"Right" to take from the wealthy

[St_Francis]

Many of the poor are mentally ill. I’m not saying this to be critical, but some people have never had a psychotic episode or been present when a loved one has one. That is an extremely frightening situation (I have experience). Prompt treatment is essential in that situation. Amenities don’t help when people are terrified they are losing their minds. There are estimates that 1% of americans are severely mentally ill. That’s over 3 million people. Many of them have money but many don’t.

treatmentsolutionsnetwork.com/blog/index.php/2011/04/06/link-between-poverty-and-mental-illness/

I know that posters usually mean able-bodied and in decent mental health when they say poor, but the mentally ill are too often a forgotten population.

edited to add: I see the OP wants Church teachings, not personal opinions. The truth is I’m not sure how to sort that out between the CCC, various encyclicals and etc. but my point is that in addressing poverty, thinking about severe mental illness needs to be part of that. So whatever the Church says, the thinking about the mentally ill is also relevant. Mental illness can improve a great deal with proper treatment and many people can work if they are “allowed” to take time out of the workforce, and not required to work 40 hours/week when ill.

This seems odd; it seems to me that it’s not that the poor would be prone to mental illness as that the mentally ill would be more likely to be poor.

In our own extended family we have a relative experiencing mental illness, and before the onset, she was a fairly highly-placed competent person in the workforce, but now she has been unable to work for several years and would therefore be classified as poor. But she gets disability and the state she lives in provides health care, so she is not destitute.

OTOH, lots of people who are homeless are mentally ill. Until the 70s, these people could be mandated into psychiatrict residency hospitals, but then a movement for their civil rights–they shouldn’t be locked up if they hadn’t been convicted of a crime–came up, and so they were all let free. That’s why homelessness became such a huge issue in the 80s.

Unfortunately, the conditions for many who were committed ranged from bad to abysmal, so that solution didn’t always work well either.

 

[goldangel]

You’re right that mental illness can cause poverty, this is discussed farther down in the linked document:

Mental Illness Causing Poverty

It’s also possible that mental illness helps put someone into poverty. Someone who suffers from a mental disorder may not be able to hold down a job, or may not manage their finances well enough to stay out of poverty. In these cases, someone may also turn to drugs or alcohol to relieve their mental or physical pain, and may add substance addiction to the list of things keeping them down, financially.

however the general conclusion is that the poor are more likely to be mentally ill:

“Most important, the findings suggest that income below $20,000 per year is associated with substantial psychopathologic characteristics and that there is a need for targeted interventions to treat and prevent mental illness in this low-income sector of the population,” the researchers concluded. “The findings also suggest that adults with reduction in income are at increased risk of mood and substance use disorders.”

I know that mental illness can affect anyone including the affluent. However one finding these authors don’t discuss is that it seems to be more common in urban areas. I personally think part of that is due to the stimulation of all the lights and noise if you are living in a densely populated area. Moving to a more rural area has helped a lot of people. My only source is the book Hurry Down Sunshine, in which the author’s daughter, who has bipolar, became mentally ill. That family seemed to have money but she became ill while living in New York City and her first psychotic episode is described in terms of the activity at all hours of the day/night outside their apartment. She improved on medication and after moving to a very rural area in Vermont.

I’m not sure the doctors know why the urban finding is significant, though.

 

[goldangel]

To the OP, this is why I’m having trouble. This list is truly massive, although many of the social justice topics listed here don’t apply to poverty. Also the list stops with John Paul II. One quote I saw is that the economy should be for the person, not the person for the economy, but there is a range of interpretations that could probably be made of that.

justpeace.org/docu.htm

 

[St_Francis]

You’re right that mental illness can cause poverty, this is discussed farther down in the linked document:

however the general conclusion is that the poor are more likely to be mentally ill:

I know that mental illness can affect anyone including the affluent. However one finding these authors don’t discuss is that it seems to be more common in urban areas. I personally think part of that is due to the stimulation of all the lights and noise if you are living in a densely populated area. Moving to a more rural area has helped a lot of people. My only source is the book Hurry Down Sunshine, in which the author’s daughter, who has bipolar, became mentally ill. That family seemed to have money but she became ill while living in New York City and her first psychotic episode is described in terms of the activity at all hours of the day/night outside their apartment. She improved on medication and after moving to a very rural area in Vermont.

I’m not sure the doctors know why the urban finding is significant, though.

That’s very interesting. I hope they find out more about it.

 

[markomalley]

We had a presenter on social justice today who referred to one of the various encyclicals or documents from the Church on social justice and mentioned that it clarifies that, because we have a “right” to basic human dignities, we also have the right to take it from those with excess if we are in great need.

I interpret this as stealing, but perhaps I am misunderstanding because of some context she is not citing. Perhaps, for instance, it is a reference to taxation.

I am writing to see if anyone knows a document or passage to which she might be referring. Please don’t post with your reaction to what she said or your assumptions - I can do plenty of that myself - rather, I am looking for someone who is well-versed in the various documents and might know off-hand what she is referring to.

An interesting and appropriate reflection from St John Chrysostom on the subject:
Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold form the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first - and then they will joyfully share their wealth.
From a compilation of his teachings known as “On Living Simply”, ed Robert Van de Weyer, Ligouri Publications, ISBN 978-0-7648-0056-6

Interestingly, St John Chrysostom decried the dangers of excessive wealth. But he recognized that wealth should be shared voluntarily, not out of force.

 

[Ender]

"Awful Things:

We had a presenter on social justice today who referred to one of the various encyclicals or documents from the Church on social justice and mentioned that it clarifies that, because we have a “right” to basic human dignities, we also have the right to take it from those with excess if we are in great need.

An interesting and appropriate reflection from St John Chrysostom on the subject:Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold form the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first - and then they will joyfully share their wealth.

The first citation is an example of someone distorting Church teaching to fortify a political position. The example from St. Chrysostom pretty clearly contradicts the claim that the poor are justified in stealing from the rich. That the rich have a moral obligation to aid the poor is not at all the same as saying the poor the moral right to force the rich to do so.

Ender

 

[Contarini]

The first citation is an example of someone distorting Church teaching to fortify a political position. The example from St. Chrysostom pretty clearly contradicts the claim that the poor are justified in stealing from the rich. That the rich have a moral obligation to aid the poor is not at all the same as saying the poor the moral right to force the rich to do so.

Ender

But Chrysostom isn’t talking about the same thing Aquinas or the OP are. He’s talking about using government force to create absolute equality. He’s not talking about a desperate person taking what they need.

You will not find anything in the orthodox Christian tradition that condemns this. The notion that private property is an absolute right which cannot be violated under any circumstances is a modern heresy.

Of course the Tradition doesn’t teach that the government should simply use force to reduce the rich to the level of the poor. That’s a straw man, at least in the contemporary U.S. context. When President Obama talks about the rich “paying their fair share,” whether his estimate of their “fair share” is correct or not, he is certainly not talking about reducing them to the level of the poor.

Also note that Chrysostom does not say that such government action would be intrinsically unjust, only that it would be practically a bad idea and would not accomplish the kind of charitable reciprocity that Christian social ethics aims for.

Right-wing Christians are taking this quote to say far more than it actually does. Also, I note that no one actually cites the context–I don’t know what the context is, since it’s being cited from an anthology of Chrysostom’s teachings on wealth and poverty.

Edwin

 

[Ender]

But Chrysostom isn’t talking about the same thing Aquinas or the OP are. He’s talking about using government force to create absolute equality. He’s not talking about a desperate person taking what they need.

And the comment made by the presenter Awful Things cited is basically a bait-and-switch argument. The issue really has nothing whatever to do with what behavior is valid for a desperate person, it has to do with what behavior is valid for the poor - a very different category. What is being implied here is that because extreme conditions allow acts that would otherwise be prohibited, such acts are also justified for a much wider range of conditions than we realize. This is of course nonsense but it is a technique by which a valid Church doctrine can be used to achieve a political goal.

The notion that private property is an absolute right which cannot be violated under any circumstances is a modern heresy.

The notion that "because we have a “right” to basic human dignities, we also have the right to take it from those with excess if we are in great need" may or may not be heresy but it is surely a deception. What it says may be true - if we agree on what “great need” and “excess” mean - but what is being implied is that “great need” merely means hardship. Since the term is undefined it can - and will - be given both meanings: when challenged, it will be said to mean that under extreme conditions you may appropriate the goods of another person without his permission, but it will also be sold as a way to justify taking the property of others if one feels sufficiently aggrieved.

Ender

 

[markomalley]

The first citation is an example of someone distorting Church teaching to fortify a political position. The example from St. Chrysostom pretty clearly contradicts the claim that the poor are justified in stealing from the rich. That the rich have a moral obligation to aid the poor is not at all the same as saying the poor the moral right to force the rich to do so.

Ender

Another citation from St John Chrysostom:

The sins of the rich, such as greed and selfishness, are obvious for all to see. The sins of the poor are less conspicuous yet equally corrosive of the soul. Some poor people are tempted to envy the rich; indeed this is a form of vicarious greed, because the poor person wanting great wealth is in spirit no different from the rich person amassing great wealth. Many poor people are gripped by fear; their hearts are caught in a chain of anxiety, worrying whether they will have food on their plates tomorrow or clothes on their backs. Some poor people are constantly formulating in their minds devious plans to cheat the rich to obtain their wealth; this is no different in spirit from the rich making plans to exploit the poor by paying low wages. The art of being poor is to trust in God for everything, to demand nothing and to be grateful for all that is given.

 

[Sheeniac]

I’m struggling with Catholic Social Teaching as well - so much seems to be co-opted by the Left. How much of it is in line with Tradition, I’m not sure. My goal this last summer was to start tracing it back from the beginning, but I didn’t quite get that done.

To fully understand such things, I think it best to start at the beginning and trace the paths taken by the Church. I’ve read Rerum, but have just stumbled across this:

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13apost.htm

This might be a good document to review.

 

[Contarini]

And the comment made by the presenter Awful Things cited is basically a bait-and-switch argument. The issue really has nothing whatever to do with what behavior is valid for a desperate person,

Yes, that’s exactly the issue raised in the OP. Perhaps if you wish to raise a different issue, you should do so separately.

it has to do with what behavior is valid for the poor - a very different category.

Hardly–the former is a subset of the latter.

What is being implied here is that because extreme conditions allow acts that would otherwise be prohibited, such acts are also justified for a much wider range of conditions than we realize.

Where do you find this “implied”? And I think you are putting the question wrongly. In Thomistic terms, it’s not that extreme conditions make what would normally be wrong right. Rather, the question is: to whom does the property belong? For Aquinas, property is held in trust by individuals for the common good–private property is not an absolute right. When a person’s need is truly dire, then that person becomes the rightful owner of the property they need.

This is not an ends-justifies-the-means scenario.

The notion that "because we have a “right” to basic human dignities, we also have the right to take it from those with excess if we are in great need" may or may not be heresy but it is surely a deception.

It pretty clearly isn’t heresy. If you think it may be, then why? You have provided no argument. You are unwilling to grapple with the actual argument–you would rather deal with the shadowy “implication” that you choose to perceive behind the actual argument.

What it says may be true - if we agree on what “great need” and “excess” mean - but what is being implied is that “great need” merely means hardship. Since the term is undefined it can - and will - be given both meanings: when challenged, it will be said to mean that under extreme conditions you may appropriate the goods of another person without his permission, but it will also be sold as a way to justify taking the property of others if one feels sufficiently aggrieved.

Well, then what is needed is to say in very clear language that subjective feelings of grievance are not what the Church is talking about.

Problem solved.

Any teaching can be misunderstood. You seem to want to muzzle the teaching because you assume that those evil leftists are out to misinterpret it.

The basic axiom among many Catholics on this forum seems to be that Catholic teaching must be made subservient to what the American political Right, defined largely in secular or Protestant terms, decrees to be good and just. Any teaching that doesn’t fit this ideology is explained away.

Why approach things that way? Why not face the liberating though painful possibility that you, like your left-wing brothers and sisters, may have some political idolatries that need to be smashed?

Edwin

 

[Peter_habeo]

Let’s not forget that we are part of the Universal church, and whilst such teaching may seem unfair to us in the west, it makes a lot more sense in e.g. Africa. So don’t take it so personally America, after all:

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3749/uspoor.jpg

In that light, I’m pretty sure that the poor in America are not justified in taking anything from the wealthy.

Exactly. And coveting is a sin, after all.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

People do not have a “right” to steal.
Jannes (or jennes) above described a situation in which I would call her husband
a Saint. He was very generous with his neighbors, etc, despite not having large amounts of money. Helping build their homes and basements: this is one DECENT guy.
There is no sin in them having a nice house and $500,000.
And no, I, being poor, do not thereby have a “right” to their hard-earned money.

Please understand, jennes, that this does not describe the reality of the upper class for the most part. You will find stores here in South Florida, like PRATESI (and they aren’t the only one, I’m not picking on Pratesi) where the rich spend $5000 or more on a mere washcloth. I’m not kidding. And a bedsheet set that may cost $50,000 or more.
For a fitted sheet, a flat sheet, and a couple of pillowcases.
$5000 on a washcloth. And then dare to complain that they have to pay taxes.
And give to charity, and when they do, have their names engraved on a big, prominently displayed plaque so that everyone knows that they gave to the charity (or hospital, or whatever). And then DEDUCT the amount of their gift from their income taxes (which are paid for the COMMON GOOD), so that their gift really ISN’T a sacrifice at all. And they get “glory and praise” for having given it, when, in the greater scheme of things, compared to the gifts given by working stiffs like you and me (and when we give, we MISS it, cuz we don’t have much), they have not really given much at ALL. This is why in the Gospel,
Jesus was in the Temple, and he noticed the rich coming in to give their large gifts to the Temple Treasury. ((And, like those who have their names emblazoned on huge bronze plaques, they would announce their arrival and gift by having people precede them into the temple, blowing horns and announcing the rich mans arrival and his big gift)). Jesus didn’t approve of this at all. And he gave no praise at all to those big-show-of-it rich folks for giving a numerically large amount of money to the temple, either. Instead, he noticed the poor widow, who had practically nothing to live on, who gave a mere two little copper coins to the Temple Treasury, and he praised HER, because she gave out of her NEED, not out of her SURPLUS (like the rich were doing), and SHE did not make a big show of proclaimiing that she was giving a gift. She got no human praise at all. No big bronze plaque. No hospital wing named after her. She didn’t bring a big 8 foot long fake check made out to THE TEMPLE with her 25,000 dollar gift written on it in big letters, complete with her named signed on it 2 feet high, like you see rich folks doing when they give
a (non-sacrificial, numerically large, tax-deductible) gift. And of course, having their picture taken and put in the snooty Social Registry as a “guest” at a “benefit dinner” for
“the poor” for donating $1000 fully tax-deductible dollars.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

CONTINUED FROM THE POST JUST ABOVE:

Many of the hourly and commission workers at my company give weekly to a major national charity, the United Way. Being low paid, what they give IS A SACRIFICE.
But they can’t afford to write a check for $1000 or more. So they don’t get any invitations to go on the annual hifalutin United Way contributor’s cruise on Biscayne Bay complete with luxurious buffets, entertainments, flowing choice wines, celebrities and politicos, and the photographers who put their pictures in the book of Honor for $1000 and up contributors (who make 10 to 20 times what WE make, and hardly miss their gift).
The rich get all the thanks and recognition, as if they are really doing something heroic.
It may be nice, but it’s not heroic. Those who are poor, and give, are doing something heroic. The rich are not, unless they give a huge chunk of their estate, so that they REALLY feel it, AND DON’T BRAG ABOUT IT FOR PUBLIC GLORY.
No, we don’t have a right to steal from people who have more than we do.
But taxing them, proportionate to their huge estates and bank accounts (which they did not often earn by personal hard work, etc) for the sake of the common good, is not stealing. I’m not talking about robbing them blind with crushing, destructive taxes, either. But many of America’s super rich paid less than 1% in income tax last year.
That was on the AOL news just a few days ago. It doesn’t surprise me at all.
Conservatives may not like to hear this, but yes they ARE their brother’s keepers, too.
Yes, Paul said that he who does not WANT to work, neither let him eat. That’s good sense. But a person who has been lazy or foolish in the PAST, and is trying to live properly NOW, has NOT, because of his PAST, “forfeited” his right to a home, food, and clothing. If he HAS, then all who SAY THAT, have “forfeited” their right to even be alive every time they have ever committed a Sin. And since their is NO ONE WHO DOES NOT SIN TO SOME DEGREE, nobody has any right to make wicked statements that a person has “forfeited” his and his family’s right to food and shelter because of mistakes made in the past, as long as they are trying to live right IN THE PRESENT. And if the husband is a bum who will not work, quits every job he gets, and will not even look for work, he needs to repent. But his family has not “forfeited” their basic rights to have their needs met even IF that is true of the dad. We ARE our brothers’ keepers, whether we like it or not, no matter how many arguements to the contrary, and no matter how CREATIVE those arguments to the contrary.
And those with the abundant means to REALLY HELP those in need, and who deliberately choose not to do so, ARE SINNING. This kind of callous cruelty toward the cries of the poor is condemned by the prophets in scripture over and over and over and over again. The apostles even said that if we see our brother hungry, naked and cold, and say to him, “Be warm and well fed!!” but do not help him if we indeed have the means to do so, that our well-wishes expressed to him in mere words, are WORTHLESS.
It is not a “sin” to have a decent home, a nice car, a nice tv, nice furniture.
But to live in exhorbitant, showy excess is part of the spirit of the world, which Paul
infallibly said is “earthy, animal, and DEMONIC.”
When you have a parish church, whose parking lot is FILLED on Sundays with luxurious, late model fancy cars and SUVs, yet most parishoners put a mere dollar bill in the collection plate (and nothing more privately), then something is seriously, seriously wrong.
And one thing you notice when working in retail,
most customers who are very wealthy, always try to get the very best items
for next to nothing, and then, when you give them discount after discount, (and they know that you are on commission), they then tell you to “drop another $200 from the total,” even after you tell them that such a big unauthorized cut would get you fired on the spot.
So please folks, especially you fiscal “conservatives” out there, please understand that your sympathy for the super rich (which MOST of you conservatives are NOT)
is GROSSLY misplaced. And by the way, the super rich, while they like Republicans to run Congress cuz they keep THEIR taxes cut to the bone, themselves are morally
often extreme liberals who contribute large (tax-deductible!!) amounts to Planned Parenthood, the various gay and lesbian militant organizations, various anti-Christian-Right political groups, and pro-abortion groups like NARAL and the National Abortion Federation, etc. I know that they do this. Your sympathy for them is grossly misplaced. They do NOT support your “traditional moral values” views and spend money to oppose those views and you and the church. PLEASE open your eyes.
Sorry for going off on tangents, but one thought often leads to another.
Pray for their conversions. And make them pay their FAIR SHARE to humanity and society, because in most cases, if you don’t legally force them to, they WON’T.
I’m not talking about confiscating their property or seizing their bank accounts, either.
I’m talking about paying a fair share for the sake of the common good.
And that is not “stealing” from them, either, anymore than YOU paying your
income taxes, constitutes the government stealing from YOU. YOU pay your fair share, sometimes a little more than your fair share. 1% in income taxes when you are so super rich that giving away a million bucks feels to you like losing a quarter feels to me, is not paying their fair share.
Love to you,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Captain_America]

Topics such as this post always fall apart.

This is because they kick up (a) super ultra hard-core individualist/libertarians (who love nothing better than prate about the Sanctity of Ownership (as if they are being Charitable about sharing their Superior Knowledge, and helping we less intelligent, though frightening, masses.), and (b) liberals, and others, who feel compelled to point out the HUGE WEALTH disparity that exists under the regime of Capitalism v. 2012.

As a political moderate, I’m just dismayed that this serious topic gets snuff treatment this way.

Here, the word “right” has been so abused as to be unrecognizable. The speaker was not being exact. . . or perhaps was carrying along a theory of prioritized rights (I can imagine a person making an argument that a starving child has a right to steal a crust from a well-fed baker).

Without question, the present makeup of the economic system in no way is an open and free market of the type so beloved by the Chicago theorists. It never has been that way, and when we peek behind the mirror, we see. . . John Blankfein? Greenspan? Enron? the Mexico and SE Asia bailouts? current bank and corporate bailouts? airline company subsidies? etc., etc.

The benefits of the marketplace, as it is structured right now, really benefit the rich. Ask a lawyer, and he’ll say much of the legal system exists to protect and preserve wealth. I personally have next to no use for the SEC, for instance. The rich man DOES, and he BENEFITS from such structures. He also benefits from government regulations that control market competition so that his investments benefit. I don’t.

So we as a society should rightly recognize that rich folks have a naturally greater obligation to pay the cost of this government, their government.

So what does this mean for po’ folks? Nothing whatever. The question of social entitlements is separate from this, another topic for full political consideration.

 

[Nate13]

So we as a society should rightly recognize that rich folks have a naturally greater obligation to pay the cost of this government, their government.

(I need the hand slapping forehead smile…)

They do pay more! A whole heck of a lot more unless they are getting crazy tax breaks, but even then. Most conservatives are on board for cleaning up those tax loopholes either using the current tax code or by completely scrapping the tax code and starting clean. I should be able to say Warren Buffet pays X% of tax, without having to even go and look it up! This is a magic trick and its fooling a whole heck of a lot of people. Paying more money is one thing, but paying a much higher percentage is another. Someone who makes $500,000 at 20% tax is paying a ton more than someone paying a 20% tax on $30,000.

The first guy is paying $100,000 in taxes…
The second is paying $6,000 in taxes…

Please explain how the rich person is not meeting their obligation here? This of course is not even the current state of affairs. Its the dream world for people who actually want a fair taxation of wealth. The current system is already unfair as you have said yet not in the way you believe. The extra rich are paying a 35% income tax, while the poor end up down closer to 10%. We are currently taxing people unfairly. This is almost as bad as the 3/5th’s compromise in attributing value to people, except the undervalued have accepted their predicament with open arms. Poor people are worth 10% and the richest are worth 35%. Rich people are worth almost 3 times as much as poor people… If your going to support tax increases solely on the rich at least call it out for what it is and stop with this fairness nonsense.

Saying someone should pay a higher percentage than another person is the same as saying some people are inherently worth more as persons than others.

 

[theswan]

Stop it!

You must search your spirit and answer this.

Some wealthy have hard earned their money others have had it fall in their lap big deal! Does not matter. What matters is the mandate that Christ gave that those with much, much is expected, those with little. less is expected.

We must share the knowledge of eternal life, the real Christ in our Eucharist and the life to come as well as his second coming. All material wealth is second. the “test” if you will is in Mt 25 ( as I see it not as the Church tells it ) Do we uphold that which is asked. Do we clothe the lest? Do we visit the sick and in prison? Etc?

How we answer this is the key but we must first search our souls and answer in good faith.

I have given directly to the poor both money and clothing, I have visited sick and prisoners. I gave food and water to those in need etc. Myself I admit my tithe is not 10% and I feel ashamed as I should trust that God will always give me abundance. My poor excuse is I am disabled and have a small fixed income. (by the way, I thank God that He placed social programs that allow me to not be homeless) I give $25-40 a month only.

Since I should give more, I am the one at peril of judgement as are those in power who can give more but hide behind loopholes or just ignore their mandate to “feed the sheep”.

So as an American, I vote as I see so it has the greatest impact on helping the poor. I give as I’m able save for my fearful tithe and try and allow those with the wealth to do what is right. Do they? that is another topic. It is their soul in judgement.

I did like what the ancient Jews did by giving 10% of the field to the poor. In fact seems Jews to this day are excellent in sharing wealth.

Glen

 

[markomalley]

I did like what the ancient Jews did by giving 10% of the field to the poor. In fact seems Jews to this day are excellent in sharing wealth.

I am SO glad that you brought up the OT system of taking care of the poor. That would be the way to go 100% in this country. If we even partially followed that system, we would have far, far fewer problems than we have today.

Examples:
[BIBLEDRB]Lev 19:9-10[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Deut 24:19-21[/BIBLEDRB]
The landowners were instructed to not pick their fields clean, but to leave some so that the poor could gather the gleanings.

This is utterly different than the system we have now: in the current system, the landowner is instructed to pick everything, sell it, give a significant percentage (50% or more in some jurisdictions) to the government, and the government gives money to the poor.

The difference is that in the OT system, the poor would be required to do the gleaning themselves for the food. In the new system, it’s handed to them, not by the landowner, but by the king (government).

There are too many examples to go into all in detail, but the point is that the OT system of charity was, with one exception, characterized by person-to-person solidarity. Provisions (such as the sabbatical year) were enforced, but it was still person-to-person.

BTW, the exception:
[BIBLEDRB]Deut 14:28-29[/BIBLEDRB]
(Calling for community food banks)

 

[Jaypeeto4]

So we as a society should rightly recognize that rich folks have a naturally greater obligation to pay the cost of this government, their government.

(I need the hand slapping forehead smile…)

They do pay more! A whole heck of a lot more unless they are getting crazy tax breaks,

In general, the super rich do NOT pay more. They pay a whole heck of a lot LESS.
Yes, we have a graduated income tax system in this country, but there are so very many loopholes that these folks, last year (the highest wealth class) paid less than 1% in income taxes last year. YOU, dear middle class Conservative, will NOT benefit from such loopholes. YOU WILL pay YOUR taxes, or the IRS will come after you. I pay my taxes, and I don’t mind. The point is, I miss my taxes, but I don’t gripe about it. He who has less, naturally MISSES it when he gives a significant portion either to the government or to charities or to both. Those who are swimming in vast wealth and living purely off interest on their vast accounts, don’t miss it when they pay the same percentage. They can still afford their $5000 washcloth from Pratesi.
One of the posts above talks about the Law of Moses and the Gleaning of the Fields provision, mentioning that the poor were required to go out and get the food, whereas under our system, the government just “gives it to them.”
This is, forgive me, B.S. There were no grocery stores in ancient Israel, so of COURSE the poor had to go into the fields and retrieve the gleanings. That’s just common sense.
The government is not giving gobs of money to the poor.
My parents are on on social security. Last year, my mom was conned into accepting that Medicaid pay part of her “part B” or part D ( I don’t remember which, I don’t understand this stuff) and my dad’s. So she signed the very easy to sign form, which was a government grant of $192 a month (for both of them together, not each). They then got FLOODED with all kinds of paperwork explaining all the “obligations” they had to fulfill (which would take a $400 an hour lawyer to understand, I couldn’t understand it at all), etc. Then this year, they get an “eligibility review letter” that asked so many probing and personal questions that she felt like they were trying to intimidate her. How dare they do this garbage to a helpless old woman who busted her behind for 45 years in the workforce and gets a very small Social Security Check to begin with. She never wanted the darned Medicaid benefit in the first place, with all it’s ridiculous red-tape for a mere total of $192 a month. THEY SOLICITED HER, she never applied for it. So she called up the government agency responsible for signing her up for it, and told them not to renew her for the program anymore.
Now, forgive me, I’m going to mention something VERY politicallly incorrect.
There is a certain ethnic group prominent here in South Florida.
I can tell you, born and raised here, that, yes, these people work very hard.
BUT. They were treated like priveleged Characters by the government (city, municipal, state and federal) from the minute they started arriving here in the 1960s. I lived in east Little Havana. These folks were getting gobs of money from the Federal Government in the form of so-called Refugee Assistance (which they continued to get for several decades, long after such could have even been considered justified), Section 8 paid housing (in nice homes in what was a once very safe neighborhood near the Orange Bowl), tons of food stamps, etc., despite the fact that most of them were working full time jobs, buying the nicest furniture, driving late model nice cars, etc etc etc. These were “benefits” that American natural born citizens COULD NOT GET, even though we lived here all our lives and had been paying into “the system.” They had just got here from a communist Island and were receving huge subsidies, even when working. As a teenager, I did not know what to make of all of this. It was certainly widespread in that neighborhood, EVERYBODY KNEW it was going on. Yet, 10 blocks away, in Overtown, poor BLACK AMERICAN families, had to beg, plead, and cajole for a little help in meeting their expenses. This was simply not right. THEY, the blacks, were longstanding citizens who also had been paying taxes into the system, and had to practically bugger-the-bursar to get even a little help, while the newcomers were loaded down with money and other support, including food stamps, free lunches at school for their kids, etc., all the while they were living in nice homes and nice apartments (paid for in part or largely with government granted money) with gorgeous new furniture, designer clothes, and drove late model nice cars, while they paid for their groceries with food stamps and voted Republican (because the Republicans did the most speeches against Castro when they came to town to campaign) and held down full time jobs all the while, too.
And in talking to them, they would openly talk about all the money the government was giving them, and were genuinely SHOCKED that native born Americans like my family were NOT receiving these things and couldn’t get them if we had wanted them (which we didn’t).
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Contarini]

Saying someone should pay a higher percentage than another person is the same as saying some people are inherently worth more as persons than others.

Non sequitur. You are making the bizarre and inhuman assumption that one’s worth as a human being is measured financially, and then weirdly claiming to be arguing against that very assumption!

There’s no connection whatever between what the government asks of a person financially and what that person is worth as a human being.

It is rather cheering when one’s opponents are driven to such absurd lengths–but it is also frustrating:shrug:.

Edwin