J
joshrp
Guest
Read Populorum Progressio by Pope Paul VI. He says why the rich don’t want to pay taxes.
- Status
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Have you read up on the 1920 recession?
And how President Hoover made a mess of things.
washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/24/youre-not-reagan-youre-hoover/
D
davidmlamb
Guest
YEP! I never heard of a nrich person being taxed into poverty. The best way to solve these problems in my opinion is to pass the employee free choice act. If collective bargaining became federally mandated it would put an end to unjust wages and benefits. The rich pay so much taxes because they possess all the wealth. You can’t collect adaquite income to keep the government solvent from the poor working class. Imagine how many people would be able to get off food stampls and Medicaid if Walmart was required to have Unions represent their labor?
I would be all for cutting corporate taxes proportionate to the wages and benefits they pay their workers. There was a time in America where everyone paid taxes because the working class all worked for a union represented company. They kept those jobs for 30+ years and retired with a decent pension so they could live out their lives in peace and relative comfort. Those days are gone because the rich destroyed the working class by breaking up unions and paying low wages.
The next generation of retirees will be retiring on low social security incomes alone and will need welfare to supplent their income. So the real class envy is the rich against the working class and the poor and not visa versa. The Church teaches that a just wage is the legitmate fruits of work and to withold it is a grave evil that leads to all kinds of social ills. This includes the tax burden of the rich, who by the way remain rich.
Peace,
David
D
davidmlamb
Guest
Not sure what you’re saying here. My point was that people who retire well off with private pensions they earned while working should not collect a Social Security benefit or at least receive a very reduced benefit. Federal Employees should not have their wages and benefits cut because people who work in the private sector think its unfair. Instead, they should expect their employers to pay them just wages and benfits. Federal employees are serving their country and should be respected and not envied. However, the same principle applies that if a federal worker retires with a lucrative pension he/she should not be collecting a lucrative social security benefit. Social Security is supposed to be for the social “security” of retirees who are vulnerable to severe economic stress and duress. It should be a safety net.
Peace,
David
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
I know you read a lot and are a fast reader.
Are you a subscriber to FEE?
Their stuff is or was mostly for free.
I used to subscribe and their writing was very good. Then I got really busy at work and dropped away. Lately refound them.
Here is their on-line Web page magazine, The name of their magazine is The Freemen.
thefreemanonline.org/archive/issues/?issue=7&volume=61&Type=Issue&utm_source=The+Freeman&utm_campaign=7e9c002c31-Freeman_Jan2010_Issue&utm_medium=email
Anyway, you might want to check them out.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
FEE is a must read for libertarians annd Austrian school economics proponents.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
FEE is an amazing group … even before the word “libertarian” was even thought of!
[When WAS the word “libertarian” first thought of, anyway?]
A
annarizona53
Guest
So you say taht taxing the rich equally is punishing them?
Why do we have to punish the poor and middle class? The rich get rich off the backs of the working middle class and the poor. May God have mercy on your selfish sould.
Why do we have to punish the poor and middle class? The rich get rich off the backs of the working middle class and the poor. May God have mercy on your selfish sould.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
The rich get rich by creating businesses that employ the middle class and the poor. Socialism/communism only work in fairy tales and college economics classes.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Annarizona53,
Welcome to CAF!
I think you will find that CAF provides some stimulating dialogue - and there is a focus on Christ and His Chuch in much of what is discussed.
In my opinion, Scott gave a rather accurate and concise response to your post. But, before I respond to your post, I would appreciate you answering a couple of questions for me. Thanking you in advance, here goes:
**1.) In general terms, just what is the primary purpose of the US Income Tax as you understand it?
2.) If you had the necessary authority, would you change this primary purpose and if so, what would be the biggest change?
3.) If you think the US Income Tax has a secondary purpose, please identify it - again in general terms? And, like question #2, if there is a secondary purpose and you had the authority to make a change, what would that change be? And, finally,
4.) Which actual country today, in your opinion, has the best national taxing code or structure (this is a country that actually exists and actually could serve as a functioning model for the US to emulate based on your answers to the previous questions)?**
Looking forward to hearing from you.
God bless
Welcome to CAF!
I think you will find that CAF provides some stimulating dialogue - and there is a focus on Christ and His Chuch in much of what is discussed.
In my opinion, Scott gave a rather accurate and concise response to your post. But, before I respond to your post, I would appreciate you answering a couple of questions for me. Thanking you in advance, here goes:
**1.) In general terms, just what is the primary purpose of the US Income Tax as you understand it?
2.) If you had the necessary authority, would you change this primary purpose and if so, what would be the biggest change?
3.) If you think the US Income Tax has a secondary purpose, please identify it - again in general terms? And, like question #2, if there is a secondary purpose and you had the authority to make a change, what would that change be? And, finally,
4.) Which actual country today, in your opinion, has the best national taxing code or structure (this is a country that actually exists and actually could serve as a functioning model for the US to emulate based on your answers to the previous questions)?**
Looking forward to hearing from you.
God bless
A
annarizona53
Guest
Actually the job I have is with a non-profit organization that is not owned by the rich.
This country started with poor immigrants looking for a place to live and support their families. The rich do no provide jobs, you take them away.
The only way the rich get rich is by the workers producing the goods and services that they sell. The rich get rich off the workers, not by themselves.
It is a circle not a one way street. The rich and the people who work for them depend on each other.
What did Jesus say to the rich man?
The question started with why do the rich have to pay more taxes. Socialism has nothing to do with it. A priest once told me that pure capitalism is a sin.
This country started with poor immigrants looking for a place to live and support their families. The rich do no provide jobs, you take them away.
The only way the rich get rich is by the workers producing the goods and services that they sell. The rich get rich off the workers, not by themselves.
It is a circle not a one way street. The rich and the people who work for them depend on each other.
What did Jesus say to the rich man?
The question started with why do the rich have to pay more taxes. Socialism has nothing to do with it. A priest once told me that pure capitalism is a sin.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Capitalism cannot be a sin, it is simply an economic system. It would be like saying a hammer is a sin. I can use a hammer to build a house, or I can use it to bash somebodies brains in. How one’s uses the system/tool will determine their sinfulness.
W
Wardog
Guest
- Define what you mean by rich. How much money does a person have to earn to be considered rich for this discussion>
- Define what you think is the right percent of the rich peoples money (as defined in #1) that you consider their fair share: 10%, 50%, 90% ? Please pick a number.
- Once you define these two things, then tell me how much incremental money will be brought in by the govt. You get to assume that no one will move out of the country, even though it is a good bet that a lot of the wealth will move to more congenial countries like the Cayman Islands.
- Once you get all the tax money from the rich, and you still need more, will you re-define the rich down to expand your tax base?
D
davidmlamb
Guest
- Define what you mean by rich. How much money does a person have to earn to be considered rich for this discussion
- Define what you think is the right percent of the rich peoples money (as defined in #1)
that you consider their fair share: 10%, 50%, 90% ? Please pick a number.
400K-499K 43% tax bracket
500K-649K 45% tax bracket
650K-700K 47% tax bracket
701-1,000,000 49% tax bracket
- Once you define these two things, then tell me how much incremental money will be brought in by the govt. You get to assume that no one will move out of the country, even though it is a good bet that a lot of the wealth will move to more congenial countries like the Cayman Islands.
The US in cooperation with the UN are to draft international laws that wealthy people who leave their country in order to avoid paying taxes are to be taxed at least at the same level in the country they move into by international law.
- Once you get all the tax money from the rich, and you still need more, will you re-define the rich down to expand your tax base?
The rich have a duty to give back much more then those who are less fortunate. The Bible say’s too much is given much more will be required. Taxes are to support the common good. If the rich feel they are being oppressed by paying too much taxes then let them give all their wealth to needy causes and go work at Walmart or go into the religious life. That way they need not be oppressed with high taxes. ALL the wealth in the world belongs to God and we are only stewards of what God has entrusted us with. Thye government of the United States has been established by God and those who rebell against what God has instituted incur judgment (Romans 13:1-6; CCC 1897-1912). Hope this helps.
Peace,
David
J
JimG
Guest
Federal retirees receiving a federal pension from civil service work who are also eligible for social security benefits from non-civil service employment (and on which they paid social security taxes), do in fact receive a reduction in their social security benefits. It’s called the government pension offset.
D
davidmlamb
Guest
Then by your reasoning Communism cannot be a sin because it too is an economic system! Any economic system that oppresses a class of people while favoring another class is evil (CCC 2424-2425). Pure Capitalism (Laissez Faire system) is just as oppressive if not more so then Communism. It is in fact a type of monarchy government where you have the royalty (the rich) and the peasants. This is the exact type of tyranny our forfathers fled from in England. The only difference is that the Corporate Rich have become the defacto government which levies taxes on the masses in the form of unjust wages and benfits and not hiring in order to punish the working class for who they elect to office.
All this is evil and represents the spirit of right wing conservatism. But at least they’re doing something to end abortion…NOT!!
Pax Vobis tui Christi,
David
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Davidmlamb,
Let me commend you on doing a lot of work to provide this answer.
I do, however, wonder if there is any existing country with a similar tax structure in place that the US could use as a model. Do you know of any?
The idea that continued confiscation of material objects will serve as an incentive for those who aspire to create wealth is a new one on me. I just do not see how it will work if one tries to look at things like productivity and improvements to existing systems as a measure of progress.
North Korea is the only country I know of where there is no carrot but only a stick - unless, of course, one is high ranking member of the Communist Party. The results, at least as measured in non-military areas, have been truly pathetic - with starvation common and an abundance of misery as the lot of most.
Russian to a large extent and China quickly following have abandoned the old Marxist religion for something that at least related to Capitalism. Of course, this has the seeds of the destruction of their One Party Rule - but, we will just have to wait to see what develops.
So, please - tell me, where such a tax stucture - or, at least similar sturcture, exists.
God bless
Let me commend you on doing a lot of work to provide this answer.
I do, however, wonder if there is any existing country with a similar tax structure in place that the US could use as a model. Do you know of any?
The idea that continued confiscation of material objects will serve as an incentive for those who aspire to create wealth is a new one on me. I just do not see how it will work if one tries to look at things like productivity and improvements to existing systems as a measure of progress.
North Korea is the only country I know of where there is no carrot but only a stick - unless, of course, one is high ranking member of the Communist Party. The results, at least as measured in non-military areas, have been truly pathetic - with starvation common and an abundance of misery as the lot of most.
Russian to a large extent and China quickly following have abandoned the old Marxist religion for something that at least related to Capitalism. Of course, this has the seeds of the destruction of their One Party Rule - but, we will just have to wait to see what develops.
So, please - tell me, where such a tax stucture - or, at least similar sturcture, exists.
God bless
D
davidmlamb
Guest
Im not sure but I think that prior to 1985 federal employees did not receive a social security benefit at all but thay did receive a generous pension and benefits. The law changed in 1985 to a different retirments system called FERS + TSP which is a very lucrative 401K like plan where federal employees can pay up to 15% of their income and receive 1$ for 1$ matching up to 10% of their income PLUS an additional government pension conribution (which is small). I am not sure if under this system they have a social security offset but I would be in favor of one depending on their retirement income. Those who worked for the civil service prior to 1985 are grandfathered into the old system.
Pax Vobis,
David
D
davidmlamb
Guest
Greetings Tom!
The tax system I just defined is nearly identical to the tax system the United States had from 1933-1980. Under such a tax system the middle class flourished and the rich still enjoyed a luxurious life style. With that tax system we built great infrastructures, damns, bridges, superhighways which we enjoy today. And we put men on the moon, landed probes on Mars. Moreover, that tax system produced the best public school systems in the world where our young students went on to college and ultimately engineered great modern technologies which included putting men on the moon. Under that tax system Dad was able to work a good paying job for 30+ years with no other income needed to support the family. Mom was able to stay home with the children during the school year and in the summer families were able to take vacations. The working class own homes and cars and lived well under that tax system. When the kids grew up mom was able to go out and work and dad was able to retire with a good pension and benefits.
America was at its economic greatest in those days. So my model for a just tax system would be to return to our old model prior to 1980. And by the way Tom, in those days if you were Catholic you were a Democrat!
Pax Christi,
David
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, government employment under the old CSRS system did not count toward social security benefits. Tthe FERS retirement system in fact makes Social Security benefits a part of the overall package and employees do contribute SS payroll taxes.
Those who remained under CSRS are subject to the government pension offset. Even though the work they did under social security system for private employers does not count towards their federal retirement, the Soc-Secu benefit is still reduced.
Federal pensions are good, but some private pensions are more generous. Someone who spent 30 years working as a clerk in some Federal agency would not end up with a large pension, and would hardly characterize it as “lucrative.”
CSRS employees got no TSP contribution from the government; TSP employees do, but their pension is smaller and relies on the TSP + Social Security to make it work. And with a 401K component–the TSP–and a Social Security component, both portable, FERS employees are not locked into long term Federal employment. And that’s a good thing.
- Status