Distribution of Wealth

[christcnection1]

continued…

The biggest issue that sticks out in my mind concerning this passage of the Catechism is that employees ought to have a living wage. In my opinion, this is something the “working poor” do not sufficiently have, as the gap between the rich and the poor widens.

Certainly there are many instances where the poor have brought harm to themselves, and instances where the rich have make shrewd money decisions. However, in general, in this “survival of the fittest” economic system we have it has become increasingly more difficult for the average Joe (who probably makes a tenth of Joe the Plumber) to be able to pursue what the Church points to: “to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level.”

The bottom line is that this is the plight of many workers. They might not be the sharpest knives in the drawer. They might not be the most productive or innovative. They might not contribute anything astounding. But even if they are slightly less than the ideal, and are giving an honest effort, they ought to be able “to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level.”

Now, is this something our government should somehow mandate? Or is there a way in which businesses can be encouraged to voluntarily pay their real “average Joe” workers more money? Or do you believe that the Catechism has it wrong?

Please explain.

 

[Caesar517]

What is the prebate thing all about?

I haven’t figured it out yet, but it has something to do with offsetting the basic cost of living. I haven’t found a clear explanation.

 

[Caesar517]

Now, is this something our government should somehow mandate? Or is there a way in which businesses can be encouraged to voluntarily pay their real “average Joe” workers more money? Or do you believe that the Catechism has it wrong?

I don’t think the government can mandate it. Minimum Wage is counter-productive and that’s about all a government can do directly. I think the only real way to go about it is to raise the general standard of living.

I think the living wage issue is significantly less pressing than it used to be. Increased transportation ability has made it possible to hold more than one job and forced employers to compete for labor.

 

[steve975]

It’s ironic then that there is no Church document that remotely suggests governments do not have a responsibility to help take care of the poor. Considering how much it happens, one might think the Church would have something significant to say.

The same use of money can be said for helping individuals with health care, national security, public education, and numerous other examples. If you are against all these things, then I believe you are being consistent with your argument.

Are you suggesting then that any government taxes are stealing? Based on this alone, I have a hard time seeing your point.

I agree with this on some level, and hope you are right. But regardless, Christians could still put their money towards various charitable causes. The possibilities are endless. They just either love money too much, buy into the wealth gospel, or are barely making it on the little they earn. No government system is requisite to inspire Christians to step to the plate. We are not ignorant of the world’s woes.

The government will relinquish its intervention if the public believes it’s the right thing to do and votes in new people. This will also require more good people, perhaps like yourself, to run for public office.

It’s unfortunate that some hold these views on the Church. They look for any blemish, but fail to recognize the overwhelming amount of good the Church does.

I don’t disagree with Jesus’ words on the poor. I am more focused here on growing a middle class, which under current fiscal policies has profoundly shrunk. There are many people doing difficult, exhausting, and important work who are barely making a living wage. This ought to change one way or another.

So, in your opinion, what can be done in the U.S. to help ensure all responsible, hard-working, good citizens have a better opportunity at making a decent living?

I am not about handouts. I believe in personal responsibility and hand ups. This is something I have consistently stated.

As far as Church statements about governments helping the poor, I don’t pretend to know enough about Church politics as it relates to publications on government responsibility. I do know the Church has spoken strongly against socialism. But as far as much more minor forms of redistribution, that’s an excellent question. I think the Church traditionally devotes its time to speaking out on the biggest and worst issues, and issues that need to be defined for the good of the Church. My opinion is that minor redistribution might not be one of these most pressing issues.

I am not suggesting that all taxes are stealing. When we pay taxes for services we use (use of public roads, having a military for our defense, for example), I don’t necessarily consider that to be stealing unless the money is embezzled, misused, or wasted, which often does happen. I think it is a form of stealing for the government to collect taxes for certain uses and then embezzle them for other uses, such as what happened with social security. I also consider it a form of theft when taxes are collected for the purpose of being redistributed, such as with the idea of universal healthcare. Also, I think that many of the services the government provides for which it collects taxes would be far superior if handled by private entities. When the government claims a monopoly over a service which could also be provided by the private sector, and prevents anyone else from providing the same service, this also could potentially be a form of theft.

I think we have a lot of common views on many of these things in terms of the end result of doing God’s will. But I think you are much more optimistic than I am. I don’t think there is a chance that the public is going to vote people in who will relinquish government power. I think the government has a stranglehold in this respect that will not be overcome, and I also think that the public will always generally be in favor of electing those officials who promise the most benefits. There is an anomymous statement that reads, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse (defined as a liberal gift) out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship.” Sadly, I think this statement is right on the mark.

The early Church shunned involvement in secular affairs and I think this was a good thing. If we all did this, and focused solely on the Church and our own generosity rather than looking to government for solutions, I believe we would achieve amazing things. But I don’t see this happening until Christ returns.

 

[christcnection1]

As far as Church statements about governments helping the poor, I don’t pretend to know enough about Church politics as it relates to publications on government responsibility. I do know the Church has spoken strongly against socialism. But as far as much more minor forms of redistribution, that’s an excellent question. I think the Church traditionally devotes its time to speaking out on the biggest and worst issues, and issues that need to be defined for the good of the Church. My opinion is that minor redistribution might not be one of these most pressing issues.

I am not suggesting that all taxes are stealing. When we pay taxes for services we use (use of public roads, having a military for our defense, for example), I don’t necessarily consider that to be stealing unless the money is embezzled, misused, or wasted, which often does happen. I think it is a form of stealing for the government to collect taxes for certain uses and then embezzle them for other uses, such as what happened with social security. I also consider it a form of theft when taxes are collected for the purpose of being redistributed, such as with the idea of universal healthcare. Also, I think that many of the services the government provides for which it collects taxes would be far superior if handled by private entities. When the government claims a monopoly over a service which could also be provided by the private sector, and prevents anyone else from providing the same service, this also could potentially be a form of theft.

I think we have a lot of common views on many of these things in terms of the end result of doing God’s will. But I think you are much more optimistic than I am. I don’t think there is a chance that the public is going to vote people in who will relinquish government power. I think the government has a stranglehold in this respect that will not be overcome, and I also think that the public will always generally be in favor of electing those officials who promise the most benefits. There is an anomymous statement that reads, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse (defined as a liberal gift) out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship.” Sadly, I think this statement is right on the mark.

The early Church shunned involvement in secular affairs and I think this was a good thing. If we all did this, and focused solely on the Church and our own generosity rather than looking to government for solutions, I believe we would achieve amazing things. But I don’t see this happening until Christ returns.

I agree with nearly everything you said either completely, or at some level…

I do believe the Church has addressed limited distribution of wealth by the government as a righteous thing for the common good. However, as you have rightly stated, the Church has also addressed the evils of Socialism.

Your description of how a democracy collapses on itself is interesting; I tend to believe that this is largely as a result of a shrinking middle class, and great wealth disparity between its citizens. In this, I’m not suggesting the government ought to completely eliminate the playing field. This would be socialism. If wealthy Christians (and business owners) were more generous, not only to charities, but also to employees, its citizens would not be seeking greater government intervention.

What do you believe could be done to help the middle class regain its strength? What could be done to grow the middle class? What are your thoughts on promoting a “living wage,” something the Catechism calls for, just as they call not providing it a “grave injustice”?

 

[christcnection1]

I don’t think the government can mandate it. Minimum Wage is counter-productive and that’s about all a government can do directly. I think the only real way to go about it is to raise the general standard of living.

I think the living wage issue is significantly less pressing than it used to be. Increased transportation ability has made it possible to hold more than one job and forced employers to compete for labor.

Why do you believe the living wage is less pressing than before? As a general rule, the price of items is increasing, wages are not going up, they tend to be going down. Up until recently, inflation is making everything more expensive, especially in proportion to the wage. And recently, deflation has been occurring; this is only a good thing for people who have work. Unemployment is rising. Fewer businesses are even able to offer overtime.

I do not believe it’s in the best interest for our country for parents to have to work an obscene number of hours in order to put enough food on the table, barely be able to pay rent (or if they’re fortunate enough to have a mortgage), or not be able to have some savings for their children’s college expenses. And even if they are able to find enough hours to work, they are likely too exhausted to be able to spend quality time with their children, and/or in church activities.

I agree that we must raise the standard of living. But how do we do that??

The scenario you describe does not adequately enable “the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level” as the Catechism says. This is the reality for an increasing number of citizens.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I disagree. It is nothing like a person. Think of it as a factory, a building full of machines. It has no rights, responsibilities, or moral duties whatsoever. The owner of a business has moral responsibility, of course, and he can use his business to achieve charitable ends. That’s not the same as the business having moral responsibility, though.

Is this relevant?

Sorry I dont know how to make the post you were responding to show up, but I was responding to a post questioning whether institutions have moral responsibility–I interpreted instititutions to mean/include businesses–so I think it is relevant to the question.
You can disagree if you like but within the meaning of the Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution a corporation is recognized as an artificial “person”
Further it certainly does have rights–buts thats another discussion–a legal discussion. The rights it has are given to it by the charter of its creation and by law. If the government allows corporations and grants them rights - like limited liability protection, perpetual life etc - that same government can certainly give/require certain moral obligations for granting those rights.
So you may be right about them not currently having a moral obligation–my point was that since the rights they have are granted by the government – maybe those rights should come with a string.

 

[Caesar517]

Why do you believe the living wage is less pressing than before? As a general rule, the price of items is increasing, wages are not going up, they tend to be going down. Up until recently, inflation is making everything more expensive, especially in proportion to the wage. And recently, deflation has been occurring; this is only a good thing for people who have work. Unemployment is rising. Fewer businesses are even able to offer overtime.

When I said that I was thinking about a larger span of time. Go back a thousand years. You have serfs who don’t get to choose who they work for. Their Lords had complete power over them and could choose to take care of them or starve them. There are similar patterns throughout the rest of history. People didn’t have very many options concerning where they work, therefore the employers didn’t have to offer very competitive wages. Due our modern transportation ability, I can probably find hundreds of jobs within a 100 mile radius of my home. With this increased mobile ability and the worker rights protections from the Civil Rights movement, employers must be just as competitive with wages as they are with prices.

It’s still an issue and will always be one, but I think the advances in technology have made this less of an issue.

I do not believe it’s in the best interest for our country for parents to have to work an obscene number of hours in order to put enough food on the table, barely be able to pay rent (or if they’re fortunate enough to have a mortgage), or not be able to have some savings for their children’s college expenses. And even if they are able to find enough hours to work, they are likely too exhausted to be able to spend quality time with their children, and/or in church activities.

Of course not, but you gotta do what you gotta do. The capacity for upward mobility has made it possible to pull yourself and your family out of that situation, but it takes lots of hard work and long hours to do it. My father and his father are a testament to that.

I agree that we must raise the standard of living. But how do we do that??

I believe that is best accomplished by the free market and small government. Using this system, it took our country less than 200 years to become the biggest powerhouse in the world, economically and militarily. We have a higher standard of living than any country ever in the history of the world. As a friend once said to me, “Our poor people are fat! Compare that to poor people from other parts of the world.”

I think we’re slipping away from this due to increased government intervention in the free market, increased taxes on businesses, and the effects of globalization.

The scenario you describe does not adequately enable “the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level” as the Catechism says. This is the reality for an increasing number of citizens.

Is there a specific reason why you think this? What do you think we should do differently or better?

I try to keep in mind that we will always have the poor. We will always have people who can barely survive. Our duty is to minimize it.

 

[Man]

Abolishing the sales tax would assist the poor.
Abolishing the capital gains “special” tax and moving it to ordinary income would assist the middle class.

Otherwise, it is important to note that the purpose of the government is not to redistribute wealth, but to ensure the protection of basic rights to all the citizens. Doing so requires work at many levels.

The government can do somewhat more too, such as encouraging certain behaviors and development.

The basics of the government are:
Life
Peace
then Justice, which includes:
Food and Water (sustenance)
and then Work (or at least freedom to do so)
and just slightly less important:
Education
Property

The divergence between property rights and government rights are constantly in motion, but it is clear that the right of persons to food, water, and work, is more important that basic rights to property, as those without food or water, have the right to take these things for themselves (on a purely theological level). These requirements need to be met.

BUT, we see that redistribution of wealth is not a legitimate governmental process, rather it is an invasion of basic human rights. The government, essentially, has the right and responsibility to “wage just war” on the wealthy for what is being with held or hoarded.

 

[cynic]

I don’t think the government can mandate it. Minimum Wage is counter-productive and that’s about all a government can do directly. I think the only real way to go about it is to raise the general standard of living.
.

The idea that a minimum wage pushes up the cost of goods and services, and harms the people it’s trying to help is bogus. It assumes employers are already paying staff as much as they can afford (when it’s more likely the opposite, and only moderated by labour supply and demand). Also much of our living costs aren’t effected by bottom wage rates (rents for example)

I think the living wage issue is significantly less pressing than it used to be. Increased transportation ability has made it possible to hold more than one job and forced employers to compete for labor.

Why should somebody have to work 70 hours a week just to survive? Don’t excessive hours factor into standard of living? Now if somebody chooses to do that, because they want to save up, it’s different.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Should there be greater distribution of wealth in the United States? If so, what is the right way to go about it? If not, please also share your thoughts.

Yes, tax God-given natural resources including land and oil. Give the money to the masses.

 

[Caesar517]

The idea that a minimum wage pushes up the cost of goods and services, and harms the people it’s trying to help is bogus. It assumes employers are already paying staff as much as they can afford (when it’s more likely the opposite, and only moderated by labour supply and demand). Also much of our living costs aren’t effected by bottom wage rates (rents for example)

My father owns a small business. Employers do spend as much as they can on payroll, but not in the form of raising salaries. It is in the form of hiring new employees in increase productivity. When you force them to spend more per employee, they either have to charge more for their good or service or lay off some employees. This is Econ 101.

Why should somebody have to work 70 hours a week just to survive? Don’t excessive hours factor into standard of living? Now if somebody chooses to do that, because they want to save up, it’s different.

Someone should work as much as necessary to feed their family.

Hours worked do indeed factor into standard of living in a negative way. Stress from work is a terrible thing that plagues society. I wonder if this is a modern thing or if it always has been this way.

 

[Caesar517]

Yes, tax God-given natural resources including land and oil. Give the money to the masses.

Can you explain this?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Can you explain this?

Tax people on how much god-given natural resources they use. Then split up the money from the tax to everyone. Make the people hogging the god-given resources pay the people who aren’t using them. Then the poor can have some money to eat.

 

[SeekerJen]

They become auto executives

Or Wall Street CEOs.

 

[Caesar517]

Tax people on how much god-given natural resources they use. Then split up the money from the tax to everyone. Make the people hogging the god-given resources pay the people who aren’t using them. Then the poor can have some money to eat.

Everything we have is God-given. Everything not synthetic is natural. Everything used in production is a resource.

 

[christcnection1]

Someone should work as much as necessary to feed their family.

Yes, if it’s necessary they ought to do it. But the Church calls paying a person an unreasonable wage a “grave injustice.” This is not the ideal we are striving for as a country, or as a Church. If they are working that much, they are inevitably not spending enough time with family and/or in church-related functions. This kind reality can easily become a cycle of death for the working poor.

First and foremost Christian business people should pay their people a “living wage,” even if it cuts into their own profits. Of course, the Church recognizes the right and necessity of making profits, so I’m not arguing that. It’s also necessary to be able to compete. I understand this as well.

But if more did this, there would not be a great need for desire for the government to get involved. That said, nothing in Church teaching, that I know of, suggests it’s wrong for the government to foster a climate in which business owners are inclined to pay workers a more reasonable wage.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Everything we have is God-given. Everything not synthetic is natural. Everything used in production is a resource.

That is true, but what we normally call “natural resources” were not given to any person in particular. Our bodies and therefore our labor were given to us personally, and should not be controlled by the community. On the other hand, the land and the oil and the gold in the ground should benefit everyone.

 

[Caesar517]

That is true, but what we normally call “natural resources” were not given to any person in particular. Our bodies and therefore our labor were given to us personally, and should not be controlled by the community. On the other hand, the land and the oil and the gold in the ground should benefit everyone.

What about air? Not purified oxygen or nitrogen, but plain air? Shall we tax it’s use in production?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

What about air? Not purified oxygen or nitrogen, but plain air? Shall we tax it’s use in production?

You could tax its use and distribute the dividends to all, so that everyone ended up with a net tax/rebate of zero I suppose. Or just not tax it at all, unless someone is using a lot of it for some unusual purpose.