Govt's obligation?

Interesting article on what it means to be "poor" in America:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

 

John, Please stop arguing against positions I don't hold. I am opposed to the notion that government should or even can be the effective means of providing that help- especially on a long term basis.

I am not opposed to sharing. I am opposed to socialism... a concept that has failed each and every time it has been tried. Americans are very generous people. If I am not mistaken, a report came out just a few years ago that said Americans privately contribute more money to relieving world hunger than all other nations combined.

We don't need a welfare state to provide for the poor among us. We need a private means to channel the existing generosity to those who need it. I trust the goodness of individual people more than the "goodness" of a bureaucracy.

Actually, We've done way too much to try and salvage a failed system. It needs to be discarded in favor of something that works.

Maybe this, rather than social welfare is the place for you to start if your concern is the rights and welfare of the masses.

When Americans tossed off British rule, it was more than rulers we rejected, it was a worldview. We rejected the idea that sovereignty belonged to the few in favor of a belief in the sovereignty of the individual and self-determination.

I don't know that someone holding the traditional American worldview would ever hold such an attitude.

There is always something to be made better... some mountain to climb- whether it be creation of a youth sports league or building of a million dollar business.

Could not possibly agree more. If they abuse what God has blessed them with and shirked their responsibility to care for their fellow men then God will most certainly judge them... however it seems that our system, which in my opinion more closely reflects biblical principles and examples, often brings earthly justice to such individuals.

Americans reward benevolance when they see it... and often punish greed. For instance, corporations give alot away around Christmas. Now they do have ulterior motives but they count on the fact that American shoppers appreciate such generosity and will favor one store over another on this basis.

We already have a universal free education system for elementary and high school. "No child left behind" is a Bush initiative to make the system more accountable for the success of the students.

You see teacher's unions have successfully used their political clout with Democrats for years to thwart efforts to hold them accountable for student learning. They have instead demanded increases in funding and smaller class rooms. Even as they got these, performance continued to fall.

To give you an idea, our Christian schools are vastly more successful than our public schools. Yet funding for public schools is much more than double per child than Christian schools. I think the average Washington, DC student cost is about $12,000... yet those schools are failing.

We paid about $3,600 for two kids while living near Chicago and both were advanced when we went back to the public schools.

There you go again. Just because there is a system that supports a person if they do not work it does not mean that everyone will take advantage of it.</font>[/QUOTE] Maybe not. But it does guarantee a large number who will.

BTW, I am not even talking about helping out those who come into temporary difficulties. I am talking about those who use the system as a course of habit.

Just those unwilling to take responsibility for themselves... note "unwilling", not "unable".

No, it does. It is not 'can' but 'does'. Wealth is bound to protect itself. Was there not a law in Israel that everything had to be reset to default after seventy years?[/quote][/qb] Not everything. There were certain things that reset but not the ownership of land and stock.

I think Jews who sold themselves into slavery and certain kinds of debt were relieved.

In America, Bill Gates can go from being a college drop out geek to being one of the wealthiest, most powerful men in the world.

In America, people like Carnegy give away huge fortunes to charity and cultural causes.

In America, black women who grew up with racism and bigotry can overachieve and rise to the office of Secretary of State... or more.

In America, an immigrant from India can go from being a laborer in a Dry Cleaning store to being the owner of a chain of Dry Cleaners. (I know him personally).

In America, the owner of a successful business can be brought down by his own immorality, drug use, and alcoholism then receive Christ and rise to even greater reaches of success. (I know him too... and his generosity to those who are like he once was is remarkable)

 

Scott, I'm not going to come back at you on each and every point, because time does not permit, but here's some further food for thought.

1. Firstly, I apologise if I have offended or misrepresented you in any way, and thank you for putting me straight on that.

2. Dealing with your point about socialism, I can't see how some form of redistributive taxation is necessarily socialist, since socialism as its core belief believes in the abolition of private property and communal ownership of the means of production. That is not what I am advocating at all, and I don't think that John, despite his 'class warfare' credentials, is advocating that either (doubtless John will correct me if I have likewise misrepresented him!). If you look at the forms of taxation we have in the UK (I can only speak from our POV here), with a view to assessing to what extent these assault private property rights, the following picture emerges:-

a. Income tax - tax on income so not a property tax, so no.

b. National Insurance - ditto

c. Value added tax (sale tax) - tax on consumption, so no.

d. Excise and other duties - see #3

e. Capital gains tax - tax on increase in value of an asset, so yes.

f. Corporation tax - tax on income earned by a company, so no.

g. Stamp duty - tax on a document, so no.

h. Stamp Duty Land tax - tax payable on money paid for land, so arguably yes.

i. Inheritance tax - tax payable on the assets of the deceased, so yes.

j. Insurance premium tax - tax payable on insurance premium - probably no - depends whether you consider an insurance policy 'property'

k. Council tax - local county or city tax payable on the value of your home, so yes.

Er...I'm sure there are more but can't think of any.

So, some forms of taxation are on property, others are not. But even taxing private property does not amount to communism; communism is the abolition of all private property and income, pure socialism is the abolition of private property and neither therefore envisage a tax on property since in both systems there is no property to tax

3. As we are talking the morality of taxation, is it morally right for there to be income differntials? Is it morally right, for example, that my labour as a lawyer is valued more highly than that of a machine tool operator? If not, surely there must exist some form of mechanism to redress in part at least that immorality?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

As a sidenote, consider this as well:-

http://www.singingmountain.org/bush-versus-jesus.jpg

...with particular reference to the taxation points.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Apologies for multiple posts, but some further thoughts.

Jesus said we cannot serve two masters. For me, that means that I cannot, as some do, hold property rights and 'my rights to the money I earned' as sacrosanct. Private property rights are doubtless a useful idea, and one with which every government must be greatly concerned for commerce and business etc to flourish, but for me it is not the be-all and end-all that it is for some. The Book of Acts says that the first Christians held their property in common. Scott, you are correct that "Thou shalt not steal" is in the Ten Commandments, but I repeat my earlier submission that it is for the government - specifically the legislature and judiciary - to define what theft is by legislation and by legal judgments. Hence, taxes are not stealing in themselves (no-one here seems to object to paying them for military and law-enforcement purposes), and they no more theft when some of the revenues go to the poor. The apostle Paul wrote in Rom 13 that Christians should obey the secular authorities. Now, tax collection then was big business - possibly more so than it is today - one of the Twelve was a tax collector. Whilst some of the revenue raised went on administrative and military spending, other portions went on the poor (as did some of the Jewish 'temple tax' - or at least it was supposed to); what we call "welfare" Rome called "bread and circuses" . Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor John the Baptist preached against that form of taxation which thus existed in their time; quite the contrary, they preached obedience to that system of governance (John gets closest to negativity, but his criticism is reserved for the dishonesty and fraud of the collectors, not the taxes themselves). In addition, the Magnificat records that God took from the rich to give to the poor, so why shouldn't the government? Now, some may argue that that would be the government 'playing God', but this complaint seems to me to be rather odd as it is usually the same sort of people who equally vociferously complain that their government isn't 'Godly' enough...which do they want??!!

Furthermore, it is inaccurate to assume that taxation is primarily redistributive in nature. Most revenue raised that is not used for administrative or military purposes goes to provide services in the UK: health, education, housing - these may allow people to survive and be productive and possibly increase their own income over time, but they are not directly redistributing income. Welfare benefits do involve a transfer of funds to the poor but still are not primarily redistributive ; rather, they provide a safety net to keep people from starvation and homelessness - this is not redistribution , it is just common sense unless you want to live in a deeply unpleasant society. Redistribution would involve the wealthy moving 'down' the economic ladder with a concurrent move by the poor 'upwards' so that they meet somewhere in the middle; it is more accurate to say that our current system has a greater tendency to maintain people at the bottom of the pile in the existing social system, a statement with which those who argue that welfare creates a 'culture of dependency' must surely agree.

Looking at the list of various types of taxation referred to by me up the page, arguably a progressive tax on income such as we have in the UK is unfair to the rich. But it is also the case that VAT and the various excise and other 'flat rate' taxes are unfair on the poor as they hit the poor proportionately far harder than the rich. 60p on a litre of petrol is 60p on a litre of petrol whether you earn £10k or £100k, but the chap who only earns £10k pays a far higher proportion of his take home pay to fill his tank up than does the guy on £100k.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Some final thoughts before I go home for the day.

If someone is starving, would you consider it moral for them to steal a loaf of bread?

On the 'taxation=theft' point, which is based on the absolute ownership of private property, I would submit that only Christians who buy into modern secular liberalism would take this line. Strangely enough, despite the appeals by some on this thread and elsewhere to the Decalogue ("thou shalt not steal"), private property as a moral absolute is not endorsed by the Bible. The idea of some kind of absolute right to property is an idea which can only be held once one rejects the idea of the world as God's Creation and gift. All things are given by God to Man ultimately. Therefore, what the Bible teaches is stewardship but certainly not ownership, and I see no problem with stewardship being for the common good; quite the opposite in fact. Thus, someone who has vast wealth whilst others live in poverty has no 'right' to that wealth since they are denying the proper end of those goods - the common good and, thereby, the glory of God. Anyone, the State included, has both the right and the duty to restore the goods to their proper end. We see this commanded, for example, in the OT in the concept of the jubilee (cancelling of debt) and the principle that all land reverts to its original owners after 50 years. Its hard to imagine a more massive violation of the principle of private property - yet this is explicitly commanded by Scripture.


On the contrary,property rights, far from being enshrined in the Bible, are in fact conferred, or at least protected by the state. Private property does not exist independently of the state, it relies on the state for its existence and protection.

In conclusion, from a Christian ethical perspective, I cannot see that the libertarian cry of 'taxation is theft' is made out in Scripture, still less endorsed and that the issue of redistributive taxation or indeed the scope of the state versus individual liberty are largely practical questions, where the (Scriptural) answers are guided by what maximises the common good.

See you all tomorrow!

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

If government has a "moral right" to take something of value, who does it actually belong to? The "right" of government to redistribute wealth is predicated on the notion that ultimately everything is "public property".

Income is property. And it is the property of the most important kind.

Income or more specifically wage is the exchange of our labor as an asset (property) for something of value, usually money. A slave is an individual whose labor as an asset belongs to someone else. They usually cannot own property themselves in a real way but there really are no other necessary characteristics of a slave. Slaves have historically, even in the Old American South, enjoyed a great deal of liberty.

I actually agree with you for the most part on the other forms of taxation.

If someone can charge you money for living on a piece of property... who does that property belong to?

Apparently it is moral since God never condemns wealth nor implies in any way that wealth among the people should be equal. Certainly, the ancient Israelites had varying degrees of wealth. Job was wealthy and also righteous.

In the parables I cited earlier, the lord or rich men were noble while the poor/laborers were wicked and envious.

If inequalities in wealth were immoral, God most certainly would have told us somewhere or at least implied it.

 

Actually, you are 100% slave since you have already accepted the principle that someone is entitled to an amount determined by them.

Even the slaves of the old south were given enough to keep them healthy and somewhat subdued.

And yes, I am aware that all of us who pay the income tax fall into this group. My hope is that we can use the peaceful means at our disposal to free ourselves.

The ideas espoused by Matt and Johnp are a move in the opposite direction- toward more dependence and more bondage.

 

Hello Scott.

And yes, I am aware that all of us who pay the income tax fall into this group [Slaves]. My hope is that we can use the peaceful means at our disposal to free ourselves.
The ideas espoused by Matt and Johnp are a move in the opposite direction- toward more dependence and more bondage.

I am honoured to be associated with a man like Matt. He ain't n'alf posh. Classes working together for the common good.
Do you advocate a tax free society or a society that decides individually what your tax money can be spent on.
What is a good choice for you? Can you list them please? The important ones.

johnp.

 

Scott, taxation is not about who owns the property (although I've covered the Scriptural principles relating to that issue above), it's about being part of a society and a social contract between government and the governed in such a society. The wealth that individuals earn and which is then taxed in a society such as the US and the UK is the direct result of government creating or at least protecting the conditions whereby such wealth creation can flourish; as a quid pro quo for that, such individuals are taxed. For individuals to imagine that they are entitled to decline to contribute to a the well-being (including that of those less-well-off than they)of a healthy society is to cut off the basis of their individuality, and their own well-being. This is especially true of the wealthy, because it is that society and its laws - underpinned to a degree and paid for by taxation - that makes their wealth possible (imagine Bill Gates trying to build Microsoft in Sudan).

The real issue is therefore to what extent our respective wealth creation and taxation regimes are balanced towards fairly fulfilling that social contract.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Certainly it is. Especially, if a government claims to be democratic.

If 51% of your neighbors cannot vote themselves the right to raid your kitchen at will then 51% of your countryman should not be able to vote themselves benefits paid for by someone else.

There are legitimate forms of taxation that are far more efficient than the income tax. Use taxes, sales taxes, excises, etc. are indirect forms of taxation that people truly "volunteer" to pay through their free value choices.

If you ask politicians the reasons for their preference for the income tax, I guarantee that none of them will cite "efficiency in raising revenue"... because it is probably the least efficient means. The IRS absorbs about 25% of all the money it raises through income taxes for its operating expenses. This is before they turn the money over to the treasury for dispersement to the various government agencies.

Once you distill all of the spin, sophistry, and outright evasion, it all boils down to the ability to control the wealth of individuals and thereby control their behavior.

Only if that contract involves the government's ownership of the individuals labor and wealth.

See above. There are far less intrusive and more efficient means of doing this... even if you decide after the fact to take revenues raised from sales taxes and fund a welfare state (which I would still oppose).

Instead, Gates chose Washington state... a state with no income tax.

 

These are the same thing.

But to answer the question I think you are answering: I prefer a society the holds the rights, freedoms, and responsibilities of its citizens as sacred. It should not attempt to usurp any of them... including responsibility. Yes it is necessary in a truly free society that some people will fail. You cannot have a risk free society... socialism only obscures the risks.

The best society is where the risks and rewards are equally visible and motivating.

Prior to the welfare programs of the 20th century, America was not plagued by hordes of starving peasants. It was a land recognized for the quality of its people and opportunity. People helped each other knowing that they really were their brothers keeper. Making this help impersonal through the welfare state is wholly destructive to a society's foundation... the understood social contract if you will.

 

I've already indicated the problem with a flat rate tax such as a sales tax being the only form of taxation - it disproportionately and unfairly penalises the poor. Sales taxes are not necessarily voluntary either; certain countries in the EU put vat on clothing for example, and if you live in a remote rural area with no public transport then its a pretty long shot to say that vat and excise duty on fuel is a 'voluntary' tax.

I reiterate that this is not about ownership per se. Nor is it necessarily about control: those of us who have taken the Political Compass test have seen that one can be economically left-wing whilst not being authoritarian; conversely, governments can be ecomically right-wing and preserve property rights whilst being extremely authoritarian (Pinochet, anyone?).It is about balancing the rights of individuals with the rights of society as represented by the government that society elects. As I have said earlier, if you don't like the decisions your government makes with regard to private property you have three choices:-

1. Vote and persuade others in sufficient numbers to do likewise so that that government is changed to one more amenable to your views on property and taxation

2. Leave the society/ country for one that is more to your liking

3. Put up with it, with half and eye at all times on #1, but accepting that probably you're not going to be able to achieve #1 and the situation probably accurately reflects the wishes of the society in which you live

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I am a center left Libertarian not quite as Libertarian and left as Ghandi was.

This is a good game. Whose turn now?

johnp.

 

You see, Scott, a bit of redistributive taxation doesn't mean you're into controlling the people

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

You make my point. You want to control the wealth of others. Maybe not in a personal way but you want those with a like mindset to do it in a way that you approve of... and will vote fore.

BTW, sales taxes often do not apply to food and sometimes to other basic necessities. I would certainly support such exclusions.

If you can live without the purchase or there are other options then it is voluntary as to whether to buy it or not. Hence, food and basic clothing should be excluded along with the purchase of shelter.

I am not interested in a VAT since I think it is very harmful to free enterprise.

And I reiterate that this is exactly what this is about. You didn't even begin to answer my points about alternate methods of taxation.

Test or no test, if you control someone's property you control them. If I have the power to put you out of your home and into the soup line, you have a tremendous incentive to do what I tell you to do.

You cannot be libertarian and economically left-wing. You can be socially lenient and left-wing.

Let me explain the difference. A libertarian says that each person is entitled to do as they see fit so long as a) they don't infringe on other people in the free exercise of their rights and b) they stand ready to wholly accept the consequences of their own actions.

Uniformly, social liberals want to allow freedom without responsibility. This is not libertarianism.

Yes. And I never said they couldn't.

No. As I have stated several times already in different ways, it is about protecting the rights, freedoms, and personal responsibility of the individual. Or else, it is about empowering government to become master and lord.

This is what I am doing.

Why should I be the one to leave? My ideals are very much in line with those who founded my country. It is those who would undermine my freedom that should go find another place to ruin or else has already been ruined.

Possibly. It is a matter of tolerance since most of the world's nations are even less free than the US.

 

Vat IS a sales tax.

Is it libertarian, would you say, to not pay one's employees a fair wage, particularly in a recession?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Yes. The harsh reality is that the person chose to accept a job with either a written or understood contract. They are responsible for freely entering into a contract and for the risks they ensue by doing so. This is a price of freedom. No one gets to tell you what to do but you have to count the costs and take full responsibility for your own choices- even when those choices have unseen, unexpected, and undesirable consequences.

The obvious safeguard is unemployment insurance which is currently mandated by the US Gov't.... but which also could be much better done by a private system. In the US, the payee to claimant ratio would be about 19:1. The profit potential for an insurance company would be enormous... while still increasing payouts significantly.

 

Oh, My understanding of a VAT tax was that it was exacted on wholesale exchanges rather than retail. Is that not correct?