Raise taxes (Archbishop Flynn)

[katherine2]

vern humphrey:

No, dear. You have consistently pushed a statist position and claimed the Bishops support it.

I sit at my desk at home and write letters to my congressman based on the position papers I get from the Catholic Bishop’s Conference. That’s what I support. If we misunderstood each other and are really in agreement, that is wonderful. Do I have your permission to co-sign your name to my letters?

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

katherine2:

And my understanding is that Tennessee does not fund abortions. So I think you are not corrrect. Anyway, if you are saying that paying federal taxes means you are funding abortion, then you are saying President Bush is a liar. Which is it?

According to one of the abortion mills we go to pray the Rosary,they are considered a charitable organization much to the dismay of the neighbors who are trying to move them out of their neighborhood and abrtion is considered "health care"Tenncare pays for.Tenncare is paid for by our tax money in Tennessee.No I did not accuse Bush of lying.Maybe he needs to work on the state funding of abortions as well.

 

[theMutant]

Although it doesn’t really impact my basic position for reasons I have already outlined, in the interest of honesty, fairness, and accuracy, I must admit that my memory of articles relating disagreements among the American hierarchy was not as accurate as I thought. In reviewing these articles, I found that they related to liturgical and other pastoral matters and not to issues of social justice. I also came across a reference for a book that is now on my must buy list; “A Flock of Shepherds” by Fr. Reese. Apparently, according to Fr, Reese, out of 121 statements from the bishop’s conference, only 19 have not been unanimous. Since the article regarding this book did not mention the topics of the 19 statements, I must concede, Katherine, that my previous statements regarding American bishops disagreeing on social justice matters in the last 60 years are likely wrong.

Peace!

 

[vern_humphrey]

katherine2:

I sit at my desk at home and write letters to my congressman based on the position papers I get from the Catholic Bishop’s Conference. That’s what I support. If we misunderstood each other and are really in agreement, that is wonderful. Do I have your permission to co-sign your name to my letters?

Nothing you say here proves your sweeping statement that for a hundred years the Bishops have supported all the social legislation in the United States.

And I co-sign your name to the letters I send my congressman, so why not? http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[vern_humphrey]

katherine2:

I sit at my desk at home and write letters to my congressman based on the position papers I get from the Catholic Bishop’s Conference. That’s what I support. If we misunderstood each other and are really in agreement, that is wonderful. Do I have your permission to co-sign your name to my letters?

 

[Brad]

katherine2:

Now here is an excellent example of the importance of small words. I’ve never claimed any one was bound under pain of sin to concur with the Minnesota bishops. Nor, do I recall as anyone else here. Therefore, I think it is silly to pretend anyone is asking for such. But Brad makes a small switch in the words used previously. Now is is “we are completely free”.

Actually, I don’t think we are “completely free”. I do think we, as faithful Catholics, are obligated to prayerfully reflect on such episcopal statements, take them seriously and give them every benefit of the doubt and respond respectfully.

This goes to a post somewhere here that I am not impressed with the type of of Catholic who thinks the Church is limited to two types of statements: 1) infallible that must be obeyed, 2) hot air.

However, as to if my previous psot was to the point, I think it was to Mutant’s point. While Brad agrues that we are free to tell the bishops to flake off, Mutant seems to suggest that the Church is affirmative teaching free market principles. I was responding to Mutant.

Let me re-phrase. After prayerful reflection and serious consideration on such episcopal statements, we are completely free to disagree. I take every episcopal statement seriously. This is why I am heartbroken when it seems that the socialism-oriented agenda of some Bishops takes precedence over their pastoral care for the souls of their flock. I come to this conclusion after much prayer and scripture reflection.

In no way did I say the statments were “hot air”. Hot air would imply they have no significance and I won’t even pay attention to them. My detailed analysis proves otherwise. Whereas I disagree, I never called the statements hot air. I do agree that they are not infalllible statements.

It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that the discussion between yourself and Mutant comes down to whether we have to agree with these social justice recommendations and, in particular, the methods of implementing the virtue of justice to your fellow man/woman. You have been insisting that the Bishops are correct because you cannot find any Church leader rebuking the teaching. Thereby you are implying that those that disagree with these Bishops are opposing the teaching of the Church.

I’m simply saying that this implication is not true. We are completely free(after prayer and reflection) to disagree and not be opposing the Church. This is in contrast to Papal Magisterium documents regarding abortion which state that we, as Catholics, must oppose the legalization of abortion. There are no Papal Magisterium documents that say that we, as Catholics, must support tax increases. In fact, most of these documents strongly hint otherwise.

 

[clayrains]

"With Social Security …] the percentage of elderlly persons living in poverty has plummeted, from 4 times the general poverty rate to slightly under the general poverty rate."

This is a commonly cited statistic in favor of Social Security that may very well put the STATIST in STATISTic.

Although I’ve heard differing figures as to how better off senior citizens are now as opposed to pre social security, all of these figures can be very misleading. The problem is that this statistic cited above does not take into account any of the dynamics of the pre and post Social Security eras. That is to say that things may look better on paper than they in reality are.

I’ll explain and show you some examples of why you can’t always take statistics at face value…

Prior to Social Security, The United States was still an agricultural society. Many people owned farms that, when they retired, were transferred to the next generation. The father may still live on that farm, and possibly in that same house. He may even still help out from time to time after he hands it over to his son, but regardlessly, the father hands over ownership of that farm and all the equipment, livestock, etc. to his son. The father may now, on paper,* appear* to have little assets upon retirement because official ownership is now in his son’s name. That does not mean the father’s lot in life has changed at all.

In fact, that generation was probably in all actuality much better off than they are in our present-day society. Usually the son would build the parents a new house on the land and the children took care of their parents for the rest of their lives. If the parents need food, the children are there to provide it.If the parents need work done on their house, the sons or grandsons would come over and do it.These senior citizens always had someone to drive them to town. The grandkids were always around to do chores for their grandparents. If grandmother fell on the ice and broke her hip, the daughter in law would be there to look after her during the day and take care of her. These senior citizens may look poor to an accountant because may not have had a check coming every so often, but they had all they needed.

That was not only the case with farm families. My grandfather and a couple of my great uncles, before there was social security, would have their grandfather come to live with them temporarily. This was the practice with many families that may not have all been farmers. The father or grandfather would go and stay with a different child or grandchild every few months. Even if the son had to be at work a great deal of the time, the wife was usually home and could take care of the relative during the day. The son could then do whatever he needed for his parents when he got home. After a period of time, the father would go stay with another son or grandson, thus no one son was burdened with having to care for the parent the rest of his life.

Compare that with today. Families lose their farms to “inheritance taxes.” Now the kids have nothing and have to get a job they hate in town. Both of them have to work endless hours. They’re too busy paying their own tax burden to take care of their own children and don’t EVEN have time to take care of Ma and Pa now. So they throw them in a home to be tended by strangers, just as they do their kids, to be subjected to God only knows what kind of mental or physical abuse. The parents now are told when to get up, when to go to bed, what to eat and rarely see their families. They constantly have to worry about whether their medicaid or social security will pay for their 3000 dollar-a-month nursing home care and precription drugs. It’s a sad life but, hey… they have a check coming in every month and are officially out of poverty!

As a result, I’d have to agree with many in this thread. Taxes are a moral issue.

 

[Philip_P]

clayrains:

In fact, that generation was probably in all actuality much better off than they are in our present-day society.

In light of that, does it really make sense to be cutting the very programs that provide some security in our changed world?

I mean, you’re not seriously arguing that social security caused the shift from an agricultural to an urban/suburban population, are you?

Social benefits programs arose as a response to industrialization, not a cause of it.

 

[liberal_friend]

You not make the mistake of thinking you can actually keep the money you earn:

to the liberal, your money belongs to the state: give it to me!!! It’s my precious; it came to me; it is …my own…my precious

 

[liberal_friend]

Do not make the mistake of thinking you can actually keep the money you earn:

to the liberal, your money belongs to the state: give it to me!!! It’s my precious; it came to me; it is …my own…my precious

 

[JW10631]

Orrin Hatch’s comment that the Catholic Bishops of the United States is the “Democratic Party at prayer” seems pretty accurate.

HMO legislation to protect the “poor”?
Raise the minimum wage?
Pay more taxes?

For WHAT???

BS!

The Federal Government takes more than enough money - from everyone. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme that if operated in the private sector would result in the prison terms for those who concoted it. Partial privatization gets demagogued. My dad paid into Social Security all his working life. He died at 57. My mother is prohibited from collecting a dime of survivor’s benefit because she worked (in part to pay taxes when I and my bothers were growing up!) as a nurse for a county hospital in the state of Ohio and collects a pension from Ohio’s Public Employee Retirement Service. I pay as much in Medicare and Social Security as I pay in FIT and I can’t touch it until I turn 67. Fifty one years of paying into those frauds and there will not likely be a dime left when I retire.

If Harry Flynn would have said that to me I would have slapped him in the mouth.

Flynn embraces failed economic policies. Lower income taxes create incentive, grow the economy and provide more work for those looking for it. The best anti-poverty program is a job.

The USCCB should

1. Stop acting like a mouthpiece of the Democrat Party.
2. Promote and encourage orthodox Catholicism in all its dioceses.
3. Speak out against hte culture of Death and publicly confront abortionist politicians.
4. Get a decent translation of the Liturgy and permit the Latin Mass in all dioceses.

Do this, church attendance will increase, along with Sunday collections and the Church can then operate its own charities instead of making stupid comments like saying that federal income taxes should go up.

 

[Philip_P]

So, um, whatever happened to the concept of stewardship? I hear a lot of people on this thread (and these forums) claiming about MY money and MY resources, as if we ourselves, through our own merits, create wealth, money, and resources. If this were a secular libertarian forum, maybe I’d understand, but I thought Christians believed that everything was a gift from God, and that we had a charge to use these gifts responsibly for the benefit of all His church?

Less talk of the ownership society. More talk of the stewardship society.

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

Raise taxes?

Just say, “NO!”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

So, um, whatever happened to the concept of stewardship? I hear a lot of people on this thread (and these forums) claiming about MY money and MY resources, as if we ourselves, through our own merits, create wealth, money, and resources. If this were a secular libertarian forum, maybe I’d understand, but I thought Christians believed that everything was a gift from God, and that we had a charge to use these gifts responsibly for the benefit of all His church?

Less talk of the ownership society. More talk of the stewardship society.

If you don’t believe you should be able to decide how your own money is spent, feel free to post your credit card number here. The rest of us will be sure most of your money goes to worthy causes. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[vern_humphrey]

Here’s an interesting example of what happens to your money when you lose control of it.

A great deal has been made that it will cost a trillion dollars to transition Social Security to Personal Retirement Accounts. Where is this money to come from?

I found it –
Social Security Funds In Millions
Year Paid In Paid Out Surplus

1998 $489,204 $382,255 $106,950

1999 $526,582 $392,908 $133,673

2000 $568,433 $415,121 $153,312

2001 $602,003 $438,916 $163,088

2002 $627,085 $461,653 $165,432

2003 $631,886 $479,086 $152,799

2004 $657,718 $501,643 $156,075

Total $1,031,329

The table is from the Social Security Administration website. Between 1998 and 2004, the cumulative Social Security surpluses amounted to over one trillion dollars – ripped off and squandered by the government!

If we had started transitioning to PRAs in the second Clinton Administration, and managed NOT to steal the Social Security surplus, the transition would have been complete and paid for last year.

 

[JW10631]

Philip P:

So, um, whatever happened to the concept of stewardship? I hear a lot of people on this thread (and these forums) claiming about MY money and MY resources, as if we ourselves, through our own merits, create wealth, money, and resources. If this were a secular libertarian forum, maybe I’d understand, but I thought Christians believed that everything was a gift from God, and that we had a charge to use these gifts responsibly for the benefit of all His church?

Less talk of the ownership society. More talk of the stewardship society.

Phillip - how about more talk of the charitiable society and less talk of the bloated big government society?

Politicans squander taxpayer money to buy votes. Poor people can best be helped by charity, not permanent government entitlements.

 

[Philip_P]

Vern,

How much do you think we should be paying in taxes? Currently taxes are at historic lows. You can’t get something for nothing; how much is your country worth to you?

Jw: anti-tax zealots would have a lot more credibility if they were to put forward concrete proposals to fix concrete issues, rather than simpy whine about “bloated government.” As I would hope every American does, I want my government to work well, and I think it is important to reform or replace programs that aren’t working, but also to EXPAND and SUSTAIN those that are. Anti-taxers often come across as simply being upset that they have to pay taxes. Well, I don’t like tithing, or paying rent, or paying money to go to the movies, but that’s life, there’s no such thing as a free ride.

You know what’s “buying votes?” Unnceccessary tax cuts on those who can most afford to pay their taxes. Instead, how about expanding programs such as the NYC Urban Homesteading program, that helps lower and middle income folks OWN their homes ratther than rely on rent subsidies? Or how about funding SMALLER classrooms, which do a better job educating, so more people can get decent-paying jobs and not need to fall back on public assistance? Where are your solutions?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Vern,

How much do you think we should be paying in taxes? Currently taxes are at historic lows.

By no means – prior to 1916, the income tax was only temporary – for most of our history to that point, there had been no income tax at all.

It has been pointed out that prior to WWI, virtually no nation had an income tax above 10%. Afterwards, no nation had less than 10%
Philip P:

You can’t get something for nothing; how much is your country worth to you?

Every drop of my blood - - which explains why I have two Purple Hearts.

The price of liberty, however, is eternal vigilance – not crushing taxation. I see people eking out an existance on Social Security – and then look at the table I posted here, showing how the government stole and squandered over a trillion dollars from Social Security in a mere 7 years.

You can take the FICA tax, overlay it on a sub-standard mutual fund, and for any period (after the first 10 years of Social Security) show how a person with a PRA would have more from that PRA than from Social Security – for the same amount of money.
Philip P:

Jw: anti-tax zealots would have a lot more credibility if they were to put forward concrete proposals to fix concrete issues, rather than simpy whine about “bloated government.” As I would hope every American does, I want my government to work well, and I think it is important to reform or replace programs that aren’t working, but also to EXPAND and SUSTAIN those that are. Anti-taxers often come across as simply being upset that they have to pay taxes. Well, I don’t like tithing, or paying rent, or paying money to go to the movies, but that’s life, there’s no such thing as a free ride.

They don’t come across that way – you and others ACCUSE them of being that way.
Philip P:

You know what’s “buying votes?” Unnceccessary tax cuts on those who can most afford to pay their taxes. Instead, how about expanding programs such as the NYC Urban Homesteading program, that helps lower and middle income folks OWN their homes ratther than rely on rent subsidies? Or how about funding SMALLER classrooms, which do a better job educating, so more people can get decent-paying jobs and not need to fall back on public assistance? Where are your solutions?

You keep holding out government programs as the solution – when we often find they are the problem. Why do we need the Urban Homesteading program? Because government held down rents, increased taxes, and people simply abandoned their property.

Smaller classrooms do very little for education. If you want education to improve, hold schools accountable for results – but true accountability is unacceptable to the Teachers’ Unions.

 

[Philip_P]

Vern:

Every drop of my blood - - which explains why I have two Purple Hearts.

You have always come across as an honorable man, even when I do disagree with your arguments. This only reinforces that.

Serving in the military is important, but not all are called to military service. However, all are called to serve. In a democracy, a nation is only as strong as the dedication of its citizens. Again, I find the model of stewardship, rather than the secular concept of ownership, much more informative. Time, talent, and yes, treasure as well. The money that I or anyone else earns, we earn only because there exists a nation to sustain it. It is right to give back to sustain what I have received so much from. Paying taxes is not a necessary evil, it’s a patriotic duty (though the level of taxation is certainly something reasonable people can disagree with).

Vern:

The price of liberty, however, is eternal vigilance – not crushing taxation.

What constitutes “crushing” taxation? Let’s make an extreme example. Suppose person A makes $20,000 a year and is taxed at 10%, while person B makes $1,000,000 a year and is taxed at 90%. Person A pays $2000 in taxes, leaving him with $18,000 for the year. That may very well be crushing taxation. Person B is left with $100,000.00 for the year. Crushing taxation? Maybe, but $100,000 free and clear isn’t chump change. The point is, it’s a matter of opinion as to what constitutes “crushing” taxation. In fact, this is the wrong question, leading to my next point…

Vern:

prior to 1916, the income tax was only temporary – for most of our history to that point, there had been no income tax at all.

Apples to oranges, Vern. America in the 17th, 18th, and early 19th century was a very different than after WWI. For one thing it was far more rural. Our military commitments were smaller, simpler, and less sustained. It was a different society. And that’s what this is really about. It makes no sense to argue about what the “right” tax is, because the correct tax level is that which allows us to afford the society we want. The real question is, what kind of society do we want? Then the follow up question is what steps and policies are necessary to achieve that? Then, we ask how do we finance it? Personally, I have no desire to return to the Gilded Age. I think a vibrant and growing middle class is key to our nation’s health (not that they’re directly correlated, but taxes have tended to be higher when the middle class was growing). Even today, I think a society like downstate NY (including the city, but also the suburbs) is preferable to most of, say, Alabama, where taxes are much lower.

I see democratic government as the expression of the people. If it has become more involved over the last century as society has changed, I see that as a positive.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Paying taxes is not a necessary evil, it’s a patriotic duty (though the level of taxation is certainly something reasonable people can disagree with).

An equally patriotic duty is the careful and prudent management of the people’s money.

Taking a trillion dollars from Social Security in a mere seven years is not careful and prudent management. Building an artificial rainforest “for educational purposes” when many children leave school unable to read and write is not careful and prudent management.
Philip P:

What constitutes “crushing” taxation?

Taxation which alters economic decisions is crushing. When people break up holdings, fail to capitalize on returns, and seek to funnel money and effort into tax avoidance you have crushing taxation.

Examples include the excise tax on yachts over $100,000. This law was passed during the Carter Administration. Hey, anyone who can afford $100,000 for a yacht OUGHT to pay more taxes, right?

What happened is the American yacht industry collapsed, and people who had been productive citizens working in that industry lost their jobs.

Arkansas, with a lot of trucking companies decided to raise the fees to license trucks. Hey, big trucking companies can afford to pay more, right?

What happened was the trucking companies registered their trucks in other states and Arkansas lost revenue.
Philip P:

Let’s make an extreme example. Suppose person A makes $20,000 a year and is taxed at 10%, while person B makes $1,000,000 a year and is taxed at 90%. Person A pays $2000 in taxes, leaving him with $18,000 for the year. That may very well be crushing taxation. Person B is left with $100,000.00 for the year. Crushing taxation?

You bet it is – because Person B says, “The hell with it,” moves his business off-shore, and Person A, who works for him, loses his job.
Philip P:
Apples to oranges, Vern. America in the 17th, 18th, and early 19th century was a very different than after WWI. For one thing it was far more rural. Our military commitments were smaller, simpler, and less sustained. It was a different society.

The REAL apples to oranges is this, Philip – in the pre-WWI era, the United States became a creditor nation. Other nations owed us more than we owed them.

Now we are a debtor nation – we owe others more than they owe us.
Philip P:

And that’s what this is really about. It makes no sense to argue about what the “right” tax is, because the correct tax level is that which allows us to afford the society we want. The real question is, what kind of society do we want? Then the follow up question is what steps and policies are necessary to achieve that? Then, we ask how do we finance it? Personally, I have no desire to return to the Gilded Age. I think a vibrant and growing middle class is key to our nation’s health (not that they’re directly correlated, but taxes have tended to be higher when the middle class was growing)…

Taxes tended to be higher, and the middle class paid them – and it wasn’t taxes that created the middle class.

But it is taxes that move businesses offshore, cause other businesses to outsource, and create pockets of poverty throughout this nation.
Philip P:

Even today, I think a society like downstate NY (including the city, but also the suburbs) is preferable to most of, say, Alabama, where taxes are much lower.

And much of that is due to a historic tax break going to places like New York, at the expense of Alabama. In fact, one of the underlying causes of the Civil War was the high tariffs – which benefited the Northeast (making their manufactured goods easier to sell) and hurt states like Alabama, which had to pay the tariff or buy from the Northeast at higher pices.
Philip P:

I see democratic government as the expression of the people. If it has become more involved over the last century as society has changed, I see that as a positive.

I see democratic government as a system where politicians serve the people, manage the public funds with care and prudence, and work to help people maximize their potential, not stifle it with substandard schools, high taxes, and pork barrel projects.