Distribution of Wealth

[Feste_1242]

It is an artificial person. It really has the rights and responsibilities we decide to give it. We can decide to give corporation moral duties in return for granting them the charter and the rights they want–like limited liability protection for their shareholders. Corporations enjoy many benefits–those benefits should not come without moral responsibility.

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?

 

[Caesar517]

Doesn’t your boss get the fruit of some elses (your) labor? i.e. their employees
Doesn’t the stock holder get the fruit of some elses labor? i.e. the employees of the company?

In these scenarios, nothing is forced. Free will is not encroached upon.

 

[skeyes]

Here is the problem. Our government was originally established to protect our country. That was just about all the federal government was to do. Now some people with good intentions decided that they needed to make everyone pay to help the less fortunate and that a huge bureaucracy was the best way to get that job done. This approach is inheritedly flawed due to the fact that this is not what God commanded. God commanded us to bring our gifts to Him. But people who wanted to feel good about our government doing good things pushed us into believing that taking care of the less fortunate is the government’s job. It is not the government’s job, it is the job of the Church. The reason that the government’s attempt to feed the hungry and provided for the needy comes up so short is because it is being done in the power of humans and not by the power of God. The redistribution system in the United States is unholy and will always come up lacking.
When folks honor God by their gifts to His church, then God increases the gift and His church may do great things with little because these funds and volunteerism come from worship of Almighty God and are given as a sacrificial offering. That is powerful. You see each Catholic Church could very well take care of the truly needy in the community, but we willingly usurp our responsibility and hope and pray that a bureacratic mess established by men may someway give people help.
God has given us a fabulously effective plan of economy whereby everyone would be taken care of as well as everyone would be given opportunity.
Finally, socialism doesn’t work because incentive to suceed is taken away at some point in the earning curve. No person is entitled to any other persons earnings or savings. I am commanded to give and it is up to me and my Savior as to how much. I go as far as to say, that I don’t really care how the Church uses my offering because what is important is my giving. Ultimately that isn’t true because I am to be a good steward there too, but my obligation to my Savior is to give.
Peace!
Stan

 

[christcnection1]

Try laughing a little. It’ll help those frown marks in your forehead!

God bless you.

 

[RobbyS]

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?

Forced redistribution usually works the same way as the unjust steward. The tax collector will take from the rich and not so rich, anyone who has money, stick some of in his pocket and then give to those who are his friends, while giving little orr nothing to his enemies. He will also make a deal with the rich who are his friends and take less from them than from the rich who are not his friends.

This is the way it works. That is why in the Soviet Union, there developed a New Class of haves to replace the rich who had been entirely dispossessed of their wealth.

 

[christcnection1]

There’s no Church document I’m aware of that specifies that I can’t take $100 out of my friend’s wallet and give it to a homeless person. Regardless, I believe a person with a well-informed conscience would still realize this is obviously theft. My decision to contribute an additional $100 of my own money also would not negate the theft of my friend’s money.

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.

It is forbidden as per the “You Shall Not Steal” Commandment. If it weren’t, as I mentioned above, I can rightfully take $100 out of my friend’s wallet and give it to a needy person. I’m not arguing that the individual taxpayer is necessarily and directly responsible for what “Caesar” does with the money once it is in his hands, just as my friend is not responsible for what I do with his money that I take from his wallet.

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

But this does not justify stealing from those who misuse their money. I believe (as does the Church) that the means and the ends must both be moral. So for example, I don’t believe I would be morally justified in stealing a drug addict’s money to prevent him from buying more drugs. I also don’t believe I would be justified in stealing someone’s money because it would be better put to use somewhere else.

I don’t disagree with this.

I look at it the other way: if the government would stop overstepping its bounds with forced charity, Christians would step up to the plate.

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.

Unfortunately, the government will never relinquish its intervention because our officials have ulterior and misguided motives. The Church is often ridiculed for its wealth yet it is the most charitable organization in the world. Remember, Jesus tells us, *“the poor you will always have with you.” * (Matthew 26:11 and Deuteronomy 15:11) This is a result of human sin which government force will certainly not correct.

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.

 

[christcnection1]

I found this on a Catholic Social Teaching website:

osjspm.org/25questons.aspx

1. What is the remedy for the gap between rich and poor?

In a word development, but this term requires explanation since one finds in CST an evolution in its usage. One might say that there has been development in the church’s teaching on development!

Although John XIII called in 1961 for increased financial aid and emergency assistance to poor nations where this was needed, he realized the underlying causes of the plight of the world’s poor had to be addressed in a new way. The year he wrote Mater et Magistra was also the beginning of the U.N. First Development Decade. There was optimism that something akin to the Marshall Plan, which helped rebuild postwar Europe, might happen in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

John laid out three basic norms for development: (a) the internal affairs of poor nations should be reformed to ensure efficiency and fairness (#167-68); (b) all efforts should be made to avoid a cultural imperialism by which economically advanced nations disrupt the cultural systems of aid recipients (#169-71); and (c) new developments in international economic life should not lead to an economic colonialism that replaces the older political colonialism experienced by a number of the poor nations (#172).

Paul VI articulated a threefold obligation of the richer nations: the duty of human solidarity, the duty of social justice and the duty of universal charity (Populorum Progressio, #44). The first duty pointed out the need for generous and wisely planned aid to poorer nations (#45-55). The second duty of social justice required nations to address in a systematic manner the necessary reform of the economic framework governing international trade (#56-65). Finally, Paul wrote of the duty of charity that called for sensitivity to cultural differences and respect for local customs, as well as hospitality toward immigrants and a spirit of mutual collaboration between rich and poor (#66-75).

Taken together, these guidelines articulate the elements of what makes for just development. Important as it is, however, “just” was but the first modifier to precede the noun development in CST. The next expression was integral development.

The main website is osjspm.org/default.aspx

If anyone else knows more info on CST, feel free to chip in. I have only been exposed to it within the last year.

 

[christcnection1]

This is also relevant. At least couple of the specifics in the themes appear to contradict the beliefs of some people here.

usccb.org/sdwp/projects/socialteaching/excerpt.shtml

…However, it’s possible I’m misunderstanding their viewpoints and/or misunderstanding the implications in the USCCB’s perspective.

Corrections are welcomed.

 

[royal_archer]

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?

That is why we have scholarships, student loans and many employers, including the military, who pay for their employees to go to higher education.

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 it were being used as a hand up, then I would have a different opinion. Likewise I do not feel we have enough options to help people who get laid off and have to deal with the shock of loosing a significant portion of their income over the first month or so. The problem is that most people in these programs are in full and permanent reliance on them.

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.

Did you ever ask why these individuals do not get support from private sources? Maybe because they continue to make bad choices and sqander their opportunities and they can go to the big annonymous government and get something for nothing.

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.

Actually I think many who support welfare are the ones out of touch. Not all of us were meant for traditional jobs but all were meant to contribute and we were all given tallents to contribute to society. Some want to take of others talents but are unwilling to use their own talents.

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.

If someone is a welder and gets laid off they may have a hard time finding the exact same job elsewhere. If they open their eyes, they may be able to find suitable employment else where. Maybe not at the same wage but suitable employment none the less. Now I am not necesarily against a program to help these people out by unloading the assetts that they can no longer afford such as large houses, expensive cars, etc.

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.

It is not set up to suffocate working families, it is set up so all have opportunities, at least it was set up that way before the communist came in.

 

[royal_archer]

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

Actally parrents who can not afford to send their kids to school but continue to have children, expecting the government to take care of them, are freeloaders.

 

[royal_archer]

I’m glad you’re assuming that. As a general rule, the people were not better off under those systems, especially if you were a Christian.

No, I’m not advocating for that America at all. And if you read most of my posts, that would be pretty obvious.

But you do appear to be advocating moving more to a system of government that is like those countries. You are pushing us closer to that pit of death. I would like us to move further away.

 

[royal_archer]

Yeah, I kinda of like the idea of 28 rubles per month and a bottle of vodka.

I’m a bit more partial to gin myself…

 

[royal_archer]

You share the opinion of some others on this thread. I would like to know what official Church documents tell us that government use of tax-payer money to help society as a whole (which was printed by the government and is not backed by gold or anything) is “theft.” I have yet to receive an answer to this.
.

Money is time. For those of us who work, money equals a portion of our lives. Empolyers cannot pay us in gift cards to wall mart and even if they did the government would take a portion of it. They are not just taking money they are taking a portion of our lives.

 

[royal_archer]

Every single person who works in this country knows that taxes will be taken from their earnings and redistributed through the local, state or federal government in a manner that may benefit others more than it benefits them. It is not “theft” for the government to collect taxes since we agree to pay taxes as part of our duties that arise from being members of this society. It is not a theft of my tax money when the fire department saves your house and I don’t happen to ever have a fire at my house. It is something that I agree to as a cost of living in a civilized society where having a fire department is part of the common good.

What would also be good for society is if we sent all of the “rich people” to a class where they could learn how to be less selfish and help others How about a week in the Bahammas sitting on the sand with servants bringing them drinks. After a week of sitting back while waitresses bring them drinks they will have a better understanding of the poor and will be in a more generous mood. All of it should be paid for out of taxes since I declare that this program would be good for society.

As for fire protection, police, etc. we all have access to those emergency services.

 

[royal_archer]

Sorry but that is not true about working people not reaping any benefits from welfare. Many pundits like to talk about welfare as if the same group of people just sit on it and freeload for their entire life. Welfare reform passed back in the 90s placing a cap on the number of years that a family can draw on that type of government assistance usually thought of as “welfare.” You can check the government sites and see that benefits are capped. The vast majority of people who draw welfare at any given time were working taxpayers before they drew and they do become working taxpayers again. They use the benefits as intended, as a temporary safety net to help them get back onto their feet.

I used to work in the legal dept. of a state agency that administered those benefits, so I’m not making this up. We saw the majority of people who had a medical situation or a loss of job or something of that nature that caused them to need temporary help from the government. They were on and off the roles in less than the 5 year max. For people who have earned a decent wage in the past, they find that the amount of money received from welfare benefits does not support a good lifestyle. They also are ashamed at being on welfare.

We had a much smaller percentage of people that we called “the hardcore 20%” who simply were not going to be productive citizens. Those are the people who get most of the attention when people want to criticize using tax dollars in this manner. It simply is not fair to tar everyone with the same brush when the majority of people are hardworking folks like those who have lost jobs in the auto and other industries. Those people would much rather be working for $20/hour or whatever they used to make instead of barely surviving on welfare. They are not freeloaders or lazy or stupid.

Bad circumstances can happen to any one of us at some point in our lives. Many of us are lucky enough to have sufficient savings or the support of an extended family to see us through hard times and others are not.

I do not lump people who are receiving unempolyment insurance pay outs for a short period of time between jobs in that category.

I lost a job and due to a mess up in the companies accounding system I essentially did not get a final paycheck. I did not have a credit card and did not have any cash. I was expecting a paycheck that did not come. I went to the unemployment office and they said I could not get money for several weeks but then encourage me about how long I could stay on the system. I survived by riding my bike everywhere, doing volunteer work where they gave food to the volunteers, and basically starving. A few weeks later I found another job. Later, just after my first son was born, I was again layed off. That time I got a few weeks severance. I spent all of that time looking for a job and offering to take anything to stay on my feet. Bottom line is that I know what it is like to loose a job. I can see the value of insurance to deal with these scenarios. I also know how easy it is to find another job if you are willing to put your pride aside and take what you can get.

With unemployment as low as it is, these transition people should not account for such a large portion of our national budget going to welfare.

 

[RobHom]

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?

Very true.

The reality is this: Redistribution of wealth is an oxymoron.

If you have 50 Billionaires, and 300,000,000 people who aren’t… and you take all of the wealth from the Billionaires, and give to the have-nots, then all you have is 300,000,050 people who are in the same lousy boat.

I am not defending wealth. But then there is nothing wrong with it. Whats wrong is how its used or attained.

What the real problem is, is that our society has lost sight of its original goals, and we have become overly materialistic. Today people build and buy houses that are monuments to their egos. Where I live…retired people by 2500 to 5000 square foot homes…and then complain about insurance, taxes and upkeep. Gotta have two or three cars, teenagers have to have a car to go to school, and big allowances…

How about not throwing money away on expensive tennis shoes, or whatever? Why not reframe our thoughts to helping our fellow man or woman. Why not have people take responsibility for getting things done…and not lean on or expect the government to solve all of our problems?

Catholic school tuition? My parents paid mine…years ago, with no vouchers. Out of pocket, and still paid their taxes. It was called “sacrifice” to get their kids an education.

How about people getting together and setting up a 503(c) type of organization to solicit funds to help families get their children educated in Catholic schools?

How about setting up 503(c)'s to help provide support to women who are poor and contemplating abortion? Its a well recognized fact that financial hardship is one of the driving motivators for abortions…is financial hardship… Afterall, billions of dollars have been spent on advertising, media hacks, lawyers, shills and other non-producers that have accomplished little. Would not those dollars have been better spent educating and helping women who need the help financially and who would keep and raise the child?

How many of us are now, as Thanksgiving and Christmas approach…thinking about how much in $$ we can give to Saint Vincent DePaul svdpusa.org/ or something like the Harry Chapin Foodbank harrychapinfoodbank.org/ ???

We, as people MUST STOP EXPECTING THE GOVERNMENT TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT!!! It has not so far, and expecting it to do so…is an act of futility.

What do you think could be accomplished if every American, or even just each and every Catholic gave $5.00 a week to a good reputable charity or organization dedicated to helping people??

We need to think less of our selves and more of others. Christ made it clear, and we must do it!! Frankly, this year… I am forgoing any presents to anyone…the money is going where its needed. I find it impossible for me to justify my comforts while others go hungry and suffer… I hope you will join with me and give something…even if its a little bit to the charity of your choice. Or help someone you know directly… some money in an envelope…with no names on it…put where they can find it.

We are called by Christ to not only believe in Him and worship Him…but also to serve. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, …caring for our fellow men, women and children is what we are called to do as people…

 

[christcnection1]

But you do appear to be advocating moving more to a system of government that is like those countries. You are pushing us closer to that pit of death. I would like us to move further away.

I believe in moving the system of government toward what the “common good” is, assuming it’s in line with Catholic teaching. This could mean various changes, within an array of circumstances.

The Church has spoken on these issues, and has a perspective on how government should implement policies for the common good.

I do not consider the Church’s viewpoint as something that will lead to a “pit of death.” But then again, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

 

[christcnection1]

We need to think less of our selves and more of others. Christ made it clear, and we must do it!! Frankly, this year… I am forgoing any presents to anyone…the money is going where its needed. I find it impossible for me to justify my comforts while others go hungry and suffer… I hope you will join with me and give something…even if its a little bit to the charity of your choice. Or help someone you know directly… some money in an envelope…with no names on it…put where they can find it.

We are called by Christ to not only believe in Him and worship Him…but also to serve. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, …caring for our fellow men, women and children is what we are called to do as people…

Amen… we are all called toward sacrificial love!

As this financial crisis becomes worse, those Catholics who are “well-off” really have wonderful opportunity to share the light of Christ. I hope and pray many do.

I agree with most of what you said. However, my concern largely deals with our shrinking middle class and how that should be resolved. Whatever is happening, it’s not productive toward the “common good” as Church documents promote.

 

[christcnection1]

Money is time. For those of us who work, money equals a portion of our lives. Empolyers cannot pay us in gift cards to wall mart and even if they did the government would take a portion of it. They are not just taking money they are taking a portion of our lives.

Church documents call on government to serve the people for the “common good.” In your opinion, what should government do, not do, or do better to serve this purpose?

This has always been the nature of my question, and as far as I can tell is completely in line with Catholic Social Teaching.

 

[Caesar517]

Money is time. For those of us who work, money equals a portion of our lives. Empolyers cannot pay us in gift cards to wall mart and even if they did the government would take a portion of it. They are not just taking money they are taking a portion of our lives.

This is exactly why some have argued that income tax is a form of slavery. I agree with them, although I wouldn’t use the word “slavery”.