Pope demands 'legitimate redistribution' of wealth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ignats75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think part of the problem here is that people fail to realize that all government spending is by its nature redistributive (unless it is funded by user fees), even those things that most people agree on. For example, few people would argue that the government shouldn’t pay for elementary education (they might argue about how it is spent or whether we should have vouchers), but education spending from taxes is going to be redistributive. If we limit government to legitimate aspects of redistribution that would be a big improvement. For example, Medicare part D was a redistribution and for any recipient who owned their own home or had money in the bank it was clearly illegitimate. Similarly, government policies such as occupational licensing laws which serve to keep out competition are a form of redistribution which is also illegitimate.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
I think part of the problem here is that people fail to realize that all government spending is by its nature redistributive (unless it is funded by user fees), even those things that most people agree on. For example, few people would argue that the government shouldn’t pay for elementary education (they might argue about how it is spent or whether we should have vouchers), but education spending from taxes is going to be redistributive. If we limit government to legitimate aspects of redistribution that would be a big improvement. For example, Medicare part D was a redistribution and for any recipient who owned their own home or had money in the bank it was clearly illegitimate. Similarly, government policies such as occupational licensing laws which serve to keep out competition are a form of redistribution which is also illegitimate.
Click to expand...
Basically, most people feel it is okay when they are on the receiving end, not okay when they are on the giving end.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Similarly, government policies such as occupational licensing laws which serve to keep out competition are a form of redistribution which is also illegitimate.
Click to expand...
How are occupational licensing laws illegitimate? Correct me if I am wrong but what I am thinking of what they are:

Electricians
Plumbers
Contractors
Certain professions in the medical field

Nobody would want to hire an electrician who can’t do the job. Isn’t the purpose of licensing laws to ensure that those in such fields are competently trained?
 
saintjohnxxiii said:
How are occupational licensing laws illegitimate? Correct me if I am wrong but what I am thinking of what they are:

Electricians
Plumbers
Contractors
Certain professions in the medical field

Nobody would want to hire an electrician who can’t do the job. Isn’t the purpose of licensing laws to ensure that those in such fields are competently trained?
Click to expand...
The purported purpose is “protecting the consumer”, it reality it is mostly about keeping out competition. Therefore, occupational licensing laws go way beyond competence. In the case of electricians, I have a friend who knows about 90% of what he would need to know to become an electrician and he could easily learn the other 10%, but the electricians union controls the licensing in our state and it is virtually impossible for someone who works full time at another job to become licensed.

books.cat-v.org/economics/capitalism-and-freedom/chapter_09
 
sallybutler said:
Basically, most people feel it is okay when they are on the receiving end, not okay when they are on the giving end.
Click to expand...
I know an able bodied person who receives social security who believes that she would get more money from SS if the government didn’t waste so much money.
 
pnewton said:
I see a problem. You are saying in correlation there is causation. Everything good that has happened is because unrestrained capitalism, not scientific advancement, or the boom of natural resources in geographical isolation. It is capitalism.
Click to expand...
Because capitalism was largely responsible for those scientific advancements, and the more efficient utilization of said resources. With capitalism, the entrepreneur had both the motive and the ability to harness said resources and to fund said advancements. Not everything good that has happened has been because of capitalism, but the greatest material advancements that the human race has ever enjoyed have been because of capitalism. It is not that said advancements correlated with the rise in capitalism, it is the fact said advancements can be empirically proven, to have largely come as a direct result from capitalism.

Obviously the greatest good that ever occurred, and in many the ways the only truly important good was because of Christ. And I recognize the Church’s position and role in spreading the good news and in saving billions. However, I also think it is important to recognize that the Church is not suited for some things, and economic policy is largely going to be one of those things. By it’s very nature, the Church cannot help but be ill-suited for determining economic policies, because it is not a material institution, but an inherently spiritual one.

The Church has a role in encouraging good, Christ-like behavior from individuals and governments within the economic policies chosen by the people. It also has a role in condemning some economic policies as inherently flawed and/or evil. Any man-made system which is imposed upon the people without their consent and does not allow for private ownership is inherently flawed and evil. Capitalism is inherently flawed, but in no way evil. It is inherently flawed only insofar as people are inherently flawed. If every person acted like Christ at all times, then capitalism would be a perfectly fine system.
If we are going to give all credit to capitalism, are we also going to give it blame for all the bad, like the rise of selfishness, Americanism, modernism? Is having more stuff a good trade off for Hell, or to quote another liberal, “What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world, but he loses his soul.”
Click to expand...
I think this is a legitimate point. I think the “rise in selfishness” is non-existent (are we to assume that the warlords of the past were any less selfish than the capitalist of today?), but modernism and modern-secularism do find some of their roots in capitalism. However, I generally see this more as a result of humanity’s inherent failings than as a result of capitalism. Capitalism simply gave humans the opportunity to create more wealth and comforts. If said wealth and comforts were then used as an excuse to ignore God, then it is not the fault of the wealth, but of the person who ignores God. Is money evil? No. The creation of money cannot, therefore, be evil. Only the person can be evil. The good capitalist is better than the evil minimalist.
 
saintjohnxxiii said:
How are occupational licensing laws illegitimate? Correct me if I am wrong but what I am thinking of what they are:

Electricians
Plumbers
Contractors
Certain professions in the medical field

Nobody would want to hire an electrician who can’t do the job. Isn’t the purpose of licensing laws to ensure that those in such fields are competently trained?
Click to expand...
I posted in a different thread that in New York city it costs over $700,000 to get a taxi license. Clearly some of these licenses are merely set up to protect the big guys at the expense of the little guy. I would agree with you on medical licenses though, and certain other licenses.

Ishii
 
Ignats75 said:
hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_REL_VATICAN_UN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-05-09-06-31-28

Pope JP II called Liberation Theology a heresy. Now, Pope Francis is getting dangerously close to endorsing this position. This is the first time I am truly troubled by what Pope Francis has said.😦
Click to expand...
It is always a big red flag when what the pope “said” is reported, but they do not provide a quote to provide context.

It is highly likely they are reporting on what they want him to have said more then they are what was actually stated.

I would hold out for the transcript before making any type of judgement on this.
 
ishii said:
I posted in a different thread that in New York city it costs over $700,000 to get a taxi license. Clearly some of these licenses are merely set up to protect the big guys at the expense of the little guy. I would agree with you on medical licenses though, and certain other licenses.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Your post is reason # 17,479,084,280,700 why people shouldn’t have voted for Obama. Clearly having to pay $700,000 to get a license is insane and definitely does not help the working man. While this requirement didn’t start under his watch, he did absolutely nothing to stop it.
 
saintjohnxxiii said:
Your post is reason # 17,479,084,280,700 why people shouldn’t have voted for Obama. Clearly having to pay $700,000 to get a license is insane and definitely does not help the working man. While this requirement didn’t start under his watch, he did absolutely nothing to stop it.
Click to expand...
Except that the New York taxicab medallion predates Obama by at least 50 years.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
I know it will probably never happen but I wish the Catholic Church would say the amount of tax that would be unacceptable–is it 50%–60%–70%–just how much?

I think that the Catholic Church advocates an economic system that is somewhere between unfettered capitalism and socialism.

It is just my opinion but I think that the state should never take more than 1/2 of a person’s wealth in taxes–I believe that above 50% that constitutes theft!

Would 50% be a good limit on taxes provided that there were no loop holes and no way to get out of paying up to that much if one were very wealthy?

I can see taxing up to 50%–i just think that anyone should always be able to keep a majority of their money. Is that radical?
Click to expand...
It’s not what the Catholic Church advocates per se. Anyone from Argentina, Italy, or Russia or China for that matter, will see their economic and political systems differently from the way an American sees the U.S. system. The currency exchanges say so. Now it is true the American currency is the default system but that is always subject to change. Point is, however, what others see as unbridled capitalism isn’t necessarily what Ayn Rand, von Mises, et al had in mind. Or socialism, for that matter.
 
The Pope tells the UN that the money in the West should be re-distributed. Doesn’t say to whom or how much, for how long or what the ideal outcome should look like.

What does it mean to “re-distribute” and how is that different from distribution?
 
pnewton said:
Socialism will only become acceptable if it is no longer socialism as historically defined. Let’s face it. Language changes. “Socialist” in particular has become an insult for people and programs which are nothing like socialism. The Church has a firm doctrine of the right to private ownership of goods. This will not change. Ever. Socialism, as defined so far in history, will never be acceptable.

Likewise, any form of laissez-faire capitalism which denies the doctrine of universal destination of goods will also be unacceptable.

None of this is what the Pope is talking about though. Everyone should read the message and ignore the press.
Click to expand...
Socialism is not only bad as historically defined,but even in theory. The idea that the goverment should have control over businesses and have the responsibility of providing for everybody’s personal needs is wrong. It is contrary to natural law and the principle of subsidiary. As Pope Pius 11 said,the socialist concept of society is utterly foreign to Christian truth.

tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/socialism/what-the-popes-really-say-about-socialism.html
 
anthony022071 said:
Socialism is not only bad as historically defined,but even in theory. The idea that the goverment should have control over businesses and have the responsibility of providing for everybody’s personal needs is wrong. It is contrary to natural law and the principle of subsidiary. As Pope Pius 11 said,the socialist concept of society is utterly foreign to Christian truth.

tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/socialism/what-the-popes-really-say-about-socialism.html
Click to expand...
This is what confuses me about Pope Francis’ comments. He seems to be going against he Catholic principle of subsidiarity. I have no doubt that his experience in Argentina has colored his overall outlook. Overall I find that Catholic clergy - Jesuits in particular - have a very skewed concept of how an economy works. And also the US bishops.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
This is what confuses me about Pope Francis’ comments. He seems to be going against he Catholic principle of subsidiarity. I have no doubt that his experience in Argentina has colored his overall outlook. Overall I find that Catholic clergy - Jesuits in particular - have a very skewed concept of how an economy works. And also the US bishops.

Ishii
Click to expand...
I agree. It’s like being ‘blinded by the light’.

However, if the Pope meant: The Legitimate Distribution of Resources, instead of what we’re hearing, then that would change everything.

…Because “re-distribution” means to take back and distribute again. Not good. :(. To make it worse, the Holy Father also says: by the “State”… 🤷
 
StopDropandBowl said:
It is not that said advancements correlated with the rise in capitalism, it is the fact said advancements can be empirically proven, to have largely come as a direct result from capitalism.
Click to expand...
All I can say is that I cannot agree with the way you used the words “fact” and “proven”. There were multiple factors in the industrial revolution, just like there was in the period called the Renaissance. Capitalism was a major factor, though I do not agree that unrestrained Capitalism was needed or helpful, as you initially stated. This form of capitalism, that without any restraints, has been condemned by the Church as socialism for its denial of the doctrine of universal destination of all goods.

Without doubt though, I think it hard to argue that capitalism is a powerful tool for economic development and one of the most proven ways of advancing humanity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top