Is the redistribution of wealth and resources just to alleviate poverty?

[stinkcat_14]

You are missing an important point regarding government.

You and I cannot take money from a stranger by force and give it to someone else. No matter how you cut it…that is theft.

Government spending is always taking from one group and giving to another. For example, Social Security takes from people who work and gives to people who mostly don’t work. A clear transfer payment, yet it has never been condemned as theft by the Church. So government redistribution has not been condemned as theft by the Church.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The sources state that this value is the amount it would cost per year to stop extreme poverty- the starving children that Robert is concerned about, those who live on less than one dollar a day. It won’t get rid of poverty in America- most poor Americans would be in “relative poverty”, not extreme or moderate poverty.

EDIT: Although another source says that it would only cost about 175 billion more to eradicate official poverty in America. They still won’t have enough to keep up with the cost of living in most places, but it’s still much better than where we’re at now.

I suspect that in practice it would cost more, since of course we have to pay people to do the work of redistributing income. And naturally, we would run into more problems if we simply handed money out to people until their income reached exactly the poverty line. But even so, it’s encouraging. And kind of sad.

OH, Ok…I see. So Sochi’s little picture is inaccurate. My, my, how we spread misinformation on the internet.

Please don’t think I’m being smug…but I know a few greedy, evil, rich folks who would be happy to write checks totaling $175 BILLION tomorrow…IF they really believed that would eradicate poverty in America.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Government spending is always taking from one group and giving to another. For example, Social Security takes from people who work and gives to people who mostly don’t work. A clear transfer payment, yet it has never been condemned as theft by the Church. So government redistribution has not been condemned as theft by the Church.

Actually social security is a Ponzi Game.

I’m sure the Church will change her mind as soon as the government begins to tax organized religions.

 

[Kamaduck]

You are missing an important point regarding government.

You and I cannot take money from a stranger by force and give it to someone else. No matter how you cut it…that is theft.

Sure, unless holding it back is unreasonable. The specific instance the Catechism gives is saving a life- you can make use of others’ property to do that, since it’s unreasonable to hold someone back from what they need to live. Whether taking money in a given case constitutes the sin of theft would seem to depend on whether the original owner is being reasonable in holding it back.

You and I established a government. How can we empower that government to do something that is wrong???

I mean, I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what taxes are- forcibly taking money from some people and giving it to others. The government gives out all of the money it takes in, and more. It generally gives it out in exchange for services, but it’s still not a totally voluntary transaction. If you think that’s wrong, I don’t see how that’s different from saying that the government cant’s tax at all, and obviously it can.

The catechism even says:

“2436 It is unjust not to pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.”

And we all know that Social Security currently involves taking money from some people and giving it to other people.

Our government IS NOT authorized to provide charity and if it were, it would not do it right.

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of **expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constitutents.”   **

“…the government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. **Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government**.”     -James Madison

But our government DOES spend our money (that it has stolen) on charity…how is that possible? Simple…it gets away with it.

I don’t see why James Madison’s opinion should be legally binding. We’re also not officially authorized by the constitution to have a standing military- but we have one, because we believe that security is important. I doubt that the FDA or CDC are spoken of, either, but nobody wants to get rid of them, because they’re important.

“Soak the rich” is very popular right now and people think that the government is right in taking their money and giving it to the noble poor. The truth is that the rich have all kinds of ways to LEGALLY shelter their wealth so the real burden falls on the poor schmuck wage earner…the middle class. When they wake up…it will get ugly.

OK, so is it impossible to make the rich pay normal taxes? Are we not capable of closing some of the loopholes so they pay the same percentage as their secretaries?

I get that we can’t take away huge chunks of the money that middle-class people have earned, but we also can’t allow huge numbers of people to go without their basic needs being met. We have to find a solution that allows for both.

 

[Kamaduck]

OH, Ok…I see. So Sochi’s little picture is inaccurate. My, my, how we spread misinformation on the internet.

Please don’t think I’m being smug…but I know a few greedy, evil, rich folks who would be happy to write checks totaling $175 BILLION tomorrow…IF they really believed that would eradicate poverty in America.

It’s the internet; it’s what we do. I note that he presented plenty of sources for his point when asked for them.

EDIT: As far as the 175 Billion goes, that’s just math. That’s how much it would take to bring every poor person up to the poverty line. It doesn’t create a sustainable system or anything, but it does immediately bring everyone out of the official poverty zone.

I’d probably go for something more sustainable by paying for people’s immediate needs and also getting them some kind of better education (trade school?) or finding a way to connect them with better jobs. But that would obviously cost a lot more.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Actually social security is a Ponzi Game.

I agree that it is a ponzi game, I believe that it is not a prudent program, but the Church has never condemned it as immoral.

I’m sure the Church will change her mind as soon as the government begins to tax organized religions.

That would seem to be a rather opportunistic application of morality and I don’t think that is really how the Church operates.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I agree that it is a ponzi game, I believe that it is not a prudent program, but the Church has never condemned it as immoral.

The Church has never condemned the death penalty either.

That would seem to be a rather opportunistic application of morality and I don’t think that is really how the Church operates.

I think you would be surprised. Historically the Church has operated in unusual ways…when put in a corner.

 

[stinkcat_14]

The Church has never condemned the death penalty either.

Pope John Paul II on the death penalty.

“A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.”

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Pope John Paul II on the death penalty.

Yes, I am aware of Pope John Paul’s appeal. As a former supporter of the death penalty I took
his appeal to heart.

However, as you can see, he does not condemn the death penalty.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Yes, I am aware of Pope John Paul’s appeal. As a former supporter of the death penalty I took
his appeal to heart.

However, as you can see, he does not condemn the death penalty.

It is true that the Church leaves an out for the death penalty, although in its teaching it is highly critical of it. However, when it comes to taxation, the church talks quite a bit about economic issues but has never come even close to suggesting that taxing from one group and giving to another is theft.

 

[Rence]

I understand all of that. There is clearly a difference between taxes paid to military personnel and taxes paid to feed the poor- whether or not taxpayers see any direct benefits from their money. It could be argued that, say, helping homeless people might reduce crime or improve the atmosphere of a city for everyone else, but to keep it simple, let’s assume that taxpayers get no personal benefit from government-run programs that help the very poor.

Despite their differences, the taxes are similar in that they are both involuntary.

Again, one can move. If one doesn’t want to contribute to their community in the form of taxes, they can move. Paying taxes is a part of living in communities with benefits provided and managed by the State. And yes, there is a very big difference between paying taxes and redistribution of people’s earnings to “even things out”.

Which is not true, unless we wish to argue that all military personnel can only be morally paid by a voluntary transaction from each citizen. Military personnel do indeed deserve their pay, and it is moral for our government to tax the populace in order to pay them. This means that taking things from people by force is not necessarily always theft. And I do think it is “by force”, since the military is run by the national government. You can’t escape it by moving to a different city if you disagree. You can escape it by leaving the country, but the same is true of taxes to help the poor.

No, it’s not theft. It’s the price one pays for living in a community with services managed by the State. That’s not theft. That’s contributing your share to the community. If one doesn’t like it, they can move. And yes, you can pay less, you can ‘escape’ taxes that are considered excessive. In Chicago, our property takes were $6500. We moved (not for that reason) and were pleasantly surprised to learn that our property taxes were now $1200. Again, we have less community services in exchange and we’re fine with that.

I could still be missing something, but it seems to me that taking something from someone by force is not always theft. This is what the catechism says about theft:

“2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.”

Thus, if we can show that it is unreasonable for the rich to refuse to help the very poor, we can also argue that it is moral to forcibly take some of their wealth. Is that risky when we’re also trying to preserve the free market? Sure, but as far as I can tell, a certain amount of redistribution isn’t fundamentally opposed to Catholic thought.

It’s very convenient for some to cherry pick through the catechism by zeroing in on a paragraph here and there to try and justify their unreasonable wants. However, those paragraphs are actually in the middle of other paragraphs just below and above it. Read all of them. I assure you, if you read the rest of it, scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm you will come to understand that the Church does allow private wealth and Church requiring charity is not the same thing as involuntary redistribution of wealth. Seizing people’s wealth is not going to save the poor from poverty.

The Catechism also says this:

IV. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

2426 The development of economic activity and growth in production are meant to provide for the needs of human beings. Economic life is not meant solely to multiply goods produced and increase profit or power; it is ordered first of all to the service of persons, of the whole man, and of the entire human community. Economic activity, conducted according to its own proper methods, is to be exercised within the limits of the moral order, in keeping with social justice so as to correspond to God’s plan for man.209

2427 Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God and called to prolong the work of creation by subduing the earth, both with and for one another.210 Hence work is a duty: "If any one will not work, let him not eat."211 Work honors the Creator’s gifts and the talents received from him. It can also be redemptive. By enduring the hardship of work212 in union with Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth and the one crucified on Calvary, man collaborates in a certain fashion with the Son of God in his redemptive work. He shows himself to be a disciple of Christ by carrying the cross, daily, in the work he is called to accomplish.213 Work can be a means of sanctification and a way of animating earthly realities with the Spirit of Christ.

2428 In work, the person exercises and fulfills in part the potential inscribed in his nature. The primordial value of labor stems from man himself, its author and its beneficiary. Work is for man, not man for work.214

Everyone should be able to draw from work the means of providing for his life and that of his family, and of serving the human community.

2429 Everyone has the right of economic initiative; everyone should make legitimate use of his talents to contribute to the abundance that will benefit all and to harvest the just fruits of his labor. He should seek to observe regulations issued by legitimate authority for the sake of the common good.215

2430 Economic life brings into play different interests, often opposed to one another. This explains why the conflicts that characterize it arise.216 Efforts should be made to reduce these conflicts by negotiation that respects the rights and duties of each social partner: those responsible for business enterprises, representatives of wage- earners (for example, trade unions), and public authorities when appropriate.

2431 The responsibility of the state. "Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society."217

2432 Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations.218 They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits. Profits are necessary, however. They make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment.

2433 Access to employment and to professions must be open to all without unjust discrimination: men and women, healthy and disabled, natives and immigrants.219 For its part society should, according to circumstances, help citizens find work and employment.220

2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice.221 In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good."222 Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.

2435 Recourse to a strike is morally legitimate when it cannot be avoided, or at least when it is necessary to obtain a proportionate benefit. It becomes morally unacceptable when accompanied by violence, or when objectives are included that are not directly linked to working conditions or are contrary to the common good.

2436 It is unjust not to pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.

 

[Rence]

Sure, unless holding it back is unreasonable. The specific instance the Catechism gives is saving a life- you can make use of others’ property to do that, since it’s unreasonable to hold someone back from what they need to live. Whether taking money in a given case constitutes the sin of theft would seem to depend on whether the original owner is being reasonable in holding it back.

Taking forcibly what another person has earned is not going to save the poor. And trying to do it on a mass scale will only lead to economic chaos.

I mean, I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what taxes are- forcibly taking money from some people and giving it to others.

No, taxes are to pay for community services, services that each citizen benefits from.

“2436 It is unjust not to pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.”

And we all know that Social Security currently involves taking money from some people and giving it to other people.

What some people evidently don’t know is that Social Security involves money that recipients have already put into the pot. Recipients of social security have already paid their portion of dues.

I get that we can’t take away huge chunks of the money that middle-class people have earned, but we also can’t allow huge numbers of people to go without their basic needs being met. We have to find a solution that allows for both.

Like what?

 

[Kamaduck]

Again, one can move. If one doesn’t want to contribute to their community in the form of taxes, they can move. Paying taxes is a part of living in communities with benefits provided and managed by the State. And yes, there is a very big difference between paying taxes and redistribution of people’s earnings to “even things out”.

If the ability to move out of a country makes paying its taxes voluntary, then it seems like we would have to call mandatory redistribution of wealth voluntary, too. Both can only be avoided by leaving that country.

No, it’s not theft. It’s the price one pays for living in a community with services managed by the State. That’s not theft. That’s contributing your share to the community. If one doesn’t like it, they can move. And yes, you can pay less, you can ‘escape’ taxes that are considered excessive. In Chicago, our property takes were $6500. We moved (not for that reason) and were pleasantly surprised to learn that our property taxes were now $1200. Again, we have less community services in exchange and we’re fine with that.

I don’t think it’s theft, either.

It’s very convenient for some to cherry pick through the catechism by zeroing in on a paragraph here and there to try and justify their unreasonable wants.

This thread isn’t about “unreasonable wants”. The OP is primarily concerned with starving children. I’m just talking about providing for people’s most basic needs- food, clothing, shelter, heat, etc.

However, those paragraphs are actually in the middle of other paragraphs just below and above it. Read all of them. I assure you, if you read the rest of it, scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm you will come to understand that the Church does allow private wealth and Church requiring charity is not the same thing as involuntary redistribution of wealth. Seizing people’s wealth is not going to save the poor from poverty.

I don’t want people to give up all of their private wealth. I want people who have enough to give up some of what they have so that others can have the bare minimum that is necessary for maintaining their lives and human dignity.

Maybe we mean different things by “redistribution of wealth”? My goal here is nowhere near actual equality, it’s just making sure that everyone has what they absolutely need.

The Catechism also says this:

I’ve read it. I still don’t understand why it’s immoral to create a system to provide for people’s most basic needs.

Taking forcibly what another person has earned is not going to save the poor. And trying to do it on a mass scale will only lead to economic chaos.

I’m not particularly in favor of making people pay enormous taxes. But I do think that there are some cases in which it is moral to take from one person and give to another, and saving a life is one of those circumstances. It’s not the end-all, be-all solution, no. Nowhere close. To truly solve the problem, I think we need to give people the ability to provide for themselves.

I don’t think very many poor people can gain that ability without some kind of assistance.

No, taxes are to pay for community services, services that each citizen benefits from.

Just because we benefit from it doesn’t mean it isn’t forced. What is happening when the government pays military personnel is exactly what I described- the government forcibly collects money, the soldier voluntarily defends the country, and the government gives the taxpayer’s money to the soldier in exchange for his services.

Does everybody benefit here? Yes. Did the taxpayer voluntarily give his money to the soldier? Not really. He could theoretically avoid doing so by leaving the country, but the same is true of giving his money to a poor person.

The difference between taxes that pay soldiers and taxes that aid the very poor isn’t that one is forced and the other isn’t. It’s that one provides an obvious benefit to all citizens, and the other doesn’t.

What some people evidently don’t know is that Social Security involves money that recipients have already put into the pot. Recipients of social security have already paid their portion of dues.

I know this, and that’s why it would be unfair to cut the program now. But in the present, what literally happens is that people pay in, and their money is given to others. I’m not saying that’s evil, although it does seem unsustainable. I’m just observing that it happens.

Like what?

I don’t know. I am on this thread in the hopes of finding an answer.

 

[Rence]

If the ability to move out of a country makes paying its taxes voluntary, then it seems like we would have to call mandatory redistribution of wealth voluntary, too. Both can only be avoided by leaving that country.

I didn’t have to leave the country to significantly reduce my taxes

This thread isn’t about “unreasonable wants”. The OP is primarily concerned with starving children. I’m just talking about providing for people’s most basic needs- food, clothing, shelter, heat, etc.

It is unreasonable to think people are going to be okay with the notion of taking money they have earned, and distributing it to support others, when they have their own burdens to carry. And it matters not one iota that you, or anyone else, doesn’t think their own burdens are important enough.

I don’t want people to give up all of their private wealth. I want people who have enough to give up some of what they have so that others can have the bare minimum that is necessary for maintaining their lives and human dignity.

Again, it is unreasonable to think people are going to be okay with the notion of taking money they have earned and distributing it to support others. That’s what charity is for. Charity is voluntary.

Maybe we mean different things by “redistribution of wealth”? My goal here is nowhere near actual equality, it’s just making sure that everyone has what they absolutely need.

There is no way to make sure that everyone has what they absolutely need, and taking from others what they have worked for, to give to others, is not going to resolve worldwide poverty.

I’ve read it. I still don’t understand why it’s immoral to create a system to provide for people’s most basic needs.

Because you don’t see anything wrong with taking what other people have worked for, and giving it to others. That 's why you don’t understand. There is no way to create a system to provide for people’s most basic needs. The poor will always be with us. That’s part of the reason why this notion of redistributing people’s wealth ‘to create a system to provide for people’s most basic needs’ is not happening.

I’m not particularly in favor of making people pay enormous taxes. But I do think that there are some cases in which it is moral to take from one person and give to another, and saving a life is one of those circumstances.

Dictating to others how much to give to charity is not moral. There are people dying every day. Which person do we choose to take their money and give to the dying person? How much of their money do we take? How are they chosen for this burden? How do we choose which of their bills don’t get paid because it needs to go to ‘saving a life’? How far would this system go? How do we determine which burden for the worker is important and which is not? What can be taken from a worker, so that money can go to ‘save a life’ instead? Do we take their car, so that their payments go to ‘save a life’? Do we take their home and relocate them to a smaller home…so that their money can instead go to ‘safe a life’? and which life?

It’s not the end-all, be-all solution, no. Nowhere close. To truly solve the problem, I think we need to give people the ability to provide for themselves.

It is not a solution at all. It will only make things worse. The more you try to take away what someone has earned, the more they will want to hold on to it.

I don’t think very many poor people can gain that ability without some kind of assistance.

I agree. However, apparently there is some disagreement about what kind of help to give, and to whom. And what happens to the person whose money was taken? What about their burdens?

Just because we benefit from it doesn’t mean it isn’t forced. What is happening when the government pays military personnel is exactly what I described- the government forcibly collects money, the soldier voluntarily defends the country, and the government gives the taxpayer’s money to the soldier in exchange for his services.

That is absolute nonsense and the fact that you can talk about it and not face consequences is proof. Some people without such protection aren’t that lucky. If you think it’s forced, go to another country where a military doesn’t protect your rights. Then watch your opinion change.

I don’t know. I am on this thread in the hopes of finding an answer.

I think your opinion will depend on what you end up doing for a living, and how hard you fought to get there. It always does.

 

[Kamaduck]

It is unreasonable to think people are going to be okay with the notion of taking money they have earned, and distributing it to support others, when they have their own burdens to carry. And it matters not one iota that you, or anyone else, doesn’t think their own burdens are important enough.

Again, it is unreasonable to think people are going to be okay with the notion of taking money they have earned and distributing it to support others.

I don’t understand why Christians wouldn’t be OK with supporting people who literally do not have enough food to eat. I understand that they have earned their money. I understand that they have burdens. But the idea of refusing to help someone who has so little doesn’t make sense to me.

On the other hand, you’re probably right that it’s because I have no experience paying taxes. If you say that this idea is completely unreasonable on every scale, then I am willing to discuss alternatives. I’m really not very picky in that regard.

There is no way to make sure that everyone has what they absolutely need, and taking from others what they have worked for, to give to others, is not going to resolve worldwide poverty.

I don’t really think that it’s possible to completely resolve world poverty. I’m not that optimistic. On the other hand, I don’t think that certain failure excuses us from trying.

We can decide to attempt it without the use of the government or taxation, but we still need to attempt it. And if our current methods aren’t working, we need to try something else.

Because you don’t see anything wrong with taking what other people have worked for, and giving it to others. That’s why you don’t understand. There is no way to create a system to provide for people’s most basic needs. The poor will always be with us. That’s part of the reason why this notion of redistributing people’s wealth ‘to create a system to provide for people’s most basic needs’ is not happening.

I agree that there will always be poor, but I don’t think that excuses us from trying to support them. It’s very difficult for me to accept that we can just kind of shrug our shoulders and say “It’s my money”, and not be guilty of a sin of omission.

And if there’s no organization involved (private or public), then that cuts back on efficiency. As Geddie said earlier, an organized charity can often do more to help than an individual person can.

Dictating to others how much to give to charity is not moral. There are people dying every day. Which person do we choose to take their money and give to the dying person? How much of their money do we take? How are they chosen for this burden? How do we choose which of their bills don’t get paid because it needs to go to ‘saving a life’? How far would this system go? How do we determine which burden for the worker is important and which is not? What can be taken from a worker, so that money can go to ‘save a life’ instead? Do we take their car, so that their payments go to ‘save a life’? Do we take their home and relocate them to a smaller home…so that their money can instead go to ‘safe a life’? and which life?

Those questions are the reason why some level of organization, public or private, could be beneficial. Again, I don’t have all the answers. Or any answers, really.

If we decide that all assistance to the poor must be entirely voluntary, then we must find a way to convince people to give, or to facilitate voluntary giving. We must find a partial solution that doesn’t involve forced redistribution of wealth.

It is not a solution at all. It will only make things worse. The more you try to take away what someone has earned, the more they will want to hold on to it.

If I accept this as fact, it only means I need to find something else that acts more like a long-term solution. I haven’t seen anything so far. Zoltan seems to think we should cut all social programs and let people fend for themselves entirely, regardless of ability. I haven’t heard any alternatives. I would support an alternative that centered around private charities, I just can’t support doing nothing.

I agree. However, apparently there is some disagreement about what kind of help to give, and to whom. And what happens to the person whose money was taken? What about their burdens?

I think the general idea is to tax people who don’t have as many financial burdens. But since I don’t really have enough economics knowledge to argue in favor of any level of involuntary redistribution of wealth, I’ll think about alternatives for now.

What kind of help should be offered is a good place to start. What kind of assistance do you suggest offering, and who should it be offered to?

That is absolute nonsense and the fact that you can talk about it and not face consequences is proof. Some people without such protection aren’t that lucky. If you think it’s forced, go to another country where a military doesn’t protect your rights. Then watch your opinion change.

I think there’s been a misunderstanding. I support paying the military. I think they’re extremely valuable. I don’t think I’ll ever have much of a say in whether or how much they get paid, and I don’t think I should. Just because I know I don’t have a say doesn’t mean I don’t support their getting paid.

I think your opinion will depend on what you end up doing for a living, and how hard you fought to get there. It always does.

Probably. I’m trying to become a microbiologist, but there’s always a chance I’ll fail. I’ll get back to you in twenty years and tell you how things worked out.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I don’t understand why Christians wouldn’t be OK with supporting people who literally do not have enough food to eat. I understand that they have earned their money. I understand that they have burdens. But the idea of refusing to help someone who has so little doesn’t make sense to me.

Over time I have come to know that a good many Christians are Christians because they seek the rewards of heaven and fear the punishments of hell, and that is all. Such people have a profound lack of understanding of what it is they seek. If the promises of rewards and threats of retribution were taken away, they would at least be honest about who they really are and what they really want. They profess this thing and that, but this is a charade being played because they have been taught that they have a disease that only this church or that has a cure for (sin).

But the sin is in the sauce, because heaven and hell are the same place. The difference being which one we unlock within ourselves. The Kingdom of God is within. So is hell. There is no salvation in ritual, dogma and observances. Such things are empty without the light within, and this light is only obfuscated when we conceptualize and idealize God rather than seeing God face to face. And each of us has seen God face to face, but few know God when they see God. Jesus said so clearly. And this is how it comes to be that people worry over what is theirs vs what they pay for the common good. These people will say “when did I see you hungry?”

Thanks,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I don’t understand why Christians wouldn’t be OK with supporting people who literally do not have enough food to eat. I understand that they have earned their money. I understand that they have burdens. But the idea of refusing to help someone who has so little doesn’t make sense to me.

I don’t understand why Christians wouldn’t be OK with supporting people who literally do not have enough food to eat. I understand that they have earned their money. I understand that they have burdens. But the idea of refusing to help someone who has so little doesn’t make sense to me.

Over time I have come to think that a good many Christians are Christians because they seek the rewards of heaven and fear the punishments of hell, and that is all. Such people have a profound lack of understanding of what it is they seek. If the promises of rewards and threats of retribution were taken away, they would at least be honest about who they really are and what they really want. They profess this thing and that, but this is a charade being played because they have been taught that they have a disease that only this church or that has a cure for (sin).

But the sin is in the sauce, because heaven and hell are the same place. The difference being which one we unlock within ourselves. The Kingdom of God is within. So is hell. There is no salvation in ritual, dogma and observances. Such things are empty without the light within, and this light is only obfuscated when we conceptualize and idealize God rather than seeing God face to face. And each of us has seen God face to face, but few know God when they see God. Jesus said so clearly. And this is how it comes to be that people worry over what is theirs vs what they pay for the common good. These people will say “when did I see you hungry?” Well, the vine is not something separate from the branches. They are all one thing, expressed in countless bifurcations.

youtube.com/watch?v=mMRrCYPxD0I

Thanks,
Gary

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Sure, unless holding it back is unreasonable. The specific instance the Catechism gives is saving a life- you can make use of others’ property to do that, since it’s unreasonable to hold someone back from what they need to live. Whether taking money in a given case constitutes the sin of theft would seem to depend on whether the original owner is being reasonable in holding it back.

The Catechism is talking about individual Catholics not government.

If a man refused to help a starving child, I would gladly hold him down while you picked his pockets. Then we could both take the kid to McDonald’s for a decent meal.

What you don’t seem to grasp is that our government** is not authorized, empowered or established to provide charity.
**

I mean, I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what taxes are- forcibly taking money from some people and giving it to others. The government gives out all of the money it takes in, and more. It generally gives it out in exchange for services, but it’s still not a totally voluntary transaction. If you think that’s wrong, I don’t see how that’s different from saying that the government cant’s tax at all, and obviously it can.

Our government is authorized to tax in order to provide services necessary to promote the common good. That mean rich and poor alike. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor does not benefit the rich…so that is unfair and not authorized by law. (theft)

When the government uses our taxes to support a military that provides security for ALL…that is what a government is for. It is authorized.

Building and maintaining roads & bridges…benefits ALL.

Local governments provide police and fire protection…for ALL

When the government provides services or money. only to certain, individuals, groups, corporations or industries…that does not benefit ALL…and thus becomes theft.

The catechism even says:

“2436 It is unjust not to pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.”

And we all know that Social Security currently involves taking money from some people and giving it to other people.

We don’t ALL know that about social security. The truth is that social security is broke. Has been broke for awhile. What is taken from us in the form of social security payments…goes right into the general fund and is spent on whatever. Social security payouts are BORROWED from the general fund (which is actually empty…deficit spending)
It is a Ponzi scheme that is on it way to a train wreck…but this is a different subject.

I don’t see why James Madison’s opinion should be legally binding. We’re also not officially authorized by the constitution to have a standing military- but we have one, because we believe that security is important. I doubt that the FDA or CDC are spoken of, either, but nobody wants to get rid of them, because they’re important.

True, James Madison’s opinion is not legally binding. Since he was one of the men who actually wrote the Constitution it is very scholarly to consider his writings to gain the true spirit of the document.

OK, so is it impossible to make the rich pay normal taxes? Are we not capable of closing some of the loopholes so they pay the same percentage as their secretaries?

The rich do pay normal taxes…lots of taxes.

Sure we can close loopholes. All we have to do is re-write the U.S. Tax Code. I’m all for that.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I’d probably go for something more sustainable by paying for people’s immediate needs and also getting them some kind of better education (trade school?) or finding a way to connect them with better jobs. But that would obviously cost a lot more.

Actually it wouldn’t cost a cent…if they were encouraged to HELP THEMSELVES.

Good Lord, Kamaduck, do you know how many people who are capable of supporting themselves and their families remain in “poverty” because they can collect more $$$ and benefits from the government by not working???

Do the math. Weed out those who are really in need. You will find that those (the REAL needy) are so few, they could be supported very nicely by their local parishes.

 

[GEddie]

go to another country where a military doesn’t protect your rights. Then watch your opinion change.

That’s exaggeration pure and simple.

Although I am a peacenik, I am proud that the good old USA has the the most pants-kicking military on the planet. It takes a lot of effort, and a lot of taxes, to make that happen.

I just think equally that we need a leadership that doesn’t use it so much.

Still, powerful militaries are not the universal guarantor of “rights.” Nations attacking and subsuming weaker nations doesn’t really happen that often. And tyrants can emerge from the ranks of an armed force as easily as from anyplace else.

ICXC NIKA.