Tibetan Buddhist Class, Week Three

Every day in class is much the same in week three.  We’re going back over the practice (sadhana) getting more detail about all the visualizations.

Sadhana means “a way of accomplishing something”.  A sadhana is a discipline one follows to attain a goal. Related words include abhyāsa, which means repeated practice performed with observation and reflection and kriyā, which means action and also implies perfect execution with study and investigation.  There are sadhanas for worldly aims, e.g., money, not just spiritual ones, and for Hindu, Muslim and Sikh practitioners not just Buddhists.  There are fifteen major tantric Buddhist sadhanas and innumerable variants practiced by individual orders.

I’m starting to suspect that although this sadhana is an effective discipline for me, it will be more so if I first complete this order’s much simpler “Preliminary Practice”.   We’re now practicing more variations of this sadhana but even the shortest one has a lot of detail.

Our cheat sheet shows what to include in short, middling and long versions.   The long version includes a feast offering to the deities who are ultimately no different from ourselves.  They are what we would be if we did not have all these habits of thinking and feeling, ways of responding to what we imagine we see, which is a distorted version of reality.

I don’t understand the differences between the short and middling versions.  It’s more complicated than I thought.  There’s a central part that can be done alone as the simplest possible form of the practice but there’s not just one set of additional chants for the middling version.  There are many optional extras.  I wonder if I’ll be able to understand the difference between what’s essential and what’s an elaboration.  That’s why I’m thinking I should maybe start with something simpler.

Today there are no newspapers, bread or anything else I might want to buy because yesterday was the last day of Tihar, the festival of lights that’s preceded by the day of the dog, the day of the crow, the day of the cow and etc.

Yesterday was “brother tikka” day when sisters must honor their brothers and wish them a long life.  Brothers get the colored powder Tikka applied to their forehead and are given gifts and a feast.  If I wasn’t studying here I’d have been honored in this way by my Nepali “sisters”.

This evening I checked email.  My last Sidwell aunt got confused and swallowed all her medications a few days ago.  She isn’t expected to be able to continue living in her own room.  My second-to-last Sidwell uncle is declining fast with Parkinson’s.  I’m not ready to become the oldest living descendant of my cotton mill-hand great-grandfather, John Henry Sidwell.

Now it’s the end of week three, another free day.  I’m overwhelmed by so much effort to absorb so much that’s new.  Tibetan lamas start by learning the chants, how to make the sequence of sounds correctly, when they’re very young.  They only begin to learn the meaning later.

I thought this class was so hard because I’m used to learning in the opposite sequence, first the theory then the practice.  Then I realized that was just an idea.  I’ve always gone about things this way.  I almost drowned two times, leaping into the deep end and then trying to figure out how people swim.

Young lamas first learn to make the sounds, do the hand gestures and so forth to establish an armature, like a framework around which a sculpture is built.  It provides stability.  The chants’ sound provides a structure for one’s recognition of ever deeper levels of meaning.  If you start with words, you get confused when you learn a second set.  They get jumbled when you try to retrieve them.  Enacting the sounds works very differently.  It’s experiential and holistic.

In any case, I’m happy today is a rest day.  I walk up to Kopan Monastery to meet Choedar, the lama who came on the trek to Tsum Valley last year.  It’s so good to see him.  We talk about many things, especially Buddhist education.  Choedar manages education of the young monks here, about 60 new ones each year.  Other monasteries go to the villages to find children.  Kopan gets more applicants than it can take.  That’s because students at Kopan get both Buddhist and Western education.

Boudha 2011 019

Cheodar says it’s good for the monks to understand science because it will help them relate to lay practitioners.  Monks in Tibet used to know the same things and ways as lay people.  That was better.  Also, if they change their mind about being a monk, they can reenter lay life because they will not be alienated from the larger society.

Back in my room, I do my laundry then go out and circumambulate Boudha stupa .  It starts to rain heavily.  My laundry will have to finish drying tomorrow while we start learning a new sadhana.

Tibetan Buddhist Class, Week Two

The class is growing more intense, or maybe my brain is filling up.  I am getting a glimmer of understanding, though.  It’s less necessary to suspend disbelief about the practice.  I just bring my teachers to mind.  It’s not even necessary to be in their presence.  Their experience of the world is different.  They’re kinder and happier.  I’m a little closer to understanding how they achieved that.  It’s hard work!

This afternoon, we go to Phakchok Rinpoche’s room.  He wants to see how we’re getting on and give us encouragement.  He asks each of us about something we should have learned.  First, the monk from New Zealand.  “What are the four nails?”  That’s one I could answer.  He says the first three but can’t remember the fourth.  Maybe I’m doing better than I imagined.  Next the monk from Colorado.  I can’t even understand his question.  I can at least partially answer the next few questions.

Now it’s my turn.  “What are the three samadhis?”  I’m utterly baffled.  I’ve asked about them and failed altogether to understand.  I don’t even understand what samadhi means.  First I do bad prostrations, now I can barely begin to answer Phakchok Rinpoche’s question.  “I have not yet been able to understand about samadhis, Rinpoche.  Maybe they are related to the three kayas?”  

Rinpoche is not fierce this time.  I think he realizes that while my sincerity is not as great as my ignorance, it is genuine.  He talks about something else while I pacify my agitation then patiently explains.  I still don’t understand.

Later, I remember binary arithmetic being explained in High School.  I couldn’t understand it at all.  Then I got a job as a computer programmer and it was immediately obvious.  Presumably, my mental block that makes samadhis invisible will also disappear.

We’re now starting a little before 9.  I have just enough time after the monastery gong wakes me at 4:30 to write up the previous day’s notes, meditate and have noodles and coffee.  We get a long lunch break then continue until around 7, ending the day by practicing the long version of the ritual.  By that time I have just enough energy to cook a few more noodles before conking out.

More detail is revealed each day.  Knowing when to do the hand gestures (mudras), remembering which one goes with what chant, even just remembering the sequence of movements for each one is hard.  I’ll do a simpler practice at home, a subset of what we’re learning, but I don’t yet understand enough to know which parts I will do.  I’m trying to learn them all, at least to some extent.

A most auspicious thing happens today.  We have a second session with Phakchok Rinpoche.  He blesses our prayer beads (malla) and mine break while he rolls them between his palms.  That in itself is auspicious.  Then he directs one of his lamas to restring my malla and add a “root bead” of the special kind.  Now I must use it only in private, so I will buy another one to use in class.

Rinpoche (it means Precious One) does not ask questions today.  He explains many things.  I listen with windows open, mind transparent, as clear as I can, anyway.   The Zen master said about his paradoxical teachings: “Just let it all in.  Don’t evaluate, don’t worry if you will forget, don’t think.  If you do, you will not hear. “

Pointing to his cup, Rinpoche says something about equality.  For just a nanosecond I glimpse what he is pointing out.  I’m so happy!

Tomorrow is the end of week two, our free day.  I’ll review my notes and try to clarify my questions.  Our translator will tell me the names of the mudras so I can annotate my texts with which one goes where.  She will also get us video of them all.  I may now have the visualizations that go with each chant clear enough so I can practice on my own but it’s very hard to remember what they mean while also remembering what to do.

Tibetan Buddhist Class, First Week

There is no class today, the third day, because it’s the 49th since the death of the head of the Nyingma, the oldest of the four major Tibetan Buddhist orders.  They wear the red hats.  The Dalai Lama’s Gelug wear yellow ones.  The 49th day after the heart stops beating is very important but I don’t know why because I don’t yet understand about reincarnation.

I prepare for tomorrow’s class then go to buy my bell, vajra and hand drum.  The vajra is held in the right hand, the bell in the left.  I don’t yet know about the drum.

Vajras have a central sphere representing the underlying unity or connectedness of everything.  From it come two eight petaled lotus flowers that represent the world as it appears and as it really is (I don’t yet understand how it really is).  At the center of each lotus are half-fish, half-crocodile creatures from whose mouths come tongues that meet in a point.  Those on one side represent mental states that obscure our mind, those on the other side aspects of enlightened mind.

As instructed, I tell the man in the recommended shop that my friend Lama Tenzin sent me.  That means I get a reasonably good price for my carefully chosen low-end but not bottom-end instruments.  When I arrive the man is carefully examining brocade altar mats that he’s buying from a Muslim man who brought them from Varanasi in India, a famous center of Buddhist studies.  I ask if my bell was made by Muslims.  Some are, he says, others are made by Tibetans.

All around this part of Kathmandu very young boys work in tiny shopfronts making Tibetan Buddhist ritual instruments, hammering designs into copper alloy with a nail punch.  They look like the extremely poor Indians who come here as transient laborers to do the lowest paid work.

Our full-time translator comes on the fourth day, but we continue on the abbreviated schedule with one theory session and one practical each day.  I don’t know if that will change or that I want it to.  It’s hard enough to absorb the material even at this pace.

In the theory sessions we learn what the practice elements mean, what to have in mind at each moment, how to do everything and in what order.  In the practical sessions we’re learning how to make barley dough tormas that represent what we should have in mind at particular stages of the practice.  We will learn hand gestures, bell-ringing and drum-beating to accompany the chants later.

The lama explains everything in detail (but there is an enormous amount more) and he is clear about what is most important.  This learning experience is new for me.  Always before I just wanted to be shown the material and left to dive in but that can’t work for Tibetan Buddhism because this is mind-training.   I could read every text ever written and still not know how to train my mind using them.  It would be like trying to master tennis just by reading books.

On the fifth day we practice the entire ritual.  It takes over an hour and a half.  We’re going to do it every night from now on and lama says we’ll be able to do it on our own by the end.  I’m glad I bought my own bell and drum instead of borrowing them.  I’m starting to feel why it’s considered so important to respect the texts and instruments.  It’s like a craftsman respecting his tools.  It keeps you aware of your sincerity about what you’re doing.

We chant in Tibetan.  Written and spoken Tibetan are very different.  Pronunciation continued to evolve after the written form was fixed with 30 consonants in the 11th century.  There are different transliteration standards using only the letters on an English language keyboard for how Tibetan words are written and how they sound.  The one for the written word has many silent consonants.  Our texts use the one for sound so I have some hope of getting the pronunciation reasonably right by the end of the class.

The overall ritual has many sections and the chants are assembled in three separate texts.  We have a page and a half cheat sheet that shows the sequence of sections and what page of which text to go to when we switch from one text to another.  It’s very confusing.

Last night I lost track altogether of what the sections mean but I did stay on track with the transitions.  The other students seem to be somewhat familiar with the overall flow of the practice.  I guess there must be a standard structure.  I ask why the chant isn’t published in one text.  Lama says in that case we might not realize we need a teacher to explain the practice.

We do the entire practice again on days five and six.  Lama has taught us some hand gestures and what to do when with bell and drum but I haven’t yet attempted to do any of that.  Maybe I’ll try tomorrow.  It’s hard enough just following the text.

Every so often I try to remember what I should have in mind but then I lose focus on the transitions between texts.  That’s a disaster because I can’t yet associate the sound of the chants with what I see on the pages, which means I can’t find where we are in which text.

Everyone is feeling a bit overwhelmed, even the monks who already know the hand gestures and so forth.  I’ve entirely lost interest in world and financial news and am even losing interest in Nepali news.   I’m beginning to feel that I can change myself for the better with this practice.  I’m pretty sure I’m not heading toward becoming a monk, however.

Tantric Buddhism developed for lay practitioners, not just monastics.  Like Protestant Christianity in Europe, Tantric Hinduism and Buddhism were born in India in opposition to long established forms of practice that were controlled by a too often corrupt priestly elite.

Tibetan Buddhist Class, First Two Days

Throat chanting in great dark rooms surrounded by Hieronymus Bosch-like murals of wondrous deities and terrifying devils, eight foot long trumpets, giant conch shell trumpets, human thigh bone trumpets, Arab-style clarinets, brass cymbals, yoyo-like hand drums and hand bells, Catholic-like rosaries and censors, it is beyond exotic.

It’s more than half a century since I was first fascinated by “Seven Years in Tibet”.  Now I’ve been among Tibetan lamas doing these practices in monasteries in Sikkim, Nepal and Tibet and met teachers whose extraordinary kindness results, inevitably they say, from doing these practices all their life.

It’s the meditation, they say, not so much the colorful rituals, that really makes the difference.  So I tried to meditate.  I read books about how to meditate.  But nothing happened, nothing changed.  Perhaps if I go somewhere where people meditate, I thought?  I went for two very long days of silent meditation at a Zen Buddhist monastery and did notice flickers of something positive.  I went back for a week of silent sitting.  Moss beside a path, pollen exploding from sun-drenched pines, a sudden breeze…  Toward the end of the week, just for a moment, I did see their beauty fresh.

Surprised by that sense of sacredness, I think maybe I really can learn how to live more alertly.  But  the Zen way feels too hard for me.  I’ve been so habituated to thinking for so many years.  Maybe I could unlearn I’m not sure what with a different training program, one with more structure and detail that would give my over-active brain something to chomp on?  Perhaps that’s the point of the Tibetan rituals?  They might be preparation for meditation that really works?

So now (October/November 2011) I’ve come for a month-long class at a Kathmandu monastery.  I’ll be taught the details of a ritual practice but beyond that, I have no idea what to expect.

The first two days remind me of mountain treks when the crew is getting organized.  Each day starts with a destination and a plan.  Nothing goes as planned but the destination is reached.

We are scheduled to get “empowerment” at 8:30 on the first morning.  Empowerment means being authorized to learn a practice.  We hear periodically about changes to the schedule as 8:30, 9:30, 10 and 11 come and go, then we’re told we will be empowered at noon by Phakchok Rinpoche.   I know nothing about him but the other 11 students are very happy.

At noon we file into a large inner chamber where Phakchok Rinpoche has for more than an hour been preparing.  I’m nervous.  I don’t know what I may have to do later but I do know to prostrate to Phakchok Rinpoche before I sit.  I would never have prostrated to a boss in the world of business and it felt odd the first time I prostrated to a teacher but it’s a very different situation.  I could not prostrate to someone just because they had been granted power over me.  Showing respect for the qualities teachers have worked so hard for, however, feels entirely natural and right.

Phakchok Rinpoche watches us closely.  As I sit he says: “Your prostrations are no good.  Have you learned nothing?”   I wonder what I did wrong?  He’s very fierce.  In a business context I would feel attacked but here I don’t.  He’s just telling me there’s something I must learn.  He is equally direct and very clear for two hours of explanation of what we are promising to do while we study and after.  I’m happy that I can understand most of what he says, to some extent.  What I understand completely is the approach he’s pointing out, total sincerity.

“People told me Western people are practicing Buddhism very well these days,” he says.  “I thought, that’s good news, I will go to see them.  But I found them saying: ‘Ritual is not important.  We do not need to do that.’  They are practicing one-legged Buddhism!  They think it is OK not to do ritual but who am I to say it is OK not to practice the way people practiced successfully for two thousand years?”

Our first teachings from 3:30 to 5 are not by the scheduled lama because he was suddenly given a different assignment.  We are told we are “so lucky” to get the one who teaches folks doing three year retreats.  He’s very methodical, proceeds in a structured way and is clear.  Indeed, we are lucky!

We can’t start at 8 on the second day because the nun who is scheduled to be our translator for the whole four weeks is sick.  We can only get teachings when one of the senior translation students is free.  We start at 10:30 and go to noon.  Again I understand, at some level, almost everything.  Our translator yesterday was outstanding.  Today’s is not quite so clear but is very good.

In today’s second session, from 3:30 to 5, we begin learning how to make tormas, statues of barley flour paste that are placed on the altar to represent offerings to deities or malign spirits.  They’re not deities or spirits as we normally think of them but representatives of particular virtues or vices like greed and hatred, habits so to say that we are aiming to strengthen or quell.

Our scheduled translator hopes to be back the day after tomorrow.  We can then follow the regular 8 – 5:30 schedule, learning the meaning of the ritual each morning and how to perform it in the afternoon.  It is all very odd but I can study with sincerity because this has been so effective for so many people for so long.  I don’t need to worry about which parts are “true” and which are not.

Ancient Mariner poet Coleridge called the approach we must adopt a “willing suspension of disbelief”.  We must give our intuitive faculty the opportunity to sense what’s being revealed.  We’d miss important aspects of what we’re shown if we let our rational faculty focus on details.

My fellow students include monks from Brazil, New Zealand and Colorado, a very serious German man and a French woman who live together in France, a beautiful young Mexican woman and an older Danish man with dreadlocks and white robes who live together in India, a fellow from Glasgow, a fellow from New Orleans and one from LA, all of whom spend a lot of time on the road.

What else?  The monastery guesthouse where I’m staying is fine.  My room faces the monastery so I’m woken at 4:30 by the clangor of bells, bray of trumpets, clash of cymbals and whatnot.  It’s surprisingly pleasant.  There’s also an evening practice but after that it’s very quiet, so much better than being blasted by rock bands in Thamel, the tourist part of Kathmandu.

Oh, the monk from Brazil explained about prostrations.  “Did you go to a Zen monastery?”  he asked with a kindly smile.  “Yes?”  “I thought so.  We do prostrations differently.”  It’s a subtle difference that makes all the difference.

If I Say I’m a Physicist

If I say I’m a physicist, you won’t think I want you to be one, too.  It just means that’s how I explore the way things work, physically.  You’ll probably have some idea how I go about it, that experiments are involved.  You might ask what kind of physics and I might say quantum mechanics.  At that point your mind might fog over.  You might smile politely and ask if I have children.  But maybe you would be curious and ask about quantum physics.

In fact, I’m not a physicist but it does interest me and I do think it would be good if everyone had some understanding of what physicists have discovered.  But that’s a topic for another time.

What I’m asking now is, when I say I’m a Buddhist, please don’t think I want you to be one, too.  It is a way of discovery for me, but just as there are many other sciences in addition to physics, there are many other disciplines in addition to Buddhism.  It’s just that I’ve found Buddhism an effective discipline for me.

I say it is a discipline not a religion because Buddhism has no equivalent of the Abrahamic god or anything that must be taken on faith, no dogma.  It is practical, an enormous set of time-tested training programs that help people become more kind.  One of those methods seems to help me.

If you ask what kind of Buddhism, I will say Tantric Buddhism.  Yes I do have children, but for those of you who want to know what is Tantric Buddhism, I will say it is the form that developed in Tibet.  And if you want to know more, I will begin posting a few notes from my learning experiences.

These notes will not be an introduction to Buddhist philosophy.  That’s partly because I still misunderstand far more than I understand.  More importantly, it’s because my aim is not to understand the philosophy, although that is necessary, but to attain what I can of the results of the practice.

It is said there are two paths toward better behavior, one for the scholar, the other for the simple meditator.  The scholar’s path is one I have always followed.  In this case I am drawn to the other.

Traveling In A Dangerous World

I emigrated from the UK to the USA, I’ve traveled on business in Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the UK, the USA and more, I’ve traveled to learn in Bhutan, Nepal, Sikkim and Tibet, I’ve traveled for pleasure in – well, I’ve moved around a lot.  Here’s what I learned: almost all travel just confirms our preconceptions.  We go someplace new, we see something new, we fit that into the concepts we brought with us.

Only by spending long enough in an unfamiliar world with senses and mind truly open can we notice enough detailed differences and similarities to learn from travel.

Senator King (I-ME) recently visited Syria.  He’s a good man who was of course horrified by the suffering he saw at first hand.  He returned wanting us to end that suffering by intervening militarily in Syria’s civil war.  The suffering he saw reinforced the concept he took to Syria.  Better he had not gone because military intervention is the wrong concept.

When I came to the USA, we were intervening militarily in Vietnam.  One of those who was there long enough to learn, Colin Powell, was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the 1990/1 war in response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.  His doctrine, successfully applied in that war was: (1) Clear objectives, (2) Sufficient Force, (3) Exit Strategy, (4) Plan for unintended consequences.

The Powell doctrine was not applied in President Bush’s war in Iraq or President Obama’s in Afghanistan.  It was partially applied in Libya where in addition to the objective of killing the nation’s leader there was an exit strategy, just stop, but no plan for the unintended consequence of civil war fought with the ex-government’s weapons that spread into neighboring Mali.

Senator King is right about many things, not about warfare.  Here’s something he’s right about:  On Facebook today, he links to his press release entitled: “The most serious threat to national security is the United States Congress – Senator King reiterates need for Congress to pass a budget to replace sequestration”.

A nation without a government is on an inevitable path to failure, the people we elected are not governing just arguing.  As Senator King says, it’s as if they’re saying:  “Have you noticed it’s raining?  Yes, you’re right, it is raining” but nobody puts up an umbrella or goes inside.

So far so good.  In the 7 minute video linked to from the press release, his sincerity is obvious.  He went to Washington to try to get our government working.  He’s questioning a defense analyst from the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank.  They agree health care is the greatest challenge to our national budget.  They disagree about tax strategy.  The Heritage Foundation is committed to cutting the deficit by spending cuts.  Senator King believes there must also be tax increases, chiefly by capping deductions on high incomes.

The press release says:  “Senator King, a member of both the Budget and Armed Services Committees, worked with his colleagues earlier this year to develop and pass a FY 2014 Budget Resolution that would not only replace sequestration, but would also pave a credible path toward fiscal stability by promoting economic growth and job creation while responsibly addressing the country’s debt and deficits.”  It continues: “Republican objections have stalled the budget process, however, by preventing the appointment of members to a Conference Committee that would be tasked with reconciling the Senate budget with that passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. On May 8th, Senator King called on his colleagues to proceed with the Federal budget process. 122 days have passed the Senate passed its budget.”

Here’s an article on how the budget process is meant to work and what is happening instead:  “stalemates in the budget process … predictably result in bad policy outcomes … we are currently stuck with sequestration … a policy designed to be so awful that Congress was expected to go to the lengths necessary avoid it.”   The Executive branch, the House and the Senate have all produced budgets but there has been no move toward agreement and little prospect of any this year.

That means sequestration will continue to force cuts in spending while those who signed Grover Norquist’s pledge will continue to block any increase in revenue.  Senator King is right about all that.

Here’s where he goes wrong, what he focuses on in his press release is the effect on defense spending:  “Sequestration has already resulted in a $37 billion cut in defense spending for Fiscal Year 2013.  In Fiscal Year 2014 the Department of Defense is projected to face a $52 billion budget cut due to sequestration, and many high ranking officials, including Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, have stated that the shortfall will severely compromise national security by reducing military readiness and limiting the capacity to respond to crises.”

Senator King’s press release makes no mention of what in the video he correctly identifies as our greatest budget challenge, healthcare spending.  He ends his questioning with the following prepared statement, which he also posts to Facebook:  “Our country is paying a heavy national security price because of sequestration. We live in the most complex and dangerous world that any of our military and intelligence experts have seen, and at the same time, we are gutting our military and hollowing out our readiness. Like I said at a committee hearing today, I think that’s a tragedy.”

We are not gutting our military.  We are not hollowing out our readiness.  There is no successor to Soviet Russia that could threaten us today.

We are are also not setting a military strategy.  All we’re doing is telling the heads of our defense forces to cut spending to an extent they cannot predict because it is governed by no policy.

I will soon return to the topic of these posts, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and More, Evaluation of War on Terror Strategy and Military Operations Strategy.  We have by an enormous margin the world’s greatest defense force, we have by far the world’s greatest warfare industry, and we have since the start of this century had Executive Branch  leaders who increased demand for our warfare industry’s products and services with cripplingly expensive wars without clear objectives or exit strategy , and by encouraging ever greater weapons exports, e.g., 84 F-15 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia.

We have not one but three great threats to our national security, only two of which Senator King has identified:  Congress, healthcare spending and the military/industrial complex.

Toward A Better Tax Structure

When I began this series of posts, I had no definite opinions.  Now I do.  Some conclusions surprised me, some changes would be very contentious, one looks promising but requires more research, and one may be good in theory but not in real life.

Our current system is explored in the first few posts and summarized in The Purpose and Performance of Our Tax System.  Our current system:

  • Fails by a wide margin to fully fund government spending
  • Creates a wealth distribution that 90% considers highly unfair
  • Costs far too much to operate (30% overhead on income tax)
  • Allows illegal evasion on almost 20% of taxable income
  • Is so complex nobody fully understands it
  • Creates seriously false beliefs about tax and spending

False beliefs?  Three in four Americans believe almost half of all government spending is wasted but oppose any cuts to programs that account for 60% of spending.  Unfair results?  Nine in ten Americans believe the wealthiest fifth has three fifths of the total wealth and wants them to have a third but in fact they have over four fifths and it’s growing fast at the expense of every other group.

Taxes, Wealth and Fairness notes that a fair distribution of  wealth means a relatively equal opportunity to become wealthy.  Who We Tax shows that while wealth is now extremely and increasingly unequal, the percentage of tax paid relative to income is similar for all income groups.  What We Do Not Tax shows that tax deductions equaling almost a third of Federal spending disproportionately benefit those with the highest incomes.  Business Tax shows how corporate income taxes have fallen as a share of GDP and corporate profits are transferred overseas where they are not subject to US taxes.

The last background post, Qualities of an Excellent Tax System, summarizes what public opinion surveys say we want, a system that:

  • Fully funds all authorized government activities,
  • Leads toward the distribution of wealth we democratically choose,
  • Has a low collection cost and minimizes illegal evasion,
  • Does not disadvantage US business in the global economy, and
  • Makes it easy to understand the impact of proposed tax and spending changes

What changes must be made to get what we want?  What We Tax, summarizes the existing structure.  The Federal government collects half of all tax revenue, chiefly from individual income tax (8.8% of GDP) and corporate income tax (2.2% of GDP).  The States collect 29%, chiefly from sales tax (2.1% of GDP) and individual income tax (1.9% of GDP).  Local taxes make up 19% of the total, mainly property tax (2.4% of GDP).  Later posts explore the pros and cons of that structure and of different taxes.

Estate Tax and Fairness highlights an extraordinary failure of logic – inheritance tax is felt to be the most unfair tax of all by a society that wants equal opportunities for all to become wealthy.  It also notes that estate taxes provide the least disincentive for economic activity.

The top estate tax rate was 77% at the end of WW2 (“equality of sacrifice”).  The UK ended domination by its hereditary aristocracy the same way (“equality of opportunity”).  Our huge public debt from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, tax cuts on high incomes, and the Great Recession calls for equality of sacrifice now.  Our great inequality of wealth calls for equality of opportunity now.

Personal Income Tax and Fairness shows the higher top rates necessary to get the wealth distribution 92% of Americans want will not harm economic growth.  Research indicates we should raise the top rate closer to a revenue-maximizing 66.1% from today’s 39.6%.   Income is increasingly from capital gains taxed at lower rates than “ordinary” income.  93% of that $161B tax break goes to the top 20% of earners and two-thirds to the top 1%.  Half of all capital gains are not taxed because one who inherits property pays gains tax only on the difference between what it was worth when inherited and when sold.

The six Walmart heirs dramatically illustrate the result of the combination of low marginal tax rates on both inheritances and incomes.  They have more wealth, $90B, than the bottom 42% of Americans and it’s up from $73B in 2007, the same as the bottom 30%.   Meanwhile, the average American’s wealth declined from $126K to $77K and 13 million Americans have negative net worth.

Consumption Taxes and Fairness explores issues with this tax and with the central/local tax structure.  The wealthiest residents in most States pay the lowest rates because of consumption taxes.  The poorest 20% pay 6 times as high a percentage of income as the richest in the ten most regressive states.  The average state’s consumption tax structure is equivalent to an income tax with a 7.1% rate for the poor, 4.7% for the middle class, and 0.9% for the wealthiest taxpayers.

The attraction of consumption taxes is they are hard to evade and cheap to collect.  The problem is they disproportionately impact those with a low income.  That can be mitigated, however, by higher tax rates on high incomes, a subsidy for those who work for low pay, exempting food and other necessities, and providing essential services such as healthcare at no or low cost.  Consumption taxes must be part of our system since personal consumption historically represents 70% of our GDP.

Property Tax and Fairness explores another aspect of the local/central issue.  Property tax is the chief source of revenue to support local education, police and fire protection, and infrastructure.  A protest against high Local property taxes in California resulted in higher State income taxes and a shift in power from Localities to the State.

This post also looks at how tax structures impact economic growth.   An analysis of 21 OECD countries over the last 35 years concludes:  “Property taxes … seem to be the most growth-friendly, followed by consumption taxes and then by personal income taxes.  Corporate income taxes appear to have the most negative effect on GDP per capita.  …  These findings suggest that a revenue-neutral growth-oriented tax reform would be to shift part of the revenue base towards recurrent property and consumption taxes and away from income taxes, especially corporate taxes.”

To get the desired wealth distribution, it may be better to collect property taxes at the Federal level and redistribute them on a per capita basis to the Local level.

Corporate Income Tax and Fairness notes they are costly to collect, easy to evade, and fraught with competitive issues.  Two thirds of US businesses reporting profits of $1 million or more are not incorporated, which means tax on their income is paid by their owners.  Treasury Department economists reckon four fifths of the profits of corporations is also paid by owners.  When we say corporations should pay more, what we probably mean is we want business owners to pay more.

A related issue is corporations pay very different rates of tax because they have flexibility in where they locate production and where they realize profits.   They can borrow in one country and take the interest deduction there, locate production facilities and employ workers in another country, and realize profits in a third country.  $1.7T of profits is estimated to be offshore where US taxes are not incurred.

Because 80% of corporate income tax is ultimately paid by business owners, is costly to collect and easy to evade, it looks better to eliminate it while raising the tax rate on high personal incomes.  Tax on all business profits would then be paid by business owners.

To end the harm to our economy caused by the offshore tax break, it looks better to combine business profits shown in all jurisdictions, deduct income taxes paid in other jurisdictions and tax the balance at US rates (ala State and Local tax deduction for Federal income tax).

Social Security Tax and Fairness notes that Social Security spending is matched by dedicated payroll deductions that are fundamentally different from other taxes because they are payments for our individual pensions and insurance.  We need payments to be mandatory because we don’t save enough voluntarily or have enough disability insurance.

Keeping Social Security financially sound is a separate issue from balancing overall government revenue and spending.  Social security can be kept sound by increasing the payroll tax ceiling to the same percentage level it was not long ago and modestly raising the tax rate as we’ve done before.

We are easily misled about the health of Social Security because its revenues and spending are rarely presented together.  That is a problem with all government activities that leads to our mistaken beliefs about overall tax and spending and makes it easy to mislead us about necessary changes.

Conclusion:  When I began these posts, I had no definite opinions.  Some changes that I now see to be positive are not unexpected but I was surprised to find no basis for lower tax rates on capital gains.  That and other changes could be made but eliminating all tax deductions, which would make the system fairer and cut collection costs would be very difficult (as the Japanese say).  I will in future posts return to tax preferences and explore whether we really should want government, for example, to be encouraging home ownership.

Another change, eliminating corporate income tax, looks positive but to come to a definite conclusion I must research international tax treaties and think through how the accounting would work.  Centrally collected property tax and VAT for redistribution to State and Local governments also looks positive but to come to a conclusion about that I must explore issues of governance.  What about the associated increase in Federal government power?

So, here are conclusions I’m confident about (definite) and those needing more research (probable).

Definite – to more fully fund government activities, make the opportunity to become wealthy more equal, lower tax collection cost, minimize illegal evasion, make it easier to understand the impact of proposed tax and spending changes, and not harm our economy we need:

  • Higher tax rates on inheritances
  • Higher tax rates on high personal incomes
  • The same tax rates for all kinds of income
  • Higher payroll tax ceiling and payroll tax rate
  • Revenue and spending reported together for every major government program

Probable – to more fully fund government activities, minimize tax avoidance, and not disadvantage US businesses in the global economy we should:

  • Eliminate corporate income tax and account for all business profits the same way globally
  • Eliminate all tax exemptions
  • Collect property tax at the Federal level (instead of some or all by Localities) and redistribute it per-capita to Localities
  • Collect VAT at the Federal level (instead of some or all State Sales Tax) and redistribute it per capita to the States

Because only some changes are definite, I can not yet propose exact rates, what percentage of revenue should be raised by each tax, or what percentage should be collected at each level of government.  I will explore international tax treaties and governance to decide about the “probables” then propose an overall structure but first, a more urgent question.

Presumably, it’s the same 92% of Americans who want less inequality as the 93% who lost an additional 4% of their savings in the past three years while the wealthiest 7% grew 28% even more wealthy.  No surprise they want less inequality but would that in fact be better for society?  I used to want cigarettes; it’s better I no longer do.  I still want red wine; that is in moderation OK and it may even be positive.  Is the more moderate inequality our majority wants more like cigarettes or red wine?

Identity, Independence and Kindness

Although everything is in every instant changing, which means everything flawed can be perfected, that’s not what Mr. Ego sees.  He’s afraid if he relaxes even for an instant, bad things will come to pass.  He is a deluded Jeeves devoted to caring for a Bertie Wooster whose nature exists only in his imagination.  That he exists only in mine does not make his activities less real.

Mr. Ego and I have been together so long and he is so very diligent; he usually has me believing I am what he imagines.  On rare occasions I do wake up and tell him I’ll be OK, he can go on vacation, but he doesn’t because if he does, I will no longer have an identity.  He thinks that would be very scary.

Psychotherapists say Mr. Ego manifests soon after we are born and develops well into adulthood.  “Saying ‘NO’ is one of the earliest signs of individuation”, according to GoodTherapy“It is a statement that I am separate from you and want something different … individuation is … learning what we want to say NO or YES to [and] acting according to what we want and do not want.  It is a statement of who we are (ME) and who we are not (NOT ME).”

Mr. Ego starts by teaching us to say NO and unless we’re very lucky, it’s all downhill from there.  He teaches us to want and not want, to see everything as ME or NOT ME and to reject everything that is NOT ME.  He teaches us, in other words, to be selfish.  Therapists consider individuation normative, meaning something that should happen.

In fact, our belief that we have an identity, are part of a group and should have a home makes us unhappy and unkind.   Our imagined identity, “I am the kind of person who…”, says we are solid and we should make our situation more so, more dependable.  We should instead rejoice that nothing is solid because that means everything really can become more perfect.

A way to dispel the illusion is to recast our identifier from noun to verb.  That makes Martin Sidwell not an explorer destined always to be an explorer and implicitly never doing anything else, but an exploration taking place at this moment.  Thinking of ourselves as verbs eliminates a big part of the harm we cause by believing we have an identity.

Believing we are part of a group is also a problem.  If I think of myself as Buddhist it seems I am different from Christian but if I am practicing techniques that helped others grow more kind even to those who are abusive, I am practicing how to love and turn the other cheek.  The program that helps me is different but the goal is the same as Jesus taught.  I am not different from Christians, Muslims or others.

Keeping the goal clear is especially hard if our group’s identify is that of a people defined by its religion.  A dear friend who recently gave up her long standing role as spiritual leader at her synagogue said:  “What I realized is important is my values.  People I’m close to have the same values.  My rabbi’s are different and we’re not close.  Trying to lead those with his values to a different way can never be helpful.”  But being Jewish informs so much of what a Jewish person does, thinks and feels.  Recognizing what my friend did must have been very, very hard and acting on the recognition must take so much discipline and courage.

The recognition my friend came to may be even tougher for Tibetans whose identity is so deeply associated with not only religion but also their homeland.  Home is our idea of the ultimate refuge.  As Robert Frost wrote: “Home is where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in”.   My Tibetan friend who only ever wanted to be a nun was expelled from the nunnery by the Chinese government after the Beijing Olympics.   A third of all Tibetan monks and nuns were forced out then after Western journalists reporting the Tibetan protests went home.

Jews whose ancestors were driven from their homeland milennia ago now have Israel.  The homeland Tibetans always had began to be destroyed just as Israel was established.  No wonder Tibetans yearn for that lost world  even though there can be no such place of safety.  It is so hard for any of us to recognize that and the idea of nation makes it so much harder.

China’s rulers always try to control the lands to their north and west because invaders from there have always swept in.  The dynasty that ruled from 1644-1911 was established by invaders from Manchuria.  As soon as the Communists won China’s civil war in 1949 they set out to control all China’s peripheral territories.  Tibetans lost not just their independence as a nation but increasingly also their culture.  The monasteries were destroyed, monks imprisoned, Chinese-language schools set up and masses of Han Chinese settlers imported.  The Tibetans were to become Chinese to make China safe.

We think nations help us to be safe because nations have armed forces for defense.  By identifying with a nation, however, we feel separate from people in other nations.  We think they are different and we become afraid or jealous of our fantasy of what they are.   Our struggle for independence in fact makes us fearful.  The Chinese rulers’ treatment of Tibetans is motivated by fear, as is exiled Tibetans’ yearning for a Tibet they may never have known and that no longer exists.

There are two Tibetan words for independence.  “Rang btsan” means not dependent on anything else and signifies the freedom we associate with independence.  “Rang mtshan” means an independent self and signifies what we associate with being an individual.  Both are pronounced rang tzen, are usually spelled rangzen in the West, and both suggest more than they mean.   Nations are not truly independent and neither are people truly individual.  Geography does not define a people nor is any man an island.  Borders are just ideas that create suffering and limit our compassion.

Opening our hearts to feel the terrible suffering of Tibetans and others can lead us to feel compassion both for them and their abusers whose delusions lead them to their terrible actions.  Then we can try to help both, for only in that way can suffering be ended.  We really can do this if, as in this beautifully rendered Imagine There’s No Rangzen, we think independently.

So many ideas.  We have this relentless urge to get things identified, situated and dependable.  We’re determined to define who we are and take action against what we are not.   But it can’t work.  How could such a program succeed when nothing can be fixed, when everything is arising in every instant from an ever-changing assembly of causes?

One of the first great Tibetan teachers in the West said it this way:  “The bad news is our airplane is crashing and we have no parachute.  The good news is there is nowhere to land.”  Mr. Ego got us into a vehicle he said would take us somewhere safe, if it didn’t crash.  His fear of crashing distracted us.

That’s why it’s so hard to recognize that in fact we are crashing right now precisely because we imagine we have a fixed identity, we belong to a group whose rules are sacrosanct and we will be protected from those who are not like us by the nation where we live.  We are creating our own fear.

We could instead accept the good news, train ourselves to dispel habitual reactions that grew from our misunderstanding, and grow more happy and, more importantly, more kind.

Kathmandu Valley Rice Fields and Brick Factories

For my last walk this year (October 2011) we take the bus to the end of the line in Bhaktapur, one of the Kathmandu Valley’s original three kingdoms.  At the center are elaborate palaces, multi-tier temples, and private houses all with spectacular carved windows, doors and roof ornamentation.  We are out among the farms that used to support the old city.

Unlike everywhere we’ve gone before, these fields are still covered not with houses but rice.  Rice here takes 150 days from sowing to harvest but only 100 near the Indian border.  That rice doesn’t taste so good.  This rice would be very popular but the villagers can barely produce enough to feed their own fast-growing local population.

We chat with a couple from far western Nepal where survival is barely possible.  They’ve rented a house and are weaving chair carpets for sale to a finisher who sells them to retailers.  They also have a garden where they grow veg to sell to the migrant brick factory workers who will arrive soon from India.  They get very little for either carpets or veg but it’s enough to support them and their two small kids.

Next we stop at a tea house where half a dozen men are chatting.  An animated older guy tells us they are all adamant about not selling their land.  They want to live the rest of their lives the way they always have, working in the fields.  Their children go to school, which none of them did, and want office jobs, of which there are not nearly enough.  The men know their land will be built over but they’re determined it won’t happen until they’re dead.  These are the first anti-development folks we’ve met.  The old guy tells us a Nepali proverb:  “More development means more beggars”.  It means more productive new methods result in fewer jobs.

Scattered among the fields are small brick factories with great tall chimneys.  Bricks were traditionally made on-site here from sun-dried clay.  When reinforced concrete post and beam construction was introduced 25 years or so ago, fired brick technology was introduced from India.  The clay bricks are still molded by hand and dried in the sun but they are then placed in the huge chimneys and coal-fired.  That’s why it’s a seasonal activity.  The work can’t be done during the rainy season.  It’s very hard work out in the sun for the men from Bihar, India’s poorest province on Nepal’s border.

In our next tea house the men tell us about coal smoke and dust pollution from the brick factories.  It’s unhealthy for them and devastating for their cauliflower crops.  The Kathmandu Valley was famous for its tasty cauliflower.  Less tasty cauliflower now has to be imported from at least 35 miles away.  There’s a law that no brick factory can be within three kilometers of a village or school but the law is not enforced.  The people from this village mounted a big protest five years ago.  Two were killed.  There was no justice for the killings and nothing was done about the brick factory.  The police and justices were bought off by the factory owner.

We walk back a little way on the same road.  It’s being upgraded to be a through road between Bhaktapur and Nuwakot.  The villagers complaining about the brick factories are eager for it to be completed and traffic to begin flowing.  Then they expect to sell out for huge money.

We turn onto a six-inch wide path among the rice paddies to a bus stop.  The bus is an Indian relic packed tight inside so our only option is the roof.  The bus rolls wildly from side to side over the corrugated dirt tracks.  It looks terrifying from the ground but feels fine and is safer than being inside because you can if necessary jump off.   You cannot ride on the roof in the city where electricity wires dangle low over the streets so I don’t get to ride up there for long.

Tomorrow morning my Tibetan Buddhist classes start.   Now I’m off for a happy-making dal bhat (rice, lentil and “spinach”) dinner.

Personal Income Tax and Fairness

To get the more equal distribution of incomes 92% of Americans want, we must have higher taxes on high incomes.  But wouldn’t that kill economic growth?  Extensive recent economic research says not.

We have repeatedly cut the top rates on income since WW2, from 92% to 91% under President Eisenhower, then in steeper steps down to 35% for most of the past decade.  We said this would reward entrepreneurship, benefit everyone by creating more jobs, and boost economic growth.  We said growing the economy would result in enough additional tax revenue to pay for the cuts.  However, as this article notes: “The logic of the idea is hard to refute. It just doesn’t seem ever to have happened.”

As early as 1989 the data showed the recovery that began in 1983 and was believed to result from reductions in the personal income tax rate was caused mainly by expansionary monetary policy and to a lesser extent by growth in business investment after changes to corporate taxes in 1981.  Economic growth was much higher in the 1950s when personal income tax rates were much higher.

The paper I cited in Property Tax and Fairness that modeled the impact on economic growth of property, consumption and income taxes was based on annual data for 1971-2004, a relatively short period.  This much more comprehensive Review of Recent Academic Research indicates that cutting top individual income tax rates since WW2, more than twice as long a data series, had an insignificant impact on economic growth.   The data suggest we should in fact raise the top income tax rate closer to a revenue-maximizing 66.1% from today’s 39.6% rate.  

What does revenue-maximizing mean?  No revenue will be collected if the tax rate is 0% or 100%.  There is some percentage below which tax-payers keep enough of what they earn so they keep working to earn more, and above which they lose incentive.  The idea that cutting taxes would motivate growth was based on the assumption that the top rate was higher than the revenue-maximizing rate.  We now know it was, and still is, substantially lower.

The result cutting the top individual income tax rate did have was to greatly increase federal budget deficits and income inequality.  Income inequality grew because a low top rate motivates what economists call rent-seeking.  When high income folks can keep more of what they’re paid, they have a greater incentive to get higher wages.  A CEO has great influence to achieve that.  Lower level workers do not.  Because CEOs have the stronger bargaining position, they get a greater share of overall income.  That increases income inequality without increasing economic activity.

The recent sharp growth in income inequality is because a growing share of income is generated from capital, and capital gains are taxed at lower rates than “ordinary” income.  Long-term capital gains are currently taxed at a top marginal rate of 23.8% vs 39.6% for ordinary income.  The CBO says this cuts annual revenue by $161B, and is the most regressive of all tax breaks.  Fully 93% of the benefit goes to the top 20% of earners and two-thirds goes to the top 1%.

We have long, but not always, offered incentives for investing capital.  From 1934 to 1941, for example, 20%, 40%, 60%, and 70% of gains could be excluded on assets held for 1, 2, 5, and 10 years.  The recent history is detailed here, starting from 1988, the last time the tax code was significantly reformed.  The lower rate for long-term gains was briefly eliminated at that time, then set at 28% from 1991-1997, cut to 20% from 1997-2007 and cut again to 15% from 2007-2012.  Long term rates currently range from 15% to a top rate of 23.8%.

We encourage investment with lower tax rates because investment carries risk.  If I work at a job, I will get paid.  If I invest, I hope to get paid but I may not even get my investment back.  It does not make sense, however, that gains should be taxed at a lower rates to compensate for that risk because the size of potential gains already reflects their relative risk.  That’s why on average and over time the gains are higher with riskier small company stocks than stocks of well established large ones.

There is a “step-up in basis” rule that means someone who inherits property pays gains tax only on the difference between what it was worth when inherited and when sold.  The capital gain from when it was purchased to when it was inherited is not taxed.   There is no basis in fairness for exempting that capital gain which, according to the Congressional Research Service, is about half of all capital gains in the US.  There are other special cases, too, including lower rates on gains from collectibles, an exemption that benefits only the very wealthy.

Another special case is “carried interest” paid to investment managers.  Carried interest is their share of the investment profits.  It is taxed at capital gains rates even though the investment managers have nothing at risk because they contributed none of the investment.

As Ben Bernanke said in a recent speech“We have been taught that meritocratic institutions and societies are fair. … A meritocracy is a system in which the people who are the luckiest in their health and genetic endowment … [and] in so many other ways … reap the largest rewards.  The only way for a meritocracy to … be considered fair, is if those who are the luckiest in all of those respects also have the greatest responsibility to work hard, to contribute to the betterment of the world, and to share their luck with others.”  Reduced rates on capital gains mean those who are luckiest, and who in many cases do work hard, unfairly share less of the results of their good luck than those who are less lucky.

Perhaps, however, our unfair personal income tax system is redeemed by being effective?  I will explore the details in a separate post, but in brief, no.  Societies break down when wealth is distributed highly unequally.

So, our current income tax is both destructive and delivers results nine out of ten of Americans do not want.  Specific problems include:

  • Low top rates increase inequality
  • Lower rates on capital gains than “ordinary income” increase inequality
  • Exemptions for spending by wealthier citizens increase inequality
  • The “step-up in basis” rule increases inequality

In the next post in this series I will come to some conclusions about a better tax system.  I will not, for example, try to work out what should be our highest income tax rate nor what percentage of total revenue should come from income, consumption, property and estate taxes.  What I will do is figure out a tax structure that better fits what the majority want, subject to any gross mistakes in those wants.