Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Many if not most poor people in developed countries with readily available employment like the US are poor because of decisions and value judgments they have made. All adult poor people continue to be poor in nations like the US due to their own decisions unless they are somehow physically or mentally disabled. Even then, we have gone to great lengths to help them be employable.Originally posted by Matt Black:
Oh, great, so the poor aren't just poor, they're also lazy.
The "cannots" should be taken care of by churches and private charities. The "will nots" should be afforded opportunity and the choice to make their way or do without.Why would your free market system work for those who cannot?
Did you see the "illegal" part of my post? National defense and internal security are Constitutionally legal (even mandated) for the Fed. Now, the income tax is an illegal tax because it's an excise tax that is based on a necessity. This could easily be fixed by implementing the Fair Tax, which you can read about by clicking the link.Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
So you would be against the government taking money from you for defence and internal security - presumably if taxation is theft according to you, then it is irrelevant what that taxation goes on.
Dickens' novels demonstrate nothing more nor less than the fact that he was a good writer. Further, failure when comparing across time is a purely subjective, speculative game.Originally posted by Matt Black:
Except that we know that that doesn't work - over here we called it 'Victorian Britain' and a cursory glance at the pages of Mr Dickens' novels will demonstrate that it failed miserably.
Capable... or willing? I have had "poor" people even after welfare reform turn their noses up at $10/hour jobs because they were expected to actually show up on time and do good quality production. They walked away. Why? Because they have been systematically taught by the purveyors of the welfare state/mentality that they deserve a living just because they want/need one.HoG, I'm afraid I regard your view as simplistic; there are times when there are no jobs or at least no jobs which one is capable of doing*.
The question is: Could you really get no job at all or only that you couldn't get one you were satisfied with? BTW, did you ever consider starting your own enterprise?I grew up in one recession - the early 80s under Thatcher - and hit the job market mid-way through another in the early 90s. In the former I knew people who had been made redundant and were willing to do any job - but they had to wait in line, or were told that they lacked the skills base necessary for the job concerned. In the latter, I was fortunate enough to get a job after leaving university (many didn't)but the firm had to let me go after 18 months due to the economic situation. I was told that for the jobs going down the local Job Centre (Labor Exchange in the US?) I was 'overqualified'. I put my apartment on the market being prepared to move anywhere - but because of the recession it took nearly 5 years to sell, and then only at a considerable loss. Fortunately I did manage to get another job and I was even more fortunate to get a job in the same field - law - and I am now a partner in the law firm which employed me, so things turned out alright for me in the end, but I know many of my contemporaries who were not so fortunate- and they're no more lazy scroungers than I am...
Right. But after a few generations, people begin to be unemployable... they no longer think the effort of going to work is worth even a fairly significant improvement in living standards. That is part of the reason the welfare reform of the 90's was so necessary.* Part of the problem here lies with the 'poverty trap' welfare benefit scenario alluded to by me a few posts ago: there may be jobs available but because someone has a family to support, they may not pay enough for him to do the job and he may end up better off on benefits.
Scott: The question is: Could you really get no job at all or only that you couldn't get one you were satisfied with? </font>[/QUOTE]No job at all - even stuff like stacking shelves, if that was available, went to kids with no qualifications before they would consider me.Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Matt: I grew up in one recession - the early 80s under Thatcher - and hit the job market mid-way through another in the early 90s. In the former I knew people who had been made redundant and were willing to do any job - but they had to wait in line, or were told that they lacked the skills base necessary for the job concerned. In the latter, I was fortunate enough to get a job after leaving university (many didn't)but the firm had to let me go after 18 months due to the economic situation. I was told that for the jobs going down the local Job Centre (Labor Exchange in the US?) I was 'overqualified'. I put my apartment on the market being prepared to move anywhere - but because of the recession it took nearly 5 years to sell, and then only at a considerable loss. Fortunately I did manage to get another job and I was even more fortunate to get a job in the same field - law - and I am now a partner in the law firm which employed me, so things turned out alright for me in the end, but I know many of my contemporaries who were not so fortunate- and they're no more lazy scroungers than I am...
BTW, did you ever consider starting your own enterprise?
Yes.Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ever heard of negative equity? Property prices crashed here from 88-93. That's why I was mortgaged up to the hilt.
Who is to say what is "bad luck"? BTW, as a Christian that believes in the sovereignty of God I reject the concept of "luck" altogether.I am firmly of the view that if people make decisions which, due to no more than bad luck, don't work out, they should be bailed out by the state;
Christianity and "luck" are incompatible. Nothing happens purely by chance. God is in control.otherwise we are saying as Christians that our fellow men should be solely at the mercy of luck
What is that? That it is wrong to forcefully take from those who make the right decisions in order to bail out those who make the wrong decisions? I am sorry your feel that way but using one's wants or even needs as a justification for stealing from another is just wrongheaded. And it matters not whether you rob the person yourself or do it by proxy through government.and, with respect, I don't find that an appropriate view for a Christian tro espouse.
That's why I support the Fair Tax. (Click the link and read about it.) It does not increase the cost of anything, it is merely taxed a different way, and it's fair an equal across the board. If you don't want to pay it, don't buy things.Originally posted by billwald:
Half the ecomony is under the table and still would be if we went to a sales tax.
Sales tax would shaft the old people who spent their entire lives paying income tax.
Who is to say what is "bad luck"? BTW, as a Christian that believes in the sovereignty of God I reject the concept of "luck" altogether.</font>[/QUOTE]And I believe in the sovereignty of God too. But I also believe in human free will and there will be occasions when certain other humans act in a way which will have a detrimental effect on you eg: hiking up interest rates. The 'certain other humans' in this case were the UK Treasury officials. Now, unless you're claiming that God somehow compelled those officials to act that way, then I'd say that decision was down to human free will, wouldn't you?Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
I am firmly of the view that if people make decisions which, due to no more than bad luck, don't work out, they should be bailed out by the state;
Why do you regard yourself as being punished by paying taxes to pay for services from which everyone - including you - benefits? This seems to me to be a rather odd way of looking at it. Do you cry 'thief' or 'punishment' when the government takes money from you to pay for national defence?If you said that was "bad luck" and wanted me to pay for it having had "good luck"... then I could just as easily turn around and say: "I had the wisdom to make a better investment though perhaps not affording me as fancy house as his. Now that Matt faces the consequence of his more extravagent/less careful choice.... Why should I be punished?
Scott: Christianity and "luck" are incompatible. </font>[/QUOTE]And that's why I questioned your stance as being unChristian - because it presumes that people are at the mercy of luck</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Matt: otherwise we are saying as Christians that our fellow men should be solely at the mercy of luck
See my interest rate example above.Nothing happens purely by chance. God is in control.
Scott:What is that? That it is wrong to forcefully take from those who make the right decisions in order to bail out those who make the wrong decisions?</font>[/QUOTE]No, that it is wrong to acquiesce in the poverty of others and adopt an "I'm alright Jack, I've made all the right decisions and you're poor because you've obviously made the wrong decisions, so not only am I considerably richer than you, but also morally superior, and you can just rot in the gutter and how dare the government try and help you at my expense" holier-than-thou attitude. That IMO is a profoundly unChristian attitude and I believe Jesus had a few words to say about it eg: Matt 25Matt: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> and, with respect, I don't find that an appropriate view for a Christian to espouse.
It's not stealing if it is within the law - which taxation is. As a lawyer, I can give you chapter and verse as to the definition of theft, and taxation does not fall within it. (Tax evasion does)I am sorry your feel that way but using one's wants or even needs as a justification for stealing from another is just wrongheaded. And it matters not whether you rob the person yourself or do it by proxy through government.
They were poor and/ or unemployed in the main too. They did have a credit union but there was simply not enough in the pot to go round. you just don't get it, do you: private charity on its own does not relieve poverty - it didn't before the welfare state and it won't now.The NT model would have been for you to turn to those in your church for help. They should have willingly provided it... and you should have been willing to reciprocate.
See Matt 25 again. Even if there wasn't a NT model, so what? There isn't a NT model for gun ownership, or military budgets, yet I don't here you complaining about those.There is no NT model for the welfare state.
Who is to say what is "bad luck"? BTW, as a Christian that believes in the sovereignty of God I reject the concept of "luck" altogether.</font>[/QUOTE]And I believe in the sovereignty of God too. But I also believe in human free will and there will be occasions when certain other humans act in a way which will have a detrimental effect on you eg: hiking up interest rates. The 'certain other humans' in this case were the UK Treasury officials. Now, unless you're claiming that God somehow compelled those officials to act that way, then I'd say that decision was down to human free will, wouldn't you?</font>[/QUOTE] Theirs and yours... although none of those decisions were made outside of God's permissive will.Originally posted by Matt Black:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
I am firmly of the view that if people make decisions which, due to no more than bad luck, don't work out, they should be bailed out by the state;
Why do you regard yourself as being punished by paying taxes to pay for services from which everyone - including you - benefits?</font>[/QUOTE] Because I would not be benefiting- you would.</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If you said that was "bad luck" and wanted me to pay for it having had "good luck"... then I could just as easily turn around and say: "I had the wisdom to make a better investment though perhaps not affording me as fancy house as his. Now that Matt faces the consequence of his more extravagent/less careful choice.... Why should I be punished?
No. Because national defense does serve all of us at the same time.This seems to me to be a rather odd way of looking at it. Do you cry 'thief' or 'punishment' when the government takes money from you to pay for national defence?
Scott: Christianity and "luck" are incompatible. </font>[/QUOTE]And that's why I questioned your stance as being unChristian - because it presumes that people are at the mercy of luck </font>[/QUOTE] Nope. We are "at the mercy" of the consequences of the decisions that we make. We are accountable. None of us ever have perfect understanding... but removing the consequences for failure is not the same as removing the failure.</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Matt: otherwise we are saying as Christians that our fellow men should be solely at the mercy of luck
See my interest rate example above.</font>[/QUOTE] And some people looked at the signs and considered the risks and made wise investments. Others either ignored the risks or lacked the wisdom to see them and made mistakes.</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Nothing happens purely by chance. God is in control.
Scott:What is that? That it is wrong to forcefully take from those who make the right decisions in order to bail out those who make the wrong decisions?</font>[/QUOTE]No, that it is wrong to acquiesce in the poverty of others and adopt an "I'm alright Jack, I've made all the right decisions and you're poor because you've obviously made the wrong decisions,</font>[/QUOTE] Are you saying that some didn't make successful decisions and others made failing decisions? Are you saying that those who made poor decisions bear no responsibility for those decisions?</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Matt: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> and, with respect, I don't find that an appropriate view for a Christian to espouse.
I said nothing about being morally superior. I did mention wisdom though... and diligence and prudence and a generous helping of not making risky grasps for things more expensive than you can handle.so not only am I considerably richer than you, but also morally superior,
The "rot in the gutter" comment is a heinous false allegation. Nothing I have written communicates a lack of personal concern for those in need or for you personally. You made a mistake. You should learn from it and those with means within the church should have helped you. But government SHOULD NOT be in the business of rescuing people from the consequences of their personal choices especially those based on personal desires.and you can just rot in the gutter and how dare the government try and help you at my expense"
Actually it is you that have demonstrated a "holier-than-thou" attitude for my having dared to say that government shouldn't take from one person to relieve another of their responsibility. It was YOU that insenuated that because I don't believe in the nanny state that I must believe in letting the poor or those hit with tough circumstances "rot in the gutter".holier-than-thou attitude.
Nope. It is profoundly unchristian to borrow money in a way that overextends you then when that risk doesn't pan out use government to pick the pocket of your neighbor to pay the costs of the bad decision.That IMO is a profoundly unChristian attitude
Indeed!!! A man gave talents to his servants... the one who made bad investments wasn't rewarded by getting a share from those who made wise investments, was he?and I believe Jesus had a few words to say about it eg: Matt 25
It's not stealing if it is within the law - which taxation is.</font>[/QUOTE] Stealing is stealing whether legitimized by statute or not. Hiring someone (in this case politicians and tax collectors) to steal for you is every bit as immoral as stealing yourself.</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I am sorry your feel that way but using one's wants or even needs as a justification for stealing from another is just wrongheaded. And it matters not whether you rob the person yourself or do it by proxy through government.
The agreement of politicians or even a democratic majority does NOT make something morally right or even naturally legal.As a lawyer, I can give you chapter and verse as to the definition of theft, and taxation does not fall within it. (Tax evasion does)
They were poor and/ or unemployed in the main too. They did have a credit union but there was simply not enough in the pot to go round.</font>[/QUOTE] The NT says that they shared all things in common. Jesus taught that we should depend on Him in faith. You are promoting dependence on a humanistic ideal of gov't. over the scriptural model.</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The NT model would have been for you to turn to those in your church for help. They should have willingly provided it... and you should have been willing to reciprocate.
I get it just fine. The system I describe did work for about 150 years in the US... taking a rag tag, disjointed ensemble of people who had just fought what amounted to a civil war to the most powerful economic nation the world has ever seen.you just don't get it, do you: private charity on its own does not relieve poverty - it didn't before the welfare state and it won't now.
See Matt 25 again. Even if there wasn't a NT model, so what? </font>[/QUOTE] So what? Because there is a NT model. I have shown it to you. The church and individual Christians are to take responsibility for the poor and downtrodden. When gov't steps into that arena they are usurping a God commanded mission of the church.</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />There is no NT model for the welfare state.
That is debatable. However, there is no NT model against it... as there is against the welfare state.There isn't a NT model for gun ownership,
Au contrare. The taxes that Jesus agreed they should pay went to the Romans... who paid the occupying troops. Paul's uses word pictures that allude to the wages due a soldier. David raised an army and paid for it with taxes... and was not condemned. In fact, throughout the OT historical books this is the case and nothing in the NT withdraws the authority from gov'ts for maintaining an army.or military budgets, yet I don't here you complaining about those.
Define 'naturally legal' (sounds very Enlightenment/ Modernist to me)? Oh, and who gets to define it? You? Me? That way lies anarchy and the end of the Rule of Law...The agreement of politicians or even a democratic majority does NOT make something morally right or even naturally legal.
Er...no. Quick crash-course in law: if the state (here meaning the democratically-elected government legislature) does not prohibit an action/ expressly authorises an action, then it is legal. Some people eg: you, may not like that but it is up to them through the democratic process to criminalise the action concerned.Stealing is stealing whether legitimized by statute or not. Hiring someone (in this case politicians and tax collectors) to steal for you is every bit as immoral as stealing yourself.