Distribution of Wealth

[christcnection1]

They become auto executives

And they’ve earned every penny.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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.

Wealth distribution is essential to all strong economies

What about for the working poor? …for those individuals who may be good people, hard-working, but may not have great intelligence or have a variety of obstacles standing in their way…

a fair minimum wage and zero taxes on incomes under $x (like $15k)

I ask this because through various experiences in the last few years, I have been exposed to many individuals who are in this position… On many levels they are more “deserving” than others.

I come from a middle-class home, have a degree, and am capable of making much more than I make now. It’s obvious that many good and hard working people will never emerge from this cycle of relative poverty, even if they do nearly everything they are capable of.

It seems a great injustice how there is a great disparity of wealth, and in many ways, it makes it much harder to live the faith as a mother/father if they so choose.

wealth is the word. Wealth is resources not earned income. Most have no financial wealth

How is one parent, or even two going to be able to raise a family on ten to fifteen dollars an hour? This is the case for many individuals. And even if one could struggle through that reality, is that just, especially with the kind of wealth we have here?

Finally, our situation is a lot better than other countries. But we are far from the beacon we could be in this area. It doesn’t take too many strikes against you to be unable to find good work and a good paying job in this country.

There ought to be greater mercy for the working poor. I’m not referring to individuals who are not helping themselves; I’m talking about individuals who are genuinely working hard, trying to do all the right things, but the system will just continue to suffocate them and their offspring.

It’s understandable why many deserving people just don’t escape the (relative) poverty cycle.

The disgrace is we heavily tax the poor typically 40%. (8% sales tax, 15.3% SS & Medicare, hidden taxes, + fees ) This of course only helps poor workers. Issues as social health care are also important.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

And they’ve earned every penny.

It is relative. Had people who worked their way up run the company, it would not be in this type of trouble. Because these groups encourage private school, prep school, Ivy legue type additudes of new executives the business become wealth. Today the business is squandered wealth. Had they earned in a truer sense this would not be the case. If they earned by performing well in the preppy method and winning a preppy contest -well- that is a form of earning.

 

[christcnection1]

It is relative. Had people who worked their way up run the company, it would not be in this type of trouble. Because these groups encourage private school, prep school, Ivy legue type additudes of new executives the business become wealth. Today the business is squandered wealth. Had they earned in a truer sense this would not be the case. If they earned by performing well in the preppy method and winning a preppy contest -well- that is a form of earning.

I’m sure that there are people working harder than these corporate executives that are barely able to feed their children. Obviously this is a problem, and it’s an equity issue.

I question whether this kind of wealth is ever justified, in light of all that plagues the world. Even if they worked their way up, I just cannot see how making it this far up the economic ladder at the expense of others is good for a country.

You know, I didn’t have this point of view a few years ago when I was making even a lower middle class salary. But after experiencing the plight of the poor, it has become obvious to me that the system is largely unjust for many individuals trying to “play by the rules.”

If someone is merely taking advantage of the system, and is capable of doing the work, sure, don’t cut these folks slack. One of my best friends is like this: he’s a good person, but just needs to get off his lazy rump. And I have family members that work hard, are decent people, and make millions. They have “earned” their right to be “rich,” but I don’t believe to the extent they are.

 

[jc-servant]

I am of the opinion that forced redistrubution of wealth is immoral.

How does someone get from “a good, hard working poor person” to "a person who ‘deserves’ and ‘has a right to’ the fruit of someone else’s labor?

Then you think our current tax system is “immoral” because that is exactly what it does, forcibly collect and redistribute wealth and not only to the poor. This is not something that only benefits the poor.

Any government that collects taxes and uses them to fund things that not every person benefits from equally is redistributing wealth. For example, a single person without children still pays taxes that are used to support public education, but they will not reap the same benefits from it as some person who has 5 kids who actually attend the schools. I also don’t have a child who may need foster care or the protection of children’s services, but I support those efforts by a civilized society to protect innocent children with my tax dollars. We all pay for police and fire protection that may benefit our neighbor or a stranger with our tax dollars while we never need those services.

All of these things that I mentioned technically “redistribute” the fruits of our labors and I don’t think that anyone can point to a document of the church or a place in the catechism that says that any of these uses of our “wealth” are “immoral.” Sometimes other people need to reap some benefit from the labors of others for the common good of our society.

 

[christcnection1]

Then you think our current tax system is “immoral” because that is exactly what it does, forcibly collect and redistribute wealth and not only to the poor. This is not something that only benefits the poor.

Any government that collects taxes and uses them to fund things that not every person benefits from equally is redistributing wealth. For example, a single person without children still pays taxes that are used to support public education, but they will not reap the same benefits from it as some person who has 5 kids who actually attend the schools. I also don’t have a child who may need foster care or the protection of children’s services, but I support those efforts by a civilized society to protect innocent children with my tax dollars. We all pay for police and fire protection that may benefit our neighbor or a stranger with our tax dollars while we never need those services.

All of these things that I mentioned technically “redistribute” the fruits of our labors and I don’t think that anyone can point to a document of the church or a place in the catechism that says that any of these uses of our “wealth” are “immoral.” Sometimes other people need to reap some benefit from the labors of others for the common good of our society.

Additionally, funds to support a military can also be deemed “redistribution of wealth.”

You are correct. The list goes on.

I echo your point: where does the Church say this is “immoral?”

Clearly some “redistribution” is a waste. Other forms are very beneficial. In my opinion, it’s impossible to make a blanket statement to say it’s a good or bad thing. On many levels it’s a necessity for the survival of a country.

 

[Caesar517]

All the family friendly tax incentives that were refered to by other posters a form of wealth distribution. Are you saying you disagree with that?

No, at least not in theory. What I was referring to is taking from someone and giving to someone else based on how much money they have. Welfare, for example.

My point is that there are many good individuals who work very hard, but the system is largely set up for failure, particularly for those who have additional hurdles to begin with.

I’m not sure what you mean. How is the system “set up for failure”? I see only opportunity.

Are you suggesting it’s good that the gap between the haves and have nots is a good thing for civilization? If so, why? If not, what can reasonably be done to solve this?

I think you are looking at an analog world through digital eyes. I don’t think people can be classified into “haves” and “have nots” when looking at a fundamentally capitalist system. Everyone has opportunity and that opportunity is not dependant on how wealthy the person is. Granted, not everyone shares equally in its blessings.

In a feudal system, you could easily differentiate between the “haves” and “have nots”. In this case, the “have nots” do not have the same opportunity as the “haves”.

If wealthy individuals were more generous, and voluntarily supported those in need, this would not be an issue in my mind. Of course, we are far from that. Capitalism largely breeds greed, though I do think it’s better than many systems.

Our country is the most generous the world has ever seen. When there is a disaster or severe food shortage somewhere in the world, who comes to the rescue? Our country is one of the most economically free in the world and we give the most to charities by far. Most countries who aren’t as economically free don’t give as much to charity. There seems to be some sort of relationship between the two, although I don’t know exactly what it is.

Finally, what specifically in Church teaching leads you to believe that a some mandated distribution of wealth is not God’s will?

I believe it infringes upon God-given free will. He gave us the choice to decide to follow him or not. I think forced “charity” denies people of their right to choose to do the right thing or to choose to do the wrong thing. When did Jesus ever make someone follow him?

I also think it is dumping the responsibility of the individual into a social worker or government official. Helping the poor then becomes a job and not a moral duty.

 

[Caesar517]

Then you think our current tax system is “immoral” because that is exactly what it does…

That’s correct.

As for the main body of your post, I know that any government spending can technically ber classified as “redistributing wealth”, but that’s not the meaning normally associated with the phrase. I was referring to things like Welfare. Sorry for the confusion, I should have been more clear.

…I don’t think that anyone can point to a document of the church or a place in the catechism that says that any of these uses of our “wealth” are “immoral.”

Nor do I or else I would have done it already.
I believe the basis for what I’m saying lies in the application of a properly formed conscience.

Sometimes other people need to reap some benefit from the labors of others for the common good of our society.

You’re on a slippery slope.

 

[christcnection1]

No, at least not in theory. What I was referring to is taking from someone and giving to someone else based on how much money they have. Welfare, for example.

There are many forms of welfare. I believe some are justified, others are not. When welfare means life or death, I am in favor of welfare if it means life.

If the system does not help support regular individuals from living a healthy or normal life where they can raise a family, I think the state should intervene. Certainly, this must include personal responsibilty on the part of the individual.

I’m not sure what you mean. How is the system “set up for failure”? I see only opportunity…

I don’t see this as a black and white reality. Fortunately, there is more “opportunity” for success than there is “being set up for failure.” But I think both realities exist. If opportunity is the only thing you see as you seem to say, then there is no need to expand opportunity. I believe there is enormous room in our system to expand opportunity.

I think you are looking at an analog world through digital eyes. I don’t think people can be classified into “haves” and “have nots” when looking at a fundamentally capitalist system. Everyone has opportunity and that opportunity is not dependant on how wealthy the person is. Granted, not everyone shares equally in its blessings…

I’m sorry you think I look through the world in that narrow lens. I do believe that nearly everyone has an opportunity to make it. For some people their chances are very good to at least be “middle class.” For a smaller segment of the population, it’s possible, but unlikely due to various circumstances. I don’t disagree with your point.

In a feudal system, you could easily differentiate between the “haves” and “have nots”. In this case, the “have nots” do not have the same opportunity as the “haves”.

I agree.

Our country is the most generous the world has ever seen. When there is a disaster or severe food shortage somewhere in the world, who comes to the rescue? Our country is one of the most economically free in the world and we give the most to charities by far. Most countries who aren’t as economically free don’t give as much to charity. There seems to be some sort of relationship between the two, although I don’t know exactly what it is.

I tend to agree here too.

I believe it infringes upon God-given free will. He gave us the choice to decide to follow him or not. I think forced “charity” denies people of their right to choose to do the right thing or to choose to do the wrong thing. When did Jesus ever make someone follow him?.

Jesus never did that. But Jesus also never said that the state should never help support the poor and expand opportunity for the marginalized. For the record, I do not believe that forced “charity” is true charity. However, just because this happens doesn’t mean that suddently there will be a lack of opportunities to serve Christ in others.

Where does the Church say that the State cannot or should not help to serve the marginalized or poor?

I also think it is dumping the responsibility of the individual into a social worker or government official. Helping the poor then becomes a job and not a moral duty.

Helping the poor and hurting is everyone’s responsibility. If more individuals truly stepped to the plate, there would be less need for government intervention. However, it’s also true that many government social workers are Christians who do their work for love of God.

It’s the moral duty of the individual, the state, the Church, and every single institution on the planet to do the right thing. It’s the responsibility of all, not just individuals. We are not islands; we are all interconnected.

If we can’t get there the best way (which I lean toward your perspective), I am willing to explore other possibilities for the sake of poor, and for the love the One who wants everyone to cooperate together.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’m sure that there are people working harder than these corporate executives that are barely able to feed their children. Obviously this is a problem, and it’s an equity issue.

when the poor cannot feed their children we as a society have failed to follow god’s commandment- treat your neighbor as yourself

I question whether this kind of wealth is ever justified, in light of all that plagues the world. Even if they worked their way up, I just cannot see how making it this far up the economic ladder at the expense of others is good for a country.

the teaching is more about providing reason living conditions not equal money for all

You know, I didn’t have this point of view a few years ago when I was making even a lower middle class salary. But after experiencing the plight of the poor, it has become obvious to me that the system is largely unjust for many individuals trying to “play by the rules.”

If someone is merely taking advantage of the system, and is capable of doing the work, sure, don’t cut these folks slack. One of my best friends is like this: he’s a good person, but just needs to get off his lazy rump. And I have family members that work hard, are decent people, and make millions. They have “earned” their right to be “rich,” but I don’t believe to the extent they are.

Some having a lot while others have little is not a problem. Some having none is one problem. Systematically hold others down is a different problem.

 

[cynic]

I believe it infringes upon God-given free will. He gave us the choice to decide to follow him or not. I think forced “charity” denies people of their right to choose to do the right thing or to choose to do the wrong thing. When did Jesus ever make someone follow him?

.

That’s a self-centred view of charity. I want the kudos from giving.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… For example, a single person without children still pays taxes that are used to support public education, but they will not reap the same benefits from it as some person who has 5 kids who actually attend the schools. …

.
Think about it. Does the single person receive and education?, Drive on roads designed by engineers? Receive medical care from educated Doctors, and Nurses? etc., etc. So the benefits of an educated populous did benefit him, and everyone else, regardless of how many brothers and sisters the child has.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Good, I like cake.
Would you care to enlighten me with your superior knowledge and wisdom or merely declare me ignorant without explaining why?

I love your response

Something to consider: if you search the Old Testament you will find give 10% to God and leave 1/3 in the fields to be gleaned by orphans and widows. that 43.33% then read this articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/YourRealTaxRate40.aspx. Maybe people are people regardless of the year?

 

[christcnection1]

the teaching is more about providing reason living conditions not equal money for all .

I agree with you in principle. I may disagree in what is “reasonable,” particularly in light of how much wealth there is in this country.

Some having a lot while others have little is not a problem. Some having none is one problem. Systematically hold others down is a different problem.

I also agree with you in principle here. I may just define “alot, a little, and holding others down” differently.

 

[royal_archer]

Yes. And the way you have exercised this free will is through the democratic election of your government, who will hopefully help the poor more than the last bunch.

So if 52% of the people support slavery and reinstate that, would you tell those slaves they did it by there free will?

I suspect not. Free will is an individual act not a collective act.

 

[royal_archer]

…I think you are looking at an analog world through digital eyes. I don’t think people can be classified into “haves” and “have nots” when looking at a fundamentally capitalist system. Everyone has opportunity and that opportunity is not dependant on how wealthy the person is. Granted, not everyone shares equally in its blessings.

In a feudal system, you could easily differentiate between the “haves” and “have nots”. In this case, the “have nots” do not have the same opportunity as the “haves”.
…

Why is it when people talk about “haves” and “have not’s” it is always in terms of money? I happen to have money, not a lot, but I earned every penny. How ever there are many things I do not have. Why do they always talk about taking the things I have to give to others but never talk about forcing other types of haves to give up their blessings for “the good of society”?

 

[royal_archer]

Finally, what specifically in Church teaching leads you to believe that a some mandated distribution of wealth is not God’s will?

Though shall not steal. Though shall not covet thy neighbor’s goods

 

[royal_archer]

.
Think about it. Does the single person receive and education?, Drive on roads designed by engineers? Receive medical care from educated Doctors, and Nurses? etc., etc. So the benefits of an educated populous did benefit him, and everyone else, regardless of how many brothers and sisters the child has.

With that logic, shouldn’t the single person have as much say in how the schools are run as the parrents?

 

[Caesar517]

There are many forms of welfare. I believe some are justified, others are not. When welfare means life or death, I am in favor of welfare if it means life.

I think we all should be on the side of life regardless of circumstances, so I would agree with this. In general, however, I think private charity can do better than a government program.

I don’t see this as a black and white reality. Fortunately, there is more “opportunity” for success than there is “being set up for failure.” But I think both realities exist.

When you say “being set up for failure” do you mean that sometimes the odds are against someone so much that they essentially don’t have opportunity?

Jesus never did that. But Jesus also never said that the state should never help support the poor and expand opportunity for the marginalized.

Very true. I think that’s because every system of government is fatally flawed. Perhaps different systems are superior for different circumstances.

Helping the poor and hurting is everyone’s responsibility. If more individuals truly stepped to the plate, there would be less need for government intervention.

I can certainly understand where you are coming from, but I see very much irony in this. The more the government tries to make up for a lack of giving of individuals, the less individuals will give (there are several reasons for this). Thus, the government will inevitably increase their efforts. I think this trend will eventually reach an asymptote where the government administrates the vast majority of monetary donations.

It’s the moral duty of the individual, the state, the Church, and every single institution on the planet to do the right thing. It’s the responsibility of all, not just individuals. We are not islands; we are all interconnected.

Do institutions have moral duties? The individuals that make them up certainly do, but I tend to think the institution collectively does not.

If we can’t get there the best way (which I lean toward your perspective), I am willing to explore other possibilities for the sake of poor, and for the love the One who wants everyone to cooperate together.

I agree with you there and am glad to see that we don’t have any fundamental disagreements.

 

[Caesar517]

Why is it when people talk about “haves” and “have not’s” it is always in terms of money? I happen to have money, not a lot, but I earned every penny. How ever there are many things I do not have. Why do they always talk about taking the things I have to give to others but never talk about forcing other types of haves to give up their blessings for “the good of society”?

That’s a very interesting point. I suppose it’s mainly because money is the easiest thing to measure and to take away.