Distribution of Wealth

[Caesar517]

I am open to having a consumption tax, such as the “Fair Tax.” I could see being a very good thing.

There are a few things about the FairTax system that I don’t know enough about. The “prebate” thing for instance.

Where I would disagree is with the public education system. In many inner cities, the quality of the schools can be horrendous. In some other parts of the country, the quality is very good. For example, my public school ranked very close to many recognized private institutions. I guess it just depends…

The biggest problem is the lack of competition. If we privatize the schooling system, schools will be competing for students and the quality of everyone’s education will rise.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

From the U.S. Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and **general Welfare **of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The question then becomes what exactly “general” means here. Do you think Universal Health Coverage falls in this category?

 

[cynic]

The funny thing with democracy is that 51% of the people usually find a way to exploit the other 49%.

The majority of employed individuals voted either Democrat or Republican. ie to have their incomes taxed and spent by government.

Perhaps they can see that there are bigger things at stake than “what’s mine is mine”.

Or maybe theyr’e just too lazy to help the poor and sick on their own time, even though they’re at work all week…

 

[cynic]

The biggest problem is the lack of competition. If we privatize the schooling system, schools will be competing for students and the quality of everyone’s education will rise.

If you privatize it then only the children whose parents can afford the full cost of fees will get to attend school.

 

[Caesar517]

The question then becomes what exactly “general” means here. Do you think Universal Health Coverage falls in this category?

The question is not “what does the word ‘general’ mean here?”, but rather “what did the Founding Fathers mean when they wrote this?”.

Almost everyone who wants to expand the size of government tries to sneak their idea in through the Welfare Clause. Under the wide interpretation favored by big government proponents, the federal government would have unlimited power as long as they were working for the ambiguous “common good”.

It helps to remember the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Under the liberal interpretation described above, this would be moot because the federal government would have all the power it wanted regardless. Due to this contradiction and to the other writing of the Founding Fathers, I conclude that they did not intend for the Welfare Clause to be interpreted as such.

 

[Caesar517]

If you privatize it then only the children whose parents can afford the full cost of fees will get to attend school.

This is why I would allow for skeleton funding programs. Parents would receive money from the state governments equal to half or three quarters (something like that) of the average tuition fee of the schools in their area. This money would be given without any strings attached and could be spent on other things by the parents at their discretion.

 

[christcnection1]

There are a few things about the FairTax system that I don’t know enough about. The “prebate” thing for instance.

What is the prebate thing all about?

The biggest problem is the lack of competition. If we privatize the schooling system, schools will be competing for students and the quality of everyone’s education will rise.

As a general rule, competition is good if done in a reasonable way. At some level, it’s important to integrate all students, instead of segregate. I also believe that quality students who do not have money ought to be given opportunities to succeed within the best schools. (And the best schools do not necessarily need the finest, most updated facilities.) This type of “hand up” is in the best interest for the common good. To what extent should tax-payer money help the academically inclined poor is debatable.

We certainly want to maximize the potential of the best, but often it’s hard to soar with eagles if you’re always nesting with turkeys. In other words, when mediocre students are surrounded with better students, their chances of grabbing the bull by the horns and doing well will be greatly increased. Likewise, students that drain the life out of a quality environment ought to be reprimanded and/or taken out of the school/classroom.

Additionally, too much segregation, or an abuse of it, can lead to either a superiority or inferiority complex. Sensitivity issues can be taken too far, but at the same token, in the long run, we all need to know how to cooperate together, whether strong or weak. It’s also good to have multiple voices and perspectives all at levels, so that we can have a deeper appreciation of where we are all coming from.

If healthy competition promotes unity at both a micro and macro level, and within competing schools, I am a proponent of this kind of initiative. Competition has the potential to cause division, and at times this is appropriate. But overall, it’s important to be on the same “page”, or at least the same “book.” A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. This included academia.

 

[cynic]

This is why I would allow for skeleton funding programs. Parents would receive money from the state governments equal to half or three quarters (something like that) of the average tuition fee of the schools in their area. This money would be given without any strings attached and could be spent on other things by the parents at their discretion.

Then… that makes you a socialist.

 

[John1]

I think that a voucher system would be great, but I would be wary of any government tax money going to any private schools because of the inherent danger of the government imposing any rules or regulations. The general public would have the right to expect the government to monitor the use of their tax money. However, if someone is paying school taxes but sends their child or children to a private school, then they should be reimbursed every cent of school taxes that they have paid into the public system. Anyone who does not have children attending public school should not have to pay school taxes. This seems fair to everyone involved. Of course the taxes on everyone who has school aged children would probably be increased somewhat. Anyone who receives a voucher for the total amount of public school taxes they have paid in should not have any voice in school elections. I think that the voucher system has a lot more appeal now because of the pressure some groups that are advacating a state contolled school tax and spending system where all the school taxes in a state are paid into a school “slush” fund then the state government spreads the money out to each school in the state equally. The banner of the advocates goes something like “every child deserves an equal education” . I do believe that every child should have the opportunity to have a basic education I also believe that people who pay more school taxes should should be able to send their children to a school district that has some advantages over school districts that have a lower income from their tax base. The children in the “richer” districts would have the newer desks, fancier schools, better sports equipment, etc., but the children in the “poorer” schools should be able to receive a “good” education. I guess someone has to determine what standards would define “below average, average, and above average”.

Blessings

 

[Caesar517]

Then… that makes you a socialist.

“cynic” is a perfect screen name for you.

 

[royal_archer]

Are you suggesting we scrap every government program that seek to give people a hand-up, regardless of their circumstance?

I agree with your point about cultivating a dependent class. This is a lose/lose for everyone, expect perhaps for those who want a communist state.

Any drastic change in policy would cause undue hardship. Somehting like Welfare has to be transitioned out over a few years so the ecconomy can absorb these people.

 

[royal_archer]

and that’s the child’s fault, right?

No it is the parrents fault. And children caught in the middle of this are innocent victims. They deserve to get an education but the parrents should be forced to pay some of the bills.

 

[royal_archer]

From the U.S. Constitution:

Quote:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The question then becomes what exactly “general” means here. Do you think Universal Health Coverage falls in this category?

Now if the taxes were “uniform throughout the United States” it would be a different story. Unfortunately taxes are not uniform. And instead of supporting “General welfare” they support specific individuals while excluding others. (aka equal protection under the law)

 

[royal_archer]

The majority of employed individuals voted either Democrat or Republican. ie to have their incomes taxed and spent by government.

Perhaps they can see that there are bigger things at stake than “what’s mine is mine”.

Or maybe theyr’e just too lazy to help the poor and sick on their own time, even though they’re at work all week…

Or maybe they were forced to choose the lesser of two evils because the two major parties have set up a system where those who are not for big government are prohibited from participating in the electoral process.

 

[cynic]

Or maybe they were forced to choose the lesser of two evils because the two major parties have set up a system where those who are not for big government are prohibited from participating in the electoral process.

Rubbish. The Libertarian Party is registered in the U.S as far as I can tell.

lp.org/contact-us

There’s even a libertarian party in my own country that you can vote for.

Working citizens didn’t vote for them because they don’t share the no-taxes, no-government ideals espoused here. So the idea that only unemployed dependent leeches vote for social spending via goverment doesn’t fly.

No it is the parrents fault. And children caught in the middle of this are innocent victims. They deserve to get an education but the parrents should be forced to pay some of the bills.

You mean all of the bills. Which inevitably means many children won’t be attending school.

 

[KingAlfred]

“If I was making a good salary, I would support having a large segment of my income going to effective programs.”

Would your nuclear family (e.g., spouse and children) agree with this? Are you telling me you’d rather pay high taxes for the poor than save to put your children through college someday?

 

[ProVobis]

Now if the taxes were “uniform throughout the United States” it would be a different story. Unfortunately taxes are not uniform. And instead of supporting “General welfare” they support specific individuals while excluding others. (aka equal protection under the law)

I believe you are correct here. According to a footnote on the US Constitution:

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. <ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today’s context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE

usconstitution.net/const.html

Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

But the question still remains. Why exactly did the Forefathers stick the term “general welfare” in the Constitution, not once but at least twice?

PS By the way, I have voted mostly Libertarian for the last 30 years and am familiar with Ayn Rand, von Mises, Harry Browne, et al. So I don’t just try to find any reasons why people should be taxed at all. And I definitely think our fiat currency system and the Fed manipulation of the money supply is immoral.

 

[christcnection1]

“If I was making a good salary, I would support having a large segment of my income going to effective programs.”

Would your nuclear family (e.g., spouse and children) agree with this? Are you telling me you’d rather pay high taxes for the poor than save to put your children through college someday?

If I was making a good salary I would be able to do both. It’s in the best interest of my spouse and children to help ensure the country is in good condition. Furthermore, although providing for my own would come first, I also recognize that other people are in need. And if there are effective government programs out there, for the love of God, yes, I would support this.

Of course, I would rather provide for private charitable groups first, but I see the solution as a both/and reality. But since we are talking taxes, I don’t think my wife and I would have a say. My point is that I’m not against effective uses of taxpayer money to give others opportunities.

Now, hypothetically, if my salary was not so good and I was being taxed to death to the point where I could not provide for my kid’s needs, including helping them with their education, then I believe there could be something fundamentally wrong with the tax system.

Supporting effective programs also implies that our taxes are being used for other good purposes. It’s not my desire to be taxed to help prop up ineffective programs, or support government waste. Most of us don’t want to flush our money down the toilet. And a lot of our money could be spent on much better purposes. This should happen before any tax hikes, not that I’m necessarily in favor of tax hikes to begin with.

 

[christcnection1]

Any drastic change in policy would cause undue hardship. Somehting like Welfare has to be transitioned out over a few years so the ecconomy can absorb these people.

Yes, and as long as we are able to transition people over, it’s something we should do. With growing unemployment, this would be all the more difficult accomplish. I suspect that it would be easier to pull off during an economic boom.

 

[christcnection1]

Here’s a relevant passage from the Catechism. I will highlight a number of points some of us have addressed:

---

IV. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

2426 The development of economic activity and growth in production are meant to provide for the needs of human beings. Economic life is not meant solely to multiply goods produced and increase profit or power; it is ordered first of all to the service of persons, of the whole man, and of the entire human community. Economic activity, conducted according to its own proper methods, is to be exercised within the limits of the moral order, in keeping with social justice so as to correspond to God’s plan for man.209

2427 Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God and called to prolong the work of creation by subduing the earth, both with and for one another.210 Hence work is a duty: "If any one will not work, let him not eat."211 Work honors the Creator’s gifts and the talents received from him. It can also be redemptive. By enduring the hardship of work212 in union with Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth and the one crucified on Calvary, man collaborates in a certain fashion with the Son of God in his redemptive work. He shows himself to be a disciple of Christ by carrying the cross, daily, in the work he is called to accomplish.213 Work can be a means of sanctification and a way of animating earthly realities with the Spirit of Christ.

2428 In work, the person exercises and fulfills in part the potential inscribed in his nature. The primordial value of labor stems from man himself, its author and its beneficiary. Work is for man, not man for work.214

Everyone should be able to draw from work the means of providing for his life and that of his family, and of serving the human community.

2429 Everyone has the right of economic initiative; everyone should make legitimate use of his talents to contribute to the abundance that will benefit all and to harvest the just fruits of his labor. He should seek to observe regulations issued by legitimate authority for the sake of the common good.215

2430 Economic life brings into play different interests, often opposed to one another. This explains why the conflicts that characterize it arise.216 Efforts should be made to reduce these conflicts by negotiation that respects the rights and duties of each social partner: those responsible for business enterprises, representatives of wage- earners (for example, trade unions), and public authorities when appropriate.

2431 The responsibility of the state. "Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society."217

2432 Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations.218 They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits. Profits are necessary, however. They make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment.

2433 Access to employment and to professions must be open to all without unjust discrimination: men and women, healthy and disabled, natives and immigrants.219 For its part society should, according to circumstances, help citizens find work and employment.220

2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice.221 In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good."222 Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.

2435 Recourse to a strike is morally legitimate when it cannot be avoided, or at least when it is necessary to obtain a proportionate benefit. It becomes morally unacceptable when accompanied by violence, or when objectives are included that are not directly linked to working conditions or are contrary to the common good.

2436 It is unjust not to pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.

Unemployment almost always wounds its victim’s dignity and threatens the equilibrium of his life. Besides the harm done to him personally, it entails many risks for his family.223

---

continued next post…