Does anyone have a "Right" to my money?

[anthony022071]

Oh yes, I can see what your saying. When it is said, “the structures need changing,” that means more there is a need to change the personal attitudes. Don’t get hung up on what you think it means.

When someone who puts his faith in capitalism says that the structures need to be corrected,I take that to mean that the structures need to be corrected according to a capitalist world-view.

It means For that matter, discern what is nominal and what is actual.

I don’t know what you mean by that.

You want to add, morality and charity, that is perfectly in that frame work, so thank you for adding that.

Charity and morality should not only be within the framework,but also should encompass the framework,and guide it.

If anything, in those matters it takes prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justices. The actual business and governmental structures need less worry if you have people who have good values. They are secondary to the primary need of bring people up with proper values and morality.

That’s true.

If one can learn to live with-in one’s means, then save a little to maintain’s one’s ability of independance in case that option needs to be exercised, and at the same time help others, either through direct giving, or just sharing one’s person expertise, that would do a lot to not only purpetuate the economy, but help out the poor.

That’s true. But I would also say that perpetuating the economy is far beneath the value of helping the poor. Our Lord didn’t tell us to be concerned with the economy,but he did tell us to help the poor. The economy is a national and global network of transactions and trade. We don’t live our lives on such a large,general scale,nor do we really have control over things on that scale. We live on a personal level,and it is good to help the poor,without consideration for things which are beyond our control.

You’ve got that right when it comes to national and governmental aid, it’s really hard for that to be agile enough to meet all people’s needs. It can even work against what a person needs, by cementing in place dependance on the government, and while never working (and being able to work) to get off of it.

Government welfare programs can encourage the effect,inadvertently or with intent,of people’s dependance upon it. But it’s the people themselves who by choice or for lack of energy,initiative,self-motivation,ideas,ability to get organized,or because of depression,are kept or keep themselves so dependant upon the government.

You shouldn’t treat a child with Down’s syndrome the same as a person who’s gotten in the habit of who’s lazy. One can discern that on a personal level, but it is nearly impossible for a governmental system to help.

That’s true.

 

[melensdad]

. I’ve never heard of anyone getting 10 weeks leave, anywhere, in any country.

Look at Italy, France, Germany, etc. 6 to 12 weeks of vacation is very common and their economies are in trouble.

If employers were given a free hand, and labour laws and unions were abolished, how many days leave do you think any worker would get? I’d say none. The answer is for government to make sure workers get *some *leave- along with a half hour lunch break etc, and not leave such things up to the discretion of employers, which is the way I’m *guessing * owners and managers would like it.

Keep guessing. You’re wrong. We compete for workers. It is hard to find qualified people for entry level jobs so we offer wages above minimum wage + paid vacations, paid holidays, pizza parties, etc. Again, you are simply wrong.

They are not goos jobs because they don’t enjoy anywhere near the same working conditions employees get in first world nations. They are paid so little they cannot accumulate wealth. Why doesn’t Nike or any of the countless clothing or electronics manufatures pay them $1 U.S an hour instead of 5 cents, why don’t they give them a 40-50 hour week instead of a 70+ week, and offer training - THAT might benefit third world workers. They are after all making 2000% profit margins on the goods. They coul easily pay more, do more, and still save on labour costs. Why? Er, greed?

Guessing again! They are good jobs in those countries compared to what else exists. The other jobs are FAR WORSE, they fight to get those jobs where conditions are better. I suppose you’d rather the factories not exist and the residents have no jobs?

Show me a company that makes a 2000% net profit. Please stop with your crazy assertions. Public companies publish their financial reports. What does Nike really make? Look it up!

Your final comment about greed, who is to blame? Consumers demand lower prices. Consumers force retailers to provide low prices and that is proven by the “sale shoppers” who travel to get the best deal. That is consumer greed that is driving away local jobs! K-Mart competes with Wal-Mart, both force manufacturers to produce lower priced goods by moving their plants to Mexico, India or China because they need to offer the lowest price to get the customers to show up at their doors. So the consumer is being greedy, meanwhile K Mart almost went bankrupt trying to offer lower prices and you are blame the companies, claiming they are making 2000% profits. Look at Circuit City, that is a company in financial trouble. Or look at Home Depot, they were a national company that went out of business because they didn’t offer low enough prices. Proof enough that you are wrong.

When was the last time you went to a “full serve” pump at the gas station? The local gas station makes roughly 5-cents per gallon selling gas, but makes 15 whole pennies if you go to full serve! I’ll bet you often drive past 1 or 2 stations to get to a station that is a couple pennies lower. That certainly shows the consumer is not willing to pay the higher price from the local shop owner. So who is greedy? The consumer who forces the jobs to move to lower cost areas or the company that attempts to stay in business and provide a return to the shareholders (who again, are typically pension plans and mutual funds)?

Further, you continue to say that the managers are only bent on lower labor costs, but you seem to ignore my examples of Toyota, Honda and Subaru who build cars right here in the USA at the same wages (or higher) than the unions pay, but still get better productivity. Further you continue with your tirade against managers milking workers but you fail to take into account how anti-business some state regulations are and how those drive up costs. Some states impose ‘inventory’ taxes that tax goods in inventory even if companies are losing money. Why would a company operate a warehouse in such an area if it could move to a different state? In Indiana, my home state, many warehouses moved across the state lines to surrounding states because of 2 oppressive taxes. One was the inventory tax. The other was the fact that businesses were taxed at a higher rate on their real estate. Neither of those taxes has anything to do with “labor costs” that you think are paramount. Both of those taxes are darn good reasons to move out of the state. Fortunately Indiana has finally abolished both of those taxes and businesses are now starting to move into the state and are offering jobs to the residents. But the SAME type of concept applies to jobs that move out of the US and move to Mexico, Canada, China or some other nation.

Please do some real research and find out the truth. Oh, and please provide some of those examples of companies that have a net profit of 2000%

 

[RobHom]

Can someone define “excess” for me?

To me, therein lies the rub. The definition of “excess” is both simple and complex, however, I believe that “excess” is an amount significantly above your reasonable expenses. For instance, if you make $4000.00 a month, and your basic expenses are $2000.00 a month, then you have an “excess”. I don’t think the excess is $2000.00 though. It could be $500.00. For each person the amount of excess will be different. How much one wishes to give…is a matter of heart and conscience.

I think the good Father could have chosen better words to convey his message. I’m sure he didn’t score a lot of points in his homily.
It seems that he was tilting at “redistribution of wealth” in one sense…and thats not necessarily a good thing.

If you have 300,000,001 people, and 1 of them has 300,000,000 dollars and he gives it all to the poor, all that you then have is 300,000,000 people with one dollar, and 1 more who is flat broke.

I think many of you have touched on answers that are solutions to some of the problems. All of them require some active participation on the individuals part.

I find it interesting, sad…very sad, that for the most part people only seem to get generous when Christmas is just around the corner… but the problem is…poor people are like rich people, they get hungry more than once a year.

I often think that if all those who have the funds to do it, were to buy an extra $5 worth of canned goods, pasta, or other non-perishable food items every week and give them to the Church…each and every week of the year… imagine that, a Parish with only 200 parishioners would have on hand $1000.00 worth of food, and if its the right stuff it can go a long way. Imagine that 200 parishioners could stave off a lot of hunger in a year with $52,000.00 worth of food.

But it isn’t just about food…it can also be about shoes, clothing, school supplies… There is much that we can do, and should do, that we don’t. Many of us get so wrapped up in keeping up with the Jones’ or keeping up “appearances”, that we forget our fellow man.

Education…yes that is a “slippery slope”… but its necessary, and even finding the funding for it can be tricky…but it needs to be done. If we fail to educate the children of today properly, and especially fail to give them the knowledge of the Catholic Church, then we are failing them. I know what you mean when you say that some consider the school a drain on the parish. No its not. Its necessary and an obligation to the Church and ourselves to make sure the children are better prepared intellectually as well as spiritually.

As to the original question: Does anyone have a right to my money? No. Charity is of the heart and soul. You reap what you sow.

 

[anthony022071]

Keep guessing. You’re wrong. We compete for workers. It is hard to find qualified people for entry level jobs so we offer wages above minimum wage + paid vacations, paid holidays, pizza parties, etc. Again, you are simply wrong.

It’s good to offer wages above the minimum wage,but those other things are unnecessary. As for finding people for entry-level jobs,there’s such a thing as on-the-job training.

Guessing again! They are good jobs in those countries compared to what else exists. The other jobs are FAR WORSE, they fight to get those jobs where conditions are better. I suppose you’d rather the factories not exist and the residents have no jobs?

That’s basically the shabby attitude of multi-national companies –
“We’re doing you folks a favor by employing you. You can’t get any better deal than what we’re offering you. You’re not in a position to negotiate with us,so take it or leave it.”

Show me a company that makes a 2000% net profit. Please stop with your crazy assertions. Public companies publish their financial reports. What does Nike really make? Look it up!

Your final comment about greed, who is to blame? Consumers demand lower prices. Consumers force retailers to provide low prices and that is proven by the “sale shoppers” who travel to get the best deal. Oh,the trials and tribulations of retailers!

That is consumer greed that is driving away local jobs!

What kind of attitude is that? It’s natural for consumers to prefer to pay less. That’s not greed,that’s the very economic sense that you recommend be taught to people!

K-Mart competes with Wal-Mart, both force manufacturers to produce lower priced goods by moving their plants to Mexico, India or China because they need to offer the lowest price to get the customers to show up at their doors. So the consumer is being greedy, meanwhile K Mart almost went bankrupt trying to offer lower prices and you are blame the companies, claiming they are making 2000% profits. Look at Circuit City, that is a company in financial trouble. Or look at Home Depot, they were a national company that went out of business because they didn’t offer low enough prices. Proof enough that you are wrong.

Nonsense. That’s just the conflicting interests between the companies that need to make a profit,and the consumers that want to save their money.

When was the last time you went to a “full serve” pump at the gas station? The local gas station makes roughly 5-cents per gallon selling gas, but makes 15 whole pennies if you go to full serve! I’ll bet you often drive past 1 or 2 stations to get to a station that is a couple pennies lower.

The consumer isn’t about the business of accomodating the company by patronizing it,the company should be about the business of accomodating the consumer.

That certainly shows the consumer is not willing to pay the higher price from the local shop owner.

No kidding. And that shows the consumer is being conservative with his money. What would you think people should do? be eager to pay a higher price when another shop owner is offering the same product for less? If a consumer knows the business-owner,likes the service and the quality of the products,then he might be willing to pay higher prices. But large retailers can’t expect that kind of loyalty.

So who is greedy? The consumer who forces the jobs to move to lower cost areas or the company that attempts to stay in business and provide a return to the shareholders (who again, are typically pension plans and mutual funds)?

The consumer doesn’t actually force companies to move to lower cost areas. That’s a decision that the company makes. If a company can’t provide a return to it’s shareholders,then it should have never taken the gambles that it did.

 

[anthony022071]

As to the original question: Does anyone have a right to my money? No. Charity is of the heart and soul. You reap what you sow.

Thank you.

 

[jman507]

When someone who puts his faith in capitalism says that the structures need to be corrected,I take that to mean that the structures need to be corrected according to a capitalist world-view.

Good, glad you feel that way, too. If you really want to change a system for the better, you can only really in the long term bring up the people’s values, ethics, and morality.

 

[cynic]

. It is hard to find qualified people for entry level jobs so we offer wages above minimum wage

Because there *is *a minimum wage, you’ll offer a rate somewhat higher. The pay rate is still relative to a base that is not set by the employer. Without the existence of a base rate you *have *to pay, at what wage level would employers be competing for employees?

• paid vacations, paid holidays, pizza parties, etc.

Paid leave , a minimum wage, health and safety laws and overtime pay (making it hard for employers to demand a 70 hour week as a condition of a job), came about because of the union movement… They aren’t there because of wage/benefit competition in the labour market.

Guessing again! They are good jobs in those countries compared to what else exists. The other jobs are FAR WORSE, they fight to get those jobs where conditions are better. I suppose you’d rather the factories not exist and the residents have no jobs?

Why is there no minimum wage in the countries set by their governments to their cost of living? Then they might not have to live in worker dorms with 5 to a room, sharing communal bathrooms and cooking facilities. Why are there no overtime rates so people don’t have to live a nightmare of soldiering the same circuit board for 12 or more hours straight, every day? Is this better than working in a state run steel mill? It’s irrelevant, it’s what’s now available, but the conditions could be much *better, *they aren’t because there is no requirement that they be.

Show me a company that makes a 2000% net profit. Please stop with your crazy assertions. Public companies publish their financial reports. What does Nike really make? Look it up!

Clothing can be produced for a few dollars and sold for hundreds to western consumers, depending on the brand (ahem Nike). But you’re saying they can’t afford to pay foreign workers $1 USD/hour (for example)? They wouldn’t still save on local labour? It would no longer be profitable, they would go out of business?

Your final comment about greed, who is to blame? Consumers demand lower prices. Consumers force retailers to provide low prices and that is proven by the “sale shoppers” who travel to get the best deal. That is consumer greed that is driving away local jobs! K-Mart competes with Wal-Mart, both force manufacturers to produce lower priced goods by moving their plants to Mexico, India or China because they need to offer the lowest price to get the customers to show up at their doors. So the consumer is being greedy, meanwhile K Mart almost went bankrupt trying to offer lower prices and you are blame the companies, claiming they are making 2000% profits. Look at Circuit City, that is a company in financial trouble. Or look at Home Depot, they were a national company that went out of business because they didn’t offer low enough prices. Proof enough that you are wrong.

Who is responsible for the $80 DVD player, the consumer, the manufacturer who creates it or the seller who offers it near the cost of supply? Are consumers going to say “right I won’t buy any more electrical goods from K-Mart of Wal-Mart until they offer something even cheaper” Of course not.

The consumer who forces the jobs to move to lower cost areas or the company that attempts to stay in business and provide a return to the shareholders (who again, are typically pension plans and mutual funds)?

Again if they’re are no cheaper options, they will buy what’s available to them. They aren’t going to stop buying goods because they could be manufactured cheaper.

Further, you continue to say that the managers are only bent on lower labor costs, but you seem to ignore my examples of Toyota, Honda and Subaru who build cars right here in the USA at the same wages (or higher) than the unions pay, but still get better productivity.

Please I don’t know enough about this to comment, anymore than to say those good conditions and wages are offered because of what’s expected in western labour markets, and what’s expected has not come about because of business. They are still competing with unions, even if what they offer is better.

 

[melensdad]

Because there *is *a minimum wage, you’ll offer a rate somewhat higher. The pay rate is still relative to a base that is not set by the employer. Without the existence of a base rate you *have *to pay, at what wage level would employers be competing for employees?

No actually you are wrong again. I don’t even know what the minimum wage is. I do know that when it was voted on and raised, we were paying more for entry level jobs than the new rate several years from now. So we don’t even consider the minimum wage. We consider what it takes to get employees in our area. Again you are dead wrong.

Paid leave , a minimum wage, health and safety laws and overtime pay (making it hard for employers to demand a 70 hour week as a condition of a job), came about because of the union movement… They aren’t there because of wage/benefit competition in the labour market.

No doubt that is true, but they over-did it and killed the very industries where they were strong. Can you dispute the damage they did to the steel or auto industries? Their outrageous demands virtually killed those industries. Today with 1/3 the labor production is 300% higher in the steel industry.

Why is there no minimum wage in the countries set by their governments to their cost of living?. . .

Again you are wrong. Many of these nations have minimum wages, many also lower property taxes, no inventory taxes, fewer oppressive other regulations. You forget to address all those OTHER issues I keep bringing up.

Clothing can be produced for a few dollars and sold for hundreds to western consumers, depending on the brand (ahem Nike). But you’re saying they can’t afford to pay foreign workers $1 USD/hour (for example)? They wouldn’t still save on local labour? It would no longer be profitable, they would go out of business?

That does NOT mean that there are 2000% profits. You are confusing the cost of goods with the sale price a retail sells the goods for, and that has almost nothing to do with profits! Sure the cost to produce is lower, in addition to the lower labor costs there are no taxes on the inventory, there are lower taxes property taxes, the cost of construction of the plants is lower. But the cost to transport goes up. So the raw goods are often only getting to the retail store for a few %, or sometimes only a few cents lower. And please, please do your research, Nike does not turn a 2000% profit. Check their stockholder’s report. It is published. It is a matter of public record. Go look it up!!!

Who is responsible for the $80 DVD player, the consumer, the manufacturer who creates it or the seller who offers it near the cost of supply? Are consumers going to say “right I won’t buy any more electrical goods from K-Mart of Wal-Mart until they offer something even cheaper” Of course not.

Again you are simply wrong! Do you have no idea of the laws of supply and demand? Market forces, created by consumers, determine which items sell and if one store offers an $100 Sony while another offers a $90 Panasonic while a third offers a $80 Samsung then I guarantee you the one with the lowest price will sell the most. In fact, Samsung is a great example. This is a Korean company tat produces goods that used to be considered inferior but now is a giant. It does so by producing stylish goods of good (but not excellent) quality at lower prices. Its killing the sales of the traditional Japanese brands (Sony & Panasonic) and both of those destroyed the sales of brands like Zenith, RCA and Curtis-Mathis from the US.

Please I don’t know enough about this to comment . . .

That is obvious by all your comments. I won’t pretend to say that the jobs in India pay as much as jobs in the US, but I will argue they are better jobs than used to be there. Those jobs provide opportunity despite what you say. Further, you only concentrate on ONE business factor and that is labor. In fact you forget all about UTILITY COSTS, TAXES, REGULATIONS, and a whole list of other business considerations that affect the profit of the companies.

If it was so easy to operate a business then everyone would do it. Fact of the matter is it is very difficult work and it requires taking DOZENS of factors into account to determine the cost of an item.

 

[RobHom]

A question for some of you… If businesses in this country are not trying to hold down wages, and are competing so fiercely for workers with “pizza parties”, why then are so many business owners advocating and encouraging opening our borders and instituting “guest worker programs”?? Newt Gingrich wants to see legislation passed to allow Mexican Drivers to be hired to fill so called vacancies in the seats of America’s Trucks… and be paid less than 1/3 of what an American Driver makes…and I’m not talking about Teamsters. Many American companies have already set up Mexican subsidiaries, so any drivers they utilize here in this country will not place the burden of the parent company paying/collecting income or social security/medicare taxes for these drivers…who will be running US roads and spending the bulk of their time here replacing American Citizens. SO, not only will big business make more money, on lower wages and not having to pay any social security on their “employees”, the entire country will suffer…because at some point, overall wages will decline…more Americans will end up out of work, fewer dollars being paid in to the Social Security treasury as well as General Fund coffers… Gotta love the GOP, but to be fair, the Dems are for it as well…

Me, I’m thinking of retiring there, because they will all be here.

 

[RobHom]

melensdad… The Koreans are dumping their products on world markets at cheaper prices than the Japanese…electronics, cars, whatever…because of the historical hatred the Koreans have for the Japanese…they can hardly wage a physical war, because we would prevent it…but they can wage it economically.

Consider this…for ages in Japan it was common for a Japanese person to get trained and hired by a company…then to become a “salaryman”, which pretty much meant that he had a job for life. That has changed. Their society has been shaken by an earthquake in the past couple of years… and its name is “Layoffs”. It was virtually unheard of…now its a reality.

Korea’s economy is doing quite well: asianinfo.org/asianinfo/korea/economy.htm

Japan’s isn’t:

rte.ie/business/2007/0813/japan.html

I think people tend to loose sight of very large historical issues in their search for “Utopia via $$”…

Not to be a doomsayer, but if you really think about it, these kinds of things tend to bring about major scale wars, not stock market dips.

 

[melensdad]

A question for some of you… If businesses in this country are not trying to hold down wages, and are competing so fiercely for workers with “pizza parties”, why then are so many business owners advocating and encouraging opening our borders and instituting “guest worker programs”. . . not only will big business make more money, on lower wages and not having to pay any social security on their “employees”, the entire country will suffer…because at some point, overall wages will decline…more Americans will end up out of work, fewer dollars being paid in to the Social Security treasury . . .

While labor costs are PART of the issue, the reality is that the costs associated with jobs in the USA can only be controlled in some ways. We cannot control the taxes. We cannot control the regulations. We cannot control fuel surcharges, utility rate hikes, etc. So labor is ONE thing that can, to some degree, be controlled.

But do not be confused by all this. If you think that controlling labor costs is all business need to stay in America then you are seeing spots and pink elephants.

People who claim that the guest worker program will wipe out American jobs are not looking at the reality of the global economy. We can keep some manufacturing jobs here, and have part of the workforce made up of ‘guest workers’ or we can close down the factory completely and move it to China, Mexico or India.

Which is the better choice? What part of social justice is served if all of our manufacturing jobs are forced to lower total cost markets by high costs here?

The US, largely because of MULTIPLE factors, is becoming a service economy and that is bad for all of us. But to blame business is not being honest. Government should be blamed for the MAJORITY of the burdens they impose. Labor is partly to blame, particularly some of the unions. However, please ready my posts carefully. You will notice that while people who respond to me single out LABOR, that is not what I single out.

Also please take a look at all those company balance sheets and show me how many of them have profit margins that are increasing!?! Many make more profit on increased sales, but they actually make lower profit margins. They are working harder to sell more to make lower profit margins! Seriously, take a look at the published quarterly reports. Take a look at the annual reports. For every 1 company that is excelling, there are a dozen that are hanging on with a little bit less.

WITH REGARD TO THE KOREAN ISSUE, you also must factor in that Korea has lower production costs than Japan. Japan has a system of lifetime employement. I should say they HAD a system like that. It led to bloated costs. Their economy is now paying the price for that inflexibility and added burden. Korea does not have that and their economy is booming. It is not a matter of DUMPING as you claim. Samsung is not dumping TV sets on America just to make Sony collapse. Samsung is out-competing Sony in the market.

 

[RobHom]

While labor costs are PART of the issue, the reality is that the costs associated with jobs in the USA can only be controlled in some ways. …

I’m not the least bit confused by it all. I was where you are now…retired a while ago, and just work for health insurance and to keep from going crazy.

People who claim that the guest worker program will wipe out American jobs are not looking at the reality of the global economy…

People who lose their jobs, security, health insurance, and their homes are not really too concerned about multi-national multi-billion dollar corporations adding $$ to their bottom lines. They are worried about their livelihood and families welfare and safety. The so-called “Global Economy” is nebulous to them.

Which is the better choice?

What part of social justice is served if we allow politicians and corporate presidents to sell off our country and its jobs?

The US, largely because of MULTIPLE factors,.

Yes there are multiple factors, I agree, and its a very complex subject. Labor is not the only issue, as taxes are a significant burden. I know…I had to pay them and all the nonsensical fees that we got assessed by “taxing authorities” that my CPA’s said I had to pay. But, while the government is to blame for many of the ills…big business is very much at the blame for pressing legislators for laws that give them tax breaks and which allow them to offshore their “home offices” to evade taxes legally.

And the government allows illegal immigration in a two faced manner… because big business needs cheap labor, and Bush made that point quite clear on TV not long ago. Our real fault in this country is the stupid tendency of the people not to vote, and those that do keep re-electing “baby-kissers” and liars who forget what they promised to do within 3 minutes of the announcement of the results of the elections.

Also please take a look at all those company balance sheets and show me how many of them have profit margins that are increasing!?! .

I fought the same battles. Its kind of like a joke one of my friends used to tell… “Sell at a loss and make it up in volume”. But businesses are responsible for many of their problems. How do you justify the “Golden Parachutes” that some of these CEO’s are getting? Its OBSCENE what these people are getting. The guy that recently retired from Exxon (I think it was Exxon) got an unbelievable retirement package…and he was already rich. So, pleading the cases of business owners/CEO’s is not always the best way. Quarterly reports are vacuous in many ways. Businesses often are bloated and rife with excess expenses. That their profits shrink is often times their own fault. There are many ways to trim costs…many. And these costs can be cut easily without having to reduce labor costs.

Look at it this way: Why do we not have the same protective laws in place that other countries do? Why do we not have trade agreements in place that protect our products? Like equal market access without tariff penalties. For instance: Japanese cars sell here completely unhindered… But try to buy an American car there…GOOD LUCK!!

WITH REGARD TO THE KOREAN ISSUE,.

Much of the Japanese problem was caused by lifetime employment… yes, but it was also brought about by their reckless banking laws and favoritism in lending and covering bad loans and debts via “patronage” which almost led to a collapse of their banking system. And significant changes to their banking laws.

Read here: brookings.edu/press/review/winter98/lincoln.htm
Particularly the section titled: Background.

I do think the Koreans are doing what I said…as there is still significant bad feelings between them. The Chinese have also found out that commerce is the best way to defeat an enemy, and there is bad blood between Japan and China. There is more to the world and commerce than yen values and stock markets… History can provide the impetus for many economic decisions.

 

[bankerdavid]

If you do have more, you do have an obligation to help more. You ought not get in the spirit of hording things just to horde them or just indulge in them with no regard to others. But how you help others, I would say is up to your prudential judgement. I don’t think you must give it all to the government.

One problem with the government is that they have no ability to make a prudential judgement from one person to the next. Certainly if you have one child that lazy and another that is disablabled, there is a difference with the aid you give them.

It is not hoarding to take the money you have and spend it on something you want. You are, after all, paying the salary of someone who built that thing for you, you are supporting someone’s family. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t give charity to those who are helpless to earn it, nor does it mean you shouldn’t support your parish. My other statement does not mean that if you want three 66 inch flat panel televisions, you should get them. But we need to remember that the money we spend does help someone who makes the products we buy. The post about paying someone to build your house is an excellent example.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is not hoarding to take the money you have and spend it on something you want. You are, after all, paying the salary of someone who built that thing for you, you are supporting someone’s family. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t give charity to those who are helpless to earn it, nor does it mean you shouldn’t support your parish. My other statement does not mean that if you want three 66 inch flat panel televisions, you should get them. But we need to remember that the money we spend does help someone who makes the products we buy. The post about paying someone to build your house is an excellent example.

The money we spend not only helps the people who make the products we buy, it gives them the dignity of supporting themselves – and means they can contribute to charity, rather than be dependent on it,

 

[Proletarian]

For the most part the views expressed on this thread have been personal opinions (on both sides). Does anyone know of any Church documents that deal with personal wealth, and the nature of our obligation to the poor?

Thanks.

 

[melensdad]

For the most part the views expressed on this thread have been personal opinions (on both sides). Does anyone know of any Church documents that deal with personal wealth, and the nature of our obligation to the poor?

Thanks.

Look here: catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=2944

*While voluntary poverty was encouraged as a counsel of perfection, the individual possession of wealth was deemed lawful provided that it was associated with deeds of charity.

A selfish use of riches with disregard of the sufferings of the poor was absolutely condemned as un-Christian. A few Fathers based the obligation of almsgiving attached to wealth ownership not only on charity and the precept of Christ, but also on equity, for they held that private property originated in a selfish appropriation of what was intended for common use, and hence carried with it the duty of helping the poor and destitute by way of compensation.

But so long as the benefits of nature were communicated to all through the charitable use of riches, they recognized private property to rest on a legitimate basis, and to be quite in harmony with the law of Christ.*​

 

[Sina]

But now the Church I love and thought I knew is talking about the “right to healthcare” and that “the poor are entitled to my excesses” and I am beginning to fear that I am exposing myself to Communist ideas.

Why wouldn’t you want everyone to have equal access to healthcare (so long as the system is not open to abuse ). Why do you need excesses for yourself when others are suffering in poverty?

 

[John_Mailer]

OneAugustKnight;2551785:

But now the Church I love and thought I knew is talking about the “right to healthcare” and that “the poor are entitled to my excesses” and I am beginning to fear that I am exposing myself to Communist ideas.

Why wouldn’t you want everyone to have equal access to healthcare (so long as the system is not open to abuse ). Why do you need excesses for yourself when others are suffering in poverty?

 

[John_Mailer]

Oneaugustknight, if you do not want to help, not even through social programs DO NOT HELP. Nobody will force you because the church does not have enforcement powers. But i don’t understand your need to convince others of your outlook.

 

[John_Mailer]

By the way, I have been reading a couple of books by Malachi Martin and would appreciate your ideas about this author.