The elite super wealthy and social justice

[Bill_7154]

I ran out of room, so I’m going to add one thing more.

The parable of the Good Samaritan is intriguing. The Samaritan was some kind of merchant, it appears. He had a donkey and a mission to accomplish. He had some amount of money that we don’t know.

He sees a man in immediate need, and he meets that need precisely. He does not divide his wealth with the injured man, let alone give him his donkey, his money and his goods. He does not go out and spread his wealth among the citizenry at large. He meets the most proximate need to him. He does it adequately, but does not take the injured man to raise.

He promises to return as his mission will allow, and see if he has accomplished what he set out to do with the injured man and perhaps supplement the effort. But we know he will do only that which is immediately needed. No more and no less. And he will not change his life purposes greatly in order to do it, notwithstanding that he has sacrificed some of his ease and the fruits of his labor to get it done. The need is in front of him and clear.

Thanks again for taking the time to share. I think it will take me at least a few reads of the above before the full meaning sinks in, possibly many more than that.

Being intrigued, as I am, with this parable, but seeing how unfocused and indiscriminate governmental efforts seem in attempting to achieve “social justice”, I guess I am inclined to be more than a bit suspicious of proclamations that this broad policy or that grand scheme will somehow be “just” or “charitable”.

And regardless of how suspicious you are, I I am utterly convinced that government taxation to achieve social justice is outright harmful to many, if not most, or mostly all, of the recipients of such schemes that seem to mostly come in the form of ‘entitlement’ programs.

And for anyone familiar with (or who choose to actually research previous posts of mine on the subject prior to engaging in what were essentially ‘attacks’ here in this thread towards me) my posts on the subject of government, varous taxation plans to supposedly ‘help’ the poor, etc would quite clearly see that I am utterly and completely opposed to such things.

In the OP I made it clear, over and over, that I was speaking about and interested in hearing feedback about CHARITY. I do not believe that I mentioned taxation even once. If I did, it certainly wasn’t in the context of ‘social justice’.

So thank you again for your contributions to this thread, and mostly for not passing judgement on me. In particuar for not passing judgement on me based on assumptions. You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

I look forward to reading more of your posts, be it in this forum or in one or more of the others on this site. You are clearly a man of not only wisdom, but one of kindness and restraint. A man who strikes me as someone who has a clear conscience and has a lot of attributes that would make you a good leader of other men.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Ridgerunner]

What I find suprising, is that not only have I never spoken of ‘social justice’ as forced taxation on the rich, or anyone else, I am against forced taxation, period.

Yet I have been called a Marxist in this thread and accused it seems several times as believing that ‘the rich’ should be ‘forced’ to contribute x ammt of $ through taxes to go to other people.

It is open minded people such as yourself, people who don’t jump to conclusions, that I seek to learn from as I continue on my path as learning and growing as a Catholic.

God Bless,
Bill

Again, thank you for the compliment, not particularly deserved, but kind.

I don’t know the posts you are talking about, so I can’t comment on them.

I think it’s difficult, in a society as complex as this, to really formulate Christian “strategies” for being charitable short of being nutty. I recall long ago in a Catholic seminar sort of setting hearing a man declare that, by golly, he was going to “earn less”. His point, I believe, was that he could take a lesser job in life and spend more time with his family, etc.

But it struck me at the time that “earning less” in and of itself is irrelevant. So is “earning more”. The same could be said, I think, of impoverishing one’s family or oneself in order to be charitable, for most of us at least. True, there are the monks and nuns who do impoverish themselves to serve others, and that’s virtuous. But if we all did that, we would all be hungry, cold and without shelter. I recall reading somewhere that if 100% of the wealth of the U.S. was redistributed worldwide, each person on earth would get something like $1,000, a sum which wouldn’t last long or be worth much because the source would no longer exist or have anything left to sell. Resources have always been scarce in this world, and will always be scarce. It is foolish to think of them in any other way.

But beginning at the most basic, we have to acknowledge that every Pope from Pope Leo XIII on has declared that there is a moral obligation to provide decently for those who cannot help themselves. And, the means chosen must be the most proximate capable means to the person in need.

So, while I would be considered a “conservative” by most, I take that as the starting point.
But does that mean that I must therefore provide my neighbor with a TV set equal to my own or perhaps better if he likes TV more than I do? I don’t think so.

The Popes have encouraged systems which are conducive to the individual and family acquisition of productive and inheritable wealth. Why that? Well, because the family is the need most proximate to the individual, and has the greatest natural claim on him. Furthermore, the individual (let’s say the parent) is the person most likely to know, in detail, the needs of a family member; something government is really not good at.

In this, I am reminded of something an economist called “The mother’s dilemma”. Mother has X dollars. Her family’s needs include milk. She has a husband, a baby, two older children, a husband, herself and a cat. She doesn’t have enough money for all of them. How does she allocate her money and the milk she buys? Well, perhaps she gives the baby all the milk he needs, less for the older children, half the usual for her husband’s coffee and none for the pudding she enjoys. The cat will have to do with whatever milk the baby and the children spill or get by on table scraps. She has saved a bit of her money, though it was insufficient for all her purposes, intending to accumulate it for the day when she can buy enough milk for the baby, the children, as much milk as her husband likes in his coffee and the pudding and a saucerfull for the cat. Interestingly, economists are unable to solve the Mother’s Dilemma, though some have considered it, because they are trying to impose a “system” on something that is rightly dependent on a person’s perception of an individual’s needs and his ability to meet them.

Government can’t do that because it’s too distant to know about the particular needs or the ability of, say, the wife to defer a pudding for a week or two, the particular needs of the older children, the depth of the husband’s need or desire for milk in his coffee and the cat’s ability to do without entirely if it comes to it.

Well, enough for now. Got to go.

 

[Bill_7154]

In this, I am reminded of something an economist called “The mother’s dilemma”.

I have not studied economics, but based on the little I know about it, the only valid school of economic thought I put value in is the Austrian School of Economics.

Not surprisingly, governments don’t employ or encourage this school of thought as it does not allow for the slight of hand type moves that are commonplace with governments. And economists employed by governments and considered more ‘mainstream’ are critical of this school of economics. The opposite is true when Austrian Economists evaluate more mainstream economic schools of thought as well.

I’m a simple man. But what is quite clear to me is that government is, and has been, digging a deeper and deeper hole which citizens live in (ie. inflation) using “the full faith and credit of government” or some such foolish slogan to back it’s behavior for far too long. Why anyone would place any faith in government is beyond me. We were sunk the moment we went off the gold standard.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[austenbosten]

I have not studied economics, but based on the little I know about it, the only valid school of economic thought I put value in is the Austrian School of Economics.

Not surprisingly, governments don’t employ or encourage this school of thought as it does not allow for the slight of hand type moves that are commonplace with governments. And economists employed by governments and considered more ‘mainstream’ are critical of this school of economics. The opposite is true when Austrian Economists evaluate more mainstream economic schools of thought as well.

I’m a simple man. But what is quite clear to me is that government is, and has been, digging a deeper and deeper hole which citizens live in (ie. inflation) using “the full faith and credit of government” or some such foolish slogan to back it’s behavior for far too long. Why anyone would place any faith in government is beyond me. We were sunk the moment we went off the gold standard.

God Bless,
Bill

If you value the Austrian school then you do realize they agree to the “Invisible Hand” theory which was the ‘hypothetical pack of lies’ you said I was spouting. :yup:

 

[Bill_7154]

If you value the Austrian school then you do realize they agree to the “Invisible Hand” theory which was the ‘hypothetical pack of lies’ you said I was spouting. :yup:

That is not what I was referring to. Give it a rest already.

 

[austenbosten]

That is not what I was referring to. Give it a rest already.

I’m just pointing out something that Austrians School economists believe in.

 

[Ruthie_again]

You have essentially quoted from at least 2 posters here, and since pretty much all of the replies are directed toward me, I find it objectionable for you to do such a thing. Please in the future either refrain from mixing quotes without attributing to whom the quotes (or restating of parts of people’s posts essentially word for word, which is the same thing) came from.

Excuse me? I quoted two people. One was a friend of mine, and I won’t publish that person’s name on the web without their permission.

The second was you, in your first post.

All other words were my own. If they resemble someone else’s post, well, great minds think alike!

You then said,

Also, As far as those worth 500 million or so and up, in the context of ‘work’ what I meant was working in the context of being subject to ‘income taxes’

Don’t you know that the top 10% of earners (from all sources) in this country pay more than 70% of the money taken in by the IRS?
heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners

Dividends (the monies earned by stock shares, savings accounts, etc) are taxable. Capital gains (the increases in the amount something is worth) are taxable. Even illegal income (like from drug sales) is taxable. Heck, even the tax refunds I got this year are taxable - and I paid income tax on that money last year!

 

[cynic]

Whatever value they have as sources of capital, the “uber-wealthy” need not earn a thing. Living off dividends is not work. They benefit from an economic system where it’s possible to absorb huge amounts of money from business while doing practically nothing, and that’s money that can’t be re-invested or spent on wages.

A presidential nominee has just characterized 47% of Americans as lazy moochers with a victim mentality in front of campaign donors. That includes the elderly on Social Security paid into over a lifetime, those recently made redundant through no fault of their own and veterans who can’t find full time jobs.

If this is the typical attitude of the wealthy then any discussion around charity is moot.

 

[FLGreg]

Why do you think that it is your business to know what Catholics donate to the Church? Personally I think that seeking such information and deciding for others is based on a very non-Catholic culture.

Agreed! What business is it of ours what someone else does or does not do. Such thinking is a result of poor catechism.

 

[Bill_7154]

Agreed! What business is it of ours what someone else does or does not do. Such thinking is a result of poor catechism.

Yet people in this very forum make threads and post in threads about what the poor, the homeless do or do not do, and the people raising an issue with my questions as they relate to the super rich do not enter the threads around the homeless and call into question ‘what business is it of yours’ ‘that thinking is poor catechism’.

Pot calling kettle much?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Whatever value they have as sources of capital, the “uber-wealthy” need not earn a thing. Living off dividends is not work. They benefit from an economic system where it’s possible to absorb huge amounts of money from business while doing practically nothing, and that’s money that can’t be re-invested or spent on wages.

A presidential nominee has just characterized 47% of Americans as lazy moochers with a victim mentality in front of campaign donors. That includes the elderly on Social Security paid into over a lifetime, those recently made redundant through no fault of their own and veterans who can’t find full time jobs.

If this is the typical attitude of the wealthy then any discussion around charity is moot.

Some “uber wealthy” (nobody has yet defined it to my knowledge, perhaps you will) indeed work, whether they absolutely need to or not. Some whom many love to hate are corporate heads who might or might not be worth, to the company, what they’re paid. But the perception obviously is that they are.

Very little money is “not invested” in this country. It’s stupid to just put money in a shoebox because it will be eroded due to inflation. And, speaking of that, look at the price of gold. As unproductive an investment as one could ask for, and yet all kinds of people are buying it. Why? Because they believe the government’s money-printing binge and deficit spending, combined with its job suppression, will make the dollar worth dramatically less than now, and stocks not much better. And perhaps they’re right. One could hardly invent a meter for government fecklessness better than that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have not studied economics, but based on the little I know about it, the only valid school of economic thought I put value in is the Austrian School of Economics.

Not surprisingly, governments don’t employ or encourage this school of thought as it does not allow for the slight of hand type moves that are commonplace with governments. And economists employed by governments and considered more ‘mainstream’ are critical of this school of economics. The opposite is true when Austrian Economists evaluate more mainstream economic schools of thought as well.

I’m a simple man. But what is quite clear to me is that government is, and has been, digging a deeper and deeper hole which citizens live in (ie. inflation) using “the full faith and credit of government” or some such foolish slogan to back it’s behavior for far too long. Why anyone would place any faith in government is beyond me. We were sunk the moment we went off the gold standard.

God Bless,
Bill

I am not greatly knowledgeable about the deep intricacies of the Austrian School. Personally, I am more interested in a system based on the Papal Encyclicals and the economic thoughts of Augustine and Aquinas. There is a lot to learn in those.

To that end, I am studying and re-studying the encyclicals and the work of John Mueller, particularly in his book “Redeeming Economics”. I have to laugh at myself. Having been impressed by it, I bought a copy for each of my adult children last Christmas. They’re slugging their ways through it. (lots of charts and formulas, but still readable) In it Mueller discusses, at least in summary, all of the past and contemporary schools of thought, including the Austrian School. It is a thoroughly Catholic work. For my grandchildren, I bought “Economics for Helen” by Belloc. A bit outdated, but a nice start for a kid, since it was designed for a child.

For those who want to formulate in their minds a truly Catholic way of thinking about economics, I would have to recommend the encyclicals (you just google “Social Encyclicals”), Augustine, Aquinas, Mueller and Belloc. Belloc, like his fellow original Distributists, Chesterton, and Lewis, is 'way outdated in many ways, (and very different from the modern “Distributists” like Day and her errant followers) but they are not without merit in a “micro” sense, and their thoughts about family wealth and enterprise are complementary to the encyclicals.

I don’t know that I would personally tout the gold standard. But I do find a lot of what the government is now doing to be appalling and irresponsible. Never in the history of this country has it had leadership as destructive of families as this one. Bogus money is only part of it and, in my opinion, not even the worst part.

 

[austenbosten]

Whatever value they have as sources of capital, the “uber-wealthy” need not earn a thing. Living off dividends is not work. They benefit from an economic system where it’s possible to absorb huge amounts of money from business while doing practically nothing, and that’s money that can’t be re-invested or spent on wages.

Although they are not doing any work, their capital is. Is it not true that the billionaire’s investments in stocks and bond provides capital to businesses which is used to hire and purchase equipment?

You people can spout off all the Marxist rhetoric about the super, elite, massively, grossly Rich people being uncharitable and kicking kittens for fun, but the facts disagree with you. There are many rich people who give a lot to charity and you know why?

Because

***Charity is not a matter of income, it’s a matter of charity. :yup:

---

Also I don’t know why people feel the need to use the term “super-rich” I’m sorry is there a poor-rich? a second-class rich? an indignant-rich???

 

[Ridgerunner]

Although they are not doing any work, their capital is. Is it not true that the billionaire’s investments in stocks and bond provides capital to businesses which is used to hire and purchase equipment?

You people can spout off all the Marxist rhetoric about the super, elite, massively, grossly Rich people being uncharitable and kicking kittens for fun, but the facts disagree with you. There are many rich people who give a lot to charity and you know why?

Cause charity is not a matter of income, it’s a matter of charity. :yup:

Also I don’t know why people feel the need to use the term “super-rich” I’m sorry is there a poor-rich? a second-class rich? an indignant-rich???

I don’t know how it is anywhere else, but around here, ALL voluntary community help and projects are financed almost exclusively by “the evil rich”.

 

[austenbosten]

I don’t know how it is anywhere else, but around here, ALL voluntary community help and projects are financed almost exclusively by “the evil rich”.

:yup:

But some just refuse to accept it, covetousness and envy of the wealthy is not a virtue.

 

[hazcompat]

The Art of Dying Well
by St. Robert Bellarmine

CHAPTER V. THE FIFTH PRECEPT, IN WHICH THE DECEITFUL ERROR OF THE RICH OF THIS WORLD IS EXPOSED.
IN addition to what has been already said, I must add the refutation of a certain error very prevalent among the rich of this world, and which greatly hinders them from living well and dying well. The error consists in this: the rich suppose that the wealth they possess is absolutely their own property, if justly acquired; and that therefore they may lawfully spend, give away, or squander their money, and that no one can say to them, “Why do you do so? Why dress so richly? Why feast so sumptuously? Why so prodigal in supporting your dogs and hawks? Why do you spend so much money in gaming, or other such-like pleasures?” They will answer: “What is it to you? Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with my own?” Now, this error is doubtless most grievous and pernicious: for, granting that the “rich” are the masters of their own property with relation to other men; yet, with regard to God, they are not masters, but only administrators or stewards.
This truth can be proved by many arguments. Hear the royal prophet: “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof: the world and all they that dwell therein.” (Psalm xxiii.) And again: " For all the beasts of the wood are mine: the cattle on the hills, and the oxen. If I should be hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fullness thereof." (Psalm xlix.) …
I shall add two more testimonies from the words of Christ, in the New Testament: " There was a certain rich man who had a steward: and the same was accused unto him, that he had wasted his goods. And he called him, and said to him: How is it I hear this of thee? Give an account of thy stewardship: for now thou canst be steward no longer." (St. Luke xvi.) By the “rich man” is here meant God, who, as we have just said, crieth out by the prophet Aggæus: “Mine is silver, and mine is gold.” By the “steward” is to be understood a rich man, as the holy Fathers teach, St. Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, Venerable Bede, besides Theophylact, and Euthymius, and others on this passage.
If the Gospel, then, is to be credited, every rich man of this world must acknowledge that the riches he possesses, whether justly or unjustly acquired, are not his: that if they be justly acquired, he is only the steward of them; if unjustly, that he is nothing but a thief and a robber. And since the rich man is not the master of the wealth he possesses, it follows that, when accused of injustice before God, God removes him from his stewardship, either by death or by want: such do the words signify, “Give an account of thy stewardship, for now thou canst be steward no longer.”
…There is another passage in the same Gospel of St. Luke, which may be considered as a kind of commentary on the unjust steward: “There was a certain rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen, and feasted sumptuously every day. And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, who lay at his gate, full of sores. Desiring to be filled with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table, and no one did give him; moreover, the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell.” This Dives was certainly one of those who supposed he was master of his own money, and not a steward under God; and therefore he imagined not that he offended against God, when he was clothed in purple and linen, and feasted sumptuously every day, and had his dogs, and his buffoons, & c. For he perhaps said within himself: " I spend my own money, I do no injury to any one, I violate not the laws of God, I do not blaspheme nor swear, I observe the sabbath, I honour my parents, I do not kill, nor commit adultery, nor steal, nor bear false witness, nor do I covet my neighbour’s wife, or anything else." But if such was the case, why was he buried in hell? why tormented in the fire? We must then acknowledge that all those are deceived who suppose they are the “absolute” masters of their money; for if Dives had any more grievous sins to answer for, the Holy Scripture would certainly have mentioned them.
But since nothing more has been added, we are given to understand that the superfluous adornment of his body with costly garments, and his daily magnificent banquets, and the multitude of his servants and dogs, whilst he had no compassion for the poor, was a sufficient cause of his condemnation to eternal torments. Let it, therefore, be a fixed rule for living well and dying well, often to consider and seriously to ponder on the account that must be given to God of our luxury in palaces, in gardens, in chariots, in the multitude of servants, in the splendor of dress, in banquets, in hoarding up riches, in unnecessary expenses, which injure a great multitude of the poor and sick, who stand in need of our superfluities; and who now cry to God, and in the day of judgment will not cease crying out until we, together with the rich man, shall be condemned.

peace

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Art of Dying Well
by St. Robert Bellarmine

CHAPTER V. THE FIFTH PRECEPT, IN WHICH THE DECEITFUL ERROR OF THE RICH OF THIS WORLD IS EXPOSED.
IN addition to what has been already said, I must add the refutation of a certain error very prevalent among the rich of this world, and which greatly hinders them from living well and dying well. The error consists in this: the rich suppose that the wealth they possess is absolutely their own property, if justly acquired; and that therefore they may lawfully spend, give away, or squander their money, and that no one can say to them, “Why do you do so? Why dress so richly? Why feast so sumptuously? Why so prodigal in supporting your dogs and hawks? Why do you spend so much money in gaming, or other such-like pleasures?” They will answer: “What is it to you? Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with my own?” Now, this error is doubtless most grievous and pernicious: for, granting that the “rich” are the masters of their own property with relation to other men; yet, with regard to God, they are not masters, but only administrators or stewards.
This truth can be proved by many arguments. Hear the royal prophet: “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof: the world and all they that dwell therein.” (Psalm xxiii.) And again: " For all the beasts of the wood are mine: the cattle on the hills, and the oxen. If I should be hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fullness thereof." (Psalm xlix.) …
I shall add two more testimonies from the words of Christ, in the New Testament: " There was a certain rich man who had a steward: and the same was accused unto him, that he had wasted his goods. And he called him, and said to him: How is it I hear this of thee? Give an account of thy stewardship: for now thou canst be steward no longer." (St. Luke xvi.) By the “rich man” is here meant God, who, as we have just said, crieth out by the prophet Aggæus: “Mine is silver, and mine is gold.” By the “steward” is to be understood a rich man, as the holy Fathers teach, St. Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, Venerable Bede, besides Theophylact, and Euthymius, and others on this passage.
If the Gospel, then, is to be credited, every rich man of this world must acknowledge that the riches he possesses, whether justly or unjustly acquired, are not his: that if they be justly acquired, he is only the steward of them; if unjustly, that he is nothing but a thief and a robber. And since the rich man is not the master of the wealth he possesses, it follows that, when accused of injustice before God, God removes him from his stewardship, either by death or by want: such do the words signify, “Give an account of thy stewardship, for now thou canst be steward no longer.”
…But since nothing more has been added, we are given to understand that the superfluous adornment of his body with costly garments, and his daily magnificent banquets, and the multitude of his servants and dogs, whilst he had no compassion for the poor, was a sufficient cause of his condemnation to eternal torments. Let it, therefore, be a fixed rule for living well and dying well, often to consider and seriously to ponder on the account that must be given to God of our luxury in palaces, in gardens, in chariots, in the multitude of servants, in the splendor of dress, in banquets, in hoarding up riches, in unnecessary expenses, which injure a great multitude of the poor and sick, who stand in need of our superfluities; and who now cry to God, and in the day of judgment will not cease crying out until we, together with the rich man, shall be condemned.

peace

Sorry for shortening your post. I had no choice.

Interesting, and well worth reading and remembering. But we have to ask ourselves whether this is a personal injunction or a formula for a state-enforced economic system. We have seen a great deal worse from the extreme “redistribution” folks than we ever saw from the extreme capitalists, and possibly because the latter might read Bellarmine and the story of Dives and Lazarus and take them to heart, while the former believe in something different altogether.

The Popes tell us with no uncertainty that there is an individual and societal obligation to provide decently for those who cannot help themselves. I get that, notwithstanding that the current government manifestly does not. But for those of us who CAN help ourselves, might it not be appropriate for us to support and educate our families decently, use whatever wealth we have in productive ways, and particularly as regards those most proximate to us, and leave the super-wealthy to work out their own salvations, hoping they will read Bellarmine and take heed for their own sake? The wealth of the rich is not acquired at the expense of the poor in this country, however it may be in some banana republic.

Remember, we don’t know whether the Good Samaritan was wealthy or not, though he certainly had resources. He exercised charity in a “p(name removed by moderator)oint” way, not a sweeping political way. He aided the neighbor in need who was proximate to him and to the degree that met the need.

In my mind, neither the parable of the Good Samaritan nor that of Dives and Lazarus impel us morally to despoil anyone, and certainly not for the sake of buying the votes of those (thinking here of, e.g., the HHS mandate) who know no better than to be bought for demeaning pittances.

 

[april32010]

april,

This is in response to your ‘whistle’.

There is a homeless man name Joe. He has applied for 14 jobs in the past month and has yet to be called into an interview. He has a psychiatric disorder, takes psychiatric medications, and his psychiatrist has recently recommended to him that he is not ready to work, in particular full time jobs, which he has been applying for.

What should he do?

why don’t YOU feed him,instead of engaging in detraction by posting everyone else’s sins?

 

[bri89]

Whatever value they have as sources of capital, the “uber-wealthy” need not earn a thing. Living off dividends is not work. They benefit from an economic system where it’s possible to absorb huge amounts of money from business while doing practically nothing, and that’s money that can’t be re-invested or spent on wages.

A presidential nominee has just characterized 47% of Americans as lazy moochers with a victim mentality in front of campaign donors. That includes the elderly on Social Security paid into over a lifetime, those recently made redundant through no fault of their own and veterans who can’t find full time jobs.

If this is the typical attitude of the wealthy then any discussion around charity is moot.

So often we hear, distressingly even on these forums, that the poor don’t pay their fair share. The devotion to the wealthy and powerful in this country is unmatched. Many of the 400 wealthiest Americans don’t pay federal income taxes either! What’s also left out of the discussion is the rates the uber wealthy used to pay in the 40s, 50s, 60s. It used to be in the 90% and never fellow below 70%. Not until Reagan did it fall into the 30% range. So let’s not pretend that the rich are overburdened because that’s a hilarious position to take. If they are overburdened now, what were they in the 1950s?The U.S experienced it’s greatest growth period and ascended to it’s superpower status during those years when the tax rates on the wealthy were exceptionally high, when unions were strongest, and when we were benefitting from the programs FDR implemented. We would not have had this 30 year wage stagnation and low job growth without the policies coming out of the Reagan years. Another startling and horrible development from the Reagan era was the merging of free market capitalism and Christianity, the religious right movement, that revitalized Christianity in a horrible way.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So often we hear, distressingly even on these forums, that the poor don’t pay their fair share. The devotion to the wealthy and powerful in this country is unmatched. Many of the 400 wealthiest Americans don’t pay federal income taxes either!. What’s also left out of the discussion is the rates the uber wealthy used to pay in the 40s, 50s, 60s. It used to be in the 90% and never fellow below 70%. Not until Reagan did it fall into the 30% range. So let’s not pretend that the rich are overburdened because that’s a hilarious position to take. If they are overburdened now, what were they in the 1950s?The U.S experienced it’s greatest growth period and ascended to it’s superpower status during those years when the tax rates on the wealthy were exceptionally high, when unions were strongest, and when we were benefitting from the programs FDR implemented. We would not have had this 30 year wage stagnation and low job growth without the policies coming out of the Reagan years. Another startling and horrible development from the Reagan era was the merging of free market capitalism and Christianity, the religious right movement, that revitalized Christianity in a horrible way.

No cause/effect relationship established.

But let’s talk about the particulars.

1. Who in the world is saying the poor don’t pay their fair share (of taxes, one assumes)? Maybe somebody has, but I don’t recall ever seeing that asserted. Now, if one defines “the poor” so widely as to include more than the real poor, you might have a point. I, myself, oppose “middle class welfare”. Since the current government does not do anything for the truly poor, the ones who can’t help themselves, I don’t even think it’s a relevant consideration in discussing the politics of it.
2. If it’s true (no evidence was presented) that some number of the wealthiest 400 don’t pay taxes at all, one would have to know how many there are, and why they didn’t pay taxes in any given year in order to know if it means anything. Did someone lose half his wealth in one year and thereby have an income loss? We don’t know, and this point must be ignored until better evidence is presented.
3. And what people in the red states don’t pay taxes? Are they the poor of Mississippi’s Delta country or are they the wealthy people in Mission Kansas? Saying high numbers don’t pay taxes in red states tells us nothing at all.
4. Yes, the highest tax rates long ago were 90%. But who paid them? Did anyone? I will welcome your historical analysis with sources and figures. I do recall that my father back in those days paid almost nothing in taxes despite the fact that he did achieve middle class income status. I strongly suspect that taxes actually collected today, relative to what people earn, are, in fact, higher than they were then. There has been a lot of inflation and “bracket creep” since then.
5. Do you think there were no recessions in the 1950s and 1960s? There sure were. And what FDR programs do you think survived FDR besides Social Security?
6. If unions were so beneficial, why don’t people vote them in? They can, but they don’t. They don’t because the work force has changed and because not so many see any benefit of it now.