J
jesucated
Guest
As both a Catholic and as a citizen of the United States, I would disagree with this assessment (and almost everything you have said regarding care for the poor, the nature of the United States, etc).
Catholic arguments against Universal Basic Income
- Thread starter AdamP88
- Start date
- Status
R
Rau
Guest
No - you invented that idea - it’s not even implied in my post. I simply make the point that the collective judgement is the one that typically gets up in our society.
R
Rau
Guest
How successful would we anticipate a decision to eliminate welfare - no unemployment benefits, flat taxes for all, no subsidised health care for those who can’t pay, etc.
And by logical extension, should we also throw in “no charitable organisations allowed” because they are just another form of “welfare”?
why is it that some folks think that if the government doesn’t do something, it can’t be done?
Why can’t charities subsidize health care ? Isn’t that what charity is? Individuals voluntarily working together to help the least of His children. It isn’t charity I oppose. It’s charity that i favor. Charity comes from love and caring, not government coercion.
Jon
R
Rau
Guest
Different country, but societally similar.
The collective decided to give up some rights, such as the right to retain all one’s income.
R
Rau
Guest
Ahh, so your view is not that welfare is itself doing wrong to its recipients (which is what I thought you meant when you said the welfare state was catastrophic for millions…) but the evil is solely in the people’s decision to deliver welfare with tax money. And you are confident that in a world where government withdrew entirely from subsidising the poor, individual voluntary donations and the work of charities would fill the gap. Let me think about that…no, I think present arrangements are more likely to deliver. And it keeps open the possibility for the well off to donate to charity too. And from what I hear, the charities see vast unmet needs.
I don’t think too many of the people see a progressive taxation system as coercion - after all, they have a voice and a vote. For some, they see it as insurance - they may one day be in need. For others, it is the adoption of a virtue into the machinery of society.
B
Bran_Stark
Guest
I did a little Googling of that quote and it seems that some people doubt its authenticity. It does sound a little suspiciously-related to the modern-day political climate.
But I am very far from a Chrysostom scholar. Perhaps he did say it.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
What charities can theoretically do is one thing. What they actually are doing right now is another.
B
BCole
Guest
Taxation is not charity, no matter what it is used for. The state is not charitable - charity is a virtue of individuals. The state just creates moral hazards. We may grant Caesar some things, but Caesar is entitled to nothing.
lewrockwell.com/2010/03/jeffrey-f-barr/render-unto-caesar-amostmisunderstood-newtestamentpassage/
lewrockwell.com/2010/03/jeffrey-f-barr/render-unto-caesar-amostmisunderstood-newtestamentpassage/
Agreed. With government sucking up tax dollars as it does, its hard for charities to do what they desire. And with more and more obstacles being put in the way of church charities, such as the HHS Mandate, it is only going to be tougher.
Jon
Yes. And no. And yes.
Yes, I am all in favor of charity. Government run welfare is not charity. Charity comes from the heart of the individual, and as a Christian, I believe that movement of the heart is the work of the Holy Spirit.
No, the evil is that the taxpayers money is taken and successful charity is not delivered. If the welfare state had been even marginally mediocre, one could argue for it. One could argue for the continued taking of tax dollars for it.
Yes, while not evil, per se, using tax dollars in this way is incompatible with a free society. It simply amounts to wealth redistribution, with the main intention being the re-election of those who promise more and more.
I am confident that the bang for the buck would be astoundingly higher, because attached to charity is the love and affection of the giver, the encouragement of the receiver to work hard to raise themselves up, and with Church groups, the message of Christ as the true provider of “all good things around us”.
And do you believe this success is borne out in Detroit, Baltimore, West Philly, South Chicago? The facts indicate quite the opposite. Broken families (let’s remember the “no man in the home” policy at the beginning of AFDC), multi-generational dependence on the welfare state, and the draining of national resources by the tens of trillions with no success in sight. Sure, there may be food available from day to day, but that isn’t welfare, that’s merely survival.
Yes, I think private charity could do far better than this. Then again, it is an exceptionally low bar.
When one’s property is taken with the sole intent to give it to another (not to mention the re-election cause of a politician), it is coercion.
There is no virtue in this, only coercion, corruption, and misery.
Jon
PS I humbly recommend:
amazon.com/Tragedy-American-Compassion-Marvin-Olasky/dp/089526725X
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Actually, anyone who has really studied economics would know that the empirical evidence on the effect of the minimum wage is mixed at best.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Oh come now! Do you honestly maintain that the people in the US are so impoverished by taxes that they cannot be charitable?
R
Rau
Guest
Or that reduced taxes would see the taxpayers send the additional funds they are retaining to charities.
R
Rau
Guest
Young fogies that came after seem to largely side with the old fogies. The movement to change the system seems to have a very short membership aside from a few “individual rights supremacists”.
It’s not so much “justified” as supported.
I wonder if some would consider using their guns to overthrow the tyrannical governments that dares to tax them and use some of it to help the poor.
- Status