Hillary Clinton Thread

[Ridgerunner]

I didn’t say what you ascribed to me above. Those were two separate paragraphs; in the first I was saying $250000 would be a fair point to start higher taxation, in the second I was talking about the richest people in the country, and yes, they have multiple mansions and luxury jets.

Please don’t misrepresent what I write.

I responded to what you wrote. If I misunderstood your meaning, it was inadvertent.

Do you think raising taxes on people making $250,000 or more will do something for the rest of the population? How will it do that, and how much do you want to raise their taxes?
Do you want it to apply to someone who just made that much once because he/she sold something, or do you want them to have made it for a period of time before actually subjecting them to it?

 

[Ridgerunner]

You didn’t answer my question. I asked if there is a moral right to the unlimited accumulation of wealth when others are in need.

You are presenting a false choice, at least as far as this country is concerned. Compared to the average person in Haiti, a welfare recipient in this country is incredibly “rich”. So, is that welfare recipient morally obliged to send his money to Haiti? I don’t think the Church says that.

If a person has $100,000.00 and his neighbor needs a new car, but the $100,000 is his kids’ college fund, does he have the obligation to deprive his kids of an education and buy the neighbor a car?

If a person has a machine shop and the current technology requires that he obtain a CNC machine for $250,000.00, and he has that sum. Is he required to go out of business to put a down payment on houses for 10 others who don’t have homes?

You are putting this in terms of absolutes when the situation of each person on both ends of the spectrum is different.

But the biggest error in it is the evident belief that one man’s wealth requires another man’s poverty, when that’s not true. The better question is why the other fellow can’t get a job that pays a decent wage. Instead of worrying about redistributing wealth, this country ought to be concerned about the loss of decent jobs. All the redistributionist talk is just a diversion to make us think some rich fellow is the cause of poverty when, indeed, it’s something else entirely.

We shouldn’t buy into it.

 

[mary_bobo]

People who make $250,000 don’t have multiple mansions, luxury jets, etc. In some places, that’s a middle-middle class income level. In some, it would be a very prosperous level. But it’s not “rich”.

Wealth, in and of itself, is not morally objectionable, and the Church doesn’t say that it is. What one does with it might be morally objectionable or meritorious, but wealth in and of itself is not evil.

It is one of the great Marxist myths that economies are “zero sum games”, that is, if one man is wealthy that necessarily means another is poor as a result. But in even a slumping economy like our own, it’s not the case. The poverty of a particular person in this society is somewhat dependent on sheer chance, but it’s much more often due to poor life decisions like dropping out of school or getting pregnant at age 15. Drug use is definitely a cause of poverty.

Good points. And in some parts of the country $250K is not that much. Look at the COL in New York and California.

 

[Vouthon]

Good points. And in some parts of the country $250K is not that much. Look at the COL in New York and California.

$250k isn’t that much? When the average salary in the U.S. is $32,140 for those age 25 or above?

One must really be minted and living in a bubble to be able to say what you just said with a straight face.

I agree with Ridge that it doesn’t qualify as inordinately “rich” in the sense of, say, a real estate mogul or a Russian oligarch - but “not that much”!?

 

[DeniseNY]

$250k isn’t that much? When the average salary in the U.S. is $32,140 for those age 25 or above?

One must really be minted and living in a bubble to be able to say what you just said with a straight face.

I agree with Ridge that it doesn’t qualify as inordinately “rich” in the sense of, say, a real estate mogul or a Russian oligarch - but “not that much”!?

Or living in their own bubble to not understand that ithus can absolutely be true

 

[sallybutler]

You are presenting a false choice, at least as far as this country is concerned. Compared to the average person in Haiti, a welfare recipient in this country is incredibly “rich”. So, is that welfare recipient morally obliged to send his money to Haiti? I don’t think the Church says that.

If a person has $100,000.00 and his neighbor needs a new car, but the $100,000 is his kids’ college fund, does he have the obligation to deprive his kids of an education and buy the neighbor a car?

If a person has a machine shop and the current technology requires that he obtain a CNC machine for $250,000.00, and he has that sum. Is he required to go out of business to put a down payment on houses for 10 others who don’t have homes?

You are putting this in terms of absolutes when the situation of each person on both ends of the spectrum is different.

But the biggest error in it is the evident belief that one man’s wealth requires another man’s poverty, when that’s not true. The better question is why the other fellow can’t get a job that pays a decent wage. Instead of worrying about redistributing wealth, this country ought to be concerned about the loss of decent jobs. All the redistributionist talk is just a diversion to make us think some rich fellow is the cause of poverty when, indeed, it’s something else entirely.

We shouldn’t buy into it.

But if you give people decent jobs, then you may decrease the value of people’s stock or take away jobs from others. In other words, there are no easy solutions.

However, I just read something that said Pope Benedict said that Democratic Socialism was closer to what the Church believes in than Anglo Saxon capitalism. So, yes, some redistribution is reasonable.

I will admit that I don’t know what that level is. But I am pretty sure that the U.S. won’t exceed that level(or even reach it) anytime soon.

 

[Vouthon]

But if you give people decent jobs, then you may decrease the value of people’s stock or take away jobs from others. In other words, there are no easy solutions.

However, I just read something that said Pope Benedict said that Democratic Socialism was closer to what the Church believes in than Anglo Saxon capitalism. So, yes, some redistribution is reasonable.

I will admit that I don’t know what that level is. But I am pretty sure that the U.S. won’t exceed that level(or even reach it) anytime soon.

Benedict XVI was referring to social democrats, whom he distinguished from anti-Christian Marxist socialists:

firstthings.com/article/2006/01/europe-and-its-discontents

EUROPE AND ITS DISCONTENTS
by Pope Benedict XVI
January 2006

But in Europe, in the nineteenth century, the two models were joined by a third, socialism, which quickly split into two different branches, one totalitarian and the other democratic. Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight to the radical liberal positions, which it developed and corrected. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics, who had never felt at home among either the Protestant conservatives or the liberals. In Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.

He was referring specifically to the British Labour Party, which is the traditional party of UK Catholics.

Sanders does adhere to this same tradition.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But if you give people decent jobs, then you may decrease the value of people’s stock or take away jobs from others. In other words, there are no easy solutions.

However, I just read something that said Pope Benedict said that Democratic Socialism was closer to what the Church believes in than Anglo Saxon capitalism. So, yes, some redistribution is reasonable.

I will admit that I don’t know what that level is. But I am pretty sure that the U.S. won’t exceed that level(or even reach it) anytime soon.

I think I would have to see a reputable source saying “Democratic socialism” (not to be identified with the American Democratic party) is better than “Anglo Saxon Capitalism”, whatever that is, according to the Pope. I don’t think you’ll find one, but you can try.

By “Anglo Saxon Capitalism”, did he mean the relatively more socialistic system in Canada or the relatively less socialistic system in the U.S? Did he mean the kind of capitalism (which really wasn’t capitalism) in Britain in the early 19th Century?

And socialism, of its nature, is not “democratic”. It’s totalitarian, and has to be, because people do not voluntarily adopt outright socialism. Aspects of it, yes, but the whole thing, no.

 

[Vouthon]

I think I would have to see a reputable source saying “Democratic socialism” (not to be identified with the American Democratic party) is better than “Anglo Saxon Capitalism”, whatever that is, according to the Pope. I don’t think you’ll find one, but you can try.

By “Anglo Saxon Capitalism”, did he mean the relatively more socialistic system in Canada or the relatively less socialistic system in the U.S? Did he mean the kind of capitalism (which really wasn’t capitalism) in Britain in the early 19th Century?

And socialism, of its nature, is not “democratic”. It’s totalitarian, and has to be, because people do not voluntarily adopt outright socialism. Aspects of it, yes, but the whole thing, no.

See the quote above.

He was referring to social democracy - often incorrectly called democratic socialism.

It still operates within a market economy, so no - he isn’t referring to state ownership of the means of production or the abolition of private property.

He’s referring to the UK Labour Party under Clement Attlee in 1945 and the Nordic countries.

He did not say it was superior to Anglo-Saxon capitalism (I don’t recall him referring to this at all), merely that it has many affinities with and is very close to Catholic Social Doctrine for which reason UK Catholics, among others in Europe, came to adhere too it as their own political philosophy and party. He clearly approves of it

 

[Ridgerunner]

But if you give people decent jobs, then you may decrease the value of people’s stock or take away jobs from others. .

It’s actually the opposite. Capital (e.g. stock) has more value when unemployment is low, and less when it’s high. That’s because there has always been a 1-3 ratio between income going to capital versus that of labor. Or at least it has been true since 1929 when the government started keeping records on it.

As employment reaches its highest, capital is more utilized than when it’s low, though the greater gain is in worker income than it is in capital income. Think of it this way. Let’s say an entrepreneur has a $500,000 machine. If employment is low, wages are low and people can’t afford to keep his machine productively operated more than, say, 70% of the time. But if employment is high and people can afford his product, perhaps his machine is productively used 95% of the time. Now, the marginal utility of the labor decreases the higher his production gets to the maximum. But he’s still making money on each labor increment, so he hires.

 

[sallybutler]

I think I would have to see a reputable source saying “Democratic socialism” (not to be identified with the American Democratic party) is better than “Anglo Saxon Capitalism”, whatever that is, according to the Pope. I don’t think you’ll find one, but you can try.

By “Anglo Saxon Capitalism”, did he mean the relatively more socialistic system in Canada or the relatively less socialistic system in the U.S? Did he mean the kind of capitalism (which really wasn’t capitalism) in Britain in the early 19th Century?

And socialism, of its nature, is not “democratic”. It’s totalitarian, and has to be, because people do not voluntarily adopt outright socialism. Aspects of it, yes, but the whole thing, no.

I am currently reading Bad Religion: How we Became a nation of heretics by Russ Douthat, a book that someone on these forums recommended. It is a very interesting look at how religion in America has changed since the 1950’s. He touches on many issues. I am currently reading the chapter that is discussing how many popular preachers and denominations have reconciled the need for more things with the Christian life. Obviously, the prosperity gospel is the overt example of this, but there are other subtle variations on the theme being taught in our churches.

He mentioned this opinion of Pope Benedict and gave this as the source. I will have to read it next.

Pope Benedict XVI, “Europe and Its Discontents,” First Things, January 2006.

 

[Vouthon]

I am currently reading Bad Religion: How we Became a nation of heretics by Russ Douthat, a book that someone on these forums recommended. It is a very interesting look at how religion in America has changed since the 1950’s. He touches on many issues. I am currently reading the chapter that is discussing how many popular preachers and denominations have reconciled the need for more things with the Christian life. Obviously, the prosperity gospel is the overt example of this, but there are other subtle variations on the theme being taught in our churches.

He mentioned this opinion of Pope Benedict and gave this as the source. I will have to read it next.

Pope Benedict XVI, “Europe and Its Discontents,” First Things, January 2006.

I provided the actual quote a few posts above

 

[Ridgerunner]

See the quote above.

He was referring to social democracy - often incorrectly called democratic socialism.

It still operates within a market economy, so no - he isn’t referring to state ownership of the means of production or the abolition of private property.

He’s referring to the UK Labour Party under Clement Attlee in 1945 and the Nordic countries.

He did not say it was superior to Anglo-Saxon capitalism (I don’t recall him referring to this at all), merely that it has many affinities with and is very close to Catholic Social Doctrine for which reason UK Catholics, among others in Europe, came to adhere too it as their own political philosophy and party. He clearly approves of it

I do not have a problem with CAtholic Social Doctrine as enunciated by Pope Leo XIII, then by just about every Pope thereafter, in different ways. It its most shortened form, it calls for the widespread individual and family ownership of productive, inheritable assets. I go along with that 100%. I also accept the notion that too-great reliance on either government or big business is detrimental to a populace because both tend to influence the beliefs of the populace. And both encourage excessive consumerism.

So, for example, American industries very largely adopted the Japanese model of “just in time” inventorying. Sounds good and saves money. But it “upstreams” costs to small producers who can’t afford it. Along with that (according to me) they seem to have adopted no small amount of corporate “Bushido”; the glorification of the corporate warrior who cuts down all around him and goes down in a bloodbath in the face of a better warrior.

In a society as dominated by big corporations and government that is monstrously powerful and allied to big business, it seems to me we have departed a great deal from the papal ideals of Social Justice.

Across the pond, that might make me a Social Democrat. Over here, it makes me a conservative near-Republican. (but not quite)

 

[sallybutler]

I provided the actual quote a few posts above

Thank you.

Here is a link to it
firstthings.com/article/2006/01/europe-and-its-discontents

This is the paragraph Mr. Douthat may have been referring to.

But in Europe, in the nineteenth century, the two models were joined by a third, socialism, which quickly split into two different branches, one totalitarian and the other democratic. Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight to the radical liberal positions, which it developed and corrected. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics, who had never felt at home among either the Protestant conservatives or the liberals. In Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.

 

[sallybutler]

You are presenting a false choice, at least as far as this country is concerned. Compared to the average person in Haiti, a welfare recipient in this country is incredibly “rich”. So, is that welfare recipient morally obliged to send his money to Haiti? I don’t think the Church says that.

If a person has $100,000.00 and his neighbor needs a new car, but the $100,000 is his kids’ college fund, does he have the obligation to deprive his kids of an education and buy the neighbor a car?

If a person has a machine shop and the current technology requires that he obtain a CNC machine for $250,000.00, and he has that sum. Is he required to go out of business to put a down payment on houses for 10 others who don’t have homes?

You are putting this in terms of absolutes when the situation of each person on both ends of the spectrum is different.

But the biggest error in it is the evident belief that one man’s wealth requires another man’s poverty, when that’s not true. The better question is why the other fellow can’t get a job that pays a decent wage. Instead of worrying about redistributing wealth, this country ought to be concerned about the loss of decent jobs. All the redistributionist talk is just a diversion to make us think some rich fellow is the cause of poverty when, indeed, it’s something else entirely.

We shouldn’t buy into it.

Perhaps you could offer to drive your neighbor to and from work or help fix his car. As for the equipment, perhaps the business owner could finance part of it and then give his 10 employees a share of the increased profits that came from the increased productivity.

Think outside the box. There are almost always multiple solutions to problems and not all of them scary and doomsdayie.

 

[Vouthon]

Or living in their own bubble to not understand that ithus can absolutely be true

I would love to know where $250k would be considered “not that much”. Monaco, maybe? In 2014 it was noted about 30% of the population was made up of millionaires. Geneva? Hollywood, California? Otherwise I can’t think of anywhere.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I would love to know where $250k would be considered “not that much”. Monaco, maybe? In 2014 it was noted about 30% of the population was made up of millionaires. Geneva? Hollywood, California? Otherwise I can’t think of anywhere.

I’ve lived in Monaco, Switzerland, and near Hollywood. Lots of homeless in Hollywood, Zuerich is the most expensive city in Switzerland, and $250,000 would still be good there. It’s not a lot for Monaco, though.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

You are presenting a false choice, at least as far as this country is concerned. Compared to the average person in Haiti, a welfare recipient in this country is incredibly “rich”. So, is that welfare recipient morally obliged to send his money to Haiti? I don’t think the Church says that.

If a person has $100,000.00 and his neighbor needs a new car, but the $100,000 is his kids’ college fund, does he have the obligation to deprive his kids of an education and buy the neighbor a car?

If a person has a machine shop and the current technology requires that he obtain a CNC machine for $250,000.00, and he has that sum. Is he required to go out of business to put a down payment on houses for 10 others who don’t have homes?

You are putting this in terms of absolutes when the situation of each person on both ends of the spectrum is different.

But the biggest error in it is the evident belief that one man’s wealth requires another man’s poverty, when that’s not true. The better question is why the other fellow can’t get a job that pays a decent wage. Instead of worrying about redistributing wealth, this country ought to be concerned about the loss of decent jobs. All the redistributionist talk is just a diversion to make us think some rich fellow is the cause of poverty when, indeed, it’s something else entirely.

We shouldn’t buy into it.

It’s a simple question, and it’s not a false dilemma. The facts are: there are very rich people in this country, and in the world, and there are people without food, shelter and basic medical care in the world and in this country. The question is is that a morally acceptable state of affairs? I think Pope Francis I has given his answer to it.

But the fact is that extremes of wealth are socially destructive. If you want to talk economic policy, it has been shown that money spent by the middle or lower classes has a much more productive long term effect on the economy than money spent on luxury goods by the rich. This is known as the “multiplier effect”.

 

[JimG]

I wonder. If an entrepreneur such as the founder of Facebook, or Google, or Apple becomes a billionaire in one day by taking his company public, does that mean that millions of other people suddenly become poor because of it?

If someone wins millions of dollars in a lottery, is he obligated to immediately redistribute his unearned wealth to the poor? What about a man who works his whole life to accumulate the same amount of wealth?

(I’ve heard that 70% of big lottery winners go bankrupt within a few years. I think this is because they treat their winnings as spendable income, rather than as investment assets to be used to generate income.)

 

[stinkcat_14]

I wonder. If an entrepreneur such as the founder of Facebook, or Google, or Apple becomes a billionaire in one day by taking his company public, does that mean that millions of other people suddenly become poor because of it?

If someone wins millions of dollars in a lottery, is he obligated to immediately redistribute his unearned wealth to the poor? What about a man who works his whole life to accumulate the same amount of wealth?

(I’ve heard that 70% of big lottery winners go bankrupt within a few years. I think this is because they treat their winnings as spendable income, rather than as investment assets to be used to generate income.)

I would argue that the reason many lottery winners go bankrupt is mainly due to their personality type, more than anything else. They tend to be risk loving, which increases the chance of bankruptcy. If I won a million or ten in the lottery I would probably never go bankrupt. But then again, I don’t play the lottery.