Chrysostom on Forced Redistribution of Wealth

[FidesSpesCarita]

Nice try. I’m not buying this. Jesus said give, we give. You shouldn’t care how. If you are wrapped up in the how so much, you’ve obviously lost track of the why.

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

lol, I knew you were from cali (well, cali or mass) before I even checked…

 

[Black_Rose]

Thank you for making my point.

How did I make your point?

You said this:

Welfare causes the poor to think they are useless

where I responded:

Regarding the poor being “useless” doesn’t their financial state already indicate that, to put it quite bluntly? One reason is that they are poor is the lack a stable income source, and that is because the labor market does not deem their labor valuable, so in a sense their poverty is a value judgment from the market about the lack of any valuable innate talent or trainable skills. So the notion that a welfare state increase the perception of worthlessness among the poor and unemployed is ridiculous especially when the labor market already made that judgment.

You seem to think that your $5 given up in taxes will be more helpful to the poor because it is mingled with lots of money from others, but somehow your $5 given to charity doesn’t count? Believe me, the $5 you give to the government funds a huge bureaucracy so much less of your money actually reaches a poor person than it does if given to a charity.

I do not know what you mean by “bureaucracy” since I define it as a hierarchical organization that is able to process information and enforce regulations for the purposes of civil administration.

A bureaucracy does not include all government workers with the definition I provided above. For example, in the Sweden, many females serve as workers in state-run day care centers. These people are not “bureaucrats” because they do not process any information or serve any administrative or regulatory function function. If state’s huge and “inefficient” bureaucracy involves hiring a copious amount unskilled labor (even for make work projects) at above market wages, then it is not a sign of “inefficient” spending since the money is being directed to the welfare of the economically disadvantaged and its integral for the functioning labor market.

Actually, government workers earn less compensation than private sector workers; the only segment of the population that does better in the public sector are “entry level worker with only a high school diploma”.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Ok, something meaningful…

The actual definition of Charity is Love (Caritas = Love commonly referred to as Charity in english). If we do not give out of love it is worthless “If a man hath all [whatever] but hath not love” and all that. So to take from the rich and give to the poor is still stealing. Charity, social programs, and love cannot be effective in establishing true change in people unless they are a heartfelt choice on the part of those people. The reason Dorothy Day fought for social change was to do two things: Help the poor and effect change in how the poor were viewed by society to prevent the poor from ever being that despondent again.

Instead what we have today is a few well meaning people saying, in effect, “Give your money away. If you dont we will take it anyway”. Thievery is what that is.

Look at the parable of the rich man who Christ tells to sell all of his goods and give to the poor. When he walks away despondent does Christ then say “See, that is why we need the government!!!” or does he say “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven”? And since we all know what is required to enter the kingdom (a choice) can we actually force people to do this and think it will do any good?

This argument is like the people who try to say that the vatican should sell everything the Catholic Church owns and give all the proceeds to the poor. That would help for the very short term, but long term it would do FAR more damage than good.
Eventually what will happen in our current situation if the socialist redistribution mentality is pushed forward is that some country will become a financial bastion of little to no taxes and money will begin to flood into that country and out of ours, which WILL be a bad thing.

FSC

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Regarding the poor being “useless” doesn’t their financial state already indicate that, to put it quite bluntly? One reason is that they are poor is the lack a stable income source, and that is because the labor market does not deem their labor valuable, so in a sense their poverty is a value judgment from the market about the lack of any valuable innate talent or trainable skills. So the notion that a welfare state increase the perception of worthlessness among the poor and unemployed is ridiculous especially when the labor market already made that judgment.

The writer (i.e. me) also did not dismiss the notion of “responsiblity for thanking anyone or for helping themselves or others”. To the contrary, reciprocity is important in a welfare state:

The welfare state has many ideological foes, foreign and domestic, and that task of defending the just state should never be underestimated.

The writer said “inefficacy” not “inefficiency”; certainly one without much financial resources would not have much impact even if their funds are allocated in an efficient manner.

Dude, are you actually arguing FOR a welfare state? Seriously? the WELFARE STATE is what you consider the “just” state? You and I have very different concepts of Justice friend. You should go through the bible and see what God has to say regarding justice.

 

[St_Francis]

Not necessarily, even on a material level. I remember stopmoskowitz.org/gamble.pdf"reading

about how Irving Moskowitz literally bought the impoverished city of Hawaiian Gardens, California through a series of “charitable donations” such as starting a little league and donating to a food bank in order to gain permission to build a casino. While reading about it, I was impressed not by the dollar amount of his philanthropy, but by the meager amount of money needed to actually buy influence in the impoverished city, which is about a few million dollars, a small amount relative to the revenue generated by a gambling monopoly.

motherjones.com/politics/2000/09/bingo-connection
I’m sorry, I am having trouble getting your point here…?

 

[Black_Rose]

I’m sorry, I am having trouble getting your point here…?

The point is that do not confuse charitable giving with altruism. For instance, Irving Moskowitz only gave money just to secure the rights to a casino.

 

[St_Francis]

In the 50’s and 60’s the marginal tax rates at the top were very high and corporations paid a much greater portion of the income taxes collected.

One thing that is disregarded in the discussion of taxes is how when tax rates are low for high income earners and corporations, it can be a disincentive to make long term investments in assets. Like the kind that generate jobs for others.

When corporations were paying more of the tax burden, there was an incentive to invest because the corporations could write off the investments in assets and then generate free cash flow after taxes.

If you look here, which shows R&D investment (look at the corporate-paid R&D), and here (look for the chart on the pages labels 288 and 289), which shows corporate tax rates til 2002, and here, which shows the current corporate tax rates, you will see that R&D has been steadily going up, while corporate tax rates were declining.

There also was more of an incentive to have employees as again, the effective tax rate was reduced by the pay to employees. And the general benefit to the economy and the standard of living for most Americans was the expansion of the middle class.

There’s really only so much flexibility you have in the number of employees and the amount you pay them.

There is much discussion here about the decline of family and religious values, how much can be traced to the need for American to have multiple earners in each family to meet the increasing demands of earning enough to make the house payments, the gas and utility payments etc. etc.

Again, there is only so much flexibility a company has in setting its prices. Company A cannot say, Hey! There are a lot of women working, I bet those families can now pay more for our product, so let’s jack up our prices! Because Company B will say, Wow, look how high Company A’s prices are compared to ours, and steal away the customers.

Other factors lead to increases in prices.

Ironically, when the taxes were at the highest on the upper income earners and corporations a factory worker could live the American dream and the wife could stay home and watch and nurture the kids. Were those better times? I don’t know if we can say so and know that there was no color TV at that time.

Well, maybe the color tvs were the precipitating factor…

However, we now have double income families, well, those who haven’t divorced, and people are going bankrupt due to credit card bills, and yes, back then mothers did stay home, but the homes were not so big, the yards were not so big, property taxes didn’t cover such expensive schools along with ice-skating rinks and the 1000 other things that localities offer, and kids did not have as much stuff–no designer jeans or sports player-approved specialty shoes, just Keds–people could work their way through college, a lot of kids did not get braces, kids went barefoot all summer long and families saved for shoes… but now kids that poor are mocked and teased so they just *have *to have the fancy cell phone, Mom!!!

 

[St_Francis]

How did I make your point?

You said this:

Welfare causes the poor to think they are useless

where I responded:

Regarding the poor being “useless” doesn’t their financial state already indicate that, to put it quite bluntly? One reason is that they are poor is the lack a stable income source, and that is because the labor market does not deem their labor valuable, so in a sense their poverty is a value judgment from the market about the lack of any valuable innate talent or trainable skills. So the notion that a welfare state increase the perception of worthlessness among the poor and unemployed is ridiculous especially when the labor market already made that judgment.

You gave a great example of why welfarism makes poor people feel worthless, and that doesn’t sound amicable or respectful, either. But liberals *love *the poor, we all know that…

The poor are in no way worthless. Moreover, all but those who are unconscious can still “give,” through the patient acceptance of their sufferings and through prayer. There is a story which I really love, about a nun who was stricken by a complete paralysis who was able to communicate only with her eyes. She let the people caring for her know that she wanted them to place a large Rosary on the wall across from her bed, and after they did so, they could see that she was praying with that Rosary by using her eyes to count the beads. She prayed many Rosaries that way, and undoubtedly did a great deal of good, and yet she was completely poor and apparently “worthless.”

When you tell people that they have to be taken care of by their fellow citizens and everyone treats them as if they are helpless, they do not look to see what they can do to help others, they do not make a little sacrifice to give to others like the widow who gave her little mite.

Some people in a soup kitchen had the idea of suggesting to those who came to eat there that they could help out in the kitchen. The people running the place thought that would be helpful to them in learning skills that would help the poor in their job searches.This idea, altho it would have been totally voluntary, was shot down, but really, it would have been great if those who were able–there was no requirement to do this–would have been able to give as well.

I do not know what you mean by “bureaucracy” since I define it as a hierarchical organization that is able to process information and enforce regulations for the purposes of civil administration.

Well, I do not know if you are in the US or not, but here we have a federal level, state levels, and local levels, all filling out paperwork, (name removed by moderator)utting into the computer, verifying this and that, going around to the various offices to audit the forms, and *then *we have the people at all levels who are counting the money as it goes in and out, manning computers to make sure that checks and forms go out promptly, bookkeepers, and more auditors,and *then *we have the supplementary staff like human resources, not to mention those who maintain the computers and offices along with those with fancier titles who head the various departments and the entire show! And *then *we have another department altogether which comes from the outside to audit… And all of this is rather duplicated for the various programs: housing is separate from food stamps which are separate from school lunch programs which are separate from state-provided health insurance which is separate from emergency services which is separate from Native American affairs…

*That *is what I mean by bureaucracy.

A bureaucracy does not include all government workers with the definition I provided above. For example, in the Sweden, many females serve as workers in state-run day care centers. These people are not “bureaucrats” because they do not process any information or serve any administrative or regulatory function function. If state’s huge and “inefficient” bureaucracy involves hiring a copious amount unskilled labor (even for make work projects) at above market wages, then it is not a sign of “inefficient” spending since the money is being directed to the welfare of the economically disadvantaged and its integral for the functioning labor market.

Well, hiring people who can’t do anything to do nothing at above-market wages seems weird to me, but whatever they want to do in Sweden…

Actually, government workers earn less compensation than private sector workers; the only segment of the population that does better in the public sector are “entry level worker with only a high school diploma”.

Unless you toss in the federal workers who earn on average $7000/year more and have compensation packages worth 4 times what the private sector offers…

 

[St_Francis]

The point is that do not confuse charitable giving with altruism. For instance, Irving Moskowitz only gave money just to secure the rights to a casino.

OK, my point is that the Social Assistance state does nothing to encourage *caritas, *and in fact works to allow people to ignore the needy altogether.

Your point is that the government should relieve us individuals of the responsibility of providing for the poor because it is more efficacious.

I don’t see how this situation with Irving Moskowitz fits into that. The fact that some people bribe others to do what they want them to do either with their own money or with other people’s money, with a lot of money or a little money, seems kind of irrelevant to either my point or yours.

Unless one could say that the fact that IM got off so cheaply means that the government thing is not as efficacious as one might think? Which would mean that I should have provided the example, not you.

I remain confused.

 

[Black_Rose]

I don’t see how this situation with Irving Moskowitz fits into that. The fact that some people bribe others to do what they want them to do either with their own money or with other people’s money, with a lot of money or a little money, seems kind of irrelevant to either my point or yours.

Unless one could say that the fact that IM got off so cheaply means that the government thing is not as efficacious as one might think? Which would mean that I should have provided the example, not you.

It was a local government in an impoverished ghetto town infested with gangs so it wouldn’t have a large tax base. (I would imagine that Hawaiian Gardens looks like Compton [look at the setting in music video of NWA’s “Straight Outta Compton” / the link has explicit lyrics])

Here are some entries from your link:

Occupation Federal Private Difference
Cook $38,400 $23,279 $15,121
Dental assistant $36,170 $32,069 $4,101
Janitor $30,110 $24,188 $5,922
Clergy $70,460 $39,247 $31,213
Laundry, dry-cleaning worker $33,100 $19,945 $13,155
Office clerk $34,260 $29,863 $4,397
Recreation worker $43,630 $21,671 $21,959
Secretary $44,500 $33,829 $10,671

Most of these require low to medium skills. If the government has increased the demand and wages for low skilled labor, then I should that the government should be lauded.

Do you think the government should be more “efficient” and compensate the aforementioned federal employees at market (private sector) wages/salary?

 

[St_Francis]

…Here are some entries from your link:

Most of these require low to medium skills. If the government has increased the demand and wages for low skilled labor, then I should that the government should be lauded.

Do you think the government should be more “efficient” and compensate the aforementioned federal employees at market (private sector) wages/salary?

Hmmm, I don’t know. It seems odd that someone is paying taxes so someone else doing the exact same job can make *more *money?

 

[Black_Rose]

You gave a great example of why welfarism makes poor people feel worthless, and that doesn’t sound amicable or respectful, either. But liberals *love *the poor, we all know that…

When you tell people that they have to be taken care of by their fellow citizens and everyone treats them as if they are helpless, they do not look to see what they can do to help others, they do not make a little sacrifice to give to others like the widow who gave her little mite.

They do not need to told by anyone that they are incapable of taking care of themselves and need “to be taken care of by their fellow citizens”. They already realize that themselves since they are aware that they do not valuable skills to derive income from labor or assets that provide steady cash flows to finance a dignified livelihood. (For instance, receiving food from a food bank is not dignified livelihood since it is rather humiliating.)

Now seriously, what could they actually give if they are unable to materially provide for themselves and their immediate family?

 

[St_Francis]

They do not need to told by anyone that they are incapable of taking care of themselves and need “to be taken care of by their fellow citizens”. They already realize that themselves since they are aware that they do not valuable skills to derive income from labor or assets that provide steady cash flows to finance a dignified livelihood. (For instance, receiving food from a food bank is not dignified livelihood since it is rather humiliating.)

Now seriously, what could they actually give if they are unable to materially provide for themselves and their immediate family?

You very frequently respond to only parts of posts, totally ignoring the rest. Now I know why: you read only part of them.

However, your responses do give a very good example of precisely why I do not like the welfare system, which is that it degrades people, or liberals, who perpetuate that system.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You very frequently respond to only parts of posts, totally ignoring the rest. Now I know why: you read only part of them.

However, your responses do give a very good example of precisely why I do not like the welfare system, which is that it degrades people, or liberals, who perpetuate that system.

I take that you advocate that we should let them stave to death.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I take that you advocate that we should let them stave to death.

Oh come on guy, dont be ridiculous. Do you know ANYONE who has starved to death in this country? With or without welfare? Death from cold, exposure, etc. happens often with the homeless, but I havent heard of anyone starving to death. So lets stop going overboard on this and be honest.

FSC

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Oh come on guy, dont be ridiculous. Do you know ANYONE who has starved to death in this country? With or without welfare? Death from cold, exposure, etc. happens often with the homeless, but I havent heard of anyone starving to death. So lets stop going overboard on this and be honest.
FSC

I am being honest; that’s why i walk around with my eyes open. Its one of those things where you either see it or you don’t. I will let the rationality of God be the judge of it. For now i am content with the fact that the Pope is on my side.

I can post the evidence again if you want me to.

 

[St_Francis]

I take that you advocate that we should let them stave to death.

I have no idea why you would say that. *I *certainly have not.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I am being honest; that’s why i walk around with my eyes open. Its one of those things where you either see it or you don’t. I will let the rationality of God be the judge of it. For now i am content with the fact that the Pope is on my side.

I can post the evidence again if you want me to.

I gotta leave this thread before I start to lose charity…

To the OP, thanks for the quote, it will be tacked to my wall.

 

[portarica]

You gave a great example of why welfarism makes poor people feel worthless, and that doesn’t sound amicable or respectful, either. But liberals *love *the poor, we all know that…

The poor are in no way worthless. Moreover, all but those who are unconscious can still “give,” through the patient acceptance of their sufferings and through prayer. There is a story which I really love, about a nun who was stricken by a complete paralysis who was able to communicate only with her eyes. She let the people caring for her know that she wanted them to place a large Rosary on the wall across from her bed, and after they did so, they could see that she was praying with that Rosary by using her eyes to count the beads. She prayed many Rosaries that way, and undoubtedly did a great deal of good, and yet she was completely poor and apparently “worthless.”

When you tell people that they have to be taken care of by their fellow citizens and everyone treats them as if they are helpless, they do not look to see what they can do to help others, they do not make a little sacrifice to give to others like the widow who gave her little mite.

Some people in a soup kitchen had the idea of suggesting to those who came to eat there that they could help out in the kitchen. The people running the place thought that would be helpful to them in learning skills that would help the poor in their job searches.This idea, altho it would have been totally voluntary, was shot down, but really, it would have been great if those who were able–there was no requirement to do this–would have been able to give as well.

Well, I do not know if you are in the US or not, but here we have a federal level, state levels, and local levels, all filling out paperwork, (name removed by moderator)utting into the computer, verifying this and that, going around to the various offices to audit the forms, and *then *we have the people at all levels who are counting the money as it goes in and out, manning computers to make sure that checks and forms go out promptly, bookkeepers, and more auditors,and *then *we have the supplementary staff like human resources, not to mention those who maintain the computers and offices along with those with fancier titles who head the various departments and the entire show! And *then *we have another department altogether which comes from the outside to audit… And all of this is rather duplicated for the various programs: housing is separate from food stamps which are separate from school lunch programs which are separate from state-provided health insurance which is separate from emergency services which is separate from Native American affairs…

*That *is what I mean by bureaucracy.

Well, hiring people who can’t do anything to do nothing at above-market wages seems weird to me, but whatever they want to do in Sweden…

Unless you toss in the federal workers who earn on average $7000/year more and have compensation packages worth 4 times what the private sector offers…

Liberals love the poor in the way Jesus loved the poor.

Peace

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Liberals love the poor in the way Jesus loved the poor.

Peace

Conservatives love the poor the way Jesus loved the poor.

See, I can spout off at the mouth too!!!

(I cant pull myself away… I think I need to unsubscribe…)