Catholic arguments against Universal Basic Income

[JonNC]

Oh come now! Do you honestly maintain that the people in the US are so impoverished by taxes that they cannot be charitable?

For some, yes. For others , no. But charitable giving is also influenced by the perception that government is taking care of it.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Or that reduced taxes would see the taxpayers send the additional funds they are retaining to charities.

So let’s force people to be charitable. What shall we call this: "compassionate authoritarianism "?

I actually think Americans would step up. I believe churches would.

Jon

 

[Rau]

…What shall we call this: "compassionate authoritarianism "?

It’s often called social welfare policy - and its existence is widely regarded as a good thing. In fact, I’ve rarely heard anyone raise serious objection to it.

 

[Rau]

But charitable giving is also influenced by the perception that government is taking care of it.

The extent of the divide between rich and poor and the extent of poverty which is not being “taken care of” is well known. I’m sure charities communicate the need clearly.

 

[JonNC]

It’s often called social welfare policy - and its existence is widely regarded as a good thing. In fact, I’ve rarely heard anyone raise serious objection to it.

And we see the disastrous results of it in America’s inner cities. Perhaps it is time to raise serious objections.

 

[stinkcat_14]

For some, yes. For others , no. But charitable giving is also influenced by the perception that government is taking care of it.

Jon

Can you give me an example of someone who is so impoverished by taxes that they cannot be charitable?

 

[stinkcat_14]

And we see the disastrous results of it in America’s inner cities. Perhaps it is time to raise serious objections.

Social security and Medicare have encouraged laziness among the elderly. On the other hand their neighborhoods are usually nice

 

[JonNC]

Can you give me an example of someone who is so impoverished by taxes that they cannot be charitable?

Cannot, or are limited in what they can give? One the latter, me.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Social security and Medicare have encouraged laziness among the elderly. On the other hand their neighborhoods are usually nice

So what? Social Security and Medicare are not supposed to be welfare. The money paid in are not even considered “taxes”, but "contributions ". While these two programs are evidence of why the central government should stick to the enumerated powers, they shouldn’t be confused with social welfare programs

Jon

 

[Leifler]

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.

As a non tax fan, I would say these issues get bogged down a bit. I live on a private road and we don’t have a association but more one guy takes initiative and collects for a project which works because we have like 10 houses.

But in the larger and more efficient (my road is not perfect lol) Taxes are necessary!

However the where, when, and MOST importantly the HOW is the big issue.

The prime ultimate taxes are to fund a army that prevents others from taking your land, and then courts and police to serve the same purpose. And then at least a network of “Main” roads to connect the nation state.

Now from there we get into more detailed questioning, one issue being in the US when Social Security was made it was/is a good “idea”. But then the government changed the laws, stole some of the money etc.

The major issue with such in government is that when you branch out what they can do, you begin to create a state of permanence. Permanence that things that are done now are near impossible to get away or fix later. And I think a big issue of the tax system and government is fallen world syndrome. If we lived in a world barely ever guilty of sin a 50% tax rate, even maybe 75% might lead to a never ending slew of greatness!

However in a fallen world the more power you give to the corrupt Nero’s of the world, the more they will hold onto and take. The balance becomes trying to maximize good while reducing the ease of the next corrupt person to take too much in too wrong a way.

 

[Rau]

And we see the disastrous results of it in America’s inner cities. Perhaps it is time to raise serious objections.

You’ve yet to connect the claimed cause to the effect.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

For some, yes. For others , no. But charitable giving is also influenced by the perception that government is taking care of it.

Jon

Let me remind you that government assistance for the poor was not always as extensive as it is now. In fact it was non-existent . And taxes were extremely low, compared to today. Those are the ideal conditions, according to you, for encouraging charity. Did it happen? Where in the history books is this golden age of charitable giving where those in desperate need were given what they need? Well…?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How nice of old fogies, now mostly dead, to deny my rights and the rights of my heirs. Robbery is robbery, no matter how it is justified.

Continually calling taxes robbery is not going to make it so. The moral legitimacy of taxation is well established in the catechism and other Church documents. You are fighting with the Church when you continue to maintain the opposite.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So let’s force people to be charitable. What shall we call this: "compassionate authoritarianism "?

There is no need to classify government aid to the poor as “charity”.

I actually think Americans would step up. I believe churches would.

Jon

No need to guess. Just look at history, as I suggested several posts ago.

 

[BCole]

Let me remind you that government assistance for the poor was not always as extensive as it is now. In fact it was non-existent . And taxes were extremely low, compared to today. Those are the ideal conditions, according to you, for encouraging charity. Did it happen? Where in the history books is this golden age of charitable giving where those in desperate need were given what they need? Well…?

God only asks for 10%. With this 10%, He can build churches and hospitals, keep the religious, and provide charity to the needy. It is only our lack of faith that causes us to think we need more.

Government “charity” has brought us a society that kills every 3rd child, a non-replacement birthrate, unprecedented apostasy and repudiation of the faith, the destruction of the family and now the chastisement of Europe and America.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

God only asks for 10%. With this 10%, He can build churches and hospitals, keep the religious, and provide charity to the needy. It is only our lack of faith that causes us to think we need more.

So is it your opinion that the children of the 1880s were all sufficiently provided for?

 

[BCole]

So is it your opinion that the children of the 1880s were all sufficiently provided for?

Are all the children of the 2010s sufficiently provided for?

Do you not think that we would have progressed in the technology of food supply since then? (If progress hadn’t been dis-incentivized by dependence.)

The question you should be asking is “how many souls are being lost?” It does little good to minister the corporal while encouraging the soul to perish.

What you are trying to do through government transfers is rebuild the tower of Babel - attempting to achieve salvation without God.

 

[starshiptrooper]

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”.

Why vote against the gravy train when someone else is paying for it?

I wondder 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.

I have no desire for a revolt. I would rather that Atlas shrug and demonstrate to the second-handers their proper position in the moral hierarchy

Continually calling taxes robbery is not going to make it so. The moral legitimacy of taxation is well established in the catechism and other Church documents. You are fighting with the Church when you continue to maintain the opposite.

I will translate this into plain speech. “I cannot demonstrate a substantial difference, so I will appreciate to authority instead. Now be silent, heretic.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I will translate this into plain speech. “I cannot demonstrate a substantial difference, so I will appreciate to authority instead. Now be silent, heretic.”

I thought my speech was plain enough. Taxation is not robbery. And the difference is that one is legitimate and the other is a sin.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Are all the children of the 2010s sufficiently provided for?

Irrelevant, since the question being debated was whether charities would provide for all the needs of the poor, if government would just get out of the way and stop taxing people to death. Well, government was doing just that in the 1880s. So if charities did not take up all the load then, why should anyone think it would do so now?

The question you should be asking is “how many souls are being lost?” It does little good to minister the corporal while encouraging the soul to perish.

If you want to ask a different question, start a different thread.