AOC: A Society With Billionaires Cannot Be Moral

[JonNC]

Okay, the word “vast” was overstated. Military spending is the majority of our discretionary spending.

Not even a majority. A significant portion of the general government budget.

That’s just silly. Caesar was the head of a dictatorship, not a democracy. The metaphor falls apart in the details.

Of course it does. But since others use it to defend tax collection for redistribution, I feel perfectly comfortable using it to reject the practice.

The only similarity is that it is a government, and Jesus told us to go ahead and pay taxes to an unjust government. Do you think that His contemporaries thought that paying taxes was just? Of course not. But Jesus told them to do it anyway.

And I do, even though wealth redistribution is unjust.

Does that mean that Jesus was saying that unjust means can be used for unjust ends? Jesus was in part contrasting what “belonged” to Caesar with what “belonged” to the temple, which used a different currency, if I remember right.

It was deeper than mere currency. Christ is talking about His place in our lives. So, again, to follow His command is to help the least of His children. That’s the work of the faithful and the Church. To cede that role to government is rendering unto Caesar that which is God’s. To force others to violates His law.

Taxes are simply payment for the structure that provides the framework for the economy. When someone gets the benefit without paying their fair share, then that person is indeed “stealing” from the society as a whole.

Close to 50% of Americans pay not income tax at all

But seriously, are you living on such an island that you can honestly say that anarchy would be an environment that would give you the same ability to earn money and have a quality of life?

That you would ask this based on our conversation is astonishing.

Yes, but it was well-intended.

But to continue destructive practices does not demonstrate good intentions.

 

[JonNC]

qui_est_ce:

Dems want bigger and more government.

It’s about the same if you factor in farm subsidies, government flood insurance, and such.

The argument of degrees has merit here, but you have a point.

 

[Annie]

Yes, and yes. Is this what you are thinking too?

What the Church advocates is not equal wealth, but human rights such that all people have the right to food, shelter, medical care, the basics. The Church also advocates for the people to have the dignity of work and to be justly compensated.

Do you have evidence that redistribution of wealth, by which I mean removing the amount which makes a person wealthy from him and giving it to those who are poor, is beneficial to society?

---

I do think that those things which were once acquired from the commonsought to be made available to those who are unable to obtain them on their own: food and shelter (which would include a minimum of utilities).

Medical care is more tricky, because it used to be given on a voluntary basis. I think the entire system should be completely overhauled, but that would be way too much to go into here and is only my random thoughts anyway, not something based on facts and figures, but should definitely be something people can gain access to.

 

[OneSheep]

Not even a majority.

It’s the majority of the discretionary spending. Check the links.

So, again, to follow His command is to help the least of His children. That’s the work of the faithful and the Church. To cede that role to government is rendering unto Caesar that which is God’s. To force others to violates His law.

Well, paying taxes in itself is not “ceding the role”. Modern governments, in part, play the role as conduit for distribution. Government is made of people, and God works through people. Now, if one is saying that God is not working through people in doing the good things they do, then that is a sin against the Spirit, right?

Close to 50% of Americans pay not income tax at all

I didn’t know that, but it makes sense. More people are falling below the line where taxes are due. Hopefully, they give to the needy to the best of their ability. Hopefully, they support society and law the best they can.

And think of it this way: people who don’t make enough money to pay taxes are not reaping near the benefit of citizenship of those who do pay income taxes. The scale is weighed in terms of amount of benefit gained by being a member of this economy. It makes a bit of sense, right?

But to continue destructive practices does not demonstrate good intentions.

There are good intentions still, but lack of inspiration, fortitude, and cooperation to make real change.

 

[OneSheep]

Do you have evidence that redistribution of wealth, by which I mean removing the amount which makes a person wealthy from him and giving it to those who are poor, is beneficial to society?

I’d have to look it up, but yes. Feel free to google the question. However, the point is not to make wealthy people have less wealth.

Redistribution of wealth happens in all directions. People have needs for food and housing, and they pay for goods. Their wealth flows to those who provide them.

I do think that those things which were once acquired from the commonsought to be made available to those who are unable to obtain them on their own: food and shelter (which would include a minimum of utilities).

Yes, this is our Church’s stance.

Medical care is more tricky…but should definitely be something people can gain access to.

Yes, God calls us to mercy.

 

[Annie]

I think one of the main problems we have in our country (the US) is that there is a huge division between two main groups of people.

What we don’t realize is that we do share many goals. There really aren’t evil Republicans or conservatives who want to see poor sick people dying for lack of medical help.

The problem is that we disagree on how to attain those goals.

For example, when you write something like:

quoted by Jon; written by OneSheep but what we can see is that the concentration of wealth in this world, at the expense of those suffering poverty, is unjust

you are making a statement that is full of meaning: 1. that people are acquiring wealth at the expense of others; 2. that they are keeping the wealth away from others; and 3. that it is done unjustly.

Immediately, people who have the same goals that AOC has are put on the defensive. Suddenly they are unjust, even if they are trying to figure out how best to use their wealth to help others. Suddenly they are immoral, due to having worked hard and created something which has made a lot of people happy or improved their lives.

So many people do something similar to what the Bezos and Jobs of the world do and it doesn’t work. It it is often just a matter of circumstance as to whether a lot of hard work pays off, so it is a lot of hard work based on a gamble that it will provide a return. FB overtook MySpace, but pet rocks also made someone a bundle.

The risks that people have taken over the past few centuries have improved life immeasurably all over the world. Communism, extreme socialism have only reduced people to misery and oppression and stifled anyone’s ability to make improvements which can raised standards of living around the world.

Have mistakes and corruption occurred? Yes. But overall, more people’s lives are improved than otherwise. More people have indoor plumbing than did even 100 years ago. More people are being fed, more children vaccinated, more people educated.

In 10 years, FB increased the number of jobs from 150 to over 25,000. Starbucks employs over 250,000. Amazon has well over half a million employees at 600,000+.

There is a balance. Calling billionaires immoral will not help us find it.

 

[dvdjs]

Here is an article that thoughtfully frames this idea.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/ocasio-cortez-aocs-billionaires-taxes-hannity-american-democracy.html

 

[Theo520]

I’d just keep cutting the loopholes used by the wealthy,
not make it more complex and likely add more loopholes.

 

[Theo520]

You didn’t read your link I’m guessing.

It referenced a letter by Jefferson which criticized European Aristocracy, that wasn’t operating according to capitalist principles.

 

[dvdjs]

You didn’t read your link I’m guessing.

I did read the article and found that it provides a interesting frame to the current discussions.

 

[Theo520]

I did read the article and found that it provides a interesting frame to the current discussions.

Yet you didn’t bother to articulate what it was actually referencing.

The article misrepresents the source to support it’s SJW agenda.
Our richest people earned their billions, they came from the middle of the pile.

 

[dvdjs]

Yet you didn’t bother to articulate what it was actually referencing.

It referenced quite a bit. Much more than you allowed as well.

Our richest people earned their billions, they came from the middle of the pile.

Some have. Others inherited theirs. Some created new technologies and products, others are rent-takers.

 

[JonNC]

Well, paying taxes in itself is not “ceding the role”. Modern governments, in part, play the role as conduit for distribution.

But I wasn’t talking about paying taxes in isolation. I’m talking about having to pay taxes for the purpose of having it taken from one person and given to another.

Government is made of people, and God works through people. Now, if one is saying that God is not working through people in doing the good things they do, then that is a sin against the Spirit, right?

One has to recognize that’s it is not a good thing to take from one person , against their will, and give it to another. Breaking the Decalogue is not doing His will.

I didn’t know that, but it makes sense. More people are falling below the line where taxes are due. Hopefully, they give to the needy to the best of their ability. Hopefully, they support society and law the best they can.

Why not allow the wealthy to give to the needy to the best of their ability?
What happened to everyone pays their “fair share”?

And think of it this way: people who don’t make enough money to pay taxes are not reaping near the benefit of citizenship of those who do pay income taxes.

Reaping the benefits? Don’t you mean earning the benefits?

The scale is weighed in terms of amount of benefit gained by being a member of this economy. It makes a bit of sense, right?

Sorry, no. I think it is incorrect to imply that the wealthy are such by luck.

There are good intentions still, but lack of inspiration, fortitude, and cooperation to make real change.

Maybe. Why not just say doing the same thing and expecting a different result is insanity, or, someone is continuing to benefit by the ongoing policy.

 

[Theo520]

It referenced quite a bit. Much more than you allowed as well.

The only reference to our founding fathers was a criticism of Aristocracy not supporting capitalism. Your ‘article’ was bad journalism, an agenda driven PR piece.

 

[dvdjs]

The only reference

Apart from references to Hamilton, Paine, Leigh, and other foot-soldiers.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

That’s because socialism is better at providing for needs.

Au contraire, mon frere. Venezuela isn’t socialism. You see, they were doing it wrong. A true socialist country wouldn’t have poverty!

 

[ProVobis]

I always thought that poverty was relative.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

That’s because socialism is better at providing for needs.

Au contraire, mon frere. Venezuela isn’t socialism. You see, they were doing it wrong. A true socialist country wouldn’t have poverty!

I stand corrected. I’m sure AOC and Bernie will perfect it.

 

[JonNC]

I always thought that poverty was relative.

Yes, relative to the amount of government interference.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

True. If everyone is starving, everyone is rich. Thank you, comrade, for that clarification.