Fight Poverty! Raise taxes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crocus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Crocus said:
700,000 people recently removed from food stamps program are asking “Why?”
Click to expand...
"“Now, in the midst of the strongest economy in a generation, we need everyone who can work, to work,” said Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, citing the low 3.6% national unemployment rate. “This rule lays the groundwork for the expectation that able-bodied Americans re-enter the workforce where there are currently more job openings than people to fill them.”

“Government can be a powerful force for good, but government dependency has never been the American dream. We need to encourage people by giving them a helping hand but not allowing it to become an indefinitely giving hand,” Perdue said in a statement."

“The rule would apply only to able-bodied adults without dependents, so families, the elderly, pregnant women and disabled people are excluded from the rule change.” Forbes

Doesn’t this fall in line with Catholic teaching on the dignity of work?
 
JoeFreedom said:
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.
Click to expand...
If Christendom in the US had been taking care of the destitute in the wake of the Great Depression, the New Deal would never have happened. We have governmental social services because the alternative of leaving it to charity was leaving people to rot in squalor or worse. Our charity proved itself far too meager.

As for self-regulation of employers, even Rerum Novarum recognized in 1891 that this reliably leads to oppression of working people by those who have wealth and power. Yes, Virginia, sometimes we do have to try to legislate some portion of morality.
 
Last edited:
EndTimes said:
Where and How did you arrive at that notion which attacks Christianity?
Click to expand...
We’re on a Christian forum suggesting that charity ought to do what government now does for the poor. The evidence says Christianity didn’t take up that mantle when we had the chance. Don’t blame me for saying it; it is only the truth. If we want to relieve government of that temptation, we have lots of opportunities going begging. Let’s not blame those who don’t even have religion for doubting we will get the job done.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
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.
Click to expand...
It won’t happen, not that it’s a bad idea in principle. I think it won’t happen because Govt has shown itself to be extremely wasteful in their efforts to combat homeless housing. We can’t afford it, if the govt is in charge.


https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle...f-homelessness-seattle-king-county-costs.html

 
Theo520 said:
It won’t happen, not that it’s a bad idea in principle. I think it won’t happen because Govt has shown itself to be extremely wasteful in their efforts to combat homeless housing. We can’t afford it, if the govt is in charge.
Click to expand...
I think it would be better if the government funded local initiatives. Give some money and say that there has to be enough shelter so that nobody can argue that they have no choice but to camp outdoors. Let the states and counties decide how to do it. State highway departments take care of the roads, after all.
 
PetraG said:
If Christendom in the US had been taking care of the destitute in the wake of the Great Depression, the New Deal would never have happened. We have governmental social services because the alternative of leaving it to charity was leaving people to rot in squalor or worse. Our charity proved itself far too meager.
Click to expand...
I disagree that the New Deal was a result of lack of charity but more a power grab by our government and FDR. It put more control into the hands of our federal government by paying farmers (money has to come from somewhere…), enabling new federal departments (government workers create nothing, only take from the taxpayers), creating programs for energy (thus taking the free market out of it and making utilities a quasi-government entity). We know this vastly increased government control and spending and debt, with little success. So what was the answer? Double-down. Sound familiar? It’s quite like the bail outs of the 2000’s. Lots of stolen money, reduction of free market principles, concentration of power in the hands of the few. So yes, let’s go ahead and give the government more opportunity to take the money and squander it.
 
PetraG said:
I think it would be better if the government funded local initiatives.
Click to expand...
The government has proven time and time again, that when they take money from the hands of people in local areas to redistribute it nationally, it does not work well. That’s because central planning cannot ever take into account all the nuances of the local areas because the local people know better on how to use that money.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
The evidence says Christianity didn’t take up that mantle when we had the chance.
Click to expand...
So you say…

Please provide Evidence to the Christians…

While we’re at it - we could look deeper into evidences of Causes OF The Great Depression…
 
JoeFreedom said:
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.
Click to expand...
  1. isn’t the government’s job
I would say it’s the job of a competent government in a limited way in accordance with this paragraph from Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church: Chapter Four

188. Various circumstances may make it advisable that the State step in to supply certain functions [401]. One may think, for example, of situations in which it is necessary for the State itself to stimulate the economy because it is impossible for civil society to support initiatives on its own. One may also envision the reality of serious social imbalance or injustice where only the intervention of the public authority can create conditions of greater equality, justice and peace. In light of the principle of subsidiarity, however, this institutional substitution must not continue any longer than is absolutely necessary, since justification for such intervention is found only in the exceptional nature of the situation. In any case, the common good correctly understood, the demands of which will never in any way be contrary to the defence and promotion of the primacy of the person and the way this is expressed in society, must remain the criteria for making decisions concerning the application of the principle of subsidiarity."

Points 2 and 3 - agreed
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
usiness planning is very difficult when national policy is erratic and changes for seemingly arbitrary reasons.
Click to expand...
I really doubt it’s arbitrary reasons. I think the instability is a necessary evil in the short term for the longer term goals.
 
Elizabeth3 said:
I would say it’s the job of a competent government in a limited way in accordance…
Click to expand...
I think we agree on point 1 too. I didn’t go into the depth you did, which is nice that you did. Competent, limited, and temporary. Currently, our government is incompetent, overly and ever expanding, and continuous.
 
Last edited:
Elizabeth3 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Our modern, western economies all have some elements of socialism in them. It’s no bad thing.
 
Socrates92 said:
Growth depends on investment, which, by definition, is something that those who spend all their money are not engaging in.
Click to expand...
There won’t be much investment without demand, which requires people with a capacity to pay. People spending their money encourages investment.
 
Last edited:
JoeFreedom said:
the best way for the government to create conditions for human flourishing is to GET OUT OF THE WAY!
Click to expand...
History found the environment in which Govt leaves the market players to interact without controls and supervision not a good place to be unless you were in a position of strength.
JoeFreedom said:
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.
Click to expand...
The government’s job is to do our bidding. I am happy for the government to fund schools, redistribute a portion of income through progressive tax and social programs etc. I in part fulfill my personal responsibility by cooperating with these measures.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
There won’t be much investment without demand, which requires people with a capacity to pay. People spending their money encourages investment.
Click to expand...
Yes, supply (influenced by actual investment) and demand are like the two blades of scissors. Your original post:
Rau said:
taxes directed at the very wealthy will have no adverse impact on economic growth
Click to expand...
gives the idea investment itself is irrelevant to growth. While increased spending in a given sector (ex: household appliances) would signal that investment funds should move towards that industry in preference to other industries, it is the return on investment that will determine the amount of investment. ROI is directly affected by taxation (which directly decreases), as well as the threat of taxation (which increases the risk component, leading to a higher required return).

Perhaps I was imprecise in using the term “driver” of growth. It is true that demand signals a need for investment, thus driving growth. However, capital investment is the means by which growth is achieved. It doesn’t matter how much money people are willing to spend - if the means of production are not available to produce the goods in the quantity and at the price demanded you will not have growth. You’ll just have people paying a lot of money competing for a few highly coveted goods in the present, also known as price inflation.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
I think it would be better if the government funded local initiatives. Give some money and say that there has to be enough shelter so that nobody can argue that they have no choice but to camp outdoors. Let the states and counties decide how to do it
Click to expand...
Yes, it should be the responsibility of state and local govt, not the Feds.
State and local can also fund their projects.
This might lead to changing zoning requirements that presently make affordable housing un-affordable to build.
 
Last edited:
Socrates92 said:
the threat of taxation (which increases the risk component, leading to a higher required return).
Click to expand...
Exactly the opposite to what is being proposed. It has been proved wrong. You are beating a horse that is dead. Bury it already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top