Free Enterprize/Democracy?

The rich pay more in taxes after a tax rate cut because they are more motivated to invest in higher risk investments (like new businesses, newer technology, etc...) that often result in higher profits. But this also often results in more jobs which result in more taxpayers collectively paying more in total income taxes.

When these marginal rates are increased, the rich simple find ways to secure their own wealth and avoid risking it on investments. The results are fewer advances and fewer jobs.

What would most benefit the poor is by encouraging the investment that results in job creation AND eliminating the hurdles currently on the poor that keep them from accumulating wealth over their lifetimes.

 

I thought of another interesting aspect of the stock market. If the value of the dollar goes down as it has been recently then sellers get less in real terms for their stock even if the price remains the same. This means that anyone holding dollar denominated investments lose when the value of the dollar is declining. I'd have to think about this a little more to figure out exactly how this affects the buy/sell dynamic.

 

Mostly administration. In Germany there was still an illusion of private property... though the state controlled virtually all outputs, profits, wages, etc. Compliant "owners" were rewarded with a better lifestyle. In the USSR, the state just owned everything outright. They appointed management to govern the various enterprises and rewarded them with a better lifestyle.

True.

 

As I have responded to your offhanded insults before... you do not hold the high ground for deciding to use the power of gov't to force someone else to do something about the poor or a "debtor".

I am not rich. That doesn't make it any less "right" to defend the "rights" of those who are. It is their money... not yours. If you want to be charitable, live on subsistence yourself and give everything else to the poor or to people who have irresponsibly gotten themselves into debt.

Then perhaps you can come back and pompously declare your superiority... otoh, I guess you couldn't since the money you spend on PC's and internet would go to the poor, huh?

I'm actually not suggesting you must do this... only that it is highly hypocritical of folks on the left to force others to do more than they are doing themselves.

If everyone who voted for those promising wealth transfer programs would give to charity at the rate they suggest "the rich" should be taxed... poverty in our nation would cease and I would suspect that none of those voters would go hungry or be exposed to the elements. Of course they might have to give up some of their "wealth" like boats, vacations, cable, widescreen tv's, larger than necessary dwellings, lottery tickets, etc, etc, etc.

 

If it were static...

But it isn't static nor is it a "closed" or zero sum system. It is constantly growing so long as free market forces aren't interrupted. The stock market collapse leading to the Great Depression is an example of how capitalism can on rare occasion contradict free market principles.

For example, everyone on this board is "richer" than they were 20 years ago. Few if us could afford a PC and none of us had access to the internet. Alot of people made a real profit over that time on the stock market off of the technology revolution. Even with the bursting of the dotcom bubble, most losses were temporary. Both profits and real increases in wealth as measured by standard of living have increased. This has been repeated throughout our history with everything from better less expensive clothing (in real dollars) to multiple automobiles to Bibles.

Because of the free market, each generation has handed a more wealthy country to their children. Big gov't socialistic excesses now stand as a very real threat to this legacy. It is likely that the children being born now will inherit a gov't spending commitment in social programs so great that they actually have a lower real standard of living than their parents unless the working population is dramatically increased through immigration.

 

Outstanding article by a great mind:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=why_we_love_government&ns=WalterEWilliams&dt=11/29/2006&page=2

 

Excellent article. The money quote, IMO:

Free markets work because they are free. As government encroaches upon the markets, freedom is restricted and there are several unintended consequences. Of all people, we, as Baptists should favor the freest market possible. We demand freedom to evangelize, to organize churches, and to govern them as we see fit (in accordance with Scripture rather than government decree).

I find it quite ironic to hear Baptist pastors advocate for significant restrictions on this freedom. One would think that these folks would want to experience the free market regarding salaries and benefits....or perhaps not.

 

How does one determine what is "fair" in a competitive situation? "Fairness" is an almost purely subjective quality. Perhaps you are referring to illegal activities like trading on insider info, false financial filings, false advertizing, etc... In these cases, the illegal actions have destroyed true competition. These activities are as dangerous to free markets as overwrought (and under thought) government intrusions.

 

Um....no. How do my comments translate into "as long as it is legal, it is okay"?

My point was aimed at the "fairness" that you seem to advocate or that you seem to think is missing in our current economic environment.

O.K., let's get back to the specifics then.

1. How does our system allow the rich to take advantage of the poor?

2. What other system would be an improvement and how?

 

Most people here would say that we should vote our conscience and according to our faith. Given that the churches can not or will not help the poor as necessary my conscience tells me that we should support another way. I don't consider holding this view as being pompous. It's my belief. You believe differently. Case closed.

 

Conscience or principle

I'm not sure that voting one's conscience is good advice. Our conscience often tell us to do the thing that we want to do. I prefer voting on principles derived from the Word of God. Otherwise, everyone is doing what's right in his own sight. Do I need to make a case that such view caters to self-interest?

Government forced re-distribution of wealth is wrong for many reasons. It has no moral and spiritual effect upon the one who provides the wealth. As Christians our giving is based on compassion, stewardship and love. Government social programs are not only ineffective but they have no personal compassion behind them.

Furthermore, government social programs have produced a permanent underclass of the poor who have less hope than ever of escaping their poverty. Over a half-century of social program failure should teach us this if we are ever to learn from history.

Also, the people really benefiting from the social programs are the administrators and social workers who draw good salaries, not the poor. Thus, you are advocating poor stewardship--i.e. a waste of money without results.

In addition, much poverty is the direct result of human depravity--i.e. laziness, poor management, drugs and alchohol, etc. Government social programs are indiscriminate in helping those who deserve it and those who don't.

Additionally, government is doing a moral, although legal, injustice to people by taking the reward of their labor and giving to another. It is the working middle class, not the rich with discretionary income, who bear the brunt of the taxation for social programs. A wrong action is never justified by a good deed.

Finally, people exspunge their own consciences by forcing others to participate thus lessening their own guilt-ridden responsibility. In other words, folks avoid personal and individual responsibility by making it a social issue that is the responsibility of the group. Recent studies have shown that those who advocate social responsibility the loudest do the least personally. Ironic, isn't it? Check out the following link: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

 

Something missing from analysis

Something is missing from the analyzes on this thread. Most posts are predicated on the misconceptions taught in high school textbooks or sophomore political science taught in college or an introduction to economics. If you want to really grapple with these issues you must drink a little longer and deeper from philosophy and history. Basically, Capitalism is not a Christian system at all. It is spawned from Social Darwinism of the later 19th century. Competition, a central tenant of Capitalism, is justified supposedly by the natural selection and competition in Darwinism. It is as false and untenable as the “everything is relative” misconception of General and Special Relativity. Free Market economics with Christian moral and ethical teachings is another animal. Scripture does teach principles of property ownership, wages for labor, etc.

 

I pretty much agree with you, but you know we will get nothing from Scott J except contempt and ridicule. Fortunately, we may have a Congress that will listen to what we are saying; Scott will just have to deal with it. :laugh:

 

Every job that I've had was created by a rich man. For that, I am thankful.

 

I don't see your view as pompus. But I do see a significant danger in what you propose.

You wrote: "Given that the churches can not or will not help the poor as necessary my conscience tells me that we should support another way."

So if a local church refuses to obey a biblical mandate, you are o.k. with using the power of the secular government to get the same mandate accomplished?

Do you really want to go down that path?

 

Did you read this "according to our faith?"

 

Why not? I said it before and I will say it again, if the government chooses to spend tax dollars on social welfare programs it does not negate a Christian's moral obligations. So please elaborate, if you will, on these "significant dangers" you see. Keep in mind the Bible does not mandate how governments spend tax money.

 

Whose faith?

I am not certain but I think I know the sense in which you use faith. However, considering faith as a body of doctrine, there is no way to say that you and I have the same interpretation and apply our faith even if we hold the same doctrine in common. Liberals proclaimed the Social Gospel according to their faith. Word of Faith proponents have an entirely different view. So, I can't see how this phrase refutes or negates anything i said. Can you explain it?