Chrysostom on Forced Redistribution of Wealth

[fhansen]

Taken from On Living Simply: The Golden Voice of John Chrysostom (Sermon 63):

Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold form the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first - and then they will joyfully share their wealth.​

Cited by a number of online sources, including here, here, here, and here.

This is an extraordinary quote that really puts an interesting light on the idea of redistribution of wealth. This is not, of course, to try to say that Chrysostom was in favor of wealth accumulation or any such idea…not hardly. But this underscores a call for the conversion of the wealthy so that they do so voluntarily rather than taxation for the purpose of social engineering.

Your thoughts?

In Christian thought, doing the right thing is always supposed to come from a heart that loves, because love is the fulfillment of the Law and any other motivation is bound to be based on mere legalism. But to get people to love as they ought has been Gods purpose since the fall and it just ain’t gonna happen on any large scale until we’re all willing to bow at His feet and say, “Thy will be done”.

 

[marci]

Why would anyone take for granted that distribution of wealth by governments even remotely works? Because since the Great Society we have completely obliterated poverty in the US? Because China and Russia are models of equality? No one is questioning whether or not we should give to the poor. What I am questioning is how best to care for the poor. I disagree that governments can do a better job than private charity.

Did you know that if you were to confiscate every penny of those making over 250K a year, it wouldn’t run the government even for a week. If we were to get rid of the welfare buracracy tomorrow you could give every man, woman and child on welfare about 75K a year to live on. That’s how inefficiant and bloated government is. That is why the Rule of Subsidiary is what is needed. It is much easier to keep costs and waste under control at the local level.

 

[Veronica7978]

But the fact of the matter remains that what St John wrote was 100% true. Without a change in heart, the rich will just figure out another mechanism by which to accumulate wealth. Meanwhile, the poor will only materially benefit for a short time.

There is a lot to respond to and I have to get to work; however, keep in mind that FAFSA would be considered a social program under this same definition. Without FAFSA to pay for college, there is no change in the circumstances of the poor, further, many who have nothing are sustained through school by social programs such as welfare. The mistake most people make is assuming that those on welfare are on there for life and have no aspirations of getting off, when in fact, most is used transitory for a change in circumstances. When St. John wrote this, the world was a different place and handouts did not include a college education.

Further, you have not commented on social security nor medicare.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Let’s try to remember we are adults? MMMmmmkay?

 

[St_Francis]

Do you love this because it makes it ok to hoard your money?

Oh, I missed the part where he said it was all right to hoard one’s money…

This is what he said:

… Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold from the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow.* The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first - and then they will joyfully share their wealth.*

One of my main problems with state redistribution is that then people who have money figure that people who do not have money are doing ok, because they can get welfare. Thus there a *lack *of what would otherwise change people’s hearts in this regard. When people feel that they gave at the office, and indeed federal taxes use about 2/3 of the 1/3 they take from people to support people, which is about 20% of their income, they do not end up feeling sympathy for the poor.

Moreover, we then also miss the many other types of poverty in the world, and do very little personally to help others.

 

[St_Francis]

You shouldn’t be puzzled by that; it’s simple. Public schools were set up to support children whose parents could not afford education for them.

No, it was not the plight of poor uneducated children which moved the rich to fund schooling for them, but the influx of Irish *Catholic *poor.

In fact, children of means do not attend public school in most cases; therefore, public school is a socialist design under your summation. Just because it’s been around long enough for you to not know any better doesn’t make it any less a social service.

I do not think that any but local government should be involved in education, and then voluntarily, so, actually, it’s not an issue for me.

Care to comment on social security & medicare? Or is your not including them a way to saying they should be done away with?

Social Security has been abused by the government and is now just a gigantic Ponzi scheme. In 1960, there were 13 workers for each SS recipient; now there are only 3. What will happen as more and more of the boomers retire?

---

The ideal, to me, would be for everyone to be Catholic and for society to be run along Catholic lines. When people have as many children as God sends them, instead of as many as they think they “can afford,” there are more people, and parents can foster vocations instead of thinking that they will have no grandchildren if they do. When there are lots of vocations to the religious life, then education and help to the poor are given out of a spirit of generosity rather than a bureaucratic movement of money from one to another.

This is more the way it used to be before the Protestant Revolt, when the governments seized the monasteries where people could find help and shelter and health care. This is why we look to the government to provide these services. But that is a bandaid approach, and as St John Chysosthom said, does harm to society.

 

[St_Francis]

There is a lot to respond to and I have to get to work; however, keep in mind that FAFSA would be considered a social program under this same definition. Without FAFSA to pay for college, there is no change in the circumstances of the poor, further, many who have nothing are sustained through school by social programs such as welfare. The mistake most people make is assuming that those on welfare are on there for life and have no aspirations of getting off, when in fact, most is used transitory for a change in circumstances. When St. John wrote this, the world was a different place and handouts did not include a college education…

Two points: even during the Depression, there were students who worked their way through college; and, since the institution of government-backed student loans, the price of college has risen faster than other things. When people are not paying much attention to how much they spend, the price of that good or service will go up faster than the prices of other things.

 

[markomalley]

There is a lot to respond to and I have to get to work; however, keep in mind that FAFSA would be considered a social program under this same definition. Without FAFSA to pay for college, there is no change in the circumstances of the poor, further, many who have nothing are sustained through school by social programs such as welfare. The mistake most people make is assuming that those on welfare are on there for life and have no aspirations of getting off, when in fact, most is used transitory for a change in circumstances. When St. John wrote this, the world was a different place and handouts did not include a college education.

Further, you have not commented on social security nor medicare.

And I am not certain what this has to do with Chrysostom’s statement.

There appears to be some dissonance here, though. You have listed a bunch of social programs that you believe to do some good. You haven’t seemed to be able to address St John’s basic premise of his argument.

This premise is not that the rich should hoard their wealth and that the poor should go hungry. Nothing could be farther from the truth. His premise is that government taking the wealth of the the rich (expropriating that wealth) for the purpose of redistribution to the poor is actually counterproductive (i.e., it does more harm than good).

But to address your point, I think that most social welfare programs in this country have actually done more harm than good…even as, at the same time, I believe that the best of intentions were used in creating those programs.

I am going to address this by a couple of examples here and now (in order to answer your repeated questions), but I will not address any more programs that you may throw into the mix. Because the point is not to evaluate each and every program…but should be to address the point that St John made in the extract originally posted.

First of all, let us consider anti-poverty programs put into place under the administration of Lyndon B Johnson (1963-1969). The poverty rate, as documented by the US Census Bureau, in 1966 was 17.6 percent. The poverty rate, as documented by the US Census Bureau, in 2007 (just prior to the current recession started was 18.0 percent. The lowest it fell was 14.0 percent (in the Nixon Administration) and the only times it was below 16 percent were 1968-1974 and 1978 (in 1973 it was 14.4 pct, otherwise it was over 15 pct). How can anybody say that those programs succeeded if the poverty rate essentially remained static over a 41 year period? How many people were actually helped? Those who are in extreme poverty (50% of poverty level) actually increased from 3.7% in 1975 to 5.2% in 2007. If I wanted to help the poor, I would certainly not want to continue to go in this direction. I can’t, frankly, imagine any sane person who would.

As for federal assistance for college tuition, again, let’s take a look at some numbers. The following chart comes from the College Board’s 2006 report on trends in college pricing:

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/8691/clipboard01me.jpg
You will note that this is measured in constant, 2006, dollars. In other words, it is adjusted for inflation. Particularly in the case of private schools (who do not receive direct subsidies from state or federal governments for in-state tuition), costs have spiraled out of control. This is a natural outcome where a high percentage of people do not have to concern themselves as much with the price of a product or service. Many people, particularly in government, look at costs as a cause that must be responded to by increased assistance. I look at it as an effect – the result of unaccountable money being pumped into the system (consider the law of demand that you had to learn in your basic microeconomics class).

Think about it this way: if enough people can get assistance (grants, scholarships, or whatever) to pay for the out-of-control tuition, the colleges have no incentive to control their costs. Those who are not eligible for that assistance must then either rely upon all of their savings or go hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt to pay for that education.

If, on the other hand, the federal assistance wasn’t available, there might not be an adequate pool of people available who could pay the excessive tuition. Then the college would be faced with a choice: either control their costs or close…since, unlike the federal government, colleges cannot print their own money, they can only take on so much debt until their creditors call in their promissory notes.

I could, if I had time or patience, talk about how medicare has ruined the system of medical delivery in this country (through DRGs and defined payments for approved therapies) and how social security was, from the onset, a fundamentally flawed system, but I’ve written enough of a book here.

The fact of the matter is that each of these things were well intentioned. But flawed.

But none of this has to do with St John’s basic premise. And I would really like to discuss that with you.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

You shouldn’t be puzzled by that; it’s simple. Public schools were set up to support children whose parents could not afford education for them. In fact, children of means do not attend public school in most cases; therefore, public school is a socialist design under your summation. Just because it’s been around long enough for you to not know any better doesn’t make it any less a social service. Care to comment on social security & medicare? Or is your not including them a way to saying they should be done away with?

Veronica, there’s no need to get snarky about it, and if I was, I apologize.

In any case, a condemnation of socialism is not a rejection of necessary services, such as fire, police, and education – although, as a career-long private school teacher, I have to say that the public school system will NEVER be as effective as privately-run institutions.

Rather, a condemnation of socialism is the drawing of a line, beyond which the government is treading on the rights of the citizenry and private industry to determine the course of our nation and, in so doing, threatening both our liberty and our prosperity.

And, to answer your question: I think social security and medicare are questionable programs at best – and, at worst, they are massive entitlement programs that are not working the way we were told they would. Which, of course, is usually the case when the government attempts to control something it shouldn’t.

Peace,
Dante

 

[markomalley]

By the way, Veronica7978, one thing I should have mentioned last night:

Just because these programs were ill-conceived (even as I choose to believe that they were put in place with the best of intentions), do not assume that I would love to see them immediately scrapped. That is not the case.

Because of the fact that those programs are in place and real human beings have been sucked into dependence on them, an immediate scrapping of those programs would be a tremendous injustice against those people and would not serve the common good.

The moral harm spoken of by St John Chrysostom has already been done. In order to prevent additional moral harm, wisdom must be used in order to move us from the Social Assistance State (decried by Pope John Paul II in paragraph 48.3 - 48.4 of Centesimus Annus) to a state characterized by gratuitousness (cf paragraph 38 of Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate: “While in the past it was possible to argue that justice had to come first and gratuitousness could follow afterwards, as a complement, today it is clear that without gratuitousness, there can be no justice in the first place”)

I just wanted to make sure that there was no risk of misinterpreting what I wrote last night.

 

[St_Francis]

By the way, Veronica7978, one thing I should have mentioned last night:

Just because these programs were ill-conceived (even as I choose to believe that they were put in place with the best of intentions), do not assume that I would love to see them immediately scrapped. That is not the case.

I would like to add my agreement to this. In addition, SS was set up as an agreement between the government and the people, that the people would put money in and the government would care for them when they retired, so we would naturally have to honor that agreement with those who contributed.

 

[markomalley]

I would like to add my agreement to this. In addition, SS was set up as an agreement between the government and the people, that the people would put money in and the government would care for them when they retired, so we would naturally have to honor that agreement with those who contributed.

Exactly. You don’t want to throw people out on the streets who have been promised something for decades (in the vast majority of cases, their entire working lives).

St John spoke of “moral harm,” though. While he didn’t speak of macroeconomic effects, those cannot be discounted. The goal of any type of action taken for society should be to promote the common good. The very method by which social security was established was not a method that would, in the long term, promote the common good.

You should, when you get a chance, carefully read Section 201 of the Social Security Act of 1935, as amended by Section 201 of the Social Security Act of 1939. This is the section of the Act that originally establishes the so-called “Social Security Trust Fund” (called the Old Age Reserve Account in the 1935 Act). Here is the key language (from the 1939 Act para (c)):

It shall be the duty of the Managing Trustee to invest such portion of the Trust Fund as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such investments may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States.
​

What does that mean? It means that the Social Security Trustees are required, by law, to turn over social security taxes that aren’t required for current social security payments to the General Fund of the Treasury. In exchange, they receive US government bonds.

Of course, as long as there is more money coming in than going out, that’s no problem. It is extra money that can be spent by Congress…and, hey, they have US Savings Bonds that can be cashed in when needed, right?

The problem is, what happens when more money is taken out than goes in?



(Scenario I is optimistic: people die sooner, people have more babies, nobody is unemployed. Scenario II is the more realistic scenario. Scenario III is the scenario if fertility continues to decrease and people live longer)

You can see that under either of the two realistic scenarios (II and III), social security goes broke between 2030 and 2038.

But that is only half the story. The other part is what happens to the general fund when the “Social Security Trust Fund” has to start pulling money out of those guaranteed debt instruments? (That, my friend, is the 500 pound gorilla nobody wants to talk about)

Well, what happens is that money in the general fund that was dedicated to such programs as defense, transportation, education, health care, and so on, won’t be there to spend. That means that Congress will either have to cut those programs accordingly or sell more debt to outside investors (like China). If neither of those two things work, the Federal Reserve will have to literally print more money. The third is actually the most likely: with the $14 Trillion (yes, Trillion) dollar debt we have right now, outside investors are already getting hesitant to buy more of our debt.

And you know what happens when governments start printing money to pay for their debt, right? Inflation. And inflation that can rapidly turn into hyperinflation, because it’s a vicious circle.

And how does hyperinflation serve the common good?

In the meantime, no elected official in the world would want to authentically tackle the situation, because he would not want to face the rage of 85 year old grannies on a rampage. Not a good career choice.

An illustration of St John’s statement:

while the poor who received the gold form the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift
​

Well, they don’t feel like it is a gift, do they? I know I sure wouldn’t. After all, I paid into that stupid social security my entire working career…by golly, it’s my turn to collect some of what I paid in ((grumble–grumble))

**Do I advocate turning social security off? **Hardly. The government did make a promise and people did base their lives on that promise. But it is the perfect example of what St John was teaching.

 

[St_Francis]

…(Scenario I is optimistic: people die sooner, people have more babies, nobody is unemployed. Scenario II is the more realistic scenario. Scenario III is the scenario if fertility continues to decrease and people live longer)

You can see that under either of the two realistic scenarios (II and III), social security goes broke between 2030 and 2038.

But that is only half the story. The other part is what happens to the general fund when the “Social Security Trust Fund” has to start pulling money out of those guaranteed debt instruments? (That, my friend, is the 500 pound gorilla nobody wants to talk about)…

I don’t quite understand what the percentages are on one side of the graph, so what exactly are the three scenarios?

Do I advocate turning social security off? Hardly. The government did make a promise and people did base their lives on that promise. But it is the perfect example of what St John was teaching.
Yes, we made the promise and need to honor it. But SS illustrates another problem, which is that of unexpected events: we did not know when we made that deal that the birth rate would go down, nor that health care possibilities and costs would go up so much. We should have dealt with this years ago…

 

[markomalley]

I don’t quite understand what the percentages are on one side of the graph, so what exactly are the three scenarios?

Sorry, should have explained it better. The percentage on the left hand side show the “trust fund ratios” – the ratio of assets to liabilities. In other words, if the trust fund has a 100% funding ratio, it has exactly enough assets to pay for its liabilities (in that particular time frame); 200% means that it has twice as much as needed (again, in that time frame); 50% means that it only has half the assets needed to cover its liabilities and 0% means that it is flat broke and can’t pay any of its obligations.

For example, let’s say you had a trust fund assets valued at $20 and your liabilities for that year were $5. Your funding ratio would be 400%.

Here is the link to the source. Should have linked the figure to that source in my previous post. Sorry.

 

[Brendan]

No, it was not the plight of poor uneducated children which moved the rich to fund schooling for them, but the influx of Irish *Catholic *poor. .

That is correct, and also the efforts of the “Know Nothings” to cripple the Catholic school system and require secular education for all children.

The Public School system was set up from the start as a response to the influx of Catholics and the development of Catholic schools. As such, it is no friend to Catholicism.

 

[St_Francis]

Sorry, should have explained it better. The percentage on the left hand side show the “trust fund ratios” – the ratio of assets to liabilities. In other words, if the trust fund has a 100% funding ratio, it has exactly enough assets to pay for its liabilities (in that particular time frame); 200% means that it has twice as much as needed (again, in that time frame); 50% means that it only has half the assets needed to cover its liabilities and 0% means that it is flat broke and can’t pay any of its obligations.

For example, let’s say you had a trust fund assets valued at $20 and your liabilities for that year were $5. Your funding ratio would be 400%.

Here is the link to the source. Should have linked the figure to that source in my previous post. Sorry.

Thanks, Mark! And your explanation of how the percentages works was very clear

 

[choose_to_love]

@Brendan: And I believe, if memory serves, that the Catholic school system was itself a response to the existing, explicitly Protestant public school system, at least in New York, again if I recall correctly.

 

[Brendan]

@Brendan: And I believe, if memory serves, that the Catholic school system was itself a response to the existing, explicitly Protestant public school system, at least in New York, again if I recall correctly.

The Catholic school system was actually started in Baltimore by St. Elizabeth Ann Seaton in conjunction with Bishop John Carrol in 1810.

The concept of most parishes having associated Catholic schools really took off with the infux of Irish immigrants in the 1850’s. And you are correct, it was because the public schools were very Protestant in focus.

 

[Black_Rose]

The moral harm spoken of by St John Chrysostom has already been done. In order to prevent additional moral harm, wisdom must be used in order to move us from the Social Assistance State (decried by Pope John Paul II in paragraph 48.3 - 48.4 of Centesimus Annus) to a state characterized by gratuitousness (cf paragraph 38 of Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate: “While in the past it was possible to argue that justice had to come first and gratuitousness could follow afterwards, as a complement, today it is clear that without gratuitousness, there can be no justice in the first place”)

I just wanted to make sure that there was no risk of misinterpreting what I wrote last night.

In history, does this " state characterized by gratuitousness" ever existed? What are you examples and why would it be a superior outcome (materially) to a modern welfare state?

There was a brief discussion here and here on this, although I did not pursue it further.

I am going to ask again for a historical example about a putative thriving society that embraced natural law (and subsidiarity)? Do you have any historical basis for your conservative idealism? If not, what are your justifications?

That’s an odd question. It’s like asking for a historical example of a thriving society that emphasized good behavior and had a sense of propriety and heirarchy in the ordering of responsibilities. The early Roman Republic,or the early Catholic Church,or the civilizations of the Middle Ages to the 19th century are examples. Natural law comes naturally to human beings,even if they do not have a clear idea of what it is,or if their sense of it is obscured by sin. It is built into us. Likewise,the sense of subsidiarity comes naturally to human beings,even if it is obscured by the interference of tyrants and heavy-handed governments.

Do you want to provide a detailed historical example instead of just referencing papal encyclicals?

 

[markomalley]

In history, does this " state characterized by gratuitousness" ever existed? What are you examples and why would it be a superior outcome (materially) to a modern welfare state?

There was a brief discussion here and here on this, although I did not pursue it further.

Do you want to provide a detailed historical example instead of just referencing papal encyclicals?

I am not primarily concerned with the materialoutcome for a state. I am far more concerned with the spiritual outcome for society and the individuals who comprise that society. That’s why I choose to use writings of the popes, the Church Fathers, and Scripture when looking at social issues.

So no, I don’t have an historical example of a whole “state characterized by gratuitousness.” I have adequate examples of the benefits of individuals and societies who have made significant impact from their gratuitous works to know that it would benefit society if the state would **encourage **that behavior (that is what I mean by a “state characterized by gratuitousness”).