Distribution of Wealth

[cynic]

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.

Again that assumes that current turnover doesn’t allow for raises to be given to existing staff. From the point of view of society, why, when unemployment is low, would expasion always be preferable to raising wages? I mean isn’t part of the purpose of business to provide as many people as possible with an adequate income? When people go for years without a raise, even to match inflation, you’ve got to wonder whether wage competition is really working.

These supposed economic ‘realites’ are the same that could be used by 19th century industrialists to justify the terrible working conditions that only ended with the coming of unions, strikes, and labour laws.

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

Well my comment was about one persons living costs. But it’s funny how most people could support family on a 40 hour week just a few decades ago…

.
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.

when you spend 9+ hours a day in an open plan office, a place where talking to colleages in a *lunchbreak *is considered innapropriate, where any mention of the outside world (again in your own time) is blasphemy, where you can only take a few days leave around Christmas (if there’s no work on), then is it surprising that people get depressed?

Whing over.

 

[Caesar517]

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.

I agree with this.

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.

I don’t necessarily disagree, but would you apply this to part time jobs 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.

I have noticed two things about your posts here. You want the government to make up for the lack of Christianity in society and you only seem to look at the explicit elements of Church documents.

 

[Caesar517]

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.

But what if one business uses more air than another?

 

[Caesar517]

Again that assumes that current turnover doesn’t allow for raises to be given to existing staff.

No, it assumes that if you spent more money here, you will need to take in more money there to keep a balanced account.

From the point of view of society, why, in circumstances where unemployment is not a problem, would expasion always be preferable to raising wages? I mean isn’t part of the purpose of business to provide as many people as possible with an adequate income?

There are always unemployed people. Even if the unemployment rate is at the natural unemployment rate, it is good for society to give more people a job. Having said that, it is in the interests oif the business to spent as little as possible on payroll for a given production rate.

When people go for years without a raise, even to match inflation, you’ve got to wonder whether wage competition is really working.

When someone leaves their current job for a better paying job, you know that wage competition is working.

These supposed economic ‘realites’ are the same that could be used by 19th century industrialists to justify the terrible working conditions that only ended with the coming of unions, strikes, and labour laws.

Trampling on workers’ rights is good for production, at least in the short run. Ancient Rome, ancient Egypt, and colonial America all used slave labor and flourished as a result. That doesn’t make it right, though. The economic realities explain things, they don’t justify them.

Well my comment was about one persons living costs. But it’s funny how most people could support family on a 40 hour week just a few decades ago…

I think most people presently can support a family on a 40 hour work week.

when you spend 9+ hours a day in an open plan office, a place where talking to colleages in a l*unchbreak * is considered innapropriate, where any mention of the outside world (again in your own time) is blasphemy, where you can only take a few days leave around Christmas (if there’s no work on), then is it surprising that people get depressed?

Whing over.

That sounds like poor workplace policies… What’s your point here?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

But what if one business uses more air than another?

I think air has a pretty low monetary value. If each of us was given our share of all the air in the atmosphere, and allowed to trade it, it would sell pretty cheap. It doesn’t make much sense to tax it.

 

[royal_archer]

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.

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

And weren’t the Libertarians and the other third parties frozen out of the debates? weren’t the third parties prevented from getting the massive payoffs to the Two parties election campaigns because they do not have the power to give government money to the special interests. And of course the libertarians are not likely to bribe electors with promises of payoffs.

And per the schooling issue: if parrents can not pay, they go into debt and it is handled like any other debt.

 

[royal_archer]

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

usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE

usconstitution.net/const.html

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.

General welfare would apply to roads, defense, postal service, monetary system, court system, I would even think the Center for Disease Control when they address eppidemics. All of these bennefit the population at large, not specific individuals at the detriment of others.

 

[royal_archer]

…
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.

I think you are seeing the light. Many of us in the upper middle class can not get the bennefits the poor get, nor do we have excess money laying around. We are having a hard time paying day to day expenses, while we are at work for long hours. All the while money is being taken from our paychecks and given to people who get to spend the entire day at home.

 

[royal_archer]

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.

If more people were willing to work our GDP would go up and we woudl be in an economic boom. One of the leading causes of our current financial problemm is that so many people are under productive.

 

[royal_archer]

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.

A living wage is relative. We need to work together to find ways to develop more cost effective living conditions. Unfortunately with all of the government hand outs there is little commercial incentive to provide living conditions to those who do not have high salaries.

 

[Feste_1242]

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.

Isn’t this kind of undoing the whole concept of grades?

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.

People should have to go to certain schools so no one feels superior or inferior?

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.

It’s a good thing we elected Obama then. Wait…

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?

Nothing speaks like consumer dollars. If people supported businesses whose ethics they approved of, businesses would be encouraged to improve in that way. This, I think, would be much more effective than government force.

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.

I’ve read this quote, and it makes me sad. Still, there doesn’t seem to be a superior alternative.

 

[christcnection1]

I think you are seeing the light. Many of us in the upper middle class can not get the bennefits the poor get, nor do we have excess money laying around. We are having a hard time paying day to day expenses, while we are at work for long hours. All the while money is being taken from our paychecks and given to people who get to spend the entire day at home.

This has always been my stance, but I would add one caveat. On one side there are the poor who don’t work. On the other side, there are the poor who work their tales off, but are unable to get their financial situation under control. (This is a growing segment of our population.) This can happen for any number of reasons, and often it’s out of their control. Maybe they have legitimate physical or mental handicaps; maybe their external circumstances are overwhelming.

In my opinion, this is largely a systemic problem that demands a both/and solution from a shift in the way we conduct business in the U.S., as well as from charitable groups. For these individuals there ought to be a better way up, especially so they can devote more time to their families, as as well have a more healthy and holy way of life. This is what the Church calls us to: to be able to work with dignity, especially to take care of their family in a holistic sense, not just financially.

Those who collect a pay check without working, and are fully capable of work, are living in sin. We are not doing them a favor by giving them a hand out, nor are we working toward the “common good.”

 

[christcnection1]

A living wage is relative. We need to work together to find ways to develop more cost effective living conditions. Unfortunately with all of the government hand outs there is little commercial incentive to provide living conditions to those who do not have high salaries.

I agree with this. However, I also believe that your typical “working poor” is not getting paid a reasonable wage, so they are able to properly take care of their families.

 

[christcnection1]

Isn’t this kind of undoing the whole concept of grades?

I am in favor of traditional grades and scores. I’m not sure what you mean. I think my point was that too much segregation, or in the wrong fashion, could have the opposite effect of what we are trying to achieve. The goal is to maximize the potential of each individual, as well as help them discern their gifts and interests.

People should have to go to certain schools so no one feels superior or inferior?

Unless I’m misunderstanding you, my point is exactly opposite of what you think my concern is. People should not be forced to go to special or specific schools. One reason is because this can potentially foster an unhealthy belief that they are either superior or inferior. In my opinion, this is not for the common good. We need a healthy blend of integration, and try to avoid segregation, unless the benefit is profound and the circumstances are appropriate.

It’s a good thing we elected Obama then. Wait…

Heaven knows… I just hope he doesn’t sign FOCA into law.

Nothing speaks like consumer dollars. If people supported businesses whose ethics they approved of, businesses would be encouraged to improve in that way. This, I think, would be much more effective than government force.

In many instances I agree with you. In other instances, I believe government intervention may serve the common good. I believe the solution, or at least a move in the right direction, calls for a both/and approach.

 

[cynic]

No, it assumes that if you spent more money here, you will need to take in more money there to keep a balanced account.
?

Who says that current turnover and profit doesn’t allow for a pay rise? How is smaller profit, or mildly reduced return for investors an intolerable outcome? Obviously there’s a point where it has a negative impact for all concerned, but who says that a given wage rate is near that?

I wouldn’t trust people with something to gain when they say “this money is better spent elsewhere”, better spent on expanding production, advertising, or bigger bonuses for management. They are not an un-biased source of information

There are always unemployed people. Even if the unemployment rate is at the natural unemployment rate, it is good for society to give more people a job. Having said that, it is in the interests oif the business to spent as little as possible on payroll for a given production rate.

It might be in the interests of business, in the same way slavery is in the interests of business, but that doesn’t mean it’s in the interests of society. Taken to an extreme it removes the economic benefits of work for a segment of the population.

When someone leaves their current job for a better paying job, you know that wage competition is working.

Yeah unless all jobs in a particular industry pay thereabouts the same rates, and that doesn’t change for ten years or more.

 

[cynic]

And weren’t the Libertarians and the other third parties frozen out of the debates? weren’t the third parties prevented from getting the massive payoffs to the Two parties election campaigns because they do not have the power to give government money to the special interests. And of course the libertarians are not likely to bribe electors with promises of payoffs.

If self-reliant individuals all feel the way you say they do, then debates and electionairing shouldn’t matter, and there should have been a 40-50% vote for the libertarian party (who doesn’t know what that party stands for?) All they had to do was tick the appropriate box on the ballot paper. They didn’t tick that box.

 

[christcnection1]

If more people were willing to work our GDP would go up and we woudl be in an economic boom. One of the leading causes of our current financial problemm is that so many people are under productive.

I’m not sure where you live, but in my experience, most people work hard and don’t get adequately paid for their hard labor, especially relative to their superiors. I’m sure it varies quite a bit in different parts of the country and in different industries.

 

[Caesar517]

Who says that current turnover and profit doesn’t allow for a pay rise? How is smaller profit, or mildly reduced return for investors an intolerable outcome? Obviously there’s a point where it has a negative impact for all concerned, but who says that a given wage rate is near that?

It may not be intolerable, but businesses don’t want smaller profit and investors don’t want reduced return.

I wouldn’t trust people with something to gain when they say “this money is better spent elsewhere”, better spent on expanding production, advertising, or bigger bonuses for management. They are not an un-biased source of information

Why must they be unbiased? Businesses will do what’s best for them, that’s why they survive.

It might be in the interests of business, in the same way slavery is in the interests of business, but that doesn’t mean it’s in the interests of society. Taken to an extreme it removes the economic benefits of work for a segment of the population.

You’re right. That’s why we generally follow a capitalist system.

Yeah unless all jobs in a particular industry pay thereabouts the same rates, and that doesn’t change for ten years or more.

Having competition doesn’t always mean there is a better price or wage somewhere else. It means that all prices or wages are better for the consumer or worker than they would be without competition.

 

[Sailka]

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?

Billionaires work? Since when?
I’ve been a Stock Investor, when a small investor was safe.
Take my word for it: “Investing is not work”. An hour a day brings Big Results with Big Money, especially with the insider connections.

“Fruits of someone else’s labor” is a very cheap Hype job, as are many more By the Richest believeing They have a Right to be Subsidized by the Public, as is happening now.

All combining efforts to work for the Common Good has been the Historic operative.

Consider a significant idea of God: Mark 10:21: Jesus looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You are lacking in one thing. Go sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come follow me”. The Context is Mark 10:17-31. Yes, that is metaphorical for non-clergy. But Church teaching on Social Responsibility is very clear enough.
As is the Euphomism that one should not enrich oneself ‘at the expense of others’; which is Preciselly what is occuring and was Principal Cause of the Now technical Bankruptcy of the USA: Federal Goevenment focus on cutting poor and middle class worth and spending to literally Enrich the Richest 5% of Corrporations (Oil, Drug manufacturers) by actual subsidies, unjustifiable “incentives”, And tax slashes on world record profits.

The current total destruction of the USA Financial and Economic infrastructure Are the result of the All Globalization reversal of traditional US policies, based on the “Pro-Life” votes of the 2000’s. The Church teaches against One Issue voting, in Faithful Citizenship FC # 20.

All segments of US society have a Right to Federal support, Especially Families, the Poorest and Middle Class. And each has obligations. Honesty is the Operative.

 

[Tigertame4]

Our government discourages job creation with their tax policies. We are one of only a few nations that tax corporations. This drives them overseas. There is a negative incentive for making money in the earned income tax credit. The school systems dumb down our youth and give social promotions which does not help our youth to learn to be workers.

I do NOT want the government to redistribute our money. Check out how much it costs to run public assistance. It is inefficient. There should be greater freedom for church and private run charities.