That may be, but it isn’t compassion, and it isn’t charity, and it isn’t out of love.
- Status
M
Michael68
Guest
Not everyone is Christian! Not everyone follows that. But it is not your responsibility to steal the money from those who aren’t acting as you see fit!
It is pretty straight forward. The top 1% earn 19% of the adjusted gross income in the United States. They pay about 38% of the federal income taxes paid. Whatever their deductions might be is irrelevant to the fact. The government put those deductions in place for whatever reason - to stimulate investment and enterprise, which stimulates the economy, for example. People would be foolish not to take advantage of them. I am a school teacher earning far less than $60k. We own a house, and we take the deduction for that house.
The other statistic, on the other end, is that the lowest 50% of earners pay less than 3% of the income taxes paid.
I think there is plenty of progressivity here, so clearly the claim that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share has nothing to do with progressivity, or protecting the poor from paying too much. The claim has to do with progressives believing that the government should spend more (in part to help progressives get reelected), or the wealthy don’t deserve their money.
He asks us to share what we have been blessed with.
He doesn’t compel us to do so.
He doesn’t ask us to compel others to share what they’ve been blessed with.
S
sebastianaziz
Guest
I doubt that the Republicans will change the tax codes, unless it will benefit the rich – as shown by the Bush Administration when they had both the House and the Senate and did nothing for the middle and lower classes.
Trump already said, the day after the election to a room filled of rich business people, that he will not touch their taxes.
Sorry, but this Catholic boy doesn’t trust someone that uses people for personal gain, offends other cultures, religions and people in general, and who himself has used the tax code to avoid paying taxes. Who in their right mind thinks this guy is going to change something that benefited him and his other rich friends for so long?
Trump already said, the day after the election to a room filled of rich business people, that he will not touch their taxes.
Sorry, but this Catholic boy doesn’t trust someone that uses people for personal gain, offends other cultures, religions and people in general, and who himself has used the tax code to avoid paying taxes. Who in their right mind thinks this guy is going to change something that benefited him and his other rich friends for so long?
M
Michael68
Guest
Still playing that tired campaign song?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
With all due respect, I think that’s far more difficult to apply as a practical matter than is an appropriate level of charity. And those who talk about “social justice” in economics, usually mean by state compulsion. It really isn’t possible to impose “justice” without politicization of the issue at hand. That’s not to say there should be none, but it’s a delicate thing.
I remember (vaguely) a formulation that the Jesuits at least used to teach concerning “justice” in economic matters. But it seemed problematic to me even then because it potentially poses a threat to any kind of capitalization at all (as in Cuba and Venezuela, as well as the old Soviet Union), and because, depending on how one interprets it, it could also fly in the face of the principles of the Social Encyclicals. The formulation is only vaguely helpful in the face of practical application.
I don’t think most of us would disagree that there is a level of capitalization that’s necessary in modern (and perhaps not only modern) economies. Since 1929, when the government first started keeping tabs on it, the almost invariable ratio of return to capital versus to labor is about 1/3 to capital and 2/3 to labor. Labor’s share moves up a little at full employment as a percentage because its utilization of capital gets marginal at full utilization. But both move up and down in tandem as absolute numbers.
I can think of it in terms of, say, GNC machines. If the owner has 20 of them, he might make more as a percentage of the whole if five are idle, because labor is less competitive and he hires only the most proficient operators. He makes less as a percentage if all 20 are in constant use, because the last labor increments are less productive, notwithstanding that their earnings are the same as the first 15 operators. But the owner makes more in an absolute sense, as do the workers, so long as there is sufficient demand for the product.
But no matter what, the 20 machines have to be there, or no operators are employed and nobody earns anything. And the machines cost a lot. So what’s the answer? Should the owner be satisfied to own only 5 machines if the government takes the rest of his surplus, giving it to the 15 who are not hired? And does it help the poor if it means 15 potential operators have no job?
Seems to me redistribution always runs the risk of being a “one trick pony”. Once the 15 potential workers have consumed the cost of the 15 additional machines, what’s next?
I personally favor the formulation that runs through the Social Encyclicals. Aid to those who cannot help themselves is morally mandatory, and the best vehicle for it is the most proximate, capable, authority. Redistribution to those who can help themselves in providing necessities is not morally compulsory. Thus, redistribution in order to equalize results, is not morally compulsory, and seems “unjust” in itself.
But as with all formulations, even that one does not solve the practical application issue.
It just comes reasonably close.
S
sallybutler
Guest
Do you take deductions on your taxes in an effort to lower your tax bill? If you do, by your definition, you are stealing from others. This would include deductions for your state taxes, real estate taxes, morgtage deduction, charitable contribution deductions, medical deductions, childcare deductions, etc. Everyone is paying higher rates so you can get relief on your taxes.
M
Michael68
Guest
So you don’t take LEGAL deductions? Obama’s code says their ok, I’m willing to bet the chief redistributer takes those deductions
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Just because somebody is rich doesn’t mean it’s helpful to treat him as evil. The horrors of the 20th Century should have taught us that.
And “offense” is often in the eye of the beholder. Regardless, I doubt there is a person in this country who doesn’t say something someone could take to offense at least daily. Nor is there a person other than a desert rat who pans for gold who doesn’t “use” others in some manner. We’re social beings, and that’s the way it works. It isn’t always a bad thing.
I think it’s probably wise to see what Trump and Ryan and the others come up with before prejudging the practicalities and effects.
Welcome to the forums, but this is just more of the tired drumbeat of class warfare that progressives regularly employ.
Look at the facts: the top 10% of income earners pay nearly 3/4 of the income taxes. The rich are not getting richer because of the tax code. A majority of the wealthy supported Hillary Clinton this year. Both parties have wealthy people in them.
I hope he does touch them. I hope he lowers the marginal tax rates and corporate tax rates so the status quo is no longer an annual growth of the GDP of 1.5%.
I’m sure we can covince the progressives to change their ways.
Take note: the tax code that he benefited from was under Bill Clinton.
M
Michael68
Guest
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Calling it “stealing” does not make it so. Taxes legtimately collected and spent is not stealing.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Again, citing those statistics without the income distribution statistics is incomplete. You cannot conclude anything from just the stats cited above.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
He allows us to form legitimate civil authority. If that civil authority decides to use their authority to do a good work, there is nothing wrong with that, even if in so doing it seems like some members of the society are being compelled to cooperate with that good work.
I did site the income distribution. The top 1% account for 19% of the AGI earned in the United States. They pay 38% of the income taxes.
I linked to the article some posts back, but the information is readily available online.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The statistic you did not cite was in relation to “the lower 50% pay 3% of the taxes.” How are we to know if this is outrageous or not without seeing how much total income that lower 50% earn?
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Mt 19:21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
(New American Bible Revised Edition)
S
sallybutler
Guest
Just because it is legal doesn’t mean it is right. You are suggesting that taxing higher earning people more is wrong. Well, if it is made a law, than it is okay and no longer wrong???
I am suggesting that deductions fall into the same category as taxing higher earnings. both are either stealing other peoples money or they are not.
- Status