T
TK421
Guest
Peace.
Last edited:
- Status
Peace.
C
Crocus
Guest
Everyone is shaking hands and sitting close together. What is the date on the video?
Edit:
Date was February 6 2020
Meeting with International Monetary Fund, about Argentina’s debt. The woman shaking hands with the Pope (in first article below) is Managing Director, Kristalina Georgieva.
The Pope spoke of structures behind ever increasing disparity between the very rich and very poor. Second linked article below.
Edit:
Date was February 6 2020
Meeting with International Monetary Fund, about Argentina’s debt. The woman shaking hands with the Pope (in first article below) is Managing Director, Kristalina Georgieva.
The Pope spoke of structures behind ever increasing disparity between the very rich and very poor. Second linked article below.
Last edited:
T
TK421
Guest
How life has quickly changed
This was back in the ancient days of February 2020.
C
Crocus
Guest
Sigh. I remember it as in a mist far away. Will it ever be the same? 
Last edited:
T
TK421
Guest
I don’t think so. I’m going to love the sounds of children playing on school playgrounds or the chatter of pedestrians in a way that I didn’t before.Sigh. I remember it as in a mist far away. Will it ever be the same?
O
o_mlly
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
K
KMC
Guest
To be fair, I’m not sure the Pope has the US in mind when he makes these kinds of comments. Also, from a moral perspective, terms need to be defined. What is “rich”, the “very rich”, etc. What is a fair tax rate? How does that tax rate compare with what the CCC says (emphasis mine)
I love the Pope, but not all of his comments give enough actionable direction on specific topics.
My point would be that if tax rates in total exceed 50% of one’s earnings, then is the individual enjoying the “fruits of their labor”?
I love the Pope, but not all of his comments give enough actionable direction on specific topics.
C
Crocus
Guest
The first time I saw that was about 15 years ago, a newspaper clipping, tacked to my boss’s cork board in his office. That’s when I first started looking around and really thinking about how things work out for various people.
I didn’t start reading the relevant papal encyclicals until recently. They make more and more sense to me.
If such a person has food, shelter, a safe place to live and work, time and ability for modest leisure opportunities and exercise of religion, I would say yes, they enjoy the “fruits of their labor.”
Insofar as CCC 2431 is part of the section “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” one is obliged to work, within one’s talents and abilities, to facilitate that same result for others.
Last edited:
K
KMC
Guest
Where is your definition in the CCC? Perhaps I have to save to send my kids to college, or take care of my parents, or save for starting my own business, etc? In other words, who, other than me, gets to determine the definition of “enjoying the fruits of my labor?”
I certainly believe in paying taxes and being charitable, however, are you saying I need to work and pay for the “modest leisure opportunities of others?” (among other extraneous things). I’m trying to understand your position.
C
Crocus
Guest
I can’t really comment on your particular financial circumstances. I do not say you need to pay for others, rather others (who are denied) are due those basics as fruit of their labor.
The encyclicals are clear. The CCC repeats the principles. On observation one may see that workers do not all receive the fruit of their labor, as briefly stated above (add opportunity for education and ability to save, to acquire property, etc).
You asked for definitions from the Catechism. It’s the whole document. Each point builds on, defines, clarifies, qualifies the others. Read again from the start of this section on 7th commandment.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm
The encyclicals are clear. The CCC repeats the principles. On observation one may see that workers do not all receive the fruit of their labor, as briefly stated above (add opportunity for education and ability to save, to acquire property, etc).
You asked for definitions from the Catechism. It’s the whole document. Each point builds on, defines, clarifies, qualifies the others. Read again from the start of this section on 7th commandment.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm
Last edited:
C
Crocus
Guest
I thought I did that above. Other words?
God created the world, for all of us.
Everyone gets to work and share in the benefits of work, which are at the least (mentioned above and in CCC and in the encyclicals). Those who cannot work are not excluded from the benefits of decent living conditions.
We elect representatives from among us to creatively, prudently, generously, faithfully, honestly, …, serve us in setting in place mechanisms that accomplish the above.
It’s all there in the encyclicals.
Tax cuts for the rich and tax havens frustrate the imperatives of the papal encyclicals.
K
KMC
Guest
The encyclicals vs what you said in your first post don’t align 100%. First, you defined what you felt were the appropriate “fruits” of someone’s labor. Then you said that I don’t need to pay for someone else’s “basics”, but in the context of taxation, implies that the government does via taxation. Did I misunderstand you?
Certainly the CCC spells out the principles, they don’t spell out tax rates, or designate that its moral to have the government take the majority of someone’s earnings in taxes (many people support 70% or more in top marginal tax rates).
I agree on the CCC principles…its interesting to see how people believe they are to be applied
C
Crocus
Guest
We are all in this together. An individual does not survive on his own, from the moment of conception to natural death. We enter into a contract of humanity, caring for each other, building upon what has been built before us. We are not owners, but stewards. Taxes serve as vehicles of stewardship.
In most cases we don’t pay every time we use public roads, fire department, police, walk on a cleared path, use a playground. Shared responsibilities. No one has a job without the contribution of untold others. If someone is lacking, then others are objectively hoarding (not necessarily willfully, but in effect).
If someone is lacking, we may judge it a failure of stewardship in our designated representatives.
The Pope challenges us to build on a foundation of justice for all. In the OP video the Pope addresses two points where he thinks governments are recently veering off in the wrong direction.
Last edited:
K
KMC
Guest
Which is why I said I’m not against paying taxes. The problem that the Pope’s very general comments, is that they don’t address details, which can alter his very general comments. He is not making absolute moral statements. It might be very moral to reduce taxes on certain people…it really depends on the purpose. If the purpose is just to further enrich rich people, I agree with him. If the purpose is to stimulate the economy and help create jobs using sound fundamental economic principles, then I would think the Pope would adjust his statements accordingly.KMC:
We are all in this together. An individual does not survive on his own, from the moment of conception to natural death. We enter into a contract of humanity, caring for each other, building upon what has been built before us. We are not owners, but stewards. Taxes serve as vehicles of stewardship.
In most cases we don’t pay every time we use public roads, fire department, police, walk on a cleared path, use a playground. Shared responsibilities. No one has a job without the contribution of untold others. If someone is lacking, then others are objectively hoarding (not necessarily willfully, but in effect).
If someone is lacking, we may judge it a failure of stewardship in our designated representatives.
The Pope challenges us to build on a foundation of justice for all. In the OP video the Pope addresses two points where he thinks governments are recently veering off in the wrong direction.
Until someone defines what is the “moral percentage of taxes” one should pay on their income, its all up to each person to act according to their well formed consciences on how to apply the Church’s teaching.
S
Socrates92
Guest
All fair enough. I could perhaps debate your statement on elected officials. It’d be great if they were a little more prudent and honest and a little less creative and “generous” (whatever that means in the context of public finance).
However,
is a separate economic and empirical question, which cannot be answered within the encyclical itself, as it can’t be generalized. That is, unless your position on the optimal amount of taxes for the rich (which also has to be defined) is always “more”. I don’t think you’re advocating a 100% tax rate, so you’ll have to explain which tax cuts you are talking about, and why you think they frustrate the ideas behind the papal encyclicals.
J
JimG
Guest
I would not say that every ‘tax haven’ is a ‘structure if sin.’ Charitable giving, including giving to the church, is deductible from income and benefits charities and society generally.
C
Catholic_Guy1
Guest
We just sent 1200 to most people and that cost 500 billion dollars. When people talk about “fair share” they imply the rich, but they are really talking about the middle class.
Socialism breeds two classes- rich and everyone else is poor, there is no middle class.
Socialism breeds two classes- rich and everyone else is poor, there is no middle class.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
That was the year 2020 BC (Before Coronavirus).How life has quickly changed
farronwolf
New member
You are simply looking at income taxes. We pay many, many more taxes than that.
For instance social security and medicare taxes. As ones earned income goes up and over the maximum social security earnings limit, the individual pays zero social security on additional earnings. So someone who makes below the maximum social security taxable amount pays social security taxes on 100% of their earnings, above that, the percentage declines.
Sales tax. Folks who are at the lower earnings rate spend most all of their money, so they pay sales taxes on a greater percentage of their income vs. high income persons who simply save a large portion of their earnings and a low percentage of sales tax based on income.
This is exactly why consumption taxes are a bad idea.
Face it, the more you have, the more you have to loose, and the more you get out of society. You are more likely to use our national parks, airlines, roads and on an on.
The higher your income the more tax advantages there are for you to take as well. Carried interest, tax exempt interest, capital gains rates, and on and on.
Looking at just income tax is a very simplistic and inaccurate way to judge fairness of taxes.
For instance social security and medicare taxes. As ones earned income goes up and over the maximum social security earnings limit, the individual pays zero social security on additional earnings. So someone who makes below the maximum social security taxable amount pays social security taxes on 100% of their earnings, above that, the percentage declines.
Sales tax. Folks who are at the lower earnings rate spend most all of their money, so they pay sales taxes on a greater percentage of their income vs. high income persons who simply save a large portion of their earnings and a low percentage of sales tax based on income.
This is exactly why consumption taxes are a bad idea.
Face it, the more you have, the more you have to loose, and the more you get out of society. You are more likely to use our national parks, airlines, roads and on an on.
The higher your income the more tax advantages there are for you to take as well. Carried interest, tax exempt interest, capital gains rates, and on and on.
Looking at just income tax is a very simplistic and inaccurate way to judge fairness of taxes.
- Status