Raising taxes on the rich

[JimG]

Well, let’s just take one example of capitalism at work. In 2004, Mark Zuckerberg and some college roommates started Facebook. It was a small social networking site, limited to Harvard students. Then it expanded to other colleges. Then it was opened up to other users. Now it has 750 million users, and a market value of around $40 billion.

How hard could it be? Anyone can build a social networking website, can’t they? It’s just web design. Did the founders of Facebook get rich off the backs of the poor? How much do the poor pay for their accounts? Is the cost of a Facebook account breaking anyone’s back? Probably not, since user accounts are free.

Now the company employs over 2,000 employees and wants to build a new building sufficient to house some 9,000 employees.

Might not this same result have been accomplished by, say the Federal Deparment of Information Technology? Most likely not.

Should all FB profits be taken by the government to be more equitably distributed. Why? Should profits go to the government to be redistributed rather than being reinvested in the company to create more value and more jobs?

Similar stories could be told about Microsoft, or Apple, or Google, or even about the Henry Ford, or the author of the Harry Potter books, who created quite a bit of wealth along the way. But no, I’m sure she got rich off the backs of the poor, who were forced to buy the books and see the movies with no Federal book subsidy or movie subsidy.

 

[Wardog]

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

well , I was a Republican & a Catholic in 1980. But here is the deal; I will go back to the taxes of 1980 if we can go back to the spending of 1980. Of course, we will have to accept double digit unemployment as well as double digit inflation. Which was also the 1980 norm.

 

[Wardog]

1. Define what you mean by rich. How much money does a person have to earn to be considered rich for this discussion

ANSWER: 250K adjusted gross income with allowences for high cost of living area adjustments

1. 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.

ANSWER: 250K-399K would be at the 39% tax bracket
400K-499K 43% tax bracket
500K-649K 45% tax bracket
650K-700K 47% tax bracket
701-1,000,000 49% tax bracket

1,000,000 50% with a 1% increase in taxes for every 100K over 1,000,000 to a maximum of 70%
Social Security tax ceiling raised to 1,000,000
reduced Social Security benefit for those who retire with incomes at 3X the poverty level and zero social security benefits for those who retire with private retirement accounts greater then 90K annually.
The rich must pay a progressively high deductable for Medicare benefits. Those who retire millionairs must pay a 25,000 dollar annual deductable before they can receive a dime of Medicare Benefits.

No, it doesn’t help. Your logic is flawed. If my wealth is given to me by God to take care of for him, then who are you to take it away by increasing my taxes. And your solutions are arbitrary and unenforceable. The UN does not have the authority you have given it. And it will cost me 35% of my wealth to move out? Why stop there, why not take 90% or even all of it, if you are in a confiscatory mood? In any event, it would be a one time payment; I would take my wealth building skills and you won’t see a dime of it afterwards.

 

[davidmlamb]

Well, let’s just take one example of capitalism at work. In 2004, Mark Zuckerberg and some college roommates started Facebook. It was a small social networking site, limited to Harvard students. Then it expanded to other colleges. Then it was opened up to other users. Now it has 750 million users, and a market value of around $40 billion.

How hard could it be? Anyone can build a social networking website, can’t they? It’s just web design. Did the founders of Facebook get rich off the backs of the poor?.

Nope, they got rich off the backs of the rich! Mark Zuckerberg received great opposition from CAPITALIST who wanted to crush his little venture and they almost succeeded. Mark Zuckerberg had to pay off wealthy corporations in order for them to drop their law-suits against him and allow his business its own sovereignty. What distinguishes Mark Zuckerberg as well as the founders of Apple and Microsoft from many other companies like Walmart is they created jobs that paid just wages and benefits for thousands of workers. It is certain Capitalist who have always impeded company’s like this by filing lawsuits claiming they were a monopoly trying to break up their company’s which would result in lost jobs being replaced with lower paying jobs. I am all for job creation so as long as the jobs being created produces just wages and benefits to the working class.

How much do the poor pay for their accounts? Is the cost of a Facebook account breaking anyone’s back? Probably not, since user accounts are free…

This is a strawman argument because it implies taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor in the form of social welfare. But Capitalism should be about the flow of wealth and not the trickle down of wealth. Capitalism must serve the totality of society and not just a certain class of people. Wealth justly flows in the form of jobs creation which pays just wages and benefits so that goods and services can be consumed and enjoyed by all classes of people. Capitalism is about the creation of wealth to grow a middle class society and not a society where 90% of the wealth is controlled by 10% of the population. That is TOTALITARIANISM!

Might not this same result have been accomplished by, say the Federal Deparment of Information Technology? Most likely not. .

But not really unlikely either. Airbus is a good example of a successful business where the government has joint ownership and airbus is one of the most successful companies today if you measure success in job creation. I’m not saying the government shouod be part owner of Facebook but I am saying that government can assist in successful job creation.

Should all FB profits be taken by the government to be more equitably distributed. Why? Should profits go to the government to be redistributed rather than being reinvested in the company to create more value and more jobs?.

That depends. As long as FB produces good paying jobs and benefits then there is no need to redistribute wealth in the form of social welfare. But let us take Walmart as an example. Walmart’s top executives make salaries in the multi millions while their working class gets very little of the wealth created. Many Walmart employees have to supplement their income with food stamps and medicaid. This will never happen with companies like FB, Microsoft, Apple, or Intel. Neither will it ever happen with GM or Ford. So for Walmart yes they should be taxed heavier and wealth redistributed into social services in order to support the employees who are being cheated out of just wages and benefits.

Pax Christi,
David

 

[davidmlamb]

well , I was a Republican & a Catholic in 1980. But here is the deal; I will go back to the taxes of 1980 if we can go back to the spending of 1980. Of course, we will have to accept double digit unemployment as well as double digit inflation. Which was also the 1980 norm.

During the time between 1976-1980 double digit unemployment and inflation did exists but this was only a fraction of the years I cited as America being at its greatest. Between 1942-and 1953 unemployment fluctuated between 1.4 and 2.5 %. Then unemployment fluctuated between 3% and 8% and much of that unemployment was minority blacks in the South. The spike of inflation and unemployment between 1976 and 1980 was due to a combination of things such as the economy adjusting to the end of the Vietnam War, the rise of the war between Iran and Iraq, and the normal fluctuating patterns of a market economy. Jimmy Carter and the Democrats however were the scapegoats.

By the way Tom, in 1980 I voted for Ronald Reagan because I believed he was the right person to guide our country during a time when the Soviet Union and the Warsaw PAC were real threats to democracy. I also voted for George Bush Senior who I thought would be a good President with moderate political policies. I even voted for Goerge Bush during the 1992 election. But I believe that Bill Clinton turned out to be a great President not withstanding his sinful behavior while in the Whitehouse. Since 1996 I have only voted for Democratic candidates because I believe they support policies that best support human life and human dignity and have an economic philosephy that best reflects Catholic teachings.

In the Service of Christ and His Church,

David

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Davidmlamb,

I think JimG is nipping at your heels … so, you need to move quickly here!

Your contrast between FB and WalMart is interesting but as I read it there is an implication of individualized corporate taxes being assess in an arbitrary manner. It would seem like we will quickly need a ‘Philosopher King’ rather than a Presdent along with our current form of government to make this work.

So, I am wondering just what is the primary purpose of federal taxes as it relates to your proposed taxing plan?

Don’t feel limited to just a primary purpose - if you think federal taxes should be controlled in part by a secondary purpose then please spell it out.

By the way, I hit 21 in 1967 and registered Democrat! The idea of voting for Nixon was just too much. Fourteen years later, I registered Republican and have stayed that way ever since.

God bless

Nope, they got rich off the backs of the rich! Mark Zuckerberg received great opposition from CAPITALIST who wanted to crush his little venture and they almost succeeded. Mark Zuckerberg had to pay off wealthy corporations in order for them to drop their law-suits against him and allow his business its own sovereignty. What distinguishes Mark Zuckerberg as well as the founders of Apple and Microsoft from many other companies like Walmart is they created jobs that paid just wages and benefits for thousands of workers. It is certain Capitalist who have always impeded company’s like this by filing lawsuits claiming they were a monopoly trying to break up their company’s which would result in lost jobs being replaced with lower paying jobs. I am all for job creation so as long as the jobs being created produces just wages and benefits to the working class.

This is a strawman argument because it implies taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor in the form of social welfare. But Capitalism should be about the flow of wealth and not the trickle down of wealth. Capitalism must serve the totality of society and not just a certain class of people. Wealth justly flows in the form of jobs creation which pays just wages and benefits so that goods and services can be consumed and enjoyed by all classes of people. Capitalism is about the creation of wealth to grow a middle class society and not a society where 90% of the wealth is controlled by 10% of the population. That is TOTALITARIANISM!

But not really unlikely either. Airbus is a good example of a successful business where the government has joint ownership and airbus is one of the most successful companies today if you measure success in job creation. I’m not saying the government shouod be part owner of Facebook but I am saying that government can assist in successful job creation.

That depends. As long as FB produces good paying jobs and benefits then there is no need to redistribute wealth in the form of social welfare. But let us take Walmart as an example. Walmart’s top executives make salaries in the multi millions while their working class gets very little of the wealth created. Many Walmart employees have to supplement their income with food stamps and medicaid. This will never happen with companies like FB, Microsoft, Apple, or Intel. Neither will it ever happen with GM or Ford. So for Walmart yes they should be taxed heavier and wealth redistributed into social services in order to support the employees who are being cheated out of just wages and benefits.

Pax Christi,
David

 

[JimG]

Nope, they got rich off the backs of the rich! Mark Zuckerberg received great opposition from CAPITALIST who wanted to crush his little venture and they almost succeeded. Well, of course. Capitalists don’t particularly love the free market for its own sake. Every company would love to be a monopoly. But as long as free markets are allowed to exist, there will be competition. And if free markets are not allowed to exist, there will be the black market.

So who should get to decide how much to pay Wal-Mart executives? The Wal-Mart board and management? Or the NLRB? If the Wal-Mart board makes a wrong decision, the market will eventually turn against them. If the NLRB makes a bad decision, the bureaucracy will never admit it.

I don’t know what constitutes a just wage, but I’m sure that all the employees of Apple and Microsoft don’t make the same amont of money. If somebody is being paid more than someone else, is that unjust?

AT&T used to have thousands of telephone operators, and thousands of linemen to maitain the telephone lines. Now, the dial-tone line is dying; its days are numbered, and AT&T has a dwindling number of people who handle POTS (plain old telephone service.) They’re hiring guys off the street at rather low wages to install U-verse.

If some federal agency were handling this operation, they’d probably still be overloaded with telephone operators and POTS techs. Because government can’t change fast enough to keep up, and wouldn’t want to anyway because it wouldn’t want to let those employees go.

And Wal-Mart itself has created jobs for thousands of workers. Shall we have the government tell Wal-Mart what it’s employee policies must be? I suppose they can do that; the bureaucracy wants to control things like that. But the more they control, the fewer jobs Wal-Mart creates.

 

[Wardog]

During the time between 1976-1980 double digit unemployment and inflation did exists but this was only a fraction of the years I cited as America being at its greatest. Between 1942-and 1953 unemployment fluctuated between 1.4 and 2.5 %. Then unemployment fluctuated between 3% and 8% and much of that unemployment was minority blacks in the South. The spike of inflation and unemployment between 1976 and 1980 was due to a combination of things such as the economy adjusting to the end of the Vietnam War, the rise of the war between Iran and Iraq, and the normal fluctuating patterns of a market economy. Jimmy Carter and the Democrats however were the scapegoats.

By the way Tom, in 1980 I voted for Ronald Reagan because I believed he was the right person to guide our country during a time when the Soviet Union and the Warsaw PAC were real threats to democracy. I also voted for George Bush Senior who I thought would be a good President with moderate political policies. I even voted for Goerge Bush during the 1992 election. But I believe that Bill Clinton turned out to be a great President not withstanding his sinful behavior while in the Whitehouse. Since 1996 I have only voted for Democratic candidates because I believe they support policies that best support human life and human dignity and have an economic philosephy that best reflects Catholic teachings.

In the Service of Christ and His Church,

David

You are welcome to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
1933-1940: unemployment ranged from13-25% Great Depression (Democrat)
1941-1945: world war II: unemployment down because most were in the service (Democrat)
1946-1948: deep recession as economy adjusted to peacetime (Democrat)
1950-1952: Korean War. mandatory draftduring the 50s and 60s kept unemployment artificially low. (Democrat)
1952-1960: Good times, but somehow Ike never gets the credit. (republican)
1960-1970: still Good times economically, but a lot of social unrest (Mostly Democrat)
1972: Nixon takes us off the gold standard, resigns for other sins (Republican)
1972-1979: high inflation, taxes, unemployment. I graduated college in '78, difficult time to get a job (republicand and democrat)
1980-1983: deep recession; reagan responded with tax cuts; against all experts opinion, inflation and unemployment declined (republican)
1984-1999: 15 years of good times. until tech bubble burst. AKA irrational exuberance (Republican and Democrat)
2000-2002: deep recession; GW Bush cut taxes, . (Republican
2002-2008: started 6 years of prosperity; unfortunately GWB did not reign in spending, but increased it with two wars and prescription drug program; so long as the economy kept growing no one noticed (Republican)
2008-2011:mortgage crisis bled over into rest of economy and started worst recession since 1980; banks and investment firms start to fail, but are declared too big to fail; TARP may have saved the banks, but stimulus did not end the recession. Unemployment reached 10%, leveled out at 8-9% (Republican & Democrat)

I don’t see the correlation between Democrats and social goodness like you do, unless you count their talking about it. If you look at results, nothing that they have done has changed the lives of minorities, or improved the lot of the poor. For evidence, look at the big cities run by Democrats (Detroit, LA, Chicago,etc) no one can say that has been positive experiences. Look at what states are successful (Texas) and look at the failing ones (California, Michigan); which policies brought them to this current level?

 

[davidmlamb]

No, it doesn’t help. Your logic is flawed…

Actually Tom my logic perfectly reflects Catholic teachings. My logic was put to the test for 40 years and was very successful at creating an economically advantagoues society where the middle class grew, people worked one job out of school to retirment and were able to support their families on one income. Mom and Dad were able to buy homes and cars and retire in comfort. Places like Sun City Arizona are a testimony to this truth.Most people retired from union jobs which provided them good pensions and benefits that could still be collected by the surviving spouces. My mother lives comfortably there from a time when the tax brackets were exactly what I stated in my former post

If my wealth is given to me by God to take care of for him, then who are you to take it away by increasing my taxes. And your solutions are arbitrary and unenforceable

It is not I who takes away a portion of your wealth in the form of taxes. It is God! I challenge you to find me any place in the CCC or the bible that suggest the government imposing taxes on people is evil. The exact opposite is true! Jesus taught us to render to Caesar what belonged to Caesar. Saint Paul taught us that Governments were instituted by God and that included their taxation system. He tells the Roman Church that God has instituted goverments and to rebell against the authority God has instituted is to rebell against God and incur judgment (Romans 13:1-6). Your tax dollars is God’s money. When it comes time to pay those taxes and you complain claiming your money is being unjustly taken from you then you are claiming that money does not belong to God but to you and God has no right to take it back. Yet the Bible tells us we are to render to Casar what belongs to Caesar (taxes) and to God what belongs to God (tithes and offerings) and be thankful for what God lets you keep. You might want to read CCC 1897-1912

The UN does not have the authority you have given it. And it will cost me 35% of my wealth to move out? Why stop there, why not take 90% or even all of it, if you are in a confiscatory mood? In any event, it would be a one time payment; I would take my wealth building skills and you won’t see a dime of it afterwards.

It would not be the UN acting as a government thwarting the sovereignty of other nations. The UN serves as a mmedium where nations get together and resolve problems and help support the common good of humanity. International laws can be agreed upon by nations in UN sessions. If it becomes problematic for wealthy people fleeing nations to pay taxes then nations can make international laws. International laws already exist. Why stop at 35% and not 90%. Because 35% supports the common good and 90% does not. The confiscation is a deturant to protect a society from collapsing. You cannot support a nation by collecting taxes from the poor. Taxes are collected where the wealth exists. That brings us right back to the very words of Jesus who told us that to much is given much more is required. If you are fortunate enough to have gained great wealth then you are required to give back much more. That’s the way God created things and they are part of the natural order. Moreover Tom, fleeing to another country to avoid paying US taxes may very well result in the loss of not only your wealth but your freedom. There is nothing stopping any given country you may flee to from imposing more taxes, invading your privacy and acts of agression from invading nations or the poor of those nations rising up in a revolution against you. Historically this ius exactly what has happened. The rich flee only to their demise. That is God’s judgment for their averice and unthankfulness.

Pax Christi,

David

 

[davidmlamb]

Well, of course. Capitalists don’t particularly love the free market for its own sake. Every company would love to be a monopoly…

Which was the point I was trying to make. It was not the government or Democrats or Socialist who were trying to stop Mark Zuckerberg inovation and the creation of a new company. It was the capitalist!

So who should get to decide how much to pay Wal-Mart executives? The Wal-Mart board and management? Or the NLRB?.

It should be decided by collective bargaining. Employees should have the right to form unions and collectively bargain for their wages and benefits. Wealth is then justly divided and employees justly compensated for their labor. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that a just and living wage is the legitamate fruits of work and to withhold it is a grave evil that leads to many social disorders

I don’t know what constitutes a just wage,

If you don’t know what a just wage is then you need to get familiar with what the Catechism of the Catholic Church and what the Popes have taught about it since 1890

but I’m sure that all the employees of Apple and Microsoft don’t make the same amont of money. If somebody is being paid more than someone else, is that unjust?.

This is a strawman argument. I have never suggested employees should make the same wage. I have clearly stated employers are morally obligated to pay just and living wages to their employees. That does not mean the janitor should be paid the same salary as the engineer. It means that In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. “Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good.”

AT&T used to have thousands of telephone operators, and thousands of linemen to maitain the telephone lines. Now, the dial-tone line is dying; its days are numbered, and AT&T has a dwindling number of people who handle POTS (plain old telephone service.) They’re hiring guys off the street at rather low wages to install U-verse. .

Progress will always happen and old technologies replaced with new technologies. However, to pay AT &T employees an unjust wage just because they are taking care of what is left of an old technology is still a violation of Catholic doctrine. Employers like AT&T are morally obligated to pay a just wage.

If some federal agency were handling this operation, they’d probably still be overloaded with telephone operators and POTS techs. Because government can’t change fast enough to keep up, and wouldn’t want to anyway because it wouldn’t want to let those employees go. .

No federal agency handle this so your point is moot.

And Wal-Mart itself has created jobs for thousands of workers…

Walmart creating thousands of jobs by itself is not good enough. A company can create thousands of jobs that pay 2.00 an hour but that would not make it great. Jobs that pay living wages is what is needed and not job creation alone.

Shall we have the government tell Wal-Mart what it’s employee policies must be? I suppose they can do that; the bureaucracy wants to control things like that. But the more they control, the fewer jobs Wal-Mart creates.

The government does not have to tell Walmart what their policies should be or what to pay their employees. But the government can pass laws that allow employees to freely form unions without any impedence or reprocussions from the company they work for. Then employees can collectively bargain for their wages and benefits and agree upon policies or Walmart gets no employees to work for them period. This by the way is Catholic doctrine. It is immoral to stop employees from forming unions to establish a just wage.

Peace,
David

 

[davidmlamb]

You are welcome to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
1933-1940: unemployment ranged from13-25% Great Depression (Democrat)
1941-1945: world war II: unemployment down because most were in the service (Democrat)
1946-1948: deep recession as economy adjusted to peacetime (Democrat)
1950-1952: Korean War. mandatory draftduring the 50s and 60s kept unemployment artificially low. (Democrat)
1952-1960: Good times, but somehow Ike never gets the credit. (republican)
1960-1970: still Good times economically, but a lot of social unrest (Mostly Democrat)
1972: Nixon takes us off the gold standard, resigns for other sins (Republican)
1972-1979: high inflation, taxes, unemployment. I graduated college in '78, difficult time to get a job (republicand and democrat)1980-

You need to take a look at what you cited and you will see I did not create my own facts. I originally stated that our country rose to its greatest during the period between 1934 and 1980. In 1933 unemployment was at 25% but by 1940 it was at 13 % and by 1942 it was around 1.4%. Your citation supports all the facts I stated. So both my opinions and facts are the right ones

I don’t see the correlation between Democrats and social goodness like you do, unless you count their talking about it. If you look at results, nothing that they have done has changed the lives of minorities, or improved the lot of the poor. For evidence, look at the big cities run by Democrats (Detroit, LA, Chicago,etc) no one can say that has been positive experiences. Look at what states are successful (Texas) and look at the failing ones (California, Michigan); which policies brought them to this current level?

Again you are making a strwman argument here. I said that I am a Democrat because their social economic policies best reflect the teachings of the Catholic Church. You can always dig up scenerios that claim victory for a liezzer faire economic system but the measurement of a just economic system is laid out in the social justice teachings of the Church.

Peace,
David

 

[davidmlamb]

Hi, Davidmlamb,

I think JimG is nipping at your heels … so, you need to move quickly here!

Your contrast between FB and WalMart is interesting but as I read it there is an implication of individualized corporate taxes being assess in an arbitrary manner. It would seem like we will quickly need a ‘Philosopher King’ rather than a Presdent along with our current form of government to make this work.

I think we have already had/have that form of government and the Obama administration is trying to move away from it. Our tax system is already convoluted and arbatrary but unfortunately it is slanted in favor of the side with the most lobbyist and the most money. But I was not really suggesting that, instead I am suggesting we go back to the old tax code system with the higher tax brackets and then we can give tax breaks to companies who provide living wages. When most companies start paying living wages then tax breaks are justified and work the way they were intended to work, to create jobs. Tax breaks are given with the condition that they provide living wage jobs or they get no tax breaks at all.

So, I am wondering just what is the primary purpose of federal taxes as it relates to your proposed taxing plan?

To support a just society, promote a common defense, support the general welfare of the public and to support a regulatory system to protect the health and well being of the public that leads to secure and peaceful lives in solidarity.

Don’t feel limited to just a primary purpose - if you think federal taxes should be controlled in part by a secondary purpose then please spell it out.

Supporting the “general welfare” would include Universal health care, which is a Medicare system from cradle to grave. it would also include Social Security and Social Services for the weak and vulnerable, the handicapp and elderly.

By the way, I hit 21 in 1967 and registered Democrat! The idea of voting for Nixon was just too much. Fourteen years later, I registered Republican and have stayed that way ever since.

As a conservative republican would you support a means test to receive Social Security benefits based on income? A private retirement income lets say at 3X the poverty level would receive a progressively reduced benefit. The higher the income the more the benefit is reduced. Keep in mind that Social Security is a tax and not a savings account. A retired couple I know personally have a monthly retirment income that is greater then 10,000 dollars and they collect a combined 3000 dollars in social security benefits. It takes about 30 hard working Walmart workers to pay this rich couples social security benefit. If Social Security is going bankrupt, then as a conservative wouldn’t you agree that cutting Social Security benefits should start in places like this and NOT those who are economically at risk to poverty? Would you also support the same couple each be required to pay a 10K medical deductable before they receive a dime of Medicare benefits?

Peace,
David

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Davidmlamb,

Let me address your last question…

As a conservative republican would you support a means test to receive Social Security benefits based on income? A private retirement income lets say at 3X the poverty level would receive a progressively reduced benefit. The higher the income the more the benefit is reduced. Keep in mind that Social Security is a tax and not a savings account. A retired couple I know personally have a monthly retirment income that is greater then 10,000 dollars and they collect a combined 3000 dollars in social security benefits. It takes about 30 hard working Walmart workers to pay this rich couples social security benefit. If Social Security is going bankrupt, then as a conservative wouldn’t you agree that cutting Social Security benefits should start in places like this and NOT those who are economically at risk to poverty? Would you also support the same couple each be required to pay a 10K medical deductable before they receive a dime of Medicare benefits?

In direct answer to you question: Yes, I would support a means test… but, this would not be my first response.

Actually, Rick Perry is right! SS is a Ponzi Scheme!! The usual way a Ponzi Scheme is defined (a la Bernie Madoff) is that early investors get paid well based on the contributions made by later investors - and this process continues until the number of new investors fails to keep pace with the amount of pay-outs. While we have no real way of knowing for sure how long each of us will live - the average male in the US today should live to about 74. The amount of money that this person contributed to SS during their life time would be spent in usually less than 36 months at full retirement and about 72 months if the person retired at age 62. The murdering of 50,000,000 unborn babies since Row v Wade has just quickened the impact of just what more Boombers are costing and fewer post-Boomer groups to make up the difference. This to me is the very essence of Ponzi.

In reality, I think the wealthy people you know that are bringing in $13,000/month in combined retirement is truly the exception. Any effort to place a means test on such a couple (or those getting more) would be more theater and politics rather than economics. There just are not enough of these low hanging fruit to pick and make a difference in the net solvency of SS. But, if it the means test is part of process that moves away for the way SS has grown as a program (e.g., it was originally conceived for old age and suppporting widows with young children) - or, maybe I should say if it were move us back to the way SS was designed - then it would make sense to me.

My guess would be to free the younger groups from SS responsibility if they so chose, offer tax incentives equal to the now required employer contribution for the ‘youngsters’ setting up their own retirement account. We may want to keep SS as an option - reduced benefits increased age requirement, etc and keep the employer contribution component. The reality is that as long as people can tap into their retirement - they will - and just like we are seeing with the housing bubble, some of these people have seen their 401K and IRA and Roth IRA stop growing if not simply evaporate. But, these same folks get older every day - and that day of reckoning is fast approaching. Having SS does provide some kind of ‘safety net’.

God bless

 

[davidmlamb]

Hi, Davidmlamb,

Let me address your last question…

In direct answer to you question: Yes, I would support a means test… but, this would not be my first response…

.

…In reality, I think the wealthy people you know that are bringing in $13,000/month in combined retirement is truly the exception. Any effort to place a means test on such a couple (or those getting more) would be more theater and politics rather than economics. There just are not enough of these low hanging fruit to pick and make a difference in the net solvency of SS. But, if it the means test is part of process that moves away for the way SS has grown as a program (e.g., it was originally conceived for old age and suppporting widows with young children) - or, maybe I should say if it were move us back to the way SS was designed - then it would make sense to me.

My guess would be to free the younger groups from SS responsibility if they so chose, offer tax incentives equal to the now required employer contribution for the ‘youngsters’ setting up their own retirement account. We may want to keep SS as an option - reduced benefits increased age requirement, etc and keep the employer contribution component. The reality is that as long as people can tap into their retirement - they will - and just like we are seeing with the housing bubble, some of these people have seen their 401K and IRA and Roth IRA stop growing if not simply evaporate. But, these same folks get older every day - and that day of reckoning is fast approaching. Having SS does provide some kind of ‘safety net’.

God bless.

You have made some excellent points especially with respect to Social Security being a Ponzi Scheme, which is why Social Security needs to be reformed. But I dissagree that those receiving thoasands of dollars a month in private retirement income plus social security is miniscule. In fact, it represents at least 10% of ther US population. The couple I meantioned are not the only ones that I know (they are actually members of my family and their friends). Consider all the people who retire multi millionaires, including the Hollywood elite, and top executives. Cutting benefits from these people alone would save hundreds of billions of dollars in social security benefits over a 10 year period. But I also suggested that the Social Security benefit cuts start with those whose incomes are at 3X the poverty level. This would put the savings in the trillions. But I also believe that half those savings be diverted to a greater social security benefit for the poor and average working class who retire as well as a more liberal social security disability program that would include paying for assisted living at religious centers such as the Marion Center in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Social Security was intended for the social welfare of people who have limited resources to help themselves as well as for the average retiree with a low to moderate income.

In Christ,

David

 

[Phaedra777]

This is often attributed to Lincoln, but it’s the work of a Rev. Boetcker.

Ten Cannots
by the Rev. William J. H. Boetcker
Presbyterian Clergyman in 1916

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

I think Congress should take a gander at number 6. And anyone who is jealous of his neighbor needs to look at ALL of them. If you want what “rich people” have, then you need to do what rich people do.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Phaedra777,

Welcome to CAF. I think you will find this an excellent source for listening to interesting ideas and dialoguing with others about your own ideas. It is truly an excellent place to learn more about our Catholic Faith.

Thank you for this quote from Rev Boetcker. I had heard of parts of it - but never saw this many. Do you have a link reference for this you could share.

Again, welcome to CAF.

God bless

This is often attributed to Lincoln, but it’s the work of a Rev. Boetcker.

Ten Cannots
by the Rev. William J. H. Boetcker
Presbyterian Clergyman in 1916

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

I think Congress should take a gander at number 6. And anyone who is jealous of his neighbor needs to look at ALL of them. If you want what “rich people” have, then you need to do what rich people do.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

This is often attributed to Lincoln, but it’s the work of a Rev. Boetcker.

Ten Cannots
by the Rev. William J. H. Boetcker
Presbyterian Clergyman in 1916

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

I think Congress should take a gander at number 6. And anyone who is jealous of his neighbor needs to look at ALL of them. If you want what “rich people” have, then you need to do what rich people do.

Best post of the day … goes into the “keeper” file.

 

[JimG]

Which was the point I was trying to make. It was not the government or Democrats or Socialist who were trying to stop Mark Zuckerberg inovation and the creation of a new company. It was the capitalist!

Every new enterprise will have those who work against it, including competitors. That’s not the point. The point is that in a free market, new businesses can be started and flourish and create jobs. That can’t happen in a government managed society. If the Federal government wanted to compete with Facebook by starting its own social network site, one competitor will have the advantage of being able to use tax money for startup and working funds. And even at that, the Feds would lose the competition.

It should be decided by collective bargaining. Employees should have the right to form unions and collectively bargain for their wages and benefits. Wealth is then justly divided and employees justly compensated for their labor. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that a just and living wage is the legitamate fruits of work and to withhold it is a grave evil that leads to many social disorders

I agree employees should have the right to form unions, or NOT to form unions. Any vote for or against unionization should be done by secret ballot to ensure that the vote is truly free.

If you don’t know what a just wage is then you need to get familiar with what the Catechism of the Catholic Church and what the Popes have taught about it since 1890

I didn’t realize that the popes had set out a schedule of just wages. Do they give dollar amounts for particular jobs? No. A just wage must be decided individually by the facts of each case. Is the USCCB, for example qualified to set wage rates?

This is a strawman argument. I have never suggested employees should make the same wage. I have clearly stated employers are morally obligated to pay just and living wages to their employees. That does not mean the janitor should be paid the same salary as the engineer. It means that In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. “Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good.”

My first job paid 75 cents/hour. It didn’t guarantee me the opportunity to provide for a dignified livelihood. But it was a start. And it was a job. When it comes to jobs, one has to start somewhere.

Progress will always happen and old technologies replaced with new technologies. However, to pay AT&T employees an unjust wage just because they are taking care of what is left of an old technology is still a violation of Catholic doctrine. Employers like AT&T are morally obligated to pay a just wage.

When their services are no longer needed, their wages are zero. Is that an unjust wage? No, it’s just lack of a job. And no company can guarantee a job indefinitely. (As for AT&T, the employees still doing the old tech are being paid quite well. But their jobs will not last a whole lot longer.)

No federal agency handle this so your point is moot.

Please don’t mention this to the current administration. It loves to create new federal agencies. A private function not regulated by a federal agency would be viewed as a tragedy in need of correction.

Walmart creating thousands of jobs by itself is not good enough. A company can create thousands of jobs that pay 2.00 an hour but that would not make it great. Jobs that pay living wages is what is needed and not job creation alone.

It’s not enough to build a company from scratch which employees thousands of people and hires managers from within? There’s a lot of wealth created that was simply not there before, and people who were not employed before. But yes, Walmart could double every employee’s pay; there would just be a lot fewer employees. Personally, I’d rather have the job and the opportunity to keep looking. On a personal note, my wife worked for Walmart for several years, and loved it. The benefits were not as good as some employers, yet better than others.

The government does not have to tell Walmart what their policies should be or what to pay their employees. But the government can pass laws that allow employees to freely form unions without any impedence or reprocussions from the company they work for. Then employees can collectively bargain for their wages and benefits and agree upon policies or Walmart gets no employees to work for them period. This by the way is Catholic doctrine. It is immoral to stop employees from forming unions to establish a just wage.Yes. And it is also immoral to deny employees the right to a secret ballot when voting for or against unionization, just as it would be immoral to force employees to accept a union if most of them voted against it.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I asked one of the posters who demanded that a just wage be paid and I asked him to fill in the box I drew so I would know how much to write his paycheck for.

And I didn’t get a number; I got a looongggg speech about how a study would have to be done to see what the company could afford.

But affordability directly contradicts the notion of how much money is needed by a particular employee to qualify as a just wage.

 

[Phaedra777]

Hi, Phaedra777,

Welcome to CAF. I think you will find this an excellent source for listening to interesting ideas and dialoguing with others about your own ideas. It is truly an excellent place to learn more about our Catholic Faith.

Thank you for this quote from Rev Boetcker. I had heard of parts of it - but never saw this many. Do you have a link reference for this you could share.

Again, welcome to CAF.

God bless

dkgoodman.com/cannot.html