G
Good_News_1
Guest
It’s always been my impression that government salaries are, by and large, lower than private sector salaries.
- Status
C
CatholicGerman
Guest
No, as you note yourself (and then immediatley dismiss), it is most effective to both discourage some of the unemployed from working and ensure sufficient quantities of jobs for the remainder. We currently have an employment population ratio of 58.4%. Perhaps we should sincerely ask ourselves: Is this too high? Is the problem necessarily that there are too many people out of work, or that the wrong people are out of work?
The secular media has repeatedly lauded the fact that women now make up the majority of the workforce, and men make up the largest group of the unemployed. But as Christians, rather than feminists, should we not ask ourselves if this is not completely backward?
This is something that I’ve brought up repeatedly before, but which no one is willing to comment on. Too unpalatable, I presume.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Apparently not. mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/03/two-americas-public-vs-private-sector.html
There are private sector advantages in some fields of skill, and public sector advantage in others. But, when one considers benefits, overall the balance is in favor of the public sector.
T
TedDC
Guest
No, it’s probably just that not all Christians share your view that men are more deserving of employment than women.No, as you note yourself (and then immediatley dismiss), it is most effective to both discourage some of the unemployed from working and ensure sufficient quantities of jobs for the remainder. We currently have an employment population ratio of 58.4%. Perhaps we should sincerely ask ourselves: Is this too high? Is the problem necessarily that there are too many people out of work, or that the wrong people are out of work?
The secular media has repeatedly lauded the fact that women now make up the majority of the workforce, and men make up the largest group of the unemployed. But as Christians, rather than feminists, should we not ask ourselves if this is not completely backward?
This is something that I’ve brought up repeatedly before, but which no one is willing to comment on. Too unpalatable, I presume.
C
CatholicGerman
Guest
I quoted Rerum Novarum because it is a favorite of mine, as it speaks to the inherent complexity of governmental systems, and the insuing conflicts of interest. I like the way he creates the meme of taxation being a sort of “membership fee” for belonging to a society. When you become a citizen (or do not renounce your citizenship), you agree to pay a reasonable and fair amount of such fees (taxes) in order to ensure the general welfare. These fees are then used to pay for basic expenditures, such as a judiciary, national defense, public roads, and the most basic of welfare systems.
His point is that paying too little in taxes makes you a societal “free-rider”, but paying too much in taxes undermines the patriarchal basis of that same society. Now, whether a tax is “reasonable and fair” is a subject that could be debated ad infinitum, as it is highly subjective. As you note, Jesus gave no particular instruction on the design of tax systems.
And then there is the problem that one tax might seem fair, but that an unfair burden is reached when mutliple taxes are piled onto one another. Each tax was fair, when viewed individually, but the combination is possibly unfair. If someone feels that his membership fees are unfairly burdensome, it is legitimate for him to publicly complain, and seek judicial or political redress for this perceived unfairness. If enough people agree with him, there is nothing inherently unChristian in then lowering his fee, and cutting spending to make up the difference.
I think that a purely voluntary tax isn’t theft, but a mandatory one is. So, yes, I think it is theft if you threaten someone with violence in order to make them hand over their private property (income being a form of property). But I think taxes must be mandatory, or nobody would pay them. I also don’t see taxes as theft only in certain circumstances, but rather by their very nature. I think it is an important point to consider, because the knowledge that you are taking somebody’s private property, possibly against their will, acts as a brake on more profligate spending.
Tax is theft, in the same way that the death penalty is murder. Just because something might be justified, or in keeping with Christian tradition and values, does not make it good. It’s more a “necessary evil” than a good. We do not levy taxes because we like taxes, but because they are a requirement for a functioning society. Without taxes you cannot govern effectively, and without effective government there would be anarchy. At some point, someone simply has to cough up the dough. There’s no way around that.
C
CatholicGerman
Guest
Christ spoke numerous parables in which workers are compensated directly by their private employers for their labor, at market wages, and in which private property is described in detail and without negative judgement. That is capitalism (usury is roundly opposed, and we are all seeing why).
They are not opposing taxation and welfare (that would be mere anarchy). They are opposing *oppressive *taxation and welfare. There is a difference.
C
CatholicGerman
Guest
Salaries are lower, I think, but total compensation (with health insurance and pensions, for example) is much higher.
C
CatholicGerman
Guest
Okay, then. Why not?
E
estesbob
Guest
Actually salaries are higher when compared to like private-sector jobs.
I
ishii
Guest
This is a good point, CatholicGerman. This is all part of the left’s plan to remake and undermine traditional society. They are currently hard at work undermining the institution of marriage.No, as you note yourself (and then immediatley dismiss), it is most effective to both discourage some of the unemployed from working and ensure sufficient quantities of jobs for the remainder. We currently have an employment population ratio of 58.4%. Perhaps we should sincerely ask ourselves: Is this too high? Is the problem necessarily that there are too many people out of work, or that the wrong people are out of work?
The secular media has repeatedly lauded the fact that women now make up the majority of the workforce, and men make up the largest group of the unemployed. But as Christians, rather than feminists, should we not ask ourselves if this is not completely backward?
This is something that I’ve brought up repeatedly before, but which no one is willing to comment on. Too unpalatable, I presume.
Ishii
G
Good_News_1
Guest
Are those figures derived from comparing comparable jobs, or averages across the economy.
Private industry hires many more low wage workers in service industries. The government is not in a comparable market.
I
ishii
Guest
I’m not sure you can “opt out” of the leftist society- how do I opt out of my taxes being used for things I’m not in favor of? In capitalism, one has the choice of living as they want - for vacation, I can take my family somewhere and do wholesome things - I don’t have to leave them home and go to Las Vagas and gamble, drink, etc. Or to put it another way, the problem with capitalism is capitalists, the problem with socialism is socialism. See the difference? The worst thing I can say about capitalism is that it encourages some to be greedy at he expense of others, etc. which it is in our nature to do, unfortunately. The Church and strong families can help curtail some of these tendencies if allowed to. The problem with socialism is that it goes against our very nature and tries to do the impossible, and oppresses people in the process and has to destroy traditional institutions like the Church and the family because it can’t exist side by side with them. A capitalist might try to sell something to the good church going Christian and make some money off him/her. A socialist will seek to undermine the family and church of the person.
Ishii
G
Good_News_1
Guest
To be theft, it needs to be unlawful. The root of theft is personal greed or desperation. Taxes are part of the social contract. They have been with us from the beginning of civilization. Intent is vital in judging the morality of actions.
There is a fundamental difference between taking something, without legal license, for one’s own benefit, and demanding that all people in a society contribute to communal enterprises that are intended to enhance the general welfare.
The root of moral failing from theft comes from greed and selfishness. We judge someone who steals to fuel a drug habit or create a mafia empire differently from someone who steals out of desperation to feed their children. Taking a vote on levying general taxes for community purposes is not a representation of an intent to steal, but rather an intent to improve the community, and a recognition that everyone has a responsibility to the community. That is in no way even remotely comparable to the moral wrong of taking things you don’t need or could work for yourself to fulfill your personal pursuit of pleasure.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
“Opting out” is not necessarily an all or nothing proposition. As near as I can tell, small businesses, which normally create most jobs, are “opting out” of Obamanomics, to a degree, by not hiring, investing or expanding; things they would normally be doing but which they now fear to do because of the threats of greater taxation, regulation, healthcare costs, forced unionization and future interest rates.
Atlas hasn’t shrugged, but his shoulders are twitching a bit.
G
Good_News_1
Guest
I don’t.
You can’t opt out of the economic system. It is as much an immovable feature of our lives as the government.
The problem with capitalism is it is immoral at its foundations. It puts profits above human values, and benefits community only indirectly. A company cannot resist shipping jobs to China and Indonesia after the strategy has become successful and standard in the marketplace. Apple can’t take the high road on conflict minerals in Congo if other companies do not, because that path is market suicide. Capitalism exerts incredible pressure to make immoral choices, and punishes those who do not. Choices are nearly impossible: if you work in an industry that exploits third world workers, it is extremely difficult to leave, and if you do, you will find something else objectionable, like the company’s support of gay marriage. These pressures and dilemnas are real. At least the government is obligated to count my vote and let me carry a sign, unlike an employer…
E
estesbob
Guest
Just in the last six months small businesses have been hit with a crippling healthcare mandate, at least a 10 fold increase in their requirements for issuing 1099s and a proposal to make all their earnings subject to self-employment tax, In addition we have no idea what tax laws will be in effect next year because there has been no resolution on the Bush tax cuts set to expire December 31. Given this atmosphere most of us have quit hiring and are waiting to see what shoe drops next.
It is no coincidence that the Obama administration has the least number of people with private sector experience in the history of the country
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
I think underemployment will also affect the unemployment rate.
C
CatholicGerman
Guest
I disagree with the first, but agree with the second.
The law represents crimes and vices that we have chosen to prosecute through legal means. It is possible for something to be a crime or a vice, without legal prosecution. It is also possible for something to be illegal which is neither a crime nor a vice. Crimes are defined as trespasses against the rights of others. For instance, abortion is clearly a crime against someone else’s right to life. But it is not currently illegal.
In Natural Law, theft can be defined as taking someone’s property against their will. The person’s intentions for taking the property is used for judging the morality of the theft (whether it is justified), but not whether the action constitutes theft. Just as the draft is a crime against a person’s liberty, but we have decided that it is not immoral or illegal. It is still a crime to force someone to kill someone else, but we have decided to tolerate the crime in order to serve a higher purpose (national defense). In the same way that we tolerate theft in order to serve a higher purpose (providing for the general welfare).Some people chafe under that, but that is the current state of our social contract.
Without taxation, the state would cease to work effectively. This is something that we all just have to deal with if we want society to function at all. But that does not make the draft, taxation, fines, prisons, etc. *good *things. They are things we put up with so that we do not have to live in anarchy. If society could function just as well without those things, we’d all be better off. But since that doesn’t work except in Utopia, somebody is going to have to get some hired guns and go take people’s stuff, lock them up, kill them, and send them off to war. Even against their will. That is the price we all pay for living in a country that isn’t a toilet. Sometimes life just sucks that way, but Jesus never promised us that life wouldn’t suck.
On the other hand, oppressive tax regimes make life suck more than is necessary. We don’t have to be tax masochists. Just because a bit of taxation is justified, doesn’t mean that “more is better”. We should not be taxing people just because we get a kick out of taking their property away, but only as much as is necessary to “provide for the general welfare”.
Then the debate begins: what constitutes a level of acceptable “general welfare”? Three hots and a cot? Clothes and basic medical care? A home of one’s own? A nice car and a cell phone? Designer jeans and a new washing machine? Where does one stop? At what point have we moved pass “general welfare” and moved into “general prosperity”? At what point do we leave caritas and enter socialism?
Also, is income redistribution always the best method for that welfare? Are not other state-run policies often a better method for it? For instance, if protecting the family reduces poverty, wouldn’t undermining patriarchy *reduce *the general welfare, rather than providing for it? So couldn’t oppressive income taxes (which men primarily pay) and redistribution of that income (primarily to unmarried women) be considered a policy that goes against the general welfare principle? Because it undermines marriage?
That was what Rerum Novarum was about, at it’s core. Leo XIII was saying, “Yes, solidarity is important. Yes, we should care for the poor. But we should balance that service with the protection of property, so that we do not inadvertently (or by design) damage the patriarchy, in our attempts at caritas.”
C
CatholicGerman
Guest
Your description sounds less like simple capitalism and is more of a denunciation of globalism and corporatism.
Capitalism implies a free market, and the ability to accumulate private property and wealth. It says nothing about human values, which effect the choices a person makes in a free market. The choices can be judged according to their morality, but the market is just a market. Whether a market is being used to service a “greater good” is determined by the morality of the individual actors in the market.
The opposite of capitalism is communism, with socialism falling in-between. There are no other options for market design.
C
CatholicGerman
Guest
Aargh! I’ve written so much today, and now I’m behind on my housework. But I just wanted to mention one more point:
It is possible for taxation to be legal, but for a certain tax to be illegal. For instance, if it goes against the design of the federation, as described in the Constitution. In that case, the Constitution would have to be rewritten to make the tax legal.
It is possible for taxation to be legal, but for a certain tax to be illegal. For instance, if it goes against the design of the federation, as described in the Constitution. In that case, the Constitution would have to be rewritten to make the tax legal.
- Status