Distribution of Wealth

[Appleby]

Who says that reasonably affordable education is going to just spontaneously occurr anyway.

Since when is providing close to cost-of-supply education a profitable business, and who is going to invest in such ventures?
Me-thinks that less than half the population could probably afford private schooling for several children.

Appleby:

I think you should buy your own island. You obviously got where you are without the benefit of one bit of help from another.

I grew up in a family in which both parents worked hard at full time blue collar jobs (Mama retired at AGE 80 when we girls put our collective feet down) and never made between them more than $10,000 per year during all the time we girls lived at home. They never took a single dime of welfare, unemployment insurance, or any other government disability payments until Medicare. My Mama said she would close all the doors and turn on the gas before she would beg. (that was her word for taking charity). We five girls went to work at the age of 15 when we could get working papers and our summer earnings which we made working full time in factories went to pay for our school uniforms, eyeglasses, dentist bills, and any fees needed during the year for field trips – and in my case, for piano lessons. And we were expected to help our younger sisters out until they were old enough to work and pass the help on down. We lived in an 800 square foot house until I was 14 and when we moved into it Mama was 25 and had four children under the age of 6 and no running water or electricity until Daddy installed them both.

Today we are all self-supporting, church going, well educated (two of us have university degrees and one went on to become an RN; one is a graduate of Katherine Gibbs), have never been in jail although we have had speeding tickets or used drugs or become pregnant out of wedlock. We look after each other just as we did when we were all living at home, and we look after our Mama (and looked after both parents while Daddy was alive). In fact we look after our auntie who has four children who treat her like an ATM and although they live near her do not lift a finger except when they want something.

I would say that any working poor family in the USA could do exactly what we did, and I am positive than millions of them, red and yellow, black and white, do exactly that. We did what we did by remembering that we are family and by helping one another.

Jesus did not say Force Your Neighbours To Feed My Sheep. Jesus did not say March and Smash Windows At Starbucks and McDonalds and Shout Through Bullhorns WHADDAWEWANT? YOURMONEY! WHENDAWEWANNIT? NOWWWWWWWWWWW!

Read Matthew 6. Read James 2. And keep your hands off my wallet.

 

[royal_archer]

Me-thinks that less than half the population could probably afford private schooling for several children.

As Ceaser stated, private education is cheaper than government run education.

If the parrents can not afford to pay for a portion of the kids schooling then they have to many children.

 

[thomfra]

I grew up in a family in which both parents worked hard at full time blue collar jobs (Mama retired at AGE 80 when we girls put our collective feet down) and never made between them more than $10,000 per year during all the time we girls lived at home. They never took a single dime of welfare, unemployment insurance, or any other government disability payments until Medicare. My Mama said she would close all the doors and turn on the gas before she would beg. (that was her word for taking charity). We five girls went to work at the age of 15 when we could get working papers and our summer earnings which we made working full time in factories went to pay for our school uniforms, eyeglasses, dentist bills, and any fees needed during the year for field trips – and in my case, for piano lessons. And we were expected to help our younger sisters out until they were old enough to work and pass the help on down. We lived in an 800 square foot house until I was 14 and when we moved into it Mama was 25 and had four children under the age of 6 and no running water or electricity until Daddy installed them both.

Today we are all self-supporting, church going, well educated (two of us have university degrees and one went on to become an RN; one is a graduate of Katherine Gibbs), have never been in jail although we have had speeding tickets or used drugs or become pregnant out of wedlock. We look after each other just as we did when we were all living at home, and we look after our Mama (and looked after both parents while Daddy was alive). In fact we look after our auntie who has four children who treat her like an ATM and although they live near her do not lift a finger except when they want something.

I would say that any working poor family in the USA could do exactly what we did, and I am positive than millions of them, red and yellow, black and white, do exactly that. We did what we did by remembering that we are family and by helping one another.

Jesus did not say Force Your Neighbours To Feed My Sheep. Jesus did not say March and Smash Windows At Starbucks and McDonalds and Shout Through Bullhorns WHADDAWEWANT? YOURMONEY! WHENDAWEWANNIT? NOWWWWWWWWWWW!

Read Matthew 6. Read James 2. And keep your hands off my wallet.

Interesting story:

So what’s your point exactly? Surely we should be trying to elimate working poor?

What about the kids who don’t have nice parents like you folks did?

 

[thomfra]

If the parrents can not afford to pay for a portion of the kids schooling then they have to many children.

So your solution to too many children is what exatly?

 

[royal_archer]

If you have not already, I suggest that you read through my other posts to get a clearer idea of where I am coming from. I don’t necessarily believe our views are that far off.

But to be clear, anything I think I own or have earned actually doesn’t belong to me. I believe it is God’s, and we are called to be good stewards of the resources He entrusted to us.

I hope we agree on that point, but if not, we can agree to disagree.

And we are called to be good stewards of what we are given. but like the master that gave one less abled servent one talent and a more able servent 5 talents, we are given different resources to do with according to our abilities, it is not faithful to the master that the person entrusted with the one talent get some soldiers and take two talents away from the man who received 5.

 

[thomfra]

And we are called to be good stewards of what we are given. but like the master that gave one less abled servent one talent and a more able servent 5 talents, we are given different resources to do with according to our abilities, it is not faithful to the master that the person entrusted with the one talent get some soldiers and take two talents away from the man who received 5.

What are your talents?

 

[royal_archer]

What are your talents?

I addressed it in another thread:

Today’s gospell really hit home today with the recent election.

usccb.org/nab/111608.shtml

I know that he is talking about pieces of money but I believe this is an annalogy to the skills and abilities that God has given each of us and the other blessings in terms of those things he has entrusted us with.

 

[ltravis]

Folks, I have a really hard time discerning through this issue. I have a couple key questions. First, is voting for the government to distribute your resources count as personal charity even if the consequences of that vote infringe on the free will of those who have not voted such and are still bound by the community choice? I really don’t know the answer to this and my entire view of economic social justice and my political persuasion depend on it.

Secondly, there are two extremes: No government redistribution at all versus total redistribution where everyone, regardless of what they do, winds up with exactly the same amount of wealth. The ideal is obviously somewhere in between - so what point between the two is the ideal, and (for Americans) which side of that line is our country on? And politically, is it mainstream conservatism or mainstream liberalism that is closest to that ideal? Help!

 

[stringbeanduck]

Folks, I have a really hard time discerning through this issue. I have a couple key questions. First, is voting for the government to distribute your resources count as personal charity even if the consequences of that vote infringe on the free will of those who have not voted such and are still bound by the community choice? I really don’t know the answer to this and my entire view of economic social justice and my political persuasion depend on it.

Secondly, there are two extremes: No government redistribution at all versus total redistribution where everyone, regardless of what they do, winds up with exactly the same amount of wealth. The ideal is obviously somewhere in between - so what point between the two is the ideal, and (for Americans) which side of that line is our country on? And politically, is it mainstream conservatism or mainstream liberalism that is closest to that ideal? Help!

Having the government take your money away and give it to some1 poor does not count as personal charity. Key word is personal. Jesus wants us to give out love and because we want to. Whether you voted for it or not; it is not your decision where and how much of it your money goes unlike free will.

It’s hard to find the happy median. Liberalism has everything to do with going against the Catholic church by supporting gay marriage, and the “fundamental” right to kill the unborn at will. Conservatism isn’t perfect either, but it does inline more with godly principle like being against gay marriage and being for the traditional American family. Being against abortion and being for the rights of the unborn.

 

[Caesar517]

However cheap, the cost to parents must add in the taxes they must pay to the LEA.

I have been talking about emininating the public schools.

 

[christcnection1]

You are in fact wrong, but I will charitably attribute that to your extreme youth (or the fact that you have a husband with a highly paid job.) People who want to extort money from those they believe have too much and grandly decide for us what size home we NEED and how many pairs of underpants we NEED and how much of what kind of food we NEED and what, if any, entertainment we NEED, and therefore convince themselves that the rest of OUR money belongs to their friends, cronies and apparatchiks, are all too common on college campuses and always have been. I had numerous young British friends who lived off their wealthy parents and spent all their time ranting and railing against The Rich (i.e. their parents) while taking full advantage of everything The Rich handed them. Most of these people distributed NONE of their own wealth. You even see this in the politicians like the Obamination who demand that we peons fork over our money and yet their own tax returns prove they give virtually NOTHING voluntarily.

I have also worked in shelters where twentysomething girls with four children by four different men, none of whom they could pick out of a line-up, spent all their time whining that TheRich OWED them and the rest of us had the duty to force them to turn that money over. And now that it is Christmas, they are all out there demanding that we Rich people turn over iPhones, Segways, Nintendo Wii and Grand Pianos because WE OWE THEM.

Back in the 1980s I got in a war with my Lutheran congregation which had an East German pastor who spent all his time railing against The Rich – who soon departed our congregation and left it full of Needy with no recourse. (Socialists have no money.) They actually prepared a working paper that said single people did not NEED to own three-bedroom, two-bath homes; we ought to be satisfied to live in one room and turn over our money to the single welfare mom with two illegitimate children (in Georgia the law says that children of different sexes must not sleep in the same room, and a child and a parent of different sexes must not sleep in the same room).

I give plenty to charity and adhere strictly to Matthew 6 (you should read it sometime) and therefore am excoriated by the socialists like you who assume that because i am comfortable and have money left over, I must not be doing anything. This does not encourage me to do anything more.

And nowdays when street beggars ask me for change I tell thm to call Obama.

Haha… I don’t know why you think I’m wrong. I agree with nearly all that you said on this post! Does that still make me wrong if I agree with you?

This is the second time you are doing this. Perhaps you should ask me about specifics on my perspective before jumping to conclusions and labeling me a “Socialist.”

I am well aware of the Gospels. I am well aware of Catholic teaching. And as far as I know, I am completely in line with both.

I am neither very young, and I am certainly not wealthy, but that’s by choice. Nor am I making any assumption about you; that would be unfair. However, if I was a “Socialist,” which I am not, I suspect you would be more effective in your approach before making accusations.

One of the reasons I started this thread was to help clarity my stance on things in light of Church teaching. It was not my goal to start this thread with an agenda to push my beliefs on others.

God bless you.

 

[christcnection1]

And we are called to be good stewards of what we are given. but like the master that gave one less abled servent one talent and a more able servent 5 talents, we are given different resources to do with according to our abilities, it is not faithful to the master that the person entrusted with the one talent get some soldiers and take two talents away from the man who received 5.

I don’t disagree with you. However, if economic policy starts to contradict what the Church teaches on the “common good,” there would need to be qualifications when it comes to specifics.

I neither worship the State nor the Free Market as the final solution; I am somewhere in between, and depending on the issue, somewhere either to the right or the left.

 

[christcnection1]

Folks, I have a really hard time discerning through this issue. I have a couple key questions. First, is voting for the government to distribute your resources count as personal charity even if the consequences of that vote infringe on the free will of those who have not voted such and are still bound by the community choice? I really don’t know the answer to this and my entire view of economic social justice and my political persuasion depend on it.

Well, as it pertains to some Church documents I have read, as a general rule, no it’s not considered an infringement to vote for someone who does some redistribution of wealth. The truth is, you won’t find documents that even suggest it. And I suspect that is also based on how its defined, and in what measure. The Church speaks of the “common good” concerning these issues.

That said, the Church has clearly taught against Socialism. But pure Socialism is a long way of even Obama’s policies, unless of course you decide to redefine the traditional definition of Socialism. But under the traditional definition of Socialism, we are far from that, and not even close to being there as country, even if all democrats were in charge. (Not that I believe that would be a good thing)

Secondly, there are two extremes: No government redistribution at all versus total redistribution where everyone, regardless of what they do, winds up with exactly the same amount of wealth. The ideal is obviously somewhere in between - so what point between the two is the ideal, and (for Americans) which side of that line is our country on? And politically, is it mainstream conservatism or mainstream liberalism that is closest to that ideal? Help!

Most people are in between when it comes to fiscal issues. But some here seem to consider a fiscal moderate a Socialist. Personally, when it comes to many fiscal issues, I am conservative, but I also believe supporting effective government programs that enable “hand ups” without going into too many specifics. The goal is to support honest and hardworking citizens (those who have rightfully earned it) to help strengthen and grow the middle class.

 

[royal_archer]

Folks, I have a really hard time discerning through this issue. I have a couple key questions. First, is voting for the government to distribute your resources count as personal charity even if the consequences of that vote infringe on the free will of those who have not voted such and are still bound by the community choice? I really don’t know the answer to this and my entire view of economic social justice and my political persuasion depend on it.

Free will is giving your money, giving someone elses money is theft and a mortal sin. Now hosting a fund raiser or calling the better off and asking them to help out the poor is a much better option.

Secondly, there are two extremes: No government redistribution at all versus total redistribution where everyone, regardless of what they do, winds up with exactly the same amount of wealth. The ideal is obviously somewhere in between - so what point between the two is the ideal, and (for Americans) which side of that line is our country on? And politically, is it mainstream conservatism or mainstream liberalism that is closest to that ideal? Help!

The concept of somwhere in between is like asking how much stealing is OK. It is not OK at any level. Now keep in mind that the rich giving to the poor is a good thing. The point of departure is when people advocate that they be forced to at gun point.
America is in the middle where we do have many socialist programs and the mainstream conservatives and liberals are actually very close in their perspectives on taking from the productive to give to the less productive.

 

[royal_archer]

I don’t disagree with you. However, if economic policy starts to contradict what the Church teaches on the “common good,” there would need to be qualifications when it comes to specifics.

I neither worship the State nor the Free Market as the final solution; I am somewhere in between, and depending on the issue, somewhere either to the right or the left.

Please provide the reference where the Church said it advocates using force and coercion on the more wealthy to make them support the poor.

 

[Caesar517]

The goal is to support honest and hardworking citizens (those who have rightfully earned it) to help strengthen and grow the middle class.

How do you rightfully earn someone else’s money? The only way I can think of is by working for them.

 

[christcnection1]

Please provide the reference where the Church said it advocates using force and coercion on the more wealthy to make them support the poor.

The Church does not, neither do I believe it should support that. However, the Church does support the use of taxpayer money toward the common good.

 

[royal_archer]

The Church does not, neither do I believe it should support that. However, the Church does support the use of taxpayer money toward the common good.

Taxpayer money is aquired through force and coercion.

 

[christcnection1]

How do you rightfully earn someone else’s money? The only way I can think of is by working for them.

I agree. But the Church also holds the following perspective:

"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.”

Hence, I believe this to be a moral conservative position for the government to help ensure a fair wage. I am stronger believer in fair trade than free trade, though I support both. In my opinion, many businesses ought to be paying their workers more; ideally this would be through incentives, not force. IMO, and in our economic landscape, it’s of primary importance for honest workers to have a dignified livelihood.

If I am wrong, I will put myself under the authority of the Church’s teachings. I am open-minded to whatever the Church has to say on these issues.

 

[christcnection1]

Taxpayer money is aquired through force and coercion.

Jesus had no problem giving unto Caesar. The Church does not advocate that taxation is intrinsically evil.