torah umitzvos of the
ment of earning more incremental dol- In the absence of his commenting scope and proportion that have hap-
lars can be significantly higher than on these questions, I would suggest pened in the frum community over the
just the higher tax rates and loss of four things to consider: last decade or two is just one of the
welfare benefits that Mr. Pollock men- byproducts of the attitude of “it’s com-
tioned, and have a huge impact on a 1) While there is no shame in par- ing to me.” The lesson that it is okay to
family’s bottom line. ticipating in any of these programs, if take on a large scale may be amplified
one qualifies, few were created to be as the generations go on.
Mr. Pollock mentioned exorbitant there for an individual or family forev-
er. They are intended (as are programs
28 u www.wherewhatwhen.com u
