Fight Poverty! Raise taxes?

[Elizabeth3]

I’m more supportive currently in finding creative ways for incentivizing the rich to voluntarily invest in helping the poor in the areas in which they live or in poorer nearby communities because I agree that it’s their responsibility to use their wealth for the benefit of their neighbor. The government doesn’t allocate tax money for just use nor does it distribute it wisely.

Crocus:

That is missing the point of Church teaching on creating conditions for work, recreation, spiritual fulfillment, dignity, that is rightfully expected of good government. People deserve the dignity of not having to beg due to entrenched social injustice, and Catholics are bound to work for that.

How would incentivizing the wealthy to put their excess money into their communities or nearby communities NOT create conditions for work, recreation, spiritual fulfillment, and dignity? There are tons of ways they could do that. I don’t really get how that would mean people are begging in violation of their dignity.

Do you at least assent intellectually to higher taxes on higher incomes?

I already said it sounds like a good idea in theory if a government has proven itself generally efficient, responsible and benevolent. That’s just not the reality we live in. Also, there are too many people in Congress and running for elected offices who openly admit they are fighting for a socialist system. To me, “raising taxes on the rich” is just one of the baby steps they will use to achieve their goals.

 

[EndTimes]

In an economy, growth absolutely depends on the movement of money. More money in the hands of people who spend means more money in the hands of all.

Of Course

Central Banks Controlling the Flow/Velocity of Money

• correlate with times of Recession, Etc…
  when e.g., – obtaining Money from banks Tightens.

And we’re not living in - It’s EITHER a Trickle-Down OR Trickle-Up Matrix

IT’s BOTH

w/o Trickle-Down, 98% of Americans would be out of a “JOB”

Economy? Is the Combo of Trickle-Down and Trickle-Up… That’s the Circular Flow of Moolah…

And when Jack and Jill get fired they don’t get Pizza and the Pizza guy fires Tony… etc etc etc

 

[Crocus]

How would incentivizing the wealthy to put their excess money into their communities or nearby communities NOT create conditions for work, recreation, spiritual fulfillment, and dignity?

What you describe can only be small, localized. US is a big country. The very rich don’t typically have regular poor folk in their neighborhood, nor all those in need in all parts of the country. Most working poor are invisible. Federal level resources are necessary to address the good of all.

taxes on higher incomes?

The have already proved themselves incompetent by cutting taxes (the income of the country earmarked for the good of all) 3 times in my lifetime.

Middle class real incomes have stagnated.
More people on food stamps, section 8 housing.
Fewer people able to earn a living wage.

Somebody needs to call them on it.

 

[Socrates92]

In an economy, growth absolutely depends on the movement of money. More money in the hands of people who spend means more money in the hands of all.

Sort of. It’s the medium of exchange, but not the driving force, like I said. Growth depends on investment, which, by definition, is something that those who spend all their money are not engaging in.

 

[Metis1]

No modern society today relies on charity alone as that was tried centuries ago and failed miserably. The Church also categorically refused to endorse “social Darwinism” as it was both unworkable and unethical.

 

[EndTimes]

Sort of. It’s the medium of exchange, but not the driving force

Some think it’s essential for the main drivers and shakers of this worldly world.

GOLD…

_

 

[Crocus]

Sort of. It’s the medium of exchange, but not the driving force, like I said. Growth depends on investment, which, by definition, is something that those who spend all their money are not engaging in.

Which is it, chicken, or egg?

I say the more people that have money: the healthier the economy, the more choices people have, the more free they are.

 

[Elizabeth3]

What you describe can only be small, localized. US is a big country. The very rich don’t typically have regular poor folk in their neighborhood, nor all those in need in all parts of the country. Most working poor are invisible. Federal level resources are necessary to address the good of all.

I said in their community, not their neighborhood and also mentioned nearby communities meaning towns, cities or even the state they reside in. The super wealthy are very mobile and often own property and business in many locations. How much income would be generated by the federal government by raising taxes on the rich? How much of that when broken down by shares to help the poor will make much of a difference to individuals living in poverty? It’s unrealistic that the gov’t will actually earmark that tax revenue to fighting poverty and not be robbing it to fund other parts of the gov’t.

"the government should not intervene to attempt to alleviate all problems. A welfare or “nanny” state, offering cradle-to-grave security and attempting to provide for all human needs, expands the state beyond its proper scope and violates the principle of subsidiarity. Pope John Paul II explained:

" Malfunctions and defects in the social assistance state [or welfare state] are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the state. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: A community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good. (Centesimus Annus 48)" Seven Principles of Catholic Social Teaching by Christopher Kaczor, Ph.D.

 

[Crocus]

So soon we forget the base message:

“The fundamental goal here is the common good. Thus, Catholic social teaching’s principle of subsidiarity actually includes within it a strong sense of the responsibility of the government for creating the conditions of human flourishing.”

Somebody needs to call the government to account.

 

[Crocus]

the government should not intervene to attempt to alleviate all problems. A welfare or “nanny” state, offering cradle-to-grave security and attempting to provide for all human needs, expands the state beyond its proper scope and violates the principle of subsidiarity.

Has anyone noticed that this is exactly what the government has been doing and continues to do, in place of its actual responsibility, which is to create conditions necessary for human flourishing?

 

[Crocus]

Central Banks Controlling the Flow/Velocity
( … )
And when Jack and Jill get fired they don’t get Pizza and the Pizza guy fires Tony… etc etc etc

Tax cuts for the rich has increased inequality, the enormous gap between the rich and poor. Trickle down does not work, facts confirm the premise of the OP.

Jack & Jill need money, it is the good economic policy of the government that makes sure they have it.

Jack & Jill use it to obtain goods, which puts money into hands of Tony, Tony puts the same towards what he needs, say more employees, who get paid good wage, who use it to … , who use it to …

That’s velocity! The exchange of money as many times as possible. That’s economic growth.

 

[Elizabeth3]

Middle class real incomes have stagnated.

They seem to be doing much better now. Perhaps it’s a combination of tax cuts, bringing manufacturing back from overseas, renegotiation of trade deals with various countries among other policies.

United States Wages and Salaries Growth

More people on food stamps, section 8 housing.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Fewer people able to earn a living wage.

United States Living Wage Individual

 

[Elizabeth3]

Somebody needs to call the government to account.

I agree but until the gov’t has made lasting, positive changes handing over more tax revenue isn’t going to do much. Like I said, I can’t support raising taxes on the rich with the current level of mismanagement of funds. I could, in theory, support it if the gov’t cleans itself up.

 

[Elizabeth3]

which is to create conditions necessary for human flourishing?

Concrete example of what that would be?

 

[EndTimes]

Tax cuts for the rich has increased inequality, the enormous gap between the rich and poor. Trickle down does not work, facts confirm the premise of the OP.

Along with Trickle Up … Trickle Down is essential - for the Flow/Velocity of Moolah

• and goes way beyond politicized questions concerning Tax wrt Weathy Individuals…

Ultimately Central Banks Control the Flow/Velocity of Gelt.

When the recession circa 2007 came around and Tens of Millions Owed Moolah to the Banks?

Whom did the FED bail out? The Lower Part of the Economic Pyramid?

NO… They gave Trillions to the Banks!!!

IF they bailed out the lowly - the lowly could have paid back their debt to the Banks!

A WIN! WIN!

But no…

_

 

[Crocus]

700,000 people recently removed from food stamps program are asking “Why?”

I see you are happy with the kind of cuts (both tax and program) the government continues to make, and the trajectory it represents.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/09/26/income-inequality-america-highest-its-been-since-census-started-tracking-it-data-show/%3FoutputType=amp

Concrete example of what that would be?

It is up to those aspiring to govern, to develop policy to create conditions necessary for human flourishing. Sorry if those in office cannot be trusted as you claim.

 

[PetraG]

As a tax preparer, the people who gamed the system the most paid no tax and received money back from the EITC. So, these loopholes are not one sided…meaning only the wealthy game the system.

Oh, I think that when it comes to taxes, trying to dodge what one really owes (by taking blatantly false write-offs, for instance) is “I’m not hurting anybody” rationalization to the highest degree. That can’t be isolated to one economic class; it is a matter of integrity. (I do not, by the way, mean legitimately paying the lowest tax that is legally allowed by an honest reading of the law. We run our government by agreeing what each of us is obliged to pay and resigning ourselves that the money will be spent by the direction of a representational system and necessarily by bureaucratic rule; it is not a charity.)

 

[PetraG]

Manufacturing in the US is actually headed south:

Has Trump Delivered On His Promise To Revive U.S. Manufacturing?

The University of Chicago Booth School’s important index of economic uncertainty is at an all-time high. Erratic swings in trade policy and divisiveness in Washington are clearly factors in undermining confidence and in turn investment.

A potentially ominous sign for President Trump is that manufacturing employment growth has turned negative this year in the key swing states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan that provided the difference to his political fortunes in 2016. The political impact of Trump’s trade policies was undoubtedly a reason for him to accept a partial deal with China earlier this month. This deal does help another important political constituency, agriculture, more than industry. The same can be said for the Japan mini-deal in early October. But these agreements do reduce tensions and may be a start in improving protection of intellectual property and digital trade that are crucial to manufacturing.

Time will tell. I do think his habitually erratic “diplomatic” behavior is problematic for business in general and manufacturing in particular. Business planning is very difficult when national policy is erratic and changes for seemingly arbitrary reasons.

 

[JoeFreedom]

So, the fundamental disagreement here is that I believe (and those agreeing with me) the best way for the government to create conditions for human flourishing is to GET OUT OF THE WAY!

As we are both Catholics, we agree we need to provide for the less fortunate, the hungry, and the sick. I just don’t want a proven inefficient government run by fallible and corrupt humans to tell me how they think I should do this.

EDIT: Someone on here (I think it may have been @Elizabeth3) that if our government were efficient, had no debt, were not corrupt and had proven to use the funds we provide in a manner that is useful, productive and fiscally responsible, she would be (potentially) okay with having the government do this. In some sense I agree, but I would argue, and bet she agrees, it 1) isn’t the government’s job and 2) it takes away the responsibility of the person to do it and 3) it becomes national, which is less effective.

 

[PetraG]

So they don’t trust the government to use their money wisely

They want to control how their wealth is utilized

Yes, because the government is not a charity. I would hope nobody says it is.
Take building the interstate freeway system: this was not an undertaking that private industry was going to accomplish on its own. Nobody is going to just pay higher taxes in the hopes that it would happen, either. You’re right about that. Having said that, it takes tax money to do projects like that.

If you asked me what infrastructure project the federal government ought to consider, I’d say building and operating sufficient homeless shelters and the associated social services so that the courts will allow anti-camping laws to be enforced. No municipality or state really wants to do it on their own, because they’re all too afraid they’ll attract the homeless from other states. If there were a national answer to the problem, the homeless in different regions could be taken care of locally without that concern (and could have a sanitary place to relieve themselves and so on) and the cities could start enforcing laws against camping in public places again. As it is, though, their hands are tied because the courts have rightly said that it is unconstitutional to make it a crime to be destitute. (That is fine with me, because frankly it is immoral, too, and I believe that even if being destitute is the person’s own fault. Otherwise, once you have made that foolish choice, how do you get out of it?)