Raise taxes (Archbishop Flynn)

[Catholic2003]

otm:

that confuses the issue behind taxes, which is the proper treatment of private property. We must follow the Church’s teaching on our duties to the poor. Where the discussion gets difficult is in the specifics, which Catholics in good faith may disagree with.

If the magisterium has taught only in general guidelines, then Catholics in good faith may disagree on the specifics. However, if the magisterium has proclaimed specific teaching on an issue, then Catholics can no longer disagree and remain in good faith.

For another example, the Church has long had general teaching on the sanctity of human life, the immorality of conception, the importance of not separating the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital union. In 1987, however, the Church undertook a very detailed study of the various methods currently being used to medically treat infertility, and issued specific teachings on the morality and immorality of each. Because of this specific teaching, it is no longer possible for Catholics, in good faith, to disagree on these issues.

 

[Jeremy]

You seem to be assuming a “mental model” of our bishops as complete idiots

I am not assuming our bishops are complete idiots. I am simply carrying the concept of “binding teaching in temporal matters” to its logical extreme.

 

[Catholic2003]

Jeremy:

I am not assuming our bishops are complete idiots. I am simply carrying the concept of “binding teaching in temporal matters” to its logical extreme.

I phrased that very poorly. I apologize for the offensive nature of my remark, which I can now see clearly in the light of day. (I was just scrambling to make too many post too late in the night. Again, I’m sorry.)

I should have said something like: Almost any concept can be made to seem ridiculous when taken to the logical extreme. (For example, I know a few Protestants who do this to attempt to disprove papal infallibility.) However, this does not mean that the concept is incorrect or invalid.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

katherine2:

ByzCath:

Please give one case where raising taxes have cured poverty.

With Social Security (which Bush is trying his best to destroy), the percentage of elderlly persons living in poverty has plummeted, from 4 times the general poverty rate to slightly under the general poverty rate.

Doesn’t change the fact that poverty is still present.

Also President Bush is not trying to destroy Social Security, he is trying to save it for my generation. I know its there for you but the way things are going it won’t be there for me.

Most economists agree that raising taxes actually hurt the poor more than it helps.

How many economists claiming the contrary would you like me to list? I have names. Let me know.

Funny thing about economics, I can supply you with a list of names just as long as yours that agree with me.

The government is very wastful in its management. I would bet that a majority of the money spend by government on the poor is spend on its bureaucracy than it does on the poor.

You would lose that bet. Some government programs can beat even some of the best of private charities.

Then provide the statics that show more than 50% of the money collected by taxes is actually given to the poor. You can’t. I doubt the government even breaks down how much of the money actually gets into the hands of the poor.

 

[Jeremy]

That’s okay 2003, no offense taken.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This was posted to a new thread in this topic but I really thought it applies here.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

1894 In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.

By reading this I think that the state raising taxes to redistribute it to the poor is wrong. Individuals should support the poor and give to charitable non-profits who support/help the poor.

 

[katherine2]

ByzCath:

Doesn’t change the fact that poverty is still present.

But it has saved millions upon million from poverty where the private market could not.

Funny thing about economics, I can supply you with a list of names just as long as yours that agree with me.

I’m glad we now agree. Your earlier post suggested their is a consensus among economists in support of your position. I’m glad you acknowledge that such is not the case and that no consensus exists.

Then provide the statics that show more than 50% of the money collected by taxes is actually given to the poor. You can’t. I doubt the government even breaks down how much of the money actually gets into the hands of the poor.

Your first claim was not 50% of tax revenue by 50% of money spent on programs for the poor. Yes, President Bush in his budget submission does break it down by program between administration and direct payments. Looking it up is laborious, but for you David, I’m willing to help you out. I’ll list below some of the principal federal programs that relieve poverty. You pick out two or three or four and I’ll go get the data from Mr. Bush’s budget.

Food Stamps
TANF
Social Security
SSI
LIHEAP
Section 8 Vouchers
Medicaid
Medicare
Unemployment Insurance
Dislocated Worker ReTraining

 

[otm]

Catholic2003:

If the magisterium has taught only in general guidelines, then Catholics in good faith may disagree on the specifics. However, if the magisterium has proclaimed specific teaching on an issue, then Catholics can no longer disagree and remain in good faith.

that is correct in os far as it applies to faith and morals. The faith an morals issue is that we have a moral duty to support the poor and the marginalized. Your example of birth control doesn’t apply, as all birth control is immoral, and has been so since the beginning fo the Church.

You are confusing a specific moral teaching with the practical application in economics. The Chruch is not infallible when it teaches that, on a specific tax issue, the bishops say that we must pay more taxes. We do have a moral duty to support the poor, and if we are not going to pay more taxes, then we have a moral duty to support them by some other means - increasing donative moneys, cutting other programs so the poor are not harmed more than their current position, creating job programs so the poor who can work have an opportunity in times of high unemployment, providing daycare to mothers so they can go to work (they suffer from the high costs of daycare - when you make less working because of daycare costs than staying at home on welfare, you stay home), working to make sure that there are just laws concerning child support and it is well inforced; the list goes on.

Where conservatives often fail in the tax issue is that they do not come up with programs to replace the revenue needed to take care of the poor.

Where liberals fail is in the creation of programs for the poor which create more problems than they solve. A prime example was the payments to women and children; it required that no husband be present. It is creditred with part of the breakdown in the family structure among the poor.

Oregon has a tax on the sale of a business. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Washington doesn’t have the tax. Guess what? People move to Washington when they go to sell the business. Higher taxes have the same effect elsewhere.

When the economy is down, there are fewer tax revenues. and governements do the same thing that all to many individuals and families do: when they have less, they spend less. They also do the same thing as too many families and indifviduals do when things are good and revenues higher; instead of saving for the bad times, they spend more. Then the bad times roll around again, and everyone ends up in the tank.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

This whole discussion can be boiled down to one thought: principle vs. prudential judgment.

There seems to be a cohort on this board that supports the USCCB and other subsets of the magesterium when they make pronouncements involving prudential judgement–such as what’s an approproiate tax rate. There’s another cohort that supports the Church when she makes pronouncements involving principle–such as abortion is intrinsically evil and should be outlawed. Last I checked, being poor was not intrinsically evil.

Please–we are not bound by prudential judgements of the bishops which are opinions. Furthermore, the USCCB has a bad track record in these matters. The best example was their vehement opposition to welfare reform. All of their predictions about the effects were completely wrong.

For the record, I have a graduate degree in finance (not economics, I know, but I took my share of economics classes). A lot of the high-minded intellectual gobbleygook can be boiled down to one basic principle–you tax a behavior and you get less of it; you subsidize a behavior and you get more of it. Even those who don’t know a whit of economics ought to be able to understand that and apply it to their opinions on tax policy and welfare programs.

 

[Catholic2003]

otm:

that is correct in os far as it applies to faith and morals.

This is a good “sound bite” for understanding the Catholic magisterium, but the official and precise rule for whether a teaching falls within the realm of the magisterium is given by canon 747 §2 (CCC 2032), which I quoted in post #20. It’s clear to me that the Minnesota bishops’ statement falls within this realm. This fact is also very clear to the bishops themselves, as can be seen from the opening paragraph of their statement:

As pastors, we share serious concerns about the human consequences of our state’s economic policies and budgetary priorities. As religious teachers, we share a duty to speak out on the moral dimensions of public policies proposed or adopted by our elected officials. As bishops, who are the successors of the apostles of Jesus Christ, we have a serious responsibility to emphasize the values of the Gospel, hoping that the Catholic faithful will integrate them into their lives and put them into practice in their daily activities.

otm:

You are confusing a specific moral teaching with the practical application in economics.

Not me, but the Minnesota bishops. If I were to accept what many posters on this thread are saying, then I would have to conclude that the bishops know less about economics than your average high school graduate (provided, of course, that the graduate is a Republican), and that the bishops are so incompetent they can’t even tell what is and isn’t a matter of morals.

I’m sorry, I didn’t convert from being a Protestant just so that I could ignore the magisterium whenever their teaching disagreed with my politics.

otm:

The Chruch is not infallible when it teaches that, on a specific tax issue, the bishops say that we must pay more taxes.

No one is discussing “infallibility” here. The Minnesota bishops cannot teach infallibly on anything. However, they can teach authoritatively within the realm of canon 747 §2. The obligation of the faithful to accept this teaching is given by:

Canon 753 Whether they teach individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils, Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College, while not infallible in their teaching, are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ’s faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic magisterium of their Bishops.

 

[Catholic2003]

StJeanneDArc:

Please–we are not bound by prudential judgements of the bishops which are opinions.

We are not bound by the mere opinions of bishops, whether those opinions relate to abstract moral principles or concrete prudential judgments. We are bound by the authentic teaching of our bishops, whether that teaching relates to abstract moral principles or concrete prudential judgments, so long as that teaching falls within the realm of the magisterium as defined by canon 747.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Canon 753 Whether they teach individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils, Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College, while not infallible in their teaching, are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ’s faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic magisterium of their Bishops.

Are you arguing that tax rates are an article of faith?

 

[Catholic2003]

StJeanneDArc:

Are you arguing that tax rates are an article of faith?

No, I’m arguing that the Minnesota bishops’ statement covers a matter of morals within the scope defined by canon 747 §2.

Are you arguing that because canon 753 doesn’t explicitly use the word “morals”, that Catholics are free to ignore their bishops on moral matters?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Catholic2003:

No, I’m arguing that the Minnesota bishops’ statement covers a matter of morals within the scope defined by canon 747 §2.

Are you arguing that because canon 753 doesn’t explicitly use the word “morals”, that Catholics are free to ignore their bishops on moral matters?

I do not think that is the case as the tax rate is not a matter of morals.

 

[Catholic2003]

ByzCath:

I do not think that is the case as the tax rate is not a matter of morals.

Well, the Minnesota bishops thought that they were teaching on the “moral dimensions” of a proposed public policy. I guess they are just too dumb to know any better.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Catholic2003:

Well, the Minnesota bishops thought that they were teaching on the “moral dimensions” of a proposed public policy. I guess they are just too dumb to know any better.

They were following an invalid economic model, and basing their teaching on an invalid assumption (that somehow increased taxes will help the poor.)

That’s why I question the state of Catholic schools in Minnesota – by closing, instead of expanding Catholic schools, the bishops are doing exactly what they say the government is doing, cutting programs for the poor.

 

[katherine2]

vern humphrey:

They were following an invalid economic model, and basing their teaching on an invalid assumption (that somehow increased taxes will help the poor.)

That’s why I question the state of Catholic schools in Minnesota – by closing, instead of expanding Catholic schools, the bishops are doing exactly what they say the government is doing, cutting programs for the poor.

Obviously, both the state and the church need more resources. Yet private greed runs rampent. CEOs making big bucks, throwing lavish parties in Sardina, ripping off the public, etc.

 

[vern_humphrey]

katherine2:

Obviously, both the state and the church need more resources. Yet private greed runs rampent. CEOs making big bucks, throwing lavish parties in Sardina, ripping off the public, etc.

While union officials plunder the pension funds and put out contracts on their rivals.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[HagiaSophia]

vern humphrey:

They were following an invalid economic model, and basing their teaching on an invalid assumption (that somehow increased taxes will help the poor.)

That’s why I question the state of Catholic schools in Minnesota – by closing, instead of expanding Catholic schools, the bishops are doing exactly what they say the government is doing, cutting programs for the poor.

“The Remedy for poverty is not in the material resources of the truth, but in the moral resources of the poor. These, which are lulled and deadened by money-gifts, can be raised and strengthened only by personal influence, sympathy, charity. Money gifts save the poor man who gets them, but give longer life to pauperism in the country.”
Lord Acton

 

[JakeW]

katherine2:

Obviously, both the state and the church need more resources. Yet private greed runs rampent. CEOs making big bucks, throwing lavish parties in Sardina, ripping off the public, etc.

Throwing parties, living lavishly, ripping off the public?? Sounds like the UN…