I believe I said that* I* don’t feel coerced. But in general, others have already provided information from Rerum Novarum and I’m loath to ignore its teachings. It’s unfortunate that you view sharing your wealth with the poor as theft, no matter who or what is orchestrating it.
An obvious twist to my words. And it is highly dubious, given the State’s track record as to who will receive the benefit of my goods. We fully know our obligations and there’s only One who can judge the generosity of our hearts and it is to Him that we are beholden. The robber barons should not take away our right to be voluntarily and globally charitable.
The Church however has never defined taxation as theft.
You have no idea how much this person shares his personal wealth with the poor without the interference of a bloated bureaucratic government which keeps 90% of what it collects for the poor.
Being taxed is NOT sharing ones wealth with the poor. Period. The Government is incapable of being charitable. Paying taxes is not an act of charity.
No one here is denying to give to Caesar what is rightfully his…however, those much smarter than I have said that spending, not taxation is the true measure of the burden of government…how moral do you think government deficit spending is? And a quick google might shock your senses as to the waste and how much really helps the poor.
I am not saying that government redistribution programs are prudent. Take for example, our two biggest welfare programs, medicare and social security. They support many people who are both able bodied and can work, but choose not to. These same people often have assets that they can use to pay their own way rather than being a burden on society. On the other hand, these programs are not immoral by Church teaching.
What if I didn’t save up for my retirement because I knew I would get Social Security? I can live on SS, because I will have paid off my house.
Then you weren’t very prudent, because SS was always set up to be a welfare program, nobody has an enduring right to it. I would suggest you do what people did for centuries before SS.
Do you really imagine that some office drone in your state capital or in Washington DC has more insight into the needs of your community than you do or cares more?
Yes, there will always be those who take more than they are entitled to, but the government does have an obligation to help those who are truly destitute. But as estesbob succintly said, **“the Government is incapable of being charitable.” ** They care nothing about following social justice teaching and even though we might give aid to an internat’l charity which touts bread for the hungry, there is no guarantee that money will not be spent on abortion resources and contraception. And do you think I want a portion of my taxes going to PP? Therefore, in true conservative fashion I wish for less spending and less taxation so that I am free to give more to those I know need my help and I can reasonably be assured I am not funding evil contrary to my faith. Do I not have that right?
You have the right to be against any government program you wish. What you do not have the right to do is claim that the government program is theft just because you don’t like it. The Church has never taught that taxation and government programs are theft.
How is it a twisting of your words? And didn’t you just reinforce my interpretation by also using the words “robber barons”?
I’m not trying to paint you in an unflattering light. I’m trying to stick closely to your use of language.Of course I don’t know how much others share their personal wealth. Nor would I ever even hint that I do. I’m not sure why you’re noting this?
As I’ve said multiple times now, I don’t believe that the state should be distributing wealth to those in need as a sole means of responding to the needy. But it’s naive to think that part of my taxes don’t support the needy. It’s not necessary for you to consider something WIC charitable but it accomplishes the same practical end. Though this doesn’t mean that when my taxes support WIC my moral obligation to help those less fortunate is met.
Cares more: no. Has more insight: without a doubt.
The same insight that results in a national debt of $18 trillion? DC can’t balance a check book. Why would you assume they are smarter or more insightful than anyone else?
I’ve given my answer many, many times now: we have limited, isolated perspectives and do not see all of those in need within our communities (let alone the international community). I didn’t claim that my governmental representatives are smarter than I am. I claimed – and still claim – that my limited vantage point doesn’t permit me to see all of those who need assistance.
Households have about $14 trillion in debt, businesses have about $22 trillion in debt. I am not sure we can really claim that households and businesses have any particular wisdom when it comes to finances, since there are plenty of bankruptcies to go around.
Since you support both Social Security and Medicare, how do you reconcile your support of those programs with this part of the catechism?
You can play CCC quote just like you can play Bible quote.