Distribution of Wealth

[cynic]

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.

Doesn’t reality interest anyone? Most people are not practicing Christians. If you remove all government funding for welfare, healthcare or schooling there’s only going to be one result…

 

[christcnection1]

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

Good thing the Church does not teach that taxing individuals to help benefit one’s country and its people is stealing.

I also suspect that the greater the disparity in wealth, the more tempted individuals will be to covet. Many people commit horrendous acts for insignificant financial gain. However, this will always be a problem. I do believe its a systemic problem, but more fundamentally a heart problem.

All “social classes” would do well to take to heart: “the Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.” Ultimately, we have nothing if we don’t have Him, even if we have gained the whole world. That’s where our greatest wealth is. But this is does not mean God doesn’t want better for the “working poor.”

Indeed, spiritual poverty is the greater poverty Mother Theresa talked about. Therefore, it’s primarily the Church’s job to focus on this, but not to exclusion of material poverty. That’s something I believe God’s people and the government can cooperate on.

 

[christcnection1]

Doesn’t reality interest anyone? Most people are not practicing Christians. If you remove all government funding for welfare, healthcare or schooling there’s only going to be one result…

I agree with you. Although I believe private charities do a better job, as a general rule, I don’t believe Christians have done enough. If they did, there would be little need for government assistance.

That said, I believe there are many Christian politicians and government social workers on the front lines helping to combat some of these problems.

Additionally, some “Christian” groups would unfortunately be unwilling to help support Non-Christian groups if they would not be willing to covert to their group or way of thinking.

I think this is why groups like the Missionaries of Charity (Mother Theresa’s group) was so beloved. They helped all regardless of religion. Although they shared the faith, it wasn’t requisite in receiving assistance.

Bottom Line: there is an important place for government to help its people in need. This is in everyone’s best interest. And frankly, I think more should be done.

 

[elvisman]

Of all the statements spoken in ignorance. This one takes the cake.

Antagonism 101, huh, Thomfra.
Tell us what is ignorant about this statement? Then, I’ll tell you what is ignorant about yours.

Voluntary redistribution of wealth is called Charity. Are you still with me?

**Forced redistibution of wealth is called Socialism. It’s also called theft. **

**Got it? Good. **

 

[xmydreamsfadex]

i didn’t read all the responses but here is what i think:
minimun wage should be raised to $15 an hour with work weeks at 30 hours a week with six weeks annual paid vacation.
free healthcare.
free education beyond high school.
rent control for all rental units and an end to home foreclosures.
food should be at a resonable price since profits shouldn’t be the motive of who eats.
same benefits for part-time workers as for full-time workers.
retirement at age 55 a minimum annual retirement income of $25,000, tax free, and protected from inflation by cost of living increases.
i could go on but i’m sleepy.

 

[xmydreamsfadex]

also, dorothy day was a very smart woman.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

To the OP distribution of wealth is no more than stealing and God opposes this see 1st kings 21… Furthermore 1 Sam 8 when they cried out for a king instead of God as king some of the things that would be given up to be spread out among Sauls peoples were the israelites goods…(a penalty, for looking to the state for answers instead of their God)

 

[christcnection1]

Antagonism 101, huh, Thomfra.
Tell us what is ignorant about this statement? Then, I’ll tell you what is ignorant about yours.

Voluntary redistribution of wealth is called Charity. Are you still with me?

Forced redistibution of wealth is called Socialism. It’s also called theft.

Got it? Good.

I am not familiar with any authoritative Church documents that say taxing individuals to help benefit the country is theft. Any use of money after tax can be deemed as “theft” if that’s the way you define it.

This could include supporting a military, a prison system, social workers, health care, etc. If one does not support how any of these systems are run and would not be willing to give the government their money freely, you could then say it’s “theft.”

Of course, those who use currency have decided to buy into a system. It’s not like they are bartering. The money was printed by the government. It’s not even backed by gold anymore.

I’m sorry, I have never, ever heard a homily or read a Church document saying that reasonable use of tax payer money was theft.

There is something I do agree with you on. That is, voluntary distribution of wealth is charity. If it’s forced, it’s not charity. However, I do believe that some strict Socialists hold their views because they love their neighbor. I just think this system is extreme and misguided.

 

[christcnection1]

To the OP distribution of wealth is no more than stealing and God opposes this see 1st kings 21… Furthermore 1 Sam 8 when they cried out for a king instead of God as king some of the things that would be given up to be spread out among Sauls peoples were the israelites goods…(a penalty, for looking to the state for answers instead of their God)

Please show me Church documents that say that reasonable use of tax payer money is theft.

 

[royal_archer]

…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.
…

Why give to the guy on the street corner when anyone can go to the government and get everything they need, right? Unfortunately there is so much money being funneled to welfare programs that I believe it is actually creating more poverty. When people are given the chance of living at the poverty level and spend there lives enjoying themselves, why get a job at a level slightly higher than poverty and have to work all week? Then with out people working the entry level jobs, they are not qualified to move up the chain. Instead of annonymous government agencies dishing out money to anyone with out a job, local individuals need to be deciding on whether the person is truly needy.

 

[royal_archer]

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

Not that I would advocate it but just to prove a point: Why not go to a family that has five children and take two away and allow a family that can not have children adopt them? After all the government has no problem taking money away from the couple with out children and giving it to the family with more children than they can afford.

 

[christcnection1]

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 totally agree that most charities do a better job than government programs. They tend to be more focused and careful how they use their funds.

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?

I believe nearly everyone has an opportunity. But I do believe the odds are against many people in that they have little hope of raising a “normal” family in fair conditions. In other words, the cycle of relative poverty is too difficult a pit to climb out of. For those who are responsible and hard-working, there should be more helping hands up, not hand outs.

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.

I agree with this. If more Christians stepped to the plate on these issues, the fiscal conservative approach would be much better. Unfortunately, many “Christians” prefer the “wealth gospel.”

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

What is an institution without individuals? But if the institution stands for something fundamentally flawed, then even if morals of individuals are good, something will always be at least a little off.

I personally believe that individuals who start institutions ought to use morally sound principles from which to base their structure.

I don’t think we disagree. I’m just qualifying the point.

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

No, and I’m glad too. People often find their beliefs are closer after sifting through the issues further.

 

[royal_archer]

Doesn’t reality interest anyone? Most people are not practicing Christians. If you remove all government funding for welfare, healthcare or schooling there’s only going to be one result…

The free loaders would move to Canada???

 

[xmydreamsfadex]

Of all the statements spoken in ignorance. This one takes the cake.

i agree. what about all the “hard working honest people” that don’t get by? the ones that play by the rules, go to work everyday, live for the jobs they have just to have it all taken away due to economic woes?
capitalism has failed us all. it has proven that it doesn’t meet the needs of the people, workers, since we never benefit from the so called “boom times” and are told to sacrifice during the bad times.
the bosses never offer to give raises, do they? profits are above people, and, i believe, capitalism is a form of atheism.

 

[royal_archer]

Good thing the Church does not teach that taxing individuals to help benefit one’s country and its people is stealing. .

With the military, roads, police, fire, courts, etc. we all bennefit and have access to the services rendered. Welfare is different in that the people who pay by default do not bennefit.

I also suspect that the greater the disparity in wealth, the more tempted individuals will be to covet. Many people commit horrendous acts for insignificant financial gain. However, this will always be a problem. I do believe its a systemic problem, but more fundamentally a heart problem. .

Everyone is enclined to covet or at least have desires. Many poor people would not be poor if they were willing to use their skills to satisfy the desires of others. All this talk about the needy and I have only ever had one person offer to cut my grass for money, (an enterprising young boy who will undoubtably never have the opportunity to call himself poor).

 

[christcnection1]

i agree. what about all the “hard working honest people” that don’t get by? the ones that play by the rules, go to work everyday, live for the jobs they have just to have it all taken away due to economic woes?
capitalism has failed us all. it has proven that it doesn’t meet the needs of the people, workers, since we never benefit from the so called “boom times” and are told to sacrifice during the bad times.
the bosses never offer to give raises, do they? profits are above people, and, i believe, capitalism is a form of atheism.

I agree with some of what you are saying, but I think it’s a bit extreme. Actually, I believe nearly every system of government would work well if the human heart was right.

Of course, capitalism is largely driven by “survival of the fittest.” Those who are weak, for various reasons, are naturally going to have a harder time “succeeding” in a capitalist system.

As more people become godless, and as their god $$$ is worshiped more devoutly, this growing segment of the population is going to be less inclined to “share” their personal wealth with anyone.

I believe that love of God and sound moral principles from which to live are requisite in a sustainable capitalistic system. If we don’t have that we will be the masters of our own demise.

I believe there is a direct correlation between this point and our shrinking middle class.

 

[royal_archer]

i didn’t read all the responses but here is what i think:
minimun wage should be raised to $15 an hour with work weeks at 30 hours a week with six weeks annual paid vacation.
free healthcare.
free education beyond high school.
rent control for all rental units and an end to home foreclosures.
food should be at a resonable price since profits shouldn’t be the motive of who eats.
same benefits for part-time workers as for full-time workers.
retirement at age 55 a minimum annual retirement income of $25,000, tax free, and protected from inflation by cost of living increases.
i could go on but i’m sleepy.

and of course no one ever gets sick, fat, or bald. . .

I assume you were being sarcastic with this list.

 

[royal_archer]

…

Of course, capitalism is largely driven by “survival of the fittest.” Those who are weak, for various reasons, are naturally going to have a harder time “succeeding” in a capitalist system.

…

Do you think all people were better off under the socialist USSR, socialist Germany, Cuba, China? The only way those countries survived as long as they did was by finding those people who were un willing or un able to work off to where they will never return. I assume you are not advocating that for America?

 

[christcnection1]

With the military, roads, police, fire, courts, etc. we all bennefit and have access to the services rendered. Welfare is different in that the people who pay by default do not bennefit.

If fewer people have an opportunity of going to college as a result, does this not hurt our country in the long run? If the hospitals are overcrowded and the sick do not get better, this will not affect the rich at some point?

My original point had little or nothing to do with welfare, but since you asked, here are my thoughts. Welfare is intended to be a helping hand up, not a hand out. This is in the best interest for the whole country, not only in the long-run, but also in the short-run.

If someone can work, they should. If they can’t work for various and legitimate reasons, it would be nice if a private charity helps them, but if it does not, then the government should help.

Everyone is enclined to covet or at least have desires. Many poor people would not be poor if they were willing to use their skills to satisfy the desires of others. All this talk about the needy and I have only ever had one person offer to cut my grass for money, (an enterprising young boy who will undoubtably never have the opportunity to call himself poor).

I don’t fundamentally disagree with you here, but it sounds like you are a little out of touch. Yes, we are all tempted to covet, but some realities only foster this vice.

There are increasingly skilled workers who are out a job, and will have a very hard time making it. There is a shrinking middle class. They are making less, working more, and have weaker purchasing power.

Some of their problems are self-induced: debt, foolish expenditures, unhealthy habits, etc. But some of it is our crumbling economic system which is largely set up to suffocate working families, and encourages us to buy into many deadly allurements.

 

[cynic]

The free loaders would move to Canada???

ha ha yeah, so kids who can’t attend school are free loaders.