Govt's obligation?

Vat in the UK is charged on turnover to producers of all goods and services; therefore retailers and wholesalers alike charge it. However, retailers who pay it to wholesalers can set that off against their vat bill on their sales to consumers; ultimately, therefore, it is only the consumer who ends up footing the bill.

I would strongly argue that the example I cited is neither fair nor libertarian, based on your definition of libertarian, and in particular the infringement upon other people. If, in a recession, the only job available to you is one with slave wages and/ or appalling conditions and your choice is to take it or starve, then that is no real choice at all; furthermore, the prospective employer by fixing those oppressive conditions, IS infringing on his workers by 'doing as he sees fit'. Such a situation must be regulated to a degree to (a) prevent that kind of abuse by an employer of his or her dominant, unequaly bargaining position and/ or (b) to provide the would-be employee with a viable alternative/ safety-net

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Scott, and others, would you not say that one of the reasons that you as an American Christian and me as a British Christian are having this debate is because of the different ways in which 'social justice issues' (for want of a better term) have emerged out of the Christian secene in our respective countries. I think the divergence between the two countries there is because in the US social issues were promoted initially by the so-called Social Gospel movement (Washington Gladden, Sojourners, etc) who were liberal in theology, hence social action tends to be seen by evangelicals in the US as being 'liberal' and conducted by liberal Christians (cause or effect?), whereas in Britain social action on issues like slavery, child labour,etc, arose from within mainstream evangelicalism up to about a century earlier (Wilberforce, the Clapham Sect, Shaftesbury, Barnardo, Kingsley, Maurice etc).

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

No. In the US, it is far more fundamental than your "social justice issues". Your evaluation of the "Social Gospel" movement is relevant but does not fully explain the situation.

Our nation was founded on basically what amounted to a mix of biblical principles and ancient philosophies on republican government. Our founders equated "the nation" with the people, not the government. So when they spoke of a "Christian nation", it was because Christian values provided the discipline necessary for a civil society.

The basic premise and "value" is that the individual in America is sovereign to almost the same degree as a monarch was in Europe. In a monarchy or totalitarian state, rights belong to the government and are distributed to the people as privileges. In a free society, rights belong to the individual and should not be confiscated or intruded upon by government. This does not mean that 51% gets to demand that 100% pay an income tax... it would more properly mean that anyone should be able to opt out if they don't like the way the government spends the money.

Indirect taxes by the way, tax economic activities, not individuals, and are legitimate for financing government.

The first step in the wrong direction came out of the Civil War. Though slavery was a horrid abuse of the rights of men, the erosion of constitutional principles began as "states rights" was defeated in what is still the bloodiest American war.

In 1913, an amendment to the USC was "declared" ratified which allowed direct taxation (ie. income tax). This was seen as a threat to individual liberty and specifically forbidden by the framers. The definition of income in 1913 did not include wages but was instead synonomous with profit.

In the 1930's, the combination of the Great Depression and heavy immigration (particularly Catholic) from Europe left us vulnerable to government encroachments in the name of helping people. Many argue and I agree, that FDR's programs were not getting us out of the Depression and would not have done so without WWII. People were helped and fed... but private organizations deserve great credit for this as well. Many of the Great Society programs were intended to be terminated... but eventually were left in place or transformed.

WWII led to a whole new era. Many rights were suppressed and violated in the name of the war effort. The offenses of the Roosevelt Administration (an icon to liberals) were far more egregious than anything done by Bush and Ashcroft.

During WWII, the "Victory Tax" was implemented as basically a voluntary wage tax system. It continued afterwards to pay down war debt. By the 1950's, it was accepted... though the threshold's were so high that almost no one paid it. Democrats over the next 30 years refused to move the brackets and inflation brought more and more Americans into the "taxpayer" class.

By the end of the 1950's, a large portion of the American populace thought of government action as a force for good. They believed in "good government" and allowed it to grow progressively more intrusive. The high water of liberalism in the US was the 1970's when both their economic and social views were dominating the institutions of centralized power- government, media, education.

The "Republican Revolution" of 1994 was a national recognition of this mistaken view. Most Americans today believe that government should shrink... the horn is that they think it should shrink in different ways.

Prior to the 1913 income tax and the belief in good government, the US federal gov't had no sustained debt and operated on less than 7% of the gross national product. Today, our debt is hopelessly unpayable and deficits are the rule... and government absorbs approximately 27% of the gross national product. Oh yeah... in 1900 the poor, disabled, and elderly were taken care of and even the "Wild West" wasn't as violent as south central LA. They certainly had problems but nothing that rises to the levels of today... after our government has spent trillions of dollars on social programs.


PAJim, others, and I believe in a return to the system and philosophy of government that made America great. I am more pragmatic in that I believe the Republicans represent brakes that will allow us to slow down and turn around safely. PA Jim's approach is that the issue is so urgent that we need to do a Duke's of Hazard move and turn around at full speed... even if it might cause alot of damage.

 

I'll be racing away in the General Lee, and leave Larry and Joseph to put out the smoldering embers of the GOP.

Or, we'll all observe the sun setting on what was once a free nation.

 

ScottJ makes an excellent summary. I would add important emphasis:

1. I think it is true that evangelicals and fundamentalists have neglected social duties in their reaction to the heresies inherent in the social gospel. It was an overreaction, and I think is being turned around.

2. BUT...there is also a fundamental difference between differing concepts "justice". And, I contend, with ScottJ, that taking a persons' substance with threat of violence and/or imprisonment, is not justice, even if the purported reason is to help someone who has less.

 

At the risk of blurring the arguments slightly, I don't know about in the US but in the UK there a very few examples of direct redistribution because most taxes - of all kinds - go towards providing services from which the entire community benefits: health, education, transport/ infrastructure, defence, police, waste collection and disposal etc. Only a minority goes directly on what we in 'catch-all' manner call 'welfare benefits'. So, although there is an indirect redistributive effect here, in that the rich pay more in progressive taxation and the poor get services they wouldn't have been able to pay for privately, it is much less a case of 'the government robs you to give to someone else' and more a case of 'you pay the government to provide essential services from which you and the rest of society benefit without which life would be pretty unpleasant and you wouldn't be able to make the money that causes you to be rich in the first place'.

Oh and BTW, guys, you still haven't answered my question as to whether it is just and libertarian to employ a worker on slave wages in the scenario I described above.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Matt,

I'd say that with a minimum of basic laws to protect against actual abuse, the employer/employee agreement should be set by the free market.

Having said that, I'd also say that an employer has a moral obligation to pay a decent living wage as he is able. But that should be determined by conscience and market, not government force.

 

So how do you protect workers in such a situation if the obligation is merely moral, not legal?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

You don't. Without morals, no society can survive. It doesn't matter how many laws you pass.

 

I would submit that you can enforce it- and therefore you should. We do it in this country - and it works.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Exactly what is it that you suggest enforcing?

 

Matters such as minimum wage, Health and Safety at Work Regulations (up to a point - the ones we have here are OTT), and working hours (particularly so that family life, which conservatives rightly prize, can be enhanced and protected)

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I'm against government mandated minimum wage. Some workplace regulations, in the context of the USA, are acceptable to me if implemented at the state, not federal, level.

 

I believe that most of the issues relating to wage fairness and safety could be resolved if employers were required to have specific written contracts with those who work for them.

Environmental protection is a common welfare issue that did not exist in the late 18th century. However, the EPA solution basically empowers unelected bureaucrats to make law. Although it would make Congress' job considerably more difficult, each member should have experts to advise them on environmental issues. Restrictions should be legislated, not dictated.

Whatever the solution should be, it needs a Constitutional amendment to legitimize it.

 

Well said, Scott.

 

Your morals are showing PJ.

Scott J

[quot]Whatever the solution should be, it needs a Constitutional amendment to legitimize it.[/quote]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Why?

johnp.

 

The Constitution enumerated several powers that the Federal government could exercise. One of them was the Post Office. Another was interstate commerce. It granted all other powers to the states and the people.

Promote does not mean the same thing as provide.

The environment is more often than not an interstate problem. For instance, Ohio factories cause polution that kills foliage above the 5000 ft level in North Carolina. Polution in St Louis directly effects air quality in Illinois due to proximity and prevailing winds. Water quality in rivers or lakes can be impacted by any bordering state.

 

Scoot, I'm interested in why you think written contracts of employment would solve the problem. We've had mandated written contracts by law since 1978 but still had to minimum wage legislation enacted in 1997-8 and a raft of health and safety measures also since then (some stupid and annoying to employers like me but others absolutely essential) because the 1978 Act wasn't ensuring this.

Constitutionally, it's kind of easier for us because every piece of legislation passed DOES change the constitution.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Very few Americans begin employment with a very clear picture of how their compensation will be handled or what work will be expected. Often they only know the starting pay and job title.

Detailing those work expectations would force employers to enter into a true market engagement for labor by allowing employees to make a real value judgment on the job.

Further, it would replace a regulation of questionable legal merit and economic worth with a legally binding document.

 

I'm still not convinced - like I said, we had all that from 1978 and still ended up with slave-wages, particularly in a recession when jobs are scarce; I submit that you still need some kind of gvt 'terms and conditions' regs to prevent that kind of abuse

Yours in Christ

Matt