"Right" to take from the wealthy

[Nate13]

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.

I think the fact that the top 1% pay 97% of all taxes disproves this fallacy.

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.

Edwin

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

I am in complete agreement with you. Financial wealth means nothing towards what a person is truly worth as a human being. My point was that the government treats us all as if it did. We all buy into it as well. For example if a person’s neighbor was getting even just $1 a month more from some benefit provided by the government, their would be cries of injustice and inequality. But if that same neighbor has to pay 3 times the income tax percentage to pay for that benefit than the other does, he cries that they should be paying 4 times as much! He then also proceeds to complain that the rich have 4 times more influence in the government than the poor do.

 

[Contarini]

I am in complete agreement with you. Financial wealth means nothing towards what a person is truly worth as a human being. My point was that the government treats us all as if it did.

No, it doesn’t. The implication is wholly your own invention.

We all buy into it as well. For example if a person’s neighbor was getting even just $1 a month more from some benefit provided by the government, their would be cries of injustice and inequality.

Not necessarily. It would depend on why.

But if that same neighbor has to pay 3 times the income tax percentage to pay for that benefit than the other does, he cries that they should be paying 4 times as much!

Yes. This is what Aquinas would call “distributive justice.”

Of course, Aquinas lived in a hierarchical society where certain people were seen as rightly having more stuff than others. But they weren’t worth more as human beings.

Same here, even though the nature of the “inequality” is different.

He then also proceeds to complain that the rich have 4 times more influence in the government than the poor do.

Well, I think that’s a fair point, actually, but it has nothing to do with human worth.

However, the problem is that the rich use the influence to make sure that they pay less taxes.

A society in which you had more influence the more taxes you paid would be, in my opinion, not an ideal society but not a flagrantly unjust one either.

As it is, the rich do not have influence based on the taxes they pay but based on their ability to use the rest of their wealth to influence the government in other ways.

But again, none of this implies that people are worth more the more taxes they pay. You have decided that that’s the implication, but none of your statements constitutes an argument to that effect.

I think you are on to something insofar as our society often speaks as if giving certain people more influence or power constitutes treating them as if they had more human worth. If that’s your point, then I think you’re right–that assumption is flawed and must be rejected. But it does not follow that the government is treating the rich as if they had more worth by taxing them more, only that we need to recover what Aquinas and other medieval Christians knew–that one person may have more privileges and/or responsibilities than another without having more worth as a human being.

Edwin

 

[Ender]

There are some rather wild guesses about who pays what in income taxes but the information is readily available for anyone to check for himself. This IRS site for example has data going up to 2009: irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,id=133521,00.html

What it shows is that the bottom 44% of taxpayers pay 6% of the total collected in taxes … about the same amount as is collected from the top 0.1%. The top 1% pays over 28% and the top 4% of taxpayers contribute about 45% of the total. It is a very lopsided curve and one cannot deny the inclination exists for the many - who pay very little in taxes now - to simply vote to take more money from the few who have a lot … and assuage their consciences by convincing themselves that this is somehow justified.

Ender

 

[markomalley]

There are some rather wild guesses about who pays what in income taxes but the information is readily available for anyone to check for himself. This IRS site for example has data going up to 2009: irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,id=133521,00.html

What it shows is that the bottom 44% of taxpayers pay 6% of the total collected in taxes … about the same amount as is collected from the top 0.1%. The top 1% pays over 28% and the top 4% of taxpayers contribute about 45% of the total. It is a very lopsided curve and one cannot deny the inclination exists for the many - who pay very little in taxes now - to simply vote to take more money from the few who have a lot … and assuage their consciences by convincing themselves that this is somehow justified.

Ender

Fascinating tables. I especially like table 4a, showing that those making 200k or more per year pay more than 19% of their gross income (going up to 29% as income rises) as Federal Income Tax (not including FICA, Medicare, State, Local, Sales, Fuel, and other taxes), while those making 50k or less pay, at max, 6.5% of their gross income as Federal Tax (again, not including FICA, etc.)

Do you know of any reliable stats out there that add in average FICA and Medicare contributions to those numbers?

 

[Nate13]

There are some rather wild guesses about who pays what in income taxes but the information is readily available for anyone to check for himself. This IRS site for example has data going up to 2009: irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,id=133521,00.html

What it shows is that the bottom 44% of taxpayers pay 6% of the total collected in taxes … about the same amount as is collected from the top 0.1%. The top 1% pays over 28% and the top 4% of taxpayers contribute about 45% of the total. It is a very lopsided curve and one cannot deny the inclination exists for the many - who pay very little in taxes now - to simply vote to take more money from the few who have a lot … and assuage their consciences by convincing themselves that this is somehow justified.

Ender

:tiphat: I stand corrected.

Fascinating tables. I especially like table 4a, showing that those making 200k or more per year pay more than 19% of their gross income (going up to 29% as income rises) as Federal Income Tax (not including FICA, Medicare, State, Local, Sales, Fuel, and other taxes), while those making 50k or less pay, at max, 6.5% of their gross income as Federal Tax (again, not including FICA, etc.)

Do you know of any reliable stats out there that add in average FICA and Medicare contributions to those numbers?

And this is only after the federal government gets their slice. When all is said and done the rich are losing near 50% of their income in taxes.

 

[tafan]

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.

I have done a quick scan of the thread and I saw little that addressed the teaching I am sure the presenter was alluding to (and likely misapplying). There was a reference to Aquinas, but those are always obscure. It is very clear in the CCC, my apologies if this was already posted.

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.191

Stealing/theft is always sinful, typically of grave matter. But in the case were a reasonable person would give the goods to a person in need, there is no theft. This has been a clear teaching of moral theologians for ever. However, especially in our modern times, it is often misapplied in the political realm. Happens a lot in the world, but it does not make the teaching wrong.

 

[insideitall]

everyone pays the FICA tax. for ss, the employee’s share is 6.2% on income up to $106,800, for a total of no more than $6,324. for medicare, the employee’s share is 1.45% on all income.

I did read through previous posts and may have missed it, but I didn’t see anything from leo xiii’s *rerum novarum *(1891), or from jpii’s centesimus annus (1991), which reasserts the first document. I was linked to those from a page on “the principle of subsidiarity,” which is outlined in the catechism.

“1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.””

the basic points are that yes, we are responsible for each other, but the responsibility should be handled at the smallest level possible. governments are less efficient and they are more unjust, by forcibly taking from those who have more to give to those who have less. those who have more will be resentful at the theft and angry that is is being squandered, while those who have less will become dependent and feel entitled, not grateful, because the help was not given freely.

our tax code (specifically pertaining to income tax) is unjust because of the tiers. we somehow keep forgetting (despite the huge national debt) that the state and federal governments are hugely inept at anything involving money. their solution is to tax more, or shuttle money in from somewhere else, but that doesn’t fix the bad budgeting. a flat tax rate across the board would not only be just but it would allow the wealthy to pump more money into the economy and charities of their own choosing. even if you’re cynical and assume that rich people don’t give to charities, by putting money back into the economy business owners would make more, which would allow them to hire more people and/or raise their employee’s pay, and lower prices on their goods and services.

in re to an earlier post: if someone is on food stamps they are not living within their means. food stamps should come with a list of eligible items, the way wic does. if someone needs their fellow citizens to support them (in any aspect of their life), they most certainly should be living frugally in an effort to be able to support themselves.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**in re to an earlier post: if someone is on food stamps they are not living within their means. food stamps should come with a list of eligible items, the way wic does. if someone needs their fellow citizens to support them (in any aspect of their life), they most certainly should be living frugally in an effort to be able to support themselves. **

What are you trying to say here? That if someone is living on food stamps, they are living a squanderous lifestyle? Not living within their means? Not many people WANT the stigma of being on food stamps. True, there are some who, though able bodied and of sound mind, don’t want to work at all and would be perfectly content to let Uncle Sam and Joe Citizen pay all of their bills till the day they die, but I don’t think that most people who have fallen on hard times are like that, even if the hard times are even partly their own fault.
Your last statement really speaks volumes, it would seem.
So, if one of your relatives became disabled and asked you for help, and you had plenty of means to help him or her, would you first say to him or her, okay, I’ll help you, but only if you NEVER visit a McDonald’s ever again, and only if you give away your tv, your radio, and your internet computer and by the way, don’t call anyone on the phone either…?
I’m not advocating that those on public assistance live sumptuously (and if they are living sumptuously while on public assistance, then they are getting way more public assistance than they should lawfully be getting, as most public assistance programs are pretty tight-waddish. If you don’t believe me, go to the us government’s food stamps website and take a look at what they offer destitute people in the way of “help.” Even with liberals in control, it’s surprisingly little. I have never been on food stamps, thank the Lord,
but I remember one time my family in South Florida was having a very hard time for a while, and my dad, who could prove severe poverty at the time, was offered a whopping 17 dollars a month in food stamp aid. For a family of four. While our neighbors from a communist island in the Caribbean, who were working and had nice cars, etc., got all kinds of federal “refugee aid” even though they had been “refugees” for 30 years or more, but they offered my born-here dad a whopping 17 dollars a month to feed a family of four.
Those of you who think government programs for the poor are designed to make deadbeats rich without having to work, are gravely mistaken. My dad told the office worker to take the 17 dollars and put them where the sun don’t shine.
If I have the means, and a friend or loved one needs my help to support him or her,
I’m not going to impose a set of “conditions” on him for it so long as he is not merely trying to rake me over the coals. Like “you better live like a dirt poor man or I won’t give you a dime.” How would you like to be treated like that if you were in need?
It is unnecessarily humiliating and insulting.
Love to you,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I don’t understand the differences between “WIC” coupons and “Food Stamps.”
All I do know, is that Food Stamps DO EXCLUDE a lot of items you will find in the grocery store. They are FOOD stamps, after all (even though nowadays you see people using a food stamp “card” that’s sort of like a debit card). When I was in my teens, things were different. You would see people buying beer and wine and cigarets with their food stamps too. They may not have been SUPPOSED TO DO THAT, but cashiers would often let them do it.
By the way, regarding WIC coupons, whatever they are, I don’t understand all this stuff.
But I shop at PUBLIX grocery stores, and when walking thru the various food aisles,
you see “WIC Approved” signs on particular food items. Take the bread and rolls aisle.
You’ll see a few of the bread brands with a “WIC Approved” sign on them. Funny thing is, these are not always the least expensive brands of bread, either. Same goes for other food items. Only certain brands have a “WIC Approved” sign in front of them, and very often these are not the least expensive brands, either. I wonder why that is, if the government is trying to save money…

 

[Rence]

I don’t understand the differences between “WIC” coupons and “Food Stamps.”
All I do know, is that Food Stamps DO EXCLUDE a lot of items you will find in the grocery store. They are FOOD stamps, after all (even though nowadays you see people using a food stamp “card” that’s sort of like a debit card). When I was in my teens, things were different. You would see people buying beer and wine and cigarets with their food stamps too. They may not have been SUPPOSED TO DO THAT, but cashiers would often let them do it.
By the way, regarding WIC coupons, whatever they are, I don’t understand all this stuff.
But I shop at PUBLIX grocery stores, and when walking thru the various food aisles,
you see “WIC Approved” signs on particular food items. Take the bread and rolls aisle.
You’ll see a few of the bread brands with a “WIC Approved” sign on them. Funny thing is, these are not always the least expensive brands of bread, either. Same goes for other food items. Only certain brands have a “WIC Approved” sign in front of them, and very often these are not the least expensive brands, either. I wonder why that is, if the government is trying to save money…

Because sometimes the least expensive brands are not the healthiest choices, or may include or not include ingredients that make the other brands acceptable.

I used to work for grocery store as a kid, as far back as 25 years ago, and food stamps only bought food items. You couldn’t buy cigarettes or beer, or even a rotissary (sp?) chicken. Though, our registers were capable of ringing up all of it, and the customer paid the cash balance after the foodstamp total was paid. We were not allowed to give back anything but less than a dollar change on the balance of food stamps. The computer wouldn’t let us, and it was illegal.

Also WIC items are sometimes very specific in what they allowed. The more nutritious cereals and less sugar saturated, for example, were allowed. Rice Krispies and Cheerios was a popular brand. The sugar coated stuff and sugar loaded stuff was not allwed. If they were allowed cheese, it could not say “process” on it, like Kraft singles or Velvetta in the single slices. It had to be real cheese. Though I do remember someone coming through with WIC buying a huge brick of real cheese. But then, I would expect those criteria for food stamps. Part of the reason why our society is so unhealthy is because of the junk we feed ourselves. So I like the restrictions on WIC and foodstamps. It’s better for them.

 

[mateoricci]

The poor shouldn’t be taking. The rich should be offering. Blessed are those who…

 

[Aelred_Minor]

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.191

Stealing/theft is always sinful, typically of grave matter. But in the case were a reasonable person would give the goods to a person in need, there is no theft. This has been a clear teaching of moral theologians for ever. However, especially in our modern times, it is often misapplied in the political realm. Happens a lot in the world, but it does not make the teaching wrong.

Note the words I put in bold. That’s the part that’s key to this question. In an imaginary world in which there is only a rich man and a poor man, in which the poor man was dying of starvation with no way to get food and the rich man had plenty, then a decision to withhold food from the poor man would not be reasonable for the rich man- reason would reveal the universal destination of goods and the moral responsibility to give the poor man food. Therefore if the rich man made his evil decision the poor man would be entirely within his rights to take the food anyway. It would not be theft, but merely taking what is already his own.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Because sometimes the least expensive brands are not the healthiest choices, or may include or not include ingredients that make the other brands acceptable.

I used to work for grocery store as a kid, as far back as 25 years ago, and food stamps only bought food items. You couldn’t buy cigarettes or beer, or even a rotissary (sp?) chicken. Though, our registers were capable of ringing up all of it, and the customer paid the cash balance after the foodstamp total was paid. We were not allowed to give back anything but less than a dollar change on the balance of food stamps. The computer wouldn’t let us, and it was illegal.

Also WIC items are sometimes very specific in what they allowed. The more nutritious cereals and less sugar saturated, for example, were allowed. Rice Krispies and Cheerios was a popular brand. The sugar coated stuff and sugar loaded stuff was not allwed. If they were allowed cheese, it could not say “process” on it, like Kraft singles or Velvetta in the single slices. It had to be real cheese. Though I do remember someone coming through with WIC buying a huge brick of real cheese. But then, I would expect those criteria for food stamps. Part of the reason why our society is so unhealthy is because of the junk we feed ourselves. So I like the restrictions on WIC and foodstamps. It’s better for them.

In New York State, people can get practically any food item with their EBT cards (SNAP program), the successor of food stamps (and still often called “food stamps”). That includes candy, donuts, chips, and soda. It doesn’t include PEZ, I assume because apparently the dispenser is considered a toy. Alcohol and tobacco also are not included, of course, or hot foods like a rotisserie chicken. I can’t remember off the top of my head if chewing gum is included. I would hope not.

WIC checks have certain items printed on them and can only be used for those products. In fact, only a relatively narrow range of products can be used even within the bounds of what is written on the check. For example a check may be for up to 38 ounces of “WIC cereal” which is not any cereal but only a short list of non-sugary cereals approved by NYS (other states have their own limits, which I believe are usually much more limited than what NYS allows.) In this case customers sometimes do get away with non-approved items, in which case the store will not be reimbursed by the State and will have in effect given away the food for free. Naturally there is pressure on cashiers not to do this, but the list of approved items is far too long to easily memorize and is constantly changing, so mistakes do happen.

Personally I think only healthy foods should be covered by any form of government assistance, more along the lines of WIC than “food stamps”.

 

[David_Castlen]

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.

Looking forward to seeing the responses

 

[Elvis_Guy]

PS The goods of the earth do belong to everyone but every able person has the responsibility to sow the seeds and till the fields,not just sit under the apple tree and wait for everyone else to make a pie

Well put!!! My Grandfather was a Dirt-Farmer in the depression … He had a good work ethic…and was honest…he bought land when he could…piece by piece for years…and years… he became wealthy in timber, to this day I own it, I dedicated % of it to the Church, I use the Biblical concept of Stewardship as best I can, I am thankful God gives me this role…I do that which I can to “Care for widows and orphans” as I dedicated as a KoC Knight, I work hard on the legacy! Contracts…you name it! I’m surrounded by folk who fish all day and “want an apple pie!” Whether one is working class, middle class or "wealthy " we are all called to put into The Churches work…we…are called to work with what we are given. A wealthy man who is greedy…he must in the end answer to God! We ends do not justify means we don’t rob the rich man and pat ourselves and say we did Gods work! No…that is theft. Let’s move away from the wealthy…a mechanic who raises prices on women with no mechanical knowledge ??? Do we burn his shop. No! Arson is a crime as is theft…if it is found…don’t go to him…unless he repents!!! Otherwise like the miser wealthy man he too answers to God! Vigilantism and Class Warfare have no place for a Christian, we take our own crosses and bear them, a rich man who owns a bank but knows God, if he sees the evil rich man, let him take the slack and be generous a good Godly Mechanic, if he sees the mechanic who does the wrong , address it at a fair price and teach from his stewardship . This is my Humble Opinion. God Bless…blessed Advent to all.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

I do not begrudge public assistance for the truely needy. Unfortunately, with many government programs there is rampant abuse…and it is not of recent vintage.
I lived in Virginia a number of years ago when College students were eligible for foodstamps. At the time, I was unemployed and living on a restricted budget. For a number of reasons I was not eligible to get foodstamps but College kids were.
I remember being in the checkout line of a supermarket and a young lady, obviously from the middle class was paying for her groceries with foodstamps. When the clerk told her she couldn’t use her foodstamps to pay for her catfood, she put the cans aside, went to the freezer and came back with a 1 pound package of shrimp and said it was for her cat…at a time when I couldn’t afford to eat shrimp.
Most recently, I live in the lower East side of Manhattan. It is very common to see people using foodstamps and WIC vouchers in local Bodegas to buy cigarettes and beer…and to see very well dressed middle class types standing in line to get free food handouts in Tompins Square Park, and nobody even bats an eye. And, it is well known here in the City that panhandlers can net hundreds of dollars a day, most of which goes for dope and booze. You get to recognize the regulars…it is their profession.
I have gotten to the point that I will donate only to CC related charities not to individuals.

 

[robbie20]

Liberation theology says we must take and squeeze every penny from the rich and distribute it unto the masses…

Then we string the ex-rich up by their toes in labor camps…

Not very Christian but that’s what the Christian communists in the Church have suggested…

 

[VerseOne]

I once knew a man who was so poor, all he had was his money.

 

[St_Francis]

our tax code (specifically pertaining to income tax) is unjust because of the tiers.  we somehow keep forgetting (despite the huge national debt) that the state and federal governments are hugely inept at anything involving money.  their solution is to tax more, or shuttle money in from somewhere else, but that doesn't fix the bad budgeting.  a flat tax rate across the board would not only be just but it would allow the wealthy to pump more money into the economy and charities of their own choosing.  even if you're cynical and assume that rich people don't give to charities, by putting money back into the economy business owners would make more, which would allow them to hire more people and/or raise their employee's pay, and lower prices on their goods and services.

I don’t think progressive taxes are in and of themselves inherently unfair. The higher percentages are on the higher tiers of income; it’s not that your rate is raised for all of your income.

So, (I have no idea what the numbers actually are, I’m making these up) suppose someone makes 30K so they are At the top of the lowest level. So they pay the lowest level in taxes. The guy down the street pays the same percentage on the first 30k, but a higher rate on the 20K he made over the 30K.

So ot’s not that the second guy pays the higher rate on his entire income, just the part in the upper level.

 

[tafan]

Note the words I put in bold. That’s the part that’s key to this question. In an imaginary world in which there is only a rich man and a poor man, in which the poor man was dying of starvation with no way to get food and the rich man had plenty, then a decision to withhold food from the poor man would not be reasonable for the rich man- reason would reveal the universal destination of goods and the moral responsibility to give the poor man food. Therefore if the rich man made his evil decision the poor man would be entirely within his rights to take the food anyway. It would not be theft, but merely taking what is already his own.

I have one little squabble with your example. Giving the example “in an imaginary world” gives the impression it rarely applies to us. Few moral teachings of the Church do not have direct implications on our lives. Refusing to give something to someone who is truly needy is immoral, it is " contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods". For many of us, giving to charitable organizations for the poor is a moral obligation. It is not something we get brownie points for, it is actually sinful when we don’t.