Helping Socialists?

[gtrenewed]

To everyone here that is quoting church documents or writers are missing the point. These are against socialism but the discussion in these times is wrongly called socialism.

Yes in order for society to be ultimately right the hearts of men must be changed. But has the church converted all of the earth yet? Despite over 2000 years of existence, it has not. So how are we to live within a pluralistic society?

We rely on the common good concept. We must have a government of people who are good in the secular sense. To be good in the Christian sense we must be converted and conformed to Jesus Christ. We would all agree that that is a lifelong journey. So even we as Catholics cannot attain to the ideal in this life but we approach it by the Grace of God.

Since not all act in the best interest of the common good, we must have government that restrains evil doers and provides for the common good with services. This is not socialism. The free market system is good but only goes so far without being restrained. When it is not it will ultimately consume all the resources for its own benefit and not for the common good. This restraint is not socialism.

Since a pluralistic secular society will not ultimately share for the common good equally there must be taxes or forced payments to fund the common good. This is not socialism. The government must also be restrained from over feeding itself. That is where priorities must be established by reasonable and compassionate people. We must elect those and not re-elect those who fail. Our problems today are trying to be solved in the midst of a liberal-conservative power struggle. We are getting nowhere because the real enemy has not been identified so wild theories and accusations are thrown around creating fear in the populace.

It would be nice if labels were thrown out along with the power struggle. Then we could solve our problems more expeditiously by only caring about the solution, not who gets credit for it.

 

[markomalley]

Sorry that voicing concern for the least in our society is boring to you. What I find boring is your sarcasm.

(snip)

Your quote of St. John Chrysostom is misapplied.

(snip)

By the way, let me add John XXIII to the list of people who Jesus would not approve of (if you are right about Jesus, that is:

1. Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism.

So we have Leo XIII, Pius XI, John XXIII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI who have taught social doctrine differently than what you have in mind…

As far as quoting St John Chrysostom out of context, let me give you the whole thing:

Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold form the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. **Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. **Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first - and then they will joyfully share their wealth.

St John Chrysostom, On Living Simply, 43​

From anything I’ve read of the Golden Tongue, nowhere has he ever called for wealth to be appropriated and forcibly redistributed. (You may know his writings better than I, so if you can find a quote, I’ll be man enough to admit I’m wrong)

He did repeatedly, along with his spiritual brother Basil, call for the rich to VOLUNTARILY give their wealth away. This I will not deny and this I will fully support. But nowhere that I’ve read has contradicted what he wrote above.

I am, as charitably as I can (and I can be very blunt), trying to show you how you may have been mistaught about the nature of Church social teaching…

Let me give you an example:

People will quote John XXIII frequently (they call him “the good Pope” because they agree with him LOL). They may quote this paragraph from Mater et Magistra:

1. The present advance in scientific knowledge and productive technology clearly puts it within the power of the public authority to a much greater degree than ever before to reduce imbalances which may exist between different branches of the economy or between different regions within the same country or even between the different peoples of the world. It also puts into the hands of public authority a greater means for limiting fluctuations in the economy and for providing effective measures to prevent the recurrence of mass unemployment. Hence the insistent demands on those in authority—since they are responsible for the common good—to increase the degree and scope of their activities in the economic sphere, and to devise ways and means and set the necessary machinery in motion for the attainment of this end.

Sounds like he is calling for the State to set up social insurance schemes (NHS, Welfare, etc.), right?

They don’t bother to quote the paragraph immediately following:

1. But however extensive and far-reaching the influence of the State on the economy may be, it must never be exerted to the extent of depriving the individual citizen of his freedom of action. It must rather augment his freedom while effectively guaranteeing the protection of his essential personal rights. Among these is a man’s right and duty to be primarily responsible for his own upkeep and that of his family. Hence every economic system must permit and facilitate the free development of productive activity.

And it seems that they count on people not to read it for themselves or, alternatively, to be so lacking in self-confidence to disregard what is plainly there.

It’s sort of funny. Cardinal Turkson, the President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace made a profound but simple assessment of the American situation recently:

*"We found out that some of the vocabulary which is just taken for granted and used freely may not always have the same sense or may have had some nuances which sometimes are missed because of the way the terms are used in the American political context,” *

Yeah, talk about understatement…

For instance, the Pope’s teaching on themes of “social justice” have been mistakenly connected to “socialism” and “communism.” *
*
Cardinal Turkson said the Council was also surprised that the Pope’s concept of the “gift,” was perceived in some circles as encouraging government welfare handouts.

We’d never see any of that kind of thing happening around here…would we?

 

[hambim336]

Hi

I read some opinions in this topic. I do not agree above ideal. We can find out some articles at about.com by using Google search.

 

[Abu]

Markomalley
Excellent contributions, with the clarity of many papal affirmations of the dignity and responsibility of each person, and the soul destroying nature of socialist welfarism.

gtrenewed
All the references to church writings on socialism does not apply because what is needed is being called socialism is not socialism but basic, fundamental equal rights……To everyone here that is quoting church documents or writers are missing the point. These are against socialism but the discussion in these times is wrongly called socialism.

**RETHINKING WELFARE, REVIVING CHARITY: A CATHOLIC ALTERNATIVE
Fr Robert A. Sirico **
“Many have come to believe that the only way to ensure a flourishing of such support is through an elaborate state apparatus. Throughout the West and especially in Western Europe, we have created massive systems of social support for the aged, children, the disabled and many other groups perceived to be victims of society. The public is taxed heavily, bureaucracies are created, and political elections often turn on the management of these large systems of social insurance. Almost all economically advanced countries are in the throes of reforming these systems to make them less expensive and less easy to manipulate through electoral politics. But the question as to whether these systems ought to be rethought entirely is hardly ever raised.”
[From the the pdf book, *Catholic Social Teaching and the Market Economy which may be downloaded free at:
iea.org.uk/publications/research/catholic-social-teaching-and-the-market-economy

acton.org/pub/journal-markets-morality/volume-10-number-2
A Review:
“Taxation and the size of the state is another major topic, as many Catholics tend to favor a large welfare state on grounds of solidarity toward the poor. Booth highlights a number of passages in papal encyclicals that are not easily reconcilable with the modern welfare state or with the implicit equation of solidarity with government activity. Instead, there should be more family autonomy, a greater role for voluntary associations, and better incentives to work. Booth goes on to advocate a move toward a flat-rate tax with “allowances for children and transferable allowances for married couples and cases where families look after elderly relatives” (139). I can only say that I am eager to see this superb proposal enacted.” [Oskari Juurikkala (e-mail: oskari@ecld.org), European Center for Leadership Development, Helsinki, Finland].

The Catholic Church, the only one which Jesus built on Peter, tells us that socialism is evil, and why. She also gives us the Parable of Jesus in which He rewards only those who are faithful, prudent and industrious with the master’s money. She promotes a free enterprise society built on justice, fidelity, prudence, industriousness, private property, subsidiarity, love and peace, and in which assisting the needy is an obligation.

It is appalling that despite the clarity of papal teaching on solidarity and subsidiarity, and against state welfarism which is one of the tragedies of socialism that has been promoted here, there is this prejudice against Christ’s Church.

BTW a national health service free at the point of delivery, available to all is very inefficient and staggeringly expensive, precisely because bureaucratically run and redistributist.

In Caritas in Veritate, the latest social Encyclical (2009), Benedict XVI has explained that “Economy and finance, as instruments, can be used badly when those at the helm are motivated by purely selfish ends. Instruments that are good in themselves can thereby be transformed into harmful ones. But it is man’s darkened reason that produces these consequences, not the instrument per se. Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).

“Space also needs to be created within the market for economic activity carried out by subjects who freely choose to act according to principles other than those of pure profit, without sacrificing the production of economic value in the process.” (#37).

That’s the Catholic way: free enterprise, sound laws, and the morals that maketh the man.

 

[markomalley]

Abu,

I would agree with your above post with one minor area of concern:

That’s the Catholic way: free enterprise, sound laws, and the morals that maketh the man.

The Church also does not have kind words to say about unrestrained liberal capitalism (liberal in the “classic liberal” sense).

The basic reason being that it, like socialism, appeals to man’s natural materialistic nature. The ultimate end of that, as witnessed in the “Gilded Age” is not pretty as well.

It should be pointed out as a caveat to your post that it all must be bound by Christian charity on the part of all, else any system will become corrupt. And, as spoken of by Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum,

The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government

Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 34​

This is not talking about providing “social assistance”, “welfare”, or some type of government handout, this is talking about protection from being unjustly exploited as “wage slaves.” Recall the condition of the working man back in the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th and early 20th century. If the wealthy capitalist class is not constrained by Christian virtue, some type of protections are needed to constrain them and to “encourage” them to adopt Christian virtue in the running of their businesses.

As I recently posted on another thread:

There are three types of government. The first is where one person, or a group of persons, pass laws and issue decrees which everyone must obey. The second is where every person is his own master, acting as he or she thinks fit. The third is where God is acknowledged as ruler, and all people seek to follow his way of love. This third type of government is the ideal to which we should aspire, and for which we should pray. And if every person were truly seeking to follow God’s way of love, then we could also have the second type of government. We would know that if people were free to make their own decisions on all matters, these decisions would conform to God’s laws, so there would be perfect harmony. **However no society has ever existed in which every member fully and consistently tries to obey God; there are always people motivated by greed and self-interest. For this reason there need to be individuals or small groups who pass laws and issue decrees which can be enforced. **The existence of the first type of government is a tacit admission of human sin and frailty. The challenge is to ensure that these lawmakers act on behalf of the people as a whole and not just for their own benefit.

St John Chrysostom, On Living Simply, 42
​

The point being that government should encourage Christian charity and work to increase solidarity among all the different groups in the population. This is not done through forced transfers. Yes, there is a role to protect the working class who have no means to protect themselves. However, that role has got to be severely constrained , because like any other institution run by humans, it will tend to grow uncontrolled.

 

[gtrenewed]

By the way, let me add John XXIII to the list of people who Jesus would not approve of (if you are right about Jesus, that is:
34. Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism.
So we have Leo XIII, Pius XI, John XXIII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI who have taught social doctrine differently than what you have in mind…

First, what I have in mind is not socialism at all.

Second, Is there a church document specifically faulting the USA social security system or medicare for the elderly. A system which is contributed to by the beneficiaries in advance of benefits received?

As far as quoting St John Chrysostom out of context, let me give you the whole thing:
Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold form the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. **Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. **Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first - and then they will joyfully share their wealth.

St John Chrysostom, On Living Simply, 43​

Again out of context! I never talked about forcing a redistribution of wealth.

From anything I’ve read of the Golden Tongue, nowhere has he ever called for wealth to be appropriated and forcibly redistributed. (You may know his writings better than I, so if you can find a quote, I’ll be man enough to admit I’m wrong)

Again, not calling for force. What are you calling force that justifies using this reference?

I am, as charitably as I can (and I can be very blunt), trying to show you how you may have been mistaught about the nature of Church social teaching…

It seems to me that you have been misapplying and redefing the meanings of these teachings.

I consider you a poor teacher. You must give specific policies in detail in order to use a detailed document against it. For instance, what force or what program’s details justifies your references.

They don’t bother to quote the paragraph immediately following:
55. But however extensive and far-reaching the influence of the State on the economy may be, it must never be exerted to the extent of depriving the individual citizen of his freedom of action. It must rather augment his freedom while effectively guaranteeing the protection of his essential personal rights. Among these is a man’s right and duty to be primarily responsible for his own upkeep and that of his family. Hence every economic system must permit and facilitate the free development of productive activity.
And it seems that they count on people not to read it for themselves or, alternatively, to be so lacking in self-confidence to disregard what is plainly there.

How does this apply to the current discussion? Are you suggesting unemployment compensation or skills retraining when an industry closes down as against the above?

How about when a business like an insurance company cancels a policy when it was paid on for many years and used little but now that it is needed they cancel it? Or due to job loss, benefits are lost and cannot be afforded; policies to correct these abuses are they contrary to the above?

Just what are you saying? You keep hiding behind long posts filled with documents that do not apply to what I am talking about.

It’s sort of funny. Cardinal Turkson, the President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace made a profound but simple assessment of the American situation recently:

*"We found out that some of the vocabulary which is just taken for granted and used freely may not always have the same sense or may have had some nuances which sometimes are missed because of the way the terms are used in the American political context,” *

Yeah, talk about understatement…

*For instance, the Pope’s teaching on themes of “social justice” have been mistakenly connected to “socialism” and “communism.” *

Cardinal Turkson said the Council was also surprised that the Pope’s concept of the “gift,” was perceived in some circles as encouraging government welfare handouts.

We’d never see any of that kind of thing happening around here…would we?

Well yes, specifically by you! Let’s take one detail you are against and let’s examine that and quit the hyperbole. If the discussion would go one detail at a time without the hyperbole, a better understanding can be reached by both sides.

 

[markomalley]

First, what I have in mind is not socialism at all.

I have read your advocacy for government domination of 1/6 of the US economy, either through a dirigisme or through direct government control of the means of production (in other words, universal government-sponsored health care).

I have read your advocacy for the forced redistribution of wealth, although you refuse to acknowledge it as such.

How do I claim forced redistribution of wealth? Well, between FICA, federal income tax, state income tax, county income tax, property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, etc., I pay between 40 and 42 percent of my income to the government. The government, in turn, pays over half of that to some sort of social welfare payment, either through direct transfers or indirect transfers via health care.

Here is a breakdown on the federal side (56%)
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/5209/57881248.png

And at the state side (49% for Maryland…your state may vary)

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/5237/29009862.png
So there is redistribution. Money is being forcibly taken from my pocket, going to the tax man, and then going into somebody else’s pocket. As far as if it is forced redistribution…well, just try to not pay your taxes and see if it’s forced. I am not personally willing to try that experiment, but I have it on good authority that you will change your mind if you wanted to give it a go!

Second, Is there a church document specifically faulting the USA social security system or medicare for the elderly. A system which is contributed to by the beneficiaries in advance of benefits received?

Well, I don’t anticipate being able to find a document condemning a system where the beneficiaries fund it prior to receiving benefits.

On the other hand, that has little or nothing to do with the social security or medicare systems.

The system you are describing is an annuity system. An annuity system is like the retirement system my wife has with her employment. She accrues a certain amount in her account (employer provided) based upon the time she retired. Then she is eligible to collect an annuity payment based upon the amount of contributions over the years.

With the social security system and the medicare health system, you are eligible for benefits if you paid the requisite FICA/HI taxes on $900 earnings per 3 months for 40 3 month periods sometime during your working life.

In order to try to put some concrete numbers to back up my claim…

A person earning the bare minimum to qualify would have had a lifetime earning of $36,000…again, in his life. Assuming the current tax rate (12.4%…split between employee and employer), he would have paid in $5,508. He has a life expectancy of 17.4 years beyond his 67 year old retirement date. You can thus figure that in his retirement, he would be expected to collect $41,708 in social security. Think about that: this is more than he made in his entire working life. And over 7.5 times the amount he “paid in.”

Let’s look at the other extreme. A person who earned the maximum taxable amount ever since he was 18 years old. In his lifetime, he would have earned $2,292,200. And, using the social security tax rates applicable for those times, he would have paid in a total of $266,115.20. At full retirement, he would be eligible for $2,323 per month. Using the same life expectancy as the previous fellow, this works out to him collecting a total of $485,042.40 in his life. This works out to be almost twice as much as the fellow paid in.

And you can look at other permutations, but it always works out that if you live a normal lifespan, you will always get significantly more out than you paid in. Our wealthy fellow would have to die at age 76 to break even and the gentleman of more modest means would need to die before reaching 70 in order to not draw more than he put in.

Let us talk about how the money is distributed. Our tax money and that of our employers goes into a big pot. Our parents and grandparents get checks drawn out of that big pot. At the end of the year, if there is money left in that big pot, it goes over to the bigger pot of the general treasury fund. And the treasury fund puts an IOU in the pot. If the pot runs dry, the treasury will take an IOU back if there is one available, and will put some more money in the pot.

Guess what happens when there aren’t any IOUs left in the pot? The treasury still has to put the money in the pot so that Mom and Dad and Granny and Grandpa get their monthly checks. And guess what else? The treasury is going to be pulling IOUs out of the pot and adding money in about 2 years. And in about 20 years, there won’t be any IOUs left.

The quote I gave you from Centesimus Annus a few posts up covers that situation perfectly (You know, the accompanied by an enormous increase in spending bit).

And guess what: Medicare is absolutely no different.

Again out of context! I never talked about forcing a redistribution of wealth.

Again, not calling for force. What are you calling force that justifies using this reference?

Again, just try not paying your taxes if you want to see force. Did you know that even bankruptcy doesn’t relieve you of tax debt?

It seems to me that you have been misapplying and redefing the meanings of these teachings.

I consider you a poor teacher. You must give specific policies in detail in order to use a detailed document against it. For instance, what force or what program’s details justifies your references.

You can consider me a poor teacher all you’d like. Perhaps you don’t want to learn the lesson because it interferes with a paradigm you’ve developed over the years…Not trying to read your mind…just guessing.

(continued below)

 

[markomalley]

How does this apply to the current discussion? Are you suggesting unemployment compensation or skills retraining when an industry closes down as against the above?

At the intermediate level of society, I would think that skills retraining would be a very wise move.

You should study what Greenville/Spartanburg South Carolina did. For years, this area was a major textile and clothing assembly area. Most of those manufacturers ended up going overseas or going bankrupt because of lower priced foreign competition. What they did was to attract businesses to the area through cooperation to provide a skilled workforce (completely renovating their community college technical training and building a high tech center of excellence in the local 4 year University – Clemson) and tax breaks. They ended up getting major operations in the area for Michelin tire, BMW, and GE. As well as all the smaller firms that act as suppliers for the above.

As a result, the area absolutely boomed. Even now in this economy, Grenville County’s unemployment rate is significantly less than that of the country as a whole. Considering that the industries are manufacturing based, that is, in of itself, pretty phenomenal. (Really, who has the money for a Beemer right now…)

Note: we are talking about intermediate levels of government, not the Federal level. The feds had really nothing to do with it.

But, in my mind, that is a role for government: to set the environment in such a way so that people can work. And labor, as we know from Church teaching, is honorable and is necessary for man.

How about when a business like an insurance company cancels a policy when it was paid on for many years and used little but now that it is needed they cancel it? Or due to job loss, benefits are lost and cannot be afforded; policies to correct these abuses are they contrary to the above?

First of all, the mandate in all the Church’s Social Doctrine that I’ve read is that people are to have access to health care, not that people will be provided health insurance. There is a big, big difference.

In the case of insurance rescission, if there was no fraud involved on the part of the insured (which, if you look at most of the cases, is actually what happened), is really an unexcusable violation of commutative justice.

There are a lot of faults with how health care is delivered in this country. And I am speaking strictly about insurance. I am not speaking about medicare, medicaid, or Obamacare at all. These faults end up removing the human out of the equation and make it a mechanized system that has no heart.

For example, look up the concept and history of diagnostic reference groups and medical procedure codes. Those are symptomatic of the root of the problem.

Are you aware, by the way, that neither a doctor nor a dentist is able to deduct the value of his services given to a charity case from his income taxes? Consider what might happen if providers were able to deduct charity cases from their taxes. This is not to say that providers don’t already do charity cases (a lot do). But just imagine what would happen if they were encouraged to do so by making that one little change in the tax code.

Just what are you saying? You keep hiding behind long posts filled with documents that do not apply to what I am talking about.

Who is markomalley? Just some anonymous voice on the Internet. You don’t know who I am. You don’t know my education, my experience, or any other qualifications.

But you have heard of Leo XIII, JPII, St John Chrysostom, and so on. If I can provide you their words, hopefully you would give them due regard for who wrote those words.

Well yes, specifically by you! Let’s take one detail you are against and let’s examine that and quit the hyperbole. If the discussion would go one detail at a time without the hyperbole, a better understanding can be reached by both sides.

Hopefully this post (and the prior answer) were sans hyperbole.

 

[DL82]

I only just came back to this, and have found all the arguments about macroeconomics quite interesting, but kind-of irrelevant to my particular situation.

In this situation, two groups are involved in education and social change, both are doing this without any government subsidies, independently, out of an alturistic desire to improve the lot of young people in their local area. Both are, however, influenced by a mixture of hard-left ideas drawn from Marxism and anarchism.

So, in effect, is it ok to support them for what they are doing (giving kids who are otherwise on the ‘prison pipeline’ a chance to turn their lives around) or should I not support them because of the ideology which drives this practical concern?

 

[markomalley]

I only just came back to this, and have found all the arguments about macroeconomics quite interesting, but kind-of irrelevant to my particular situation.

In this situation, two groups are involved in education and social change, both are doing this without any government subsidies, independently, out of an alturistic desire to improve the lot of young people in their local area. Both are, however, influenced by a mixture of hard-left ideas drawn from Marxism and anarchism.

So, in effect, is it ok to support them for what they are doing (giving kids who are otherwise on the ‘prison pipeline’ a chance to turn their lives around) or should I not support them because of the ideology which drives this practical concern?

This was the point of my original response to you. No it is not acceptable to support such a group.

You say they are educating people. OK, they are educating them. What are the attitudes that they will be inculcating into these young peoples’ minds? Free market, faith in God, independence, the responsibility for man to be primarily responsible for his upkeep and the upkeep of his family? Or will they be inculcating the ideals of socialism in which you state they support?

You talk about social change. Social change to what? To self-sufficiency? Or to demand more government intervention?

In my original response, I quoted Matthew 12:30

[BIBLEDRB]Matt 12:30[/BIBLEDRB]

Jesus had some very sage wisdom in that saying.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The closet socialists speak and write as if there are no alternatives.

But there are.

And a lot of them.

What they have done is to gradually modify our laws and tax code so as to make it very difficult or almost impossible for individuals, of ALL financial situations, to look after themselves.

Savings and investments are penalized.

Individual retirement arrangements are burdened with an “instruction” manual …set of restrictions that is more than 100 pages.

But there are many alternatives.

Start with The Galveston Plan.

Then totally open up the IRA, ROTH IRA, and 401(k). Remove the restrictions completely. Get rid of the bizarre retroactive testing.

Then take a look at the Indiana Plan for medical insurance.

Call up the IRS and ask for Publication 590. And ask yourself why the need for so many complications? Call 1-800-829-3676 or 1-800-829-1040 and get the publication.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Are you aware, by the way, that neither a doctor nor a dentist is able to deduct the value of his services given to a charity case from his income taxes? Consider what might happen if providers were able to deduct charity cases from their taxes. This is not to say that providers don’t already do charity cases (a lot do). But just imagine what would happen if they were encouraged to do so by making that one little change in the tax code…

Of course you can’t deduct for services rendered. No service provider can do that. A carpenter who donates some labor to the Church is unable to deduct his labor (although he can deduct for materials he bought with his own money). Are you actually supporting the use of tax deductions to encourage certain non-monetary behavior? That is very surprising coming from someone who at other times seems to be advocating minimal government control over how we live our lives. And make no mistake - targeted tax deductions are a form of control. It encourages people to do what they might not have done without the deduction. Do you want some government bureaucrat deciding what behavior should be encouraged?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Is it moral to hire a roofer who is a socialist? Is it permissible to go to Marxist dentist? Can you have your hair cut by a socialist? Well, by their fruits you will know them. If the roof does not leak, and teeth are kept healthy and the haircut looks good, then sure, you can “help” them by buying their services. And if you can help them in this way, then you can help them in others, such as donating to a charity that you decide is doing good work. The original question of this thread does not give enough information to answer the question. The real question is, are they doing good work, or is their ideology corrupting the work they do. I agree that their work deserves additional scrutiny that you might not bother to give to a group whose ideology you found more acceptable. But if it passes this more strict test, then why not?

 

[markomalley]

Of course you can’t deduct for services rendered. No service provider can do that. A carpenter who donates some labor to the Church is unable to deduct his labor (although he can deduct for materials he bought with his own money). Are you actually supporting the use of tax deductions to encourage certain non-monetary behavior? That is very surprising coming from someone who at other times seems to be advocating minimal government control over how we live our lives. And make no mistake - targeted tax deductions are a form of control. It encourages people to do what they might not have done without the deduction. Do you want some government bureaucrat deciding what behavior should be encouraged?

I would, optimally, prefer no encouragement or discouragement of any type of behavior based on tax policy.

However, we must recognize that we live in an imperfect world. One in which charity is directly discouraged, particularly in the area of medicine.

For decades, the entire medical sector of our economy has been operated as a dirigisme. After such a long time, that changes the entire paradigm under which the segment operates. The paradigm has got to be shifted. It gradually developed this way; it must be moved gradually back to where it needs to be.

By the way, the carpenter you mentioned in your example would not only not be able to deduct the cost of his services, he would not be able to deduct the materials either…if he was repairing an elderly widow’s roof as a corporal act of mercy. That would be a better analogy than him doing work for the Church.

 

[gtrenewed]

I would, optimally, prefer no encouragement or discouragement of any type of behavior based on tax policy.

However, we must recognize that we live in an imperfect world. One in which charity is directly discouraged, particularly in the area of medicine.

For decades, the entire medical sector of our economy has been operated as a dirigisme. After such a long time, that changes the entire paradigm under which the segment operates. The paradigm has got to be shifted. It gradually developed this way; it must be moved gradually back to where it needs to be.

By the way, the carpenter you mentioned in your example would not only not be able to deduct the cost of his services, he would not be able to deduct the materials either…if he was repairing an elderly widow’s roof as a corporal act of mercy. That would be a better analogy than him doing work for the Church.

The material is deductable but not as a charitable deduction. Material purchased by a business or sole proprietor is deducted directly from income to determine profit or loss. I know because I am a sole proprietor contractor and that is how my tax preparer does it.

When I choose to take little or no payment for a job, the materials cost still count as a deduction against over-all income.

As usual, you have used dirigisme in its most hyperbolic sense. Many breakthroughs have come as a result of government funding or government encouragement in the venture capital market.

Government funded Medicare can be refused. Many doctors in my area do not see Medicare patients. It is not forced but it is encouraged.

Jesus said to “Render unto Caeser what is due to Caeser”. He did not say render what you think is due but what is asked. If the tax is unfair we as the people have the right to change it. We talk about it quite abit but we never get together to change it. Our country’s founders did something about it.

Taxes are not forced as you are trying to make them out to be but a legal debt due. Just like anything you want, you are required to pay for it. Try not paying your utilities or groceries, the threat of jail is a consequence but not “forced”. If you want to live where you live, taxes are the cost. You can change your local taxes by moving. We have a way to change how we are taxed by lobbying our representatives.

With that said, I agree that reform is necessary everywhere in our government, however, by deriding government healthcare as socialism impedes the debate.

Thank you for your response to me in your previous post. Finally, data that can be evaulated and discussed. This I will do later since I have to go for now.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

By the way, the carpenter you mentioned in your example would not only not be able to deduct the cost of his services, he would not be able to deduct the materials either…if he was repairing an elderly widow’s roof as a corporal act of mercy.

That is not because the government wants to discourage charity. It is because as a practical matter it is difficult to write tax law that distinguishes between legitimate charity and acts done for friends. What are they going to say? You can deduct expenses only if the the person is a stranger? What about if my sister is in need? Should I get a tax deduction for fixing her roof? Next thing you know everyone will be putting in for all sorts of deductions without any real increase in true charity. At least with the Church or other recognized charities there are certain standards that must be met to minimize abuse of the deduction.

 

[markomalley]

The material is deductable but not as a charitable deduction. Material purchased by a business or sole proprietor is deducted directly from income to determine profit or loss. I know because I am a sole proprietor contractor and that is how my tax preparer does it.

I was talking about a charitable deduction and not a business expense. I should have been more specific.

As usual, you have used dirigisme in its most hyperbolic sense. Many breakthroughs have come as a result of government funding or government encouragement in the venture capital market.

I use dirigisme intentionally to avoid calling it fascism, which would be hyperbolic. The reason I use this term is because of the tremendous amount of control placed on the health care sector by both government and the large insurance companies (which are, in of themselves, massive bureaucracies). If you ever attempt to look through an insurance operations manual (be it government or commercial insurance), it is almost unnavigable. Naturally, it changes on a month-to-month basis in order to assure that nobody can truly become familiar with its workings (yes, that is a little facetious). Particularly in the era of managed care, a provider’s life is regulated to the minute level. What tests must be performed to make a certain diagnosis (and what aren’t allowed); what procedures may be performed in order to cure that diagnosis, what medicines may be prescribed, how many minutes an appointment may be; and so on and so forth. I’ll grant that in most cases, those relationships are governed by good practice, but they are static and, in many cases, economically driven.

If you really think about it, the medical industry in this country does not operate under free market principles. While you, personally, might pay cash on the barrel, the vast majority of people do not. Payments are made by the insurers. In these days, the concern of most people is the size of their copayments, not the amount that a procedure or a medicine costs. The insurers (both government and commercial) dictate if they will pay and what they will pay for a given procedure code or a particular medicine.

Privately owned industry controlled by strict government regulation and directives is the very essence of what a dirigisme is. Again, I will grant that adding insurance company regulations into the mix stretches it…but not really all that much.

So I really don’t think it is truly hyperbolic.

Taxes are not forced as you are trying to make them out to be but a legal debt due. Just like anything you want, you are required to pay for it. Try not paying your utilities or groceries, the threat of jail is a consequence but not “forced”. If you want to live where you live, taxes are the cost. You can change your local taxes by moving. We have a way to change how we are taxed by lobbying our representatives.

Again, I will suggest that one who really believes that taxes are not forced should see what happens if he does not pay those taxes.

Tax evasion is a criminal statute. Check with Al Capone.

Jesus said to “Render unto Caeser what is due to Caeser”.

True. And other than a facetious request for somebody to withhold taxes if he truly believes them to be voluntary, I have never advocated not paying one’s taxes.

But, as long as government serves as the principal driver of the Social Assistance State, I am completely correct in saying that this is forced redistribution. And while it is appropriate and moral for me to pay an equitable amount in taxes, it is utterly inappropriate and immoral for the government to spend them in that fashion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But, as long as government serves as the principal driver of the Social Assistance State, I am completely correct in saying that this is forced redistribution. And while it is appropriate and moral for me to pay an equitable amount in taxes, it is utterly inappropriate and immoral for the government to spend them in that fashion.

You can call it forced redistribution, but that is quite a liberal interpretation of the term. I could just as easily make the case that all taxes are a form of forced redistribution. For example, some of my city taxes went for building bike paths through the parks. If I don’t happen to like riding a bike, then my taxes went to support a recreational activity that benefits others - not me. So what is the difference between my taxes going to buy someone else a bike path versus my taxes going to buy someone else a penicillin shot? Is it all forced redistribution according to you?. The only taxes that could not be called that are taxes that go to support something that every citizen benefits from equally. And there is very little of that. So if you are going to make the case that tax-supported health care is forced redistribution, you had better come up with a reason that shows how it is different than all other things that government spends tax money on.

 

[markomalley]

You can call it forced redistribution, but that is quite a liberal interpretation of the term. I could just as easily make the case that all taxes are a form of forced redistribution. For example, some of my city taxes went for building bike paths through the parks. If I don’t happen to like riding a bike, then my taxes went to support a recreational activity that benefits others - not me. So what is the difference between my taxes going to buy someone else a bike path versus my taxes going to buy someone else a penicillin shot? Is it all forced redistribution according to you?. The only taxes that could not be called that are taxes that go to support something that every citizen benefits from equally. And there is very little of that. So if you are going to make the case that tax-supported health care is forced redistribution, you had better come up with a reason that shows how it is different than all other things that government spends tax money on.

You are really, really pushing the envelope on your definition of “redistribution.” In fact, I think, my friend, that you have likely pushed your definition beyond any reasonable envelope.

Wealth redistribution is the taking of a tangible good from one for the purpose of giving it to another. The taking is generally done through taxes (although there are other means, such as expropriation) and the giving is generally done through social welfare programs, either direct transfer payments or in-kind payment (such as, but not limited to, housing, food distribution, or medical). Generally the source and the sink in this system are identified by group, rather than as discrete individuals (such as, but not limited to, from women to men, from poor to rich, from black to Hispanic)

Why include in-kind payments (such as housing, food, medical)? Because those are expenses that individuals would typically be expected to bear and they are for the benefit of the individual recipient (and his family). When they are provided, the recipient need not bear any of the financial expense associated with receiving the services (or a significantly smaller portion of those expenses)

A public work, such as the bike path you mentioned, road construction, sewer maintenance, garbage collection, public safety, and so on, would not then qualify as a redistributive function…unless you are stretching the definition to include redistribution from the taxpayers to a contractor or from the taxpayers to government employees. That is obviously not within the reasonable bounds of the definition.

Redistribution is voluntary if I choose to share. It is forced if I am required to do so at risk of criminal prosecution or property expropriation if I attempt to not participate.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You are really, really pushing the envelope on your definition of “redistribution.” In fact, I think, my friend, that you have likely pushed your definition beyond any reasonable envelope.

But it is your definition that I am illuminating, not mine. If you don’t agree, then it is up to you to show why building a bike path is fundamentally different than providing health care, as far as either of them being a redistribution of wealth. I have read through your clarification of what you mean by redistribution, and it seems to apply equally well to the bike path. It is provided from taxes, and it goes to benefit people identified by a group (bike riders). You then go on to say that in-kind benefits must be those that the individual would normally bear if they wanted that benefit. Well, what about a town that has a private golf course that users are expected to pay for if they want to golf. Now suppose that the town decides to build a highly-subsidized public golf course. Is that redistribution? It takes a benefits that people were paying for individually and makes them available at a reduced rate to golfers. I seems that focussing on health care is quite arbitrary. So you tell me on what basis health care is redistribution and a golf course is not.