Raise taxes (Archbishop Flynn)

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Now we’re able to move forward with this discussion. Having agreed that, in theory at least, it IS possible to raise taxes, the qestion becomes when it is warranted. For that we’d have to examine a specific situation. The very beginning of this thread dealt with MN, but neither you nor I live there, so neither of us are really qualified to pronounce judgement on that case.

So those supporting a tax increase in Minnesota are morally bound to produce evidence showing what has been done to reduce waste and corruption.

If they can’t do that, they have no standing to shove their hands into other peoples’ pockets.
Philip P:

There are two directions I can see taking this in now. One would be to go into the idea of “your own money.” How much of the money and wealth one posses does one truly “own,” how much does on owe society, where does the concept of stewardship fall in, etc.

The first concept of stewardship is to realize that in the end, society is composed of individuals, each of them with a full set of human rights – including the right to property.

The second concept is to accept that a proper steward is a servant, not a master.

The third concept is to recognize that a faithful steward manages public money wisely and efficiently.
Philip P:

The other is to ask what we expect from our government. I think the second route is probably the best one to go with. Actually, it may not even be possible to answer the first without first looking at the second. So let’s do that next - what do we expect from our government?

In a nutshell;
“To establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.”

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

So those supporting a tax increase in Minnesota are morally bound to produce evidence showing what has been done to reduce waste and corruption.

And I would certainly welcome any progressive Minnesotans putting forward their arguments. I don’t live in MN, so it’s not my fight. Conversely, anti-tax non-MN are also not in a position to make a definitive argument on MN tax policy. Let’s move on.
vern humphrey:

The first concept of stewardship is to realize that in the end, society is composed of individuals, each of them with a full set of human rights – including the right to property.

Sure, but property rights aren’t absolute. In fact, no right is absolute. To determine where we draw the line, we first must answer the question of what kind of society we want, and what we expect from government. Let’s see if we can focus on that first.
vern humphrey:

In a nutshell;
“To establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.”

The preamble’s a good place to start, but it’s pretty broad. Though you and I have different ideal models of government, both of us can use these principles to justify ourselves. Let’s try to get a bit more specific. Go ahead an pick one and expand on your understanding of it and let’s go from there.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

And I would certainly welcome any progressive Minnesotans putting forward their arguments. I don’t live in MN, so it’s not my fight. Conversely, anti-tax non-MN are also not in a position to make a definitive argument on MN tax policy. Let’s move on…

Citizens are not in a position to speak on matters that concern their state!?!?
Philip P:

Sure, but property rights aren’t absolute. In fact, no right is absolute. To determine where we draw the line, we first must answer the question of what kind of society we want, and what we expect from government. Let’s see if we can focus on that first…

The right to life is not absolute? Freedom of religion is not absolute?

Are you saying that the government, not God, grants us our basic human rights?
Philip P:

The preamble’s a good place to start, but it’s pretty broad. Though you and I have different ideal models of government, both of us can use these principles to justify ourselves. Let’s try to get a bit more specific. Go ahead an pick one and expand on your understanding of it and let’s go from there.

Let’s take “The blessings of liberty.” We can examine the Founder’s concept by looking at the Bill of Rights. Add the XIV Amendment.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

Citizens are not in a position to speak on matters that concern their state!?!?

Don’t you live in Arkansas? How does MN tax policy affect Arkansas?
vern humphrey:

The right to life is not absolute? Freedom of religion is not absolute?

Are you saying that the government, not God, grants us our basic human rights?

No, these rights are not absolute. Else how could we have prisons? Or how could the state execute anyone? I personally am opposed to the death penalty, but along the same lines at the Vatican - the state still retains the authority to use capital punishment, but in most modern societies, it is unnecessary and causes more harm than good.

As far as basic human rights, I personally favor a more expansive interpretation of them, hence my philosophical support for concepts such as international law and my support for practical measures such as not denying non-citizens emergency medical treatment. Nonetheless, rule of law necessitates defining and interpreting rights. When Christ returns, there will be no need for government. Until then, rights are mediated by law.
vern humphrey:

Let’s take “The blessings of liberty.” We can examine the Founder’s concept by looking at the Bill of Rights. Add the XIV Amendment.

Sure, we can start here. Do you have any specific direction you’d like to take this or shall I start?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Don’t you live in Arkansas? How does MN tax policy affect Arkansas?

How does a murder in Kansas affect people in Oklahoma?

That which is done against any of us affects all of us.
Philip P:

No, these rights are not absolute. Else how could we have prisons? Or how could the state execute anyone? I personally am opposed to the death penalty, but along the same lines at the Vatican - the state still retains the authority to use capital punishment, but in most modern societies, it is unnecessary and causes more harm than good.

The right to self-defense is inherent in the right to life. The execution of a dangerous, duly-convicted heinous criminal is an act of collective self-defense. As such, it affirms, not denies the absolute right to life.
Philip P:

As far as basic human rights, I personally favor a more expansive interpretation of them, hence my philosophical support for concepts such as international law and my support for practical measures such as not denying non-citizens emergency medical treatment. Nonetheless, rule of law necessitates defining and interpreting rights. When Christ returns, there will be no need for government. Until then, rights are mediated by law…

An interesting position – and one often used to “prove” there are no rights, only priviliges.
Philip P:

Sure, we can start here. Do you have any specific direction you’d like to take this or shall I start?

To date, you haven’t offered any ideas in this debate – so why don’t you lead off for a change?

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

How does a murder in Kansas affect people in Oklahoma?

That which is done against any of us affects all of us.

Tax policy is equal to murder? A bit hyperbolic there.

Unless you’re claiming deep, extensive knowledge of Minnesota’s economic, governmental, and social conditions, I don’t see how you can possibly claim to know what’s best for them. Would it be right for me to tell you what’s best for Arkansas? Aren’t you overreaching in claiming to know what’s best for Minnesota? Let’s move on.
vern humphrey:

The right to self-defense is inherent in the right to life. The execution of a dangerous, duly-convicted heinous criminal is an act of collective self-defense. As such, it affirms, not denies the absolute right to life.

Don’t entirely buy that line of reasoning, but in any case, the executed prisoner’s life has been ended. Obviously his or her right to life was not absolute. Similarly, someone who is not executed, but incarcerated, has had limits placed on his or her right to liberty. Frankly I’m surprised at you. Absolute rights are generally the rallying cry of the far left. Just reinforces the lesson that all ideologies eventually meet at their extremes (I don’t think you’re an extreme rightist, which is why I’m surprised).
vern humphrey:

To date, you haven’t offered any ideas in this debate – so why don’t you lead off for a change?

Well the 14th amendment, among other things, enforced the Bill of Rights among state governments (Doctrine of Incorporation). That of course opened the door to a whole host of things, including the whole issue of “activist” judges (both on the left and right, positively and negatively, depending on the specific issue and your take on it), since federal courts now became empowered to enforce the guarantee of due process.

Since this is mainly a tax/economics thread, let’s try and stick with that. Among other legislative acts which justify themselves on the 14th amendment is the minimum wage laws. Increasingly, many progressives have taken to talking of a “living” wage. Perhaps this is a good place to start. What’s your position on minimum wage/living wage?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Tax policy is equal to murder? A bit hyperbolic there.

What part of “That which is done against any of us affects all of us” did you not understand?
Philip P:

Unless you’re claiming deep, extensive knowledge of Minnesota’s economic, governmental, and social conditions, I don’t see how you can possibly claim to know what’s best for them. Would it be right for me to tell you what’s best for Arkansas? Aren’t you overreaching in claiming to know what’s best for Minnesota?

Is Minnesota an island on another planet? Are there different laws of economics there?

And more importantly, are not the Bishops supporting higher taxes? Without producing the justification we agreed on, that is, showing all reasonable efforts have been made to eliminate waste and corruption?

And am I not a Catholic?
Philip P:

Don’t entirely buy that line of reasoning, but in any case, the executed prisoner’s life has been ended. Obviously his or her right to life was not absolute.

The self-defense of society affirms the right to life, it does not infringe on it.
Philip P:

Similarly, someone who is not executed, but incarcerated, has had limits placed on his or her right to liberty.

Which is also a collective act of self-defense.
Philip P:

Frankly I’m surprised at you. Absolute rights are generally the rallying cry of the far left. Just reinforces the lesson that all ideologies eventually meet at their extremes (I don’t think you’re an extreme rightist, which is why I’m surprised).

Now you charge me with the greatest crime a liberal can accuse a conservative of – "Failure to live up to stereotype."http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Philip P:

Well the 14th amendment, among other things, enforced the Bill of Rights among state governments (Doctrine of Incorporation). That of course opened the door to a whole host of things, including the whole issue of “activist” judges (both on the left and right, positively and negatively, depending on the specific issue and your take on it), since federal courts now became empowered to enforce the guarantee of due process.

The XIV Amendment did not open the door to judicial activism – judicial actibvists did, and Congress failed to rein them in.
Philip P:

Since this is mainly a tax/economics thread, let’s try and stick with that. Among other legislative acts which justify themselves on the 14th amendment is the minimum wage laws. Increasingly, many progressives have taken to talking of a “living” wage. Perhaps this is a good place to start. What’s your position on minimum wage/living wage?

Now THERE is nonsense!

If the XIV Amendment justifies minimum wages, why not say it justifies EVERY American having the SAME wage, regardless of skills, education, or responsibilities?

Low-paying jobs are needed to give those at the bottom of the economic ladder a place to put their foot. If you price them out of the market, there will be less opportunity for such people.

As for a “living wage” – most persons on minimum wage are still living with their parents.

And each person has a responsibility for his own family – if you cannot afford a family, you should work for promotion and get a better job before marrying and having children.

 

[Philip_P]

So you’ve gone an examined the situation in Minnesota to determine whether or not “all reasonable efforts have been made to eliminate waste and corruption” have been made, and now you can pronounce, definitively, what the tax policy for that state should be? You’re really overreaching here.

The self-defense of society affirms the right to life, it does not infringe on it.

Beind dead does not infringe on your right to life?

If the XIV Amendment justifies minimum wages, why not say it justifies EVERY American having the SAME wage, regardless of skills, education, or responsibilities?

Some clarification. The XIV amendment has played a large part in discussions over the minimum wage. Until 1937, I believe, it was actually often used as an argument against it. Since then, the ruling has been that the minimum wage does not violate the 14th amendment. Hence there is nothing unconstitutional about the minimum wage. Apologies for the imprecision in my original post.

I take it, though, that you accept the minimum wage/living wage as an acceptable topic to focus on now?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

So you’ve gone an examined the situation in Minnesota to determine whether or not “all reasonable efforts have been made to eliminate waste and corruption” have been made, and now you can pronounce, definitively, what the tax policy for that state should be? You’re really overreaching here.

In fact I have. No one has offered any assurances that measures to reduce waste and corruption have been taken.

Now, you are the one arguing in the affirmative. The ball is in your court. List the measures taken.
Philip P:

Beind dead does not infringe on your right to life?.

If it did, everyone who was ever born would still be alive, now wouldn’t they?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

There is no duty to die. We have a right to self-defense, as a part of the right to life. We may exercise that right when faced with great danger.
Philip P:

Some clarification. The XIV amendment has played a large part in discussions over the minimum wage. Until 1937, I believe, it was actually often used as an argument against it. Since then, the ruling has been that the minimum wage does not violate the 14th amendment. Hence there is nothing unconstitutional about the minimum wage. Apologies for the imprecision in my original post.

Lawyers can argue that the sky is purple and the sun rises in the West – and that doesn’t make it so. There is no “right” to a minimum wage – and if there were, how could it NOT be a “right” that everyone, regardless of skill, education, or level of responsibility make the SAME wage?
Philip P:

I take it, though, that you accept the minimum wage/living wage as an acceptable topic to focus on now?

I think it’s been disposed of – it’s neither a right, nor sound economics.

 

[Philip_P]

That’s a fairly odd conception of an absolute right that doesn’t see the active curtailment of it as a limit on it. In some political theories (i.e. Locke’s social contract theory), the limiting of rights is the very definition of a government - individuals agree to give up certain rights and claims in exchange for a greater collective good.

As far as Minnesota, my position on it has been, and remains, that the people of Minnesota know better than someone in New York or Arkansas what kind of tax policy they wish to enact. If they want to tax themselves at 100% or 0%, I may have an opinion on it, but I’m certainly not going to claim that it’s anything more than an opinion. You’ve stated your opinon, and I’m not entirely sure why you insist on pretending that it’s anything more than that.

So on to the minimum wage. I gave you a chance to choose the direction of the thread, and you asked me to take the lead, so I’m choosing. There seem to be at least three relevant questions here, each of which follows from the other. One, does a worker have a right to a JUST wage? Two, can the market on its own ENSURE that a worker receives a just wage. Three, if not, what steps can and should be taken to ensure a just wage? Since these three build on each other, let’s take them consecutively. Start with the first one you take issue with, and explain.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

That’s a fairly odd conception of an absolute right that doesn’t see the active curtailment of it as a limit on it…

It’s an odd concept of the right to life that denies a right to self-defense.
Philip P:

In some political theories (i.e. Locke’s social contract theory), the limiting of rights is the very definition of a government - individuals agree to give up certain rights and claims in exchange for a greater collective good…

Locke was not one of the Founding Fathers. While they did not express a philosophy in the Constitution, most modern scholars see our form of government as fiduciary, not contractual.
Philip P:

As far as Minnesota, my position on it has been, and remains, that the people of Minnesota know better than someone in New York or Arkansas what kind of tax policy they wish to enact. If they want to tax themselves at 100% or 0%, I may have an opinion on it, but I’m certainly not going to claim that it’s anything more than an opinion. You’ve stated your opinon, and I’m not entirely sure why you insist on pretending that it’s anything more than that…

I don’t see how the people of Minnesota have been consulted at all – and to decry their unwillingness to increase taxes is pure sophistry.
Philip P:

So on to the minimum wage. I gave you a chance to choose the direction of the thread, and you asked me to take the lead, so I’m choosing. There seem to be at least three relevant questions here, each of which follows from the other. One, does a worker have a right to a JUST wage?

A thing is justly worth what a willing buyer will offer and a willing seller accept. Government price controls, for goods or services are unjust.
Philip P:

Two, can the market on its own ENSURE that a worker receives a just wage.

The market ensures that both buyer and seller, employer and employee reach a voluntary agreement.
Philip P:

Three, if not, what steps can and should be taken to ensure a just wage?.

Letting the government objure the use of force to interfere in transactions between buyer and seller, and between employer and employee.

The idea that we can command employers to pay more for labor than it is worth inflicts injustice on everyone. It is unjust to the employer because it amounts to an unfair seizure of his assets. It is unfair to the employee because it limits job opportunities and causes pay compression. And it is unfair to the consumer because it artificially inflates prices.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

It’s an odd concept of the right to life that denies a right to self-defense.

Yes, which is why I don’t undersand why you’re arguing for it. Absolute right means it cannot be limited or qualified, not for self-defense, not for anything. That’s what absolute means. Remember, I’m the one who said that right’s aren’t absolute and can be legitimately limited, you’re the one who says rights are absolute. For your next semantic trick, I assume you’ll protest that it all depends on what the definition of “is” is?

As far as your position on wages, I’d like to see you reconciile the following statements:

JPII:

The Pope [Leo XIII] immediately adds *another right *which the worker has as a person. This is the right to a “just wage”, which cannot be left to the “free consent of the parties, so that the employer, having paid what was agreed upon, has done his part and seemingly is not called upon to do anything beyond”.

JPII:

Furthermore, society and the State must ensure wage levels adequate for the maintenance of the worker and his family, including a certain amount for savings.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages

Vern Humphrey:

A thing is justly worth what a willing buyer will offer and a willing seller accept. Government price controls, for goods or services are unjust.

The market ensures that both buyer and seller, employer and employee reach a voluntary agreement.

Letting the government objure the use of force to interfere in transactions between buyer and seller, and between employer and employee.

The idea that we can command employers to pay more for labor than it is worth inflicts injustice on everyone. It is unjust to the employer because it amounts to an unfair seizure of his assets. It is unfair to the employee because it limits job opportunities and causes pay compression. And it is unfair to the consumer because it artificially inflates prices.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Yes, which is why I don’t undersand why you’re arguing for it. Absolute right means it cannot be limited or qualified, not for self-defense, not for anything. That’s what absolute means. Remember, I’m the one who said that right’s aren’t absolute and can be legitimately limited, you’re the one who says rights are absolute. For your next semantic trick, I assume you’ll protest that it all depends on what the definition of “is” is?:

You’re not making sense – one fundamental right cannot infringe on another. Just because you don’t accept the right of self defense as part and parcel of the right to life doesn’t make it so.
Philip P:

As far as your position on wages, I’d like to see you reconciile the following statements:

It’s simple – the Church is no more the ultimate arbiter of economics than it was the ultimate arbiter of astronomy in Galilieo’s day.

Things that LOOK good on paper often turn out badly in practice. When you limit the number of entry level jobs, create pay compression, and increase prices on the consumer (including on the people who are getting minimum wage) you create a bad economic situation.

 

[Jabronie]

I think it goes against our faith to demand the government take more money from us. The money the KGB… I mean IRS… steals is usually wasted, often misused, and sometimes used to suppress Christianity in general, especially in the cases of public parks, and schools, courts, etc…

I think this bishop is making a huge error in judgement by proclaiming that the government steal more of our money. He should be demanding the government let us keep more of our income and he and other bishops could advice us on which charities would make best use of it or need it the most.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Philip_P]

Who ever said rights weren’t fundamental? I said they weren’t absolute. Go look up absolute in a dictionary.
vern humphrey:

It’s simple – the Church is no more the ultimate arbiter of economics than it was the ultimate arbiter of astronomy in Galilieo’s day.

Things that LOOK good on paper often turn out badly in practice. When you limit the number of entry level jobs, create pay compression, and increase prices on the consumer (including on the people who are getting minimum wage) you create a bad economic situation.

Let the record show that Vern did not even attempt to reconcile his statement to the the statements in C.A and the CCC. Like to try again?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Who ever said rights weren’t fundamental? I said they weren’t absolute. Go look up absolute in a dictionary.

Fundamental rights must be absolute, or else they are not rights at all, only priviliges. The right to life is both fundamental and absolute. When you deny that, you open Pandora’s Box – and leave it open for abortions, euthanasia and similar crimes.

Further, the right to self-defense MUST be part of the right to life – else you have a duty to die at the hands of an unjust attacker. And if you have a duty to die, there is no right to life at all.

Hence the right to self defense validates the right to life as an absolute right, and any other position vitiates not only the right to life, but the whole concept of human rights (for if there is no right to life, there are no rights at all.)
Philip P:

Let the record show that Vern did not even attempt to reconcile his statement to the the statements in C.A and the CCC. Like to try again?

Let the record show that Vern saw this for a clumsy attempt at begging the question. While the bishops may mean well, their lack of understanding of economics results in consequences diametrically opposed to their actual intentions – of helping the poor.

A good anology would be the prohibition of “usury” in the late Middle Ages/early Modern Era. By defining usury as charging interest for loans, international credit was badly crippled in those nations where the ban applied. Southern European nations, which flowered first (the Italian Renassance, the Spanish and Portuguese discoveries and colonies) fell behind northern Europe because of the lack of a viable system of credit.

 

[Philip_P]

Vern, as much as I’d like to help you out and change the definition of “absolute,” I can’t. If something is absolute, it can’t be limited. That’s just what the word means, sorry if it doesn’t fit into your worldview.

As far as your refusal to address the Catechism and Encyclical statements, there’s really no way this discussion can move forward until you do. You can’t have a discussion without a minimally-agreed upon framework. If the catechism and papal statements can’t provide that framework, I’m not sure what can.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Vern, as much as I’d like to help you out and change the definition of “absolute,” I can’t. If something is absolute, it can’t be limited. That’s just what the word means, sorry if it doesn’t fit into your worldview…

As much as I’d like to help you understand that the right to self defense doesn’t detract from the absolute nature of the righrt to life, it seems you don’t want to be helped.
Philip P:

As far as your refusal to address the Catechism and Encyclical statements, there’s really no way this discussion can move forward until you do. You can’t have a discussion without a minimally-agreed upon framework. If the catechism and papal statements can’t provide that framework, I’m not sure what can.

I have already addressed it – pointing out that while the bishops may well have good intentions, their methodology is economically unsound and has an effect exactly opposite of their intentions.

 

[Philip_P]

Well we’re at an impasse. You’ve rejected the dictionary as a legitimate reference for defining words. You’ve rejected Church teachings as having a legitimate bearing on economics. In short, your position is one where meaning and truth are subjective, defined according to your own terms rather than by any objective means. Further discussion at this point is literally impossible, as we apparently do not even share a common language.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Well we’re at an impasse. You’ve rejected the dictionary as a legitimate reference for defining words.

No, you haven’t found the definition of the right phrase – which is "right to life.

Those who think all wisdom is found in dictionaries are called reificationists.
Philip P:
You’ve rejected Church teachings as having a legitimate bearing on economics.

And you claim the Church says it is infallible in ECONOMICS?
Philip P:
In short, your position is one where meaning and truth are subjective, defined according to your own terms rather than by any objective means.

No, that’s YOUR position. You start from an ideologically-derived point, and dredge up everything you can find to support it, rather than looking at reality and arriving at a conclusion.
Philip P:
Further discussion at this point is literally impossible, as we apparently do not even share a common language.

Be sure you pick up all your marbles – I think one rolled under the dumpster over there.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif