Raising taxes on the rich

[Monte_RCMS]

So … what happens if all of a sudden, there just aren’t as many rich people around as some people thought?

“Where Have all the Millionaires Gone?”

What is the source here? IRS figures, 2009 IRS figures and a little story here at the Wall Street Journal: “Recession And The Rich – the number of taxpayers reporting annual income over $1 million fell 39 percent between 2007 and 2009,” coincidences when Pelosi took over the House and Obama took over the White House. “The number of super-wealthy individuals making over $10 million annually plunged 55 percent. The carnage wasn’t confined to millionaires. The number of taxpayers earning over $200,000 per year also decreased by 612,000 – or 13 percent.”

Everybody’s getting poorer.

Four in ten millionaires disappeared in two years. “In 2007, those making above $200,000 (but less than $1 million) paid $610 billion in federal income taxes. In 2009, it was only $434 billion,” they paid. So there is a war on the rich, and it is occurring. Class envy. It is working. There are fewer millionaires and super millionaires. Down by a significant number. And yet Pelosi is still out ranting and raving and moaning about all the rich people, of which she is one. So under Obama and Pelosi, the rich are getting poorer, and so are the poor. As the rich get poorer, notice that nobody’s out celebrating the poor getting rich, are they? I haven’t seen that story, have you?

Now, according to Democrats, the only reason that rich people exist is 'cause they steal money from the poor.

I’ve never understood the math on that, but that’s what they say. So you figure if all these millionaires are being taken down a peg and there are significantly fewer millionaires, there would be a lot more rich poor people, right? It’s not happening. Wonder why that is? Well, who’s getting all the money, then? Government.

So they’re defining deviancy down, they’re defining wealth down, they’re defining rich down, and the poor are still poor.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Phaedra777,

Thank you very much.

God bless

dkgoodman.com/cannot.html

 

[tqualey]

You know, Monte, a l-o-o-o-n-g time ago … there was this famous goose that Aesop wrote about. Its eggs were golden… which probably indicated that they were not fertilized … so when the greedy people killed this goose - the end of their prosperity lay in the bloody feathers.

In all honestly, ‘the poor’ should take ‘the rich’ to lunch - to find out some of their secrets (you just know hard work is going to be in there somewhere…) What we have crafted into law is that ‘the rich’ take ‘the poor’ on a daily feeding cycle - and ‘the poor’ learn nothing and remain poor.

Putting targets on the backs of ‘the rick’ is an excellent way to decrease their numbers thus ensuring the poverty of all. By the way, just how does Pelozi manage to protect her estimated net worth of $58 million (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi )? Better yet, how does she keep a straight face while complaining about ‘the rich’?

God bless

So … what happens if all of a sudden, there just aren’t as many rich people around as some people thought?

“Where Have all the Millionaires Gone?”

What is the source here? IRS figures, 2009 IRS figures and a little story here at the Wall Street Journal: “Recession And The Rich – the number of taxpayers reporting annual income over $1 million fell 39 percent between 2007 and 2009,” coincidences when Pelosi took over the House and Obama took over the White House. “The number of super-wealthy individuals making over $10 million annually plunged 55 percent. The carnage wasn’t confined to millionaires. The number of taxpayers earning over $200,000 per year also decreased by 612,000 – or 13 percent.”

Everybody’s getting poorer.

Four in ten millionaires disappeared in two years. “In 2007, those making above $200,000 (but less than $1 million) paid $610 billion in federal income taxes. In 2009, it was only $434 billion,” they paid. So there is a war on the rich, and it is occurring. Class envy. It is working. There are fewer millionaires and super millionaires. Down by a significant number. And yet Pelosi is still out ranting and raving and moaning about all the rich people, of which she is one. So under Obama and Pelosi, the rich are getting poorer, and so are the poor. As the rich get poorer, notice that nobody’s out celebrating the poor getting rich, are they? I haven’t seen that story, have you?

Now, according to Democrats, the only reason that rich people exist is 'cause they steal money from the poor.

I’ve never understood the math on that, but that’s what they say. So you figure if all these millionaires are being taken down a peg and there are significantly fewer millionaires, there would be a lot more rich poor people, right? It’s not happening. Wonder why that is? Well, who’s getting all the money, then? Government.

So they’re defining deviancy down, they’re defining wealth down, they’re defining rich down, and the poor are still poor.

 

[Rand2410]

Why do the republican resist raising taxes on the rich?Its been proven that it won’t produce more jobs to cut their taxes and they can’t say that its unfair because they already pay most of the taxes.When you compare how much they pay %wise compared to the amount of the wealth they control its surely obvious that they don’t pay enough.We know that the tax rate system has benifited the rich making them able to gain such wealth.Is it there lobbying to republican members(the spend much money in their support and actually get them elected through many means)the reasons the members are against it?

A flat consumer tax would be cheaper in the long run. Abolish all other taxes, except SSI .

 

[davidmlamb]

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.

I gave you the Catholic answer to what constitutes a just wage and you have rejected it. Here it is again:

2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice.221 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."222 Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.

Now, you either submit to the teachings of the Church or you are in rebellion to the Church and sin. If you are an employer and withhold a just wage then you sin gravely and you compound that sin by receiving the sacraments in an unworthy manner without confessing and rejecting this sin. If you are guilty of these things the gravity of your sin is great. The bible teaches us that there is a way that seems right to a man but in the end that way leads to death (Proverbs 14:12). That means you may make all the excuses in the world for justifying your position but on the day of judgement when you stand before God you will have lost your soul. God gave us the Church to guide us on matters of faith and morales (Ephes 3:10). The teachings of the Church are guided by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13; 21:15-18). Do not gamble with your soul for worldly wealth. For what will it profit you if you gain the whole world yet forfeit your soul (Matt 16:26)?

In the service of Christ and His Church,

David

 

[tqualey]

Hi, David,

I used to be an nursing home employer - and the majority of my employees were paid at the level of the federal minimum wage those that had been with me for a year were paid more and those two years were paid still more. There was virtually no opportunity to raise my prices to bring in more money - Medicaid rates were determined by the state. Every time the federal minimum wage went up, everyone’s wages went up too keeping that ‘spread’ which drove me wild trying to maintain a budget where wages were not the only cosideration. I did my best and that is all I can say. We never underpaid or withheld wages, paid all taxes and other obligations. There is no subsititute for meeting a payroll every two weeks for 20 years for making a believer out you when it comes to the economic system we have in this country.

So, as a practical matter, how do you see a just wage in terms of dollars and sense?

God bless

I gave you the Catholic answer to what constitutes a just wage and you have rejected it. Here it is again:

2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice.221 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."222 Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.

Now, you either submit to the teachings of the Church or you are in rebellion to the Church and sin. If you are an employer and withhold a just wage then you sin gravely and you compound that sin by receiving the sacraments in an unworthy manner without confessing and rejecting this sin. If you are guilty of these things the gravity of your sin is great. The bible teaches us that there is a way that seems right to a man but in the end that way leads to death (Proverbs 14:12). That means you may make all the excuses in the world for justifying your position but on the day of judgement when you stand before God you will have lost your soul. God gave us the Church to guide us on matters of faith and morales (Ephes 3:10). The teachings of the Church are guided by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13; 21:15-18). Do not gamble with your soul for worldly wealth. For what will it profit you if you gain the whole world yet forfeit your soul (Matt 16:26)?

In the service of Christ and His Church,

David

 

[bjryman]

I’ve seen the following posted time and again, but the posters never answer a question about accountability of the laborer. Here again is part of the Church’s teaching…

<<<<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.”>>>>

Now let’s “take into account the role and the productivity of each”. Surely, no one is suggesting that simply because we live, that we are entitled to the benefits noted in the Church’s teaching? A person with a high school education or less should in no way assume that they would secure wages that allow for the same life style as those that have struggled for a higher education. Also, those that have risen to the leadership, high productive individual performance, should achieve higher renumeration as well.

I could go on…but the point is that as the non-farming, self-sufficient work life is chosen, then the skills for it and the work ethic must follow.

Now, for those that are willing to take much less, and thus have a lower lifestyle, they already pay no income taxes, have access to welfare, and more.

Let’s make sure we get the lifestyle issues understood

 

[davidmlamb]

I’ve seen the following posted time and again, but the posters never answer a question about accountability of the laborer. Here again is part of the Church’s teaching…

<<<<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.”>>>>

Now let’s “take into account the role and the productivity of each”. Surely, no one is suggesting that simply because we live, that we are entitled to the benefits noted in the Church’s teaching?

They would be entitled to health care, which is a natural right. That is why I support a publicly paid universal health care system from cradle to grave. This is also a Church teaching, that is health care is a natural right, which means jobs skills is irrelevent, you only need to be human to qualify.

A person with a high school education or less should in no way assume that they would secure wages that allow for the same life style as those that have struggled for a higher education. Also, those that have risen to the leadership, high productive individual performance, should achieve higher renumeration as well.

Of course! That is what the Church is teaching. My daughter called me today and told me she was sick of living in poverty. I spent an hour on the phone talking to her about the benefits of an education or even job training. She wants to go into management. I explained to her that no one is going to show up at your door and make you a manager, you have to go to college and major in business and then work hard for it. I explained to her the financial aid system, she qualifies for Pell grants. She only need to have the desire. Her husband wants to work on motorcycles instead of working at Walmart. Fine! Find the trade school you want and apply for admission! My daughter replies, “but Dad…Motorcycle school is a year long and a Bachelors degree is 4 years long!” I replied, you can raise your household income by 50% in one year or be right where you are now a year from now, in poverty. You can quadriple your income in four years and live well or you can live a meager economic life in four years. The choice is yours but you have to work hard for it.

I could go on…but the point is that as the non-farming, self-sufficient work life is chosen, then the skills for it and the work ethic must follow.

Now, for those that are willing to take much less, and thus have a lower lifestyle, they already pay no income taxes, have access to welfare, and more.

Let’s make sure we get the lifestyle issues understood

My argument does not negate personal responsibility and doing the work to improve ones life. My argument is that employers cannot withhold a just wage when it is within their power to do so. Walmart is a classic example. They are morally obligated to allow their employees to form unions to collectively bargain for wages. Non skilled work is often hard and difficult yet very much needed. Those who choose to remain cashiers, or stockers at night or environmental work to keep Walmart clean and enjoyable for their customers deserve a fair and just wage in accordance with the going union rate for the skill or semi skilled work. To be fair however I do believe Walmart is making improvements but they can do much better.

Yours in Christ,
David

 

[davidmlamb]

Hi, David,

I used to be an nursing home employer - and the majority of my employees were paid at the level of the federal minimum wage those that had been with me for a year were paid more and those two years were paid still more. There was virtually no opportunity to raise my prices to bring in more money - Medicaid rates were determined by the state. Every time the federal minimum wage went up, everyone’s wages went up too keeping that ‘spread’ which drove me wild trying to maintain a budget where wages were not the only cosideration. I did my best and that is all I can say. We never underpaid or withheld wages, paid all taxes and other obligations. There is no subsititute for meeting a payroll every two weeks for 20 years for making a believer out you when it comes to the economic system we have in this country.

So, as a practical matter, how do you see a just wage in terms of dollars and sense?God bless

In your case Tom, if I am understanding you correctly you had the desire to pay your employees better but not the means. This reduces your culpability but it does not completely dissmiss it. Let me explain, We are Catholics Tom, the chosen people of God by adoption. We are therefore the children of Abraham and heirs of the promises of God.

During the Exodus of Israel from Egypt the Israelites found themselves trapped between the Red Sea and Pharoes Army. They faced certain death with no visible solution. But with God all things are possible. God opened up the Red Sea and Israel passed through on dry land. When Pharoes Army pursued them God closed the Red Sea and drowned them! When Israel was in the dessart they complained they had no bread or meat to eat and there was not a McDonald’s in sight! But God rained down manna from Heaven for 40 years and provided meat from Quail. God did many miracals yet Israel did not stop complaining…(we are over taxed! This is tyranny!.. waaaa!)…they never thanked God for what He provided them with and never trusted God regarding the promise land.

So Tom, You were entrusted with the stewardship of being an employer…you could have diligently prayed for God to make a way where there is no way, to grant your workers the wages they deserve to support their families. And you can do that now, pray for God to grant justice to the working class of our society. Your faith has the power to move mountains. We are the people of God, the ambassadors for Christ! We are the light of the world! The salt of the earth! We have the grace and power that comes through faith to restore justice to our society. This is what you ought to have done and this is what you ought to be doing.

Yours in Christ,

David

 

[Henry1984]

Read the quote at the link from St John Chrysostom.

I found some more quotes from Saint John Chrysostom

“‘He who will not work, neither shall he eat.’ (2 Thessalonians 3:10) . . . But the laws of St. Paul are not merely for the poor.** They are for the rich as well**. . . But you say, ‘I have my paternal inheritance!’ Tell me, just because he is poor and was born of a poor family possessing no great wealth, is he therefore worthy to die?”

“You say that the poor do not work, but do you work yourselves? Do you not enjoy in idleness the goods you have unjustly inherited? Do you not exhaust others with labor, while you enjoy in indolence the fruit of their misery?”

“Week by week you come to the Lord’s table to receive bread and wine. What do these things mean to you? Do you regard them merely as some kind of spiritual medicine, which will purge your soul, like a laxative may purge your body? Or do you sometimes wonder what God is saying in these simple elements? Bread and wine represent the fruits of our labor, whereby we turn the things of nature into food and drink for our sustenance. So at the Lord’s table we offer our labor to God, dedicating ourselves anew to his service. Then the bread and the wine are distributed equally to every member of the congregation; the poor receive the same amount as the rich.**** This means that God’s material blessings belong equally to everyone, to be enjoyed according to each person’s need****. The whole ceremony is also a meal at which everyone has an equal place at the table.”

“It is not for lack of miracles that the church is stagnant;** it is because we have forsaken the angelic life of Pentecost, and fallen back on private property**. If we lived as they did, with all things common, we should soon convert the whole world without any need of miracles at all.”

“For ‘mine’ and ‘thine’ – those chilly words which introduce innumerable wars into the world – should be eliminated from that holy Church . . .The poor would not envy the rich because there would be no rich. Neither would the poor be despised by the rich, for there would be no poor. All things would be in common.”

Do you still believe it is appropriate to quote St John Chrysostom to support the GOPs platform?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Davidlamb,

Thanks for sharing your insights.

God bless

In your case Tom, if I am understanding you correctly you had the desire to pay your employees better but not the means. This reduces your culpability but it does not completely dissmiss it. Let me explain, We are Catholics Tom, the chosen people of God by adoption. We are therefore the children of Abraham and heirs of the promises of God.

During the Exodus of Israel from Egypt the Israelites found themselves trapped between the Red Sea and Pharoes Army. They faced certain death with no visible solution. But with God all things are possible. God opened up the Red Sea and Israel passed through on dry land. When Pharoes Army pursued them God closed the Red Sea and drowned them! When Israel was in the dessart they complained they had no bread or meat to eat and there was not a McDonald’s in sight! But God rained down manna from Heaven for 40 years and provided meat from Quail. God did many miracals yet Israel did not stop complaining…(we are over taxed! This is tyranny!.. waaaa!)…they never thanked God for what He provided them with and never trusted God regarding the promise land.

So Tom, You were entrusted with the stewardship of being an employer…you could have diligently prayed for God to make a way where there is no way, to grant your workers the wages they deserve to support their families. And you can do that now, pray for God to grant justice to the working class of our society. Your faith has the power to move mountains. We are the people of God, the ambassadors for Christ! We are the light of the world! The salt of the earth! We have the grace and power that comes through faith to restore justice to our society. This is what you ought to have done and this is what you ought to be doing.

Yours in Christ,

David

 

[Monte_RCMS]

lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=639160

Original article:

blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/42259

Scroll down for Chuck Wollery’s video.

Excerpt:

Chuck Woolery On Taxing The Rich

September 14, 2011 by Don Surber

In the various incarnations of this blog, I have long maintained that celebrities have as much a right to speak out on the issues of the day as I do. The Constitution does not make exceptions for singers or game show hosts, and I am happy to report that Chuck Woolery (the original host of “Wheel Of Fortune”) has put out a video that takes on rich celebrities who complain about not paying high enough taxes — even though they can do so voluntarily. Among the people he calls out are Warren Buffett and Matt Damon.

The video is a hilarious send-up that includes photos of Woolery’s “crack team of researchers,” who uncovered a provision of the U.S. Tax Code that allows these people who suffer “low back pain from sitting on overstuffed wallets” to pay higher taxes without waiting for Congress to act.

This beats the heck out of my meager attempts previously to get these hypocrites to pay up.

 

[JimG]

In your case Tom, if I am understanding you correctly you had the desire to pay your employees better but not the means. This reduces your culpability but it does not completely dissmiss it. Let me explain, We are Catholics Tom, the chosen people of God by adoption. We are therefore the children of Abraham and heirs of the promises of God.

If I understand you correctly, an employer seems to have an obligation to pay workers more than the company can actually afford. To make up for the shortfall, the employer should pray and have faith that God will provide.

I hope that works. And it might. But If it does not, the company may go bankrupt and then none of the employees will have jobs.

Would it be ethical for an employer to raise wages across the board if bankruptcy can be foreseen as a result?

And would it be ethical to force employees to join a union if the majority of them voted to not join a union?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Monte RCMS,

This was sooooooooooooooooooooo funny!

Thanks for the link!

God bless

lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=639160

Original article:

blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/42259

Scroll down for Chuck Wollery’s video.

Excerpt:

Chuck Woolery On Taxing The Rich

September 14, 2011 by Don Surber

In the various incarnations of this blog, I have long maintained that celebrities have as much a right to speak out on the issues of the day as I do. The Constitution does not make exceptions for singers or game show hosts, and I am happy to report that Chuck Woolery (the original host of “Wheel Of Fortune”) has put out a video that takes on rich celebrities who complain about not paying high enough taxes — even though they can do so voluntarily. Among the people he calls out are Warren Buffett and Matt Damon.

The video is a hilarious send-up that includes photos of Woolery’s “crack team of researchers,” who uncovered a provision of the U.S. Tax Code that allows these people who suffer “low back pain from sitting on overstuffed wallets” to pay higher taxes without waiting for Congress to act.

This beats the heck out of my meager attempts previously to get these hypocrites to pay up.

 

[Abu]

Davidmlamb #622
Now, you either submit to the teachings of the Church or you are in rebellion to the Church and sin. If you are an employer and withhold a just wage then you sin gravely and you compound that sin by receiving the sacraments in an unworthy manner without confessing and rejecting this sin.

The above fails to see the scope of social teaching and the strictures which the popes have placed on misinterpretation.

Here, Fr Brian Harrison’s, O.S., *Religious Liberty And Contraception *is helpful (John XXXIII Fellowship Co-op (Australia), 1988, p 22-23), concerning “the practical order: human rights and duties.

“But for a certain norm of action to be a matter of doctrine, it would clearly have to be proposed as a universally binding norm – one which is of certain validity always and everywhere. Thus, we could not elevate to the status of doctrine a norm which is proposed provisionally, and as a subject to possible future correction after future consideration; nor one which is a particular ad hoc decision applying to given circumstances which might turn out to be transitory; nor, finally, one which is a concrete directive designed to give practical force to a doctrine which is in itself too broad or general to have much effect without such further application or specification. (An obvious example of such a doctrine would be the teaching – both natural and revealed – that a labourer deserves a just wage.)”

“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…[M]en must realise in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…[T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” [Pope Leo XIII. Quoted in *The Church And The Market, Dr Thomas E. Woods, Lexington Books, 2005, p 4]

Everything outside of faith and morals is meant to be learned and developed by non-Magisterial Catholics (and others) in the world of living and acting using reason, without exercising "religious authority”.

Further, Blessed John Paul II adds: “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one other. For such a task the Church offers Her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation….” Centesimus Annus, 43. Italics in original].

Pius XI wrote of “matters of technique for which [the Church] is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office.” Quadragesimo Anno, 41]….“economics and moral science employs each its own principles in its own sphere.” [QA, 42]. The Pope went on to deny that “the economic and moral orders are so distinct from and alien to each other that the former depends in no way on the latter.” [QA, 42]. Woods states: “As A.M.C. Waterman points out, this concession by Pius XI ‘throws doubt on the authoritative character of that very substantial part of Catholic (or at least papal) social teaching which consists not of theological and ethical pronouncements, but of empirical judgments about the economy.’ " [Woods, p 5].

Popes have warned explicitly against thinking that they have unique insights into specific matters of economic policy.

 

[tqualey]

Hi Abu,

Thank you for an excellent post!

God bless

The above fails to see the scope of social teaching and the strictures which the popes have placed on misinterpretation.

Here, Fr Brian Harrison’s, O.S., *Religious Liberty And Contraception *is helpful (John XXXIII Fellowship Co-op (Australia), 1988, p 22-23), concerning “the practical order: human rights and duties.

“But for a certain norm of action to be a matter of doctrine, it would clearly have to be proposed as a universally binding norm – one which is of certain validity always and everywhere. Thus, we could not elevate to the status of doctrine a norm which is proposed provisionally, and as a subject to possible future correction after future consideration; nor one which is a particular ad hoc decision applying to given circumstances which might turn out to be transitory; nor, finally, one which is a concrete directive designed to give practical force to a doctrine which is in itself too broad or general to have much effect without such further application or specification. (An obvious example of such a doctrine would be the teaching – both natural and revealed – that a labourer deserves a just wage.)”

“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…[M]en must realise in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…[T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” [Pope Leo XIII. Quoted in *The Church And The Market

, Dr Thomas E. Woods, Lexington Books, 2005, p 4]

Everything outside of faith and morals is meant to be learned and developed by non-Magisterial Catholics (and others) in the world of living and acting using reason, without exercising "religious authority”.

Further, Blessed John Paul II adds: “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one other. For such a task the Church offers Her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation….” Centesimus Annus, 43. Italics in original].

Pius XI wrote of “matters of technique for which [the Church] is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office.” Quadragesimo Anno, 41]….“economics and moral science employs each its own principles in its own sphere.” [QA, 42]. The Pope went on to deny that “the economic and moral orders are so distinct from and alien to each other that the former depends in no way on the latter.” [QA, 42]. Woods states: “As A.M.C. Waterman points out, this concession by Pius XI ‘throws doubt on the authoritative character of that very substantial part of Catholic (or at least papal) social teaching which consists not of theological and ethical pronouncements, but of empirical judgments about the economy.’ " [Woods, p 5].

Popes have warned explicitly against thinking that they have unique insights into specific matters of economic policy.

 

[ryecroft]

Im not talking about communism or making everyone equal.Im saying since the wealthy have beniffited from our unfair tax system shouldn’t they be required to help out this country to get out of the mess were in?Im not advocating taking all their wealth or make them equal to everyone else.But when the top 2% control 65%of the wealth in the nation Don’t you believe we are a little out of balance and it will continue so if the republicans do you they have been debating about?thanks.I read St.John’s quote.but he isn’t talking about what im referrring to.

Do this and I can almost garuntee that these “rich” tax payers you’re speaking about will find a country they can go to that won’t push them to give nearly as much as they’re currently paying. It’s kind of like what happened with some companies - they gound the taxation system in America, where their companies were located were being taxed with a fairly high amount and at times this would increase - they found countries they could go to and set up shop there and found they didn’t have to pay nearly as much in taxes. Try raising them too much and it will be worth it for these “rich” people to claim another citizenship - and believe me, there are plenty of poorer countries who would gladly welcome them. Then America will loose not only the money they were counting on getting from them when the tax rate increased, but then they’ll also loose the taxes they were already getting.
Just a thought-
God Bless
Rye

 

[northernstar]

Another question would be, when the income tax was 94% on income above $200,000, was America better off then or now?

(Also, 94%. Imagine that on a $10 wage, for every hour you work, you get $0.60)

-Prophesy

Please! A 60 cents per hour your taxes would cover your house, car, health care, policing, fire services, a gym, entertainment, everything but a hand to wipe your , well , you get it.

Taxing the rich only means removing loop holes. No one needs a 1 billion dollars a year salary, not even a 1 million a year salary. It is excessive. The only real special people in this world are the scientist/researchers that cure illness, solve waste problems, and design new products. But they are not getting billions of dollars per year.

This is about forcing people to give a dang about other people on this earth. Accepting the responsibility of being given a gift from God and returning it. If God made me ultra smart, I’d have a responsiblity to use it to benefit all not just ME.

I get so tired of hearing that taxes are bad. Without them we would not have built cities, or health care or any sanitary conditions at all.

Second as for the rich leaving the USA, all the IRS has to do is tax on the funds made in the USA. I don’t care if you are in a third world country… I just say you earned xxx dollars in the USA, prove to me you didn’t. It is just legislation.

 

[RobbyS]

The above fails to see the scope of social teaching and the strictures which the popes have placed on misinterpretation.

Here, Fr Brian Harrison’s, O.S., *Religious Liberty And Contraception *is helpful (John XXXIII Fellowship Co-op (Australia), 1988, p 22-23), concerning “the practical order: human rights and duties.

“But for a certain norm of action to be a matter of doctrine, it would clearly have to be proposed as a universally binding norm – one which is of certain validity always and everywhere. Thus, we could not elevate to the status of doctrine a norm which is proposed provisionally, and as a subject to possible future correction after future consideration; nor one which is a particular ad hoc decision applying to given circumstances which might turn out to be transitory; nor, finally, one which is a concrete directive designed to give practical force to a doctrine which is in itself too broad or general to have much effect without such further application or specification. (An obvious example of such a doctrine would be the teaching – both natural and revealed – that a labourer deserves a just wage.)”

“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…[M]en must realise in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…[T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” [Pope Leo XIII. Quoted in *The Church And The Market

, Dr Thomas E. Woods, Lexington Books, 2005, p 4]

Everything outside of faith and morals is meant to be learned and developed by non-Magisterial Catholics (and others) in the world of living and acting using reason, without exercising "religious authority”.

Further, Blessed John Paul II adds: “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one other. For such a task the Church offers Her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation….” Centesimus Annus, 43. Italics in original].

Pius XI wrote of “matters of technique for which [the Church] is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office.” Quadragesimo Anno, 41]….“economics and moral science employs each its own principles in its own sphere.” [QA, 42]. The Pope went on to deny that “the economic and moral orders are so distinct from and alien to each other that the former depends in no way on the latter.” [QA, 42]. Woods states: “As A.M.C. Waterman points out, this concession by Pius XI ‘throws doubt on the authoritative character of that very substantial part of Catholic (or at least papal) social teaching which consists not of theological and ethical pronouncements, but of empirical judgments about the economy.’ " [Woods, p 5].

Popes have warned explicitly against thinking that they have unique insights into specific matters of economic policy.

The irony is that many modern Catholics take Pope Leo’s encyclicals entirely out of their historical contexts. He was as much opposed to Bismarck’s paternalistic welfare state as he was to the socialism that Bismarck opposed. But at least the former tolerated the institutions intermediate between the state and the people.

 

[ryecroft]

Please! A 60 cents per hour your taxes would cover your house, car, health care, policing, fire services, a gym, entertainment, everything but a hand to wipe your , well , you get it.

Taxing the rich only means removing loop holes. No one needs a 1 billion dollars a year salary, not even a 1 million a year salary. It is excessive. The only real special people in this world are the scientist/researchers that cure illness, solve waste problems, and design new products. But they are not getting billions of dollars per year.

This is about forcing people to give a dang about other people on this earth. Accepting the responsibility of being given a gift from God and returning it. If God made me ultra smart, I’d have a responsiblity to use it to benefit all not just ME.

I get so tired of hearing that taxes are bad. Without them we would not have built cities, or health care or any sanitary conditions at all.

Second as for the rich leaving the USA, all the IRS has to do is tax on the funds made in the USA. I don’t care if you are in a third world country… I just say you earned xxx dollars in the USA, prove to me you didn’t. It is just legislation.

Many, many American companies have said “no” to forking out higher taxes in the states and moved their “base” to other countries. While it’s true that the money they made in the US would be taxed, after moving your “residency” to another country, then you loose much of those taxes. In fact, there are companies which used to be based in the US who left (because of either high taxes, labour wages, a combination of both and or other financially based reasons)- and were then able to ‘rebase’ in another country thereby avoiding further taxes - while I’m not trying to imply that all companies in the states would do this (obviously) - if you raise the taxes enough, and people will start finding more loop holes or other countries who would gladly house them and their labour needs for a fraction of what they paid in the states. Also, I saw this with friends of our family -(on a smaller family base)- I had friends who’s fathers (and at times the rest of the family) would need to go to Puerto Rico for a certain amount of time so that they could claim that citizenship - it was common knowledge (in our circle) that it was for the ability to claim residency. As soon as they got that certain number of days, they were good until the next year.

And it may be what’s “right” morally- “forcing people to give a dang” is only going to make those people resent the situation more - I’m not saying all taxes are bad, I believe much of it does good (although many that live here in Louisiana often wonder where our tax dollars go - then we realize who some of our Governor’s have been and we’re reminded - but that’s another thread…)- it’s a wonderful thing to give of one’s self - but there is no such thing as “forced” charity.
God Bless
Rye