Is it possible to become filthy rich without losing your soul?

[stinkcat_14]

Nothing at all. But it is part of an attempt to show that people who make more than we do are baaaaad people.

I never said that the tax burden on the rich was too high, too low or anything. All I said that it was possible that a rich person get more in benefits from the government than they pay in taxes. I said that in some areas the rich benefit more from government than the poor, like in the areas of national defense and our legal system that protects property rights.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The customer doesn’t always bear all the burden, it depends on the price elasticity of supply and demand. I don’t think we want to go there though.

Shoot! There goes your Nobel prize.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I never said that the tax burden on the rich was too high, too low or anything. All I said that it was possible that a rich person get more in benefits from the government than they pay in taxes. I said that in some areas the rich benefit more from government than the poor, like in the areas of national defense and our legal system that protects property rights.

And I pointed out that to prove that possibility you need to show dollar-for-dollar figures.

Until you do that, the possibility is so much hot air.

 

[stinkcat_14]

And I pointed out that to prove that possibility you need to show dollar-for-dollar figures.

Until you do that, the possibility is so much hot air.

Of course, using your criteria, you cannot show that the rich are overtaxed either. Because you would have to figure out what the value of protecting their property rights is worth.

 

[rtconstant]

I’m curious what does everyone here think Jesus meant by “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven”? Or “The pursuit of money is the root of all evil”?

These would seem to be relavent to the OP.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Of course, using your criteria, you cannot show that the rich are overtaxed either. Because you would have to figure out what the value of protecting their property rights is worth.

You can’t stop, can you?

 

[marci]

Of course, using your criteria, you cannot show that the rich are overtaxed either. Because you would have to figure out what the value of protecting their property rights is worth.

I wasn’t aware that our government spends billions of dollars a year protecting our private property rights. I’m glad I’m getting something for my hard earned tax money. I mean besides the roads, bridges, and infrastructure. I certainly haven’t seen the “what goes out equals what comes in” effect yet. Don’t even get me started on property taxes, social security taxes, franchise taxes, etc., etc.

Did I mention my local county government is currently taking my family’s farm via eminant domain? I guess we shouldn’t have spent all of that money on the lawyers, we should’ve called our local private property protection federal agent. I hear they have Warren Buffet’s billions at their disposal.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

While I know don’t have the exact dollar figures. There are two things that I know are true:

1. Protecting property rights are valuable, because if they weren’t protected there would be no investment. After all, how much investment occurs in Somalia?
2. The rich have plenty of options as to where they can locate.

So the question is, why would they pay taxes to the US if they could get a better deal elsewhere?

He’s asking a question that is impossible to answer and he knows it. It’s called a straw man and it should be ignored.

 

[vern_humphrey]

He’s asking a question that is impossible to answer and he knows it. It’s called a straw man and it should be ignored.

You’re just saying that because you’ve let your mindset be polluted by simplistic, PROTESTANT either/or style thinking.

By the way, a “strawman” is when you make up an argument, pretend the other side advanced it, and proceed to refute it. The question I asked is neither impossible to answer, nor is it a strawman.

 

[stinkcat_14]

If you think protecting property rights has no value, then consider what happens when property rights are not protected. The following is from a report from the Cato Institute.

The government took away property rights to agricultural land, and the let me just give one example of what happened:

Financial investors have fled, wondering if other businesses might be seized next. Foreign direct investment fell to zero by 2001, and the World Bank’s risk premium on investment in Zimbabwe shot up from 4 percent to 20 percent that year as well.

The whole report is here:

cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9294

The risk premium for investments by the world bank went up by 16%! Now, what effect would increasing the risk premium on investments in the US by reducing the protection of property rights have on the net worths of the top 1i% of people in the US? It would reduce it dramatically, so protecting property right does have value.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you think protecting property rights has no value, then consider what happens when property rights are not protected.

Except you failed to take into account the roof phenomenon – a new roof costs a lot less than the damage that would result from a leaky roof left unrepaired.

If your argument is pushed to its limit, then the military can take credit for all the property in the country (and in a few other countries as well.) So we shouldn’t complain about doubling or tripling the military budget, should we?

There’s no way out – if you want to prove your point, you have to do it with a dollar-for-dollar accounting.

 

[rlg94086]

For example, when I work in the summer, I only work if I am offered enough on an after tax basis, so my minimum hourly rate includes the extra tax I must pay. In this situation, who is really paying my taxes me or my clients?

Oh…I see. So, I (or anyone employed) could argue that I pay no taxes. After all, they are removed from my check, which is cut by my employer. My employer is paid by our principals. Our principals are paid by their customers. Those customers are paid by their customers. Those customers are paid by their employers.

Hey, wait a minute!! No one pays taxes.

 

[rtconstant]

I’m curious what does everyone here think Jesus meant by “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven”? Or “The pursuit of money is the root of all evil”?

These would seem to be relavent to the OP.

No one?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I thought it was “the love of money is the root of all evil”.

Yes, I think that people who focus on making money are less focused on helping their neighbors, or glorifying God. But sometimes, rich people give a lot of money to the poor. I don’t think it’s only because of a tax break. I think they are generally thinking of others in a good way. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are examples of those kind of men.

Generally though, if people are too materialistic, they aren’t focusing on other people who they could help out. They basically are driven by greed.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I thought it was “the love of money is the root of all evil”.

Yes, I think that people who focus on making money are less focused on helping their neighbors, or glorifying God. But sometimes, rich people give a lot of money to the poor. I don’t think it’s only because of a tax break. I think they are generally thinking of others in a good way. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are examples of those kind of men.

Generally though, if people are too materialistic, they aren’t focusing on other people who they could help out. They basically are driven by greed.

Yes, but for every “filthy rich” person who is like that, I can show you a hundred drug dealers, muggers and other criminals who are even more materialistic – and willing to do violence to satisfy their materialistic cravings.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

They are driven by money too.

 

[vern_humphrey]

They are driven by money too.

Of course they are. The point is that “the rich” aren’t any more immoral than any other class.

However, because we envy them, we are predisposed to believe anything bad about them.

 

[rlg94086]

They are driven by money too.

Exactly! So, the question of the thread should be…“is it possible to be a human being without losing your soul?” IOW…the original question is just plain silly, because it assumes that the peril to someone’s soul who is “filthy rich” is greater than that of someone who is not.

It is “possible” for any of us to make it to heaven, but the road is narrow.

 

[rlg94086]

They are driven by money too.

btw…in the case of the “filthy rich,” they are probably not driven by money. However, they may be driven by a chauffeur.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I don’t envy the rich. I think people who have too many possessions are burdened by them. They worry about the future more. They worry about their possessions and their finances. If you don’t have too much, (I’m not talking about absolute poverty), you are more carefree, and can focus on the good things in life - like God, and nature, creativity, other people, etc.