US Bishops' Conference Largely Disappointed by Debt Ceiling Agreement

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Persuader said:
I have answered the question. I think it is fair to raise taxes on the rich now, and I have explained why by referencing to income inequality and the growth patterns of the economy the last 30 years. Now, the reality is that this economic growth have been concentrated at the top, and the higher you go, the higher the growth. So, the top 1% have seen more growth than the top 10% and so on.

I am open to concentrating tax increases for those earning over $500 000 or $1 million. The details is best left to relevant experts. What is important is the principle of it. To imagine that the rich is somehow burdened unfairly in this economy is ludicrous (as I have explained). What is clear is that those who have to pay in this economy is those who have benefited from its structure, and that (as I have explained) is the rich.
Click to expand...
👍
 
SamH said:
When did Jesus say that?
Click to expand...
In a rush to play another ‘one up man ship’ card, you must have overlooked the post I quoted and was responding too. That quoted post said, ‘Romney said…’ :rolleyes:
 
estesbob said:
Have to be careful about attributing anything to Christ in these forums. We even had a poster claim Jesus was pro-abortion
Click to expand...
I don’t think there is any doubt that all Catholics, and most other Christians, believe that He will judge the living and the dead, or that He taught to, ‘judge not, lest ye be judged.’
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
In a rush to play another ‘one up man ship’ card, you must have overlooked the post I quoted and was responding too. That quoted post said, ‘Romney said…’ :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Actually I was wondering why in your haste to tax all in Jesus’s name corporations would be included.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I don’t think there is any doubt that all Catholics, and most other Christians, believe that He will judge the living and the dead, or that He taught to, ‘judge not, lest ye be judged.’
Click to expand...
Does that include corporations?
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
Then tell you’re congressmen to reign in spending, tax at a fair level, and reduce uncertainty regarding, but not limited to taxes, Obamacare, energy policy and Cap’n’Trade.
Click to expand...
I’m not represented by my congressman at all. I can’t wait until we have a chance to remove him next yr. In any case yeah we were sold that bill of goods. Cut taxes for the wealthy and they will produce jobs. I’d ROTFLOL if it the results hadn’t failed so miserably.
 
SamH said:
Does that include corporations?
Click to expand...
How about giving supporting scriptures to the scripture passage I believe you’re misinterpreting for a political view? It would give more validity to the discussion than hanging on to something I’ve already pointed out was in response to something someone posted that ROMNEY said. :rolleyes:
 
SamH said:
Actually I was wondering why in your haste to tax all in Jesus’s name corporations would be included.
Click to expand...
Same as I wondered why someone would rush to defend the corporation over the least of His…
 
CMatt25 said:
I’m not represented by my congressman at all. I can’t wait until we have a chance to remove him next yr. In any case yeah we were sold that bill of goods. Cut taxes for the wealthy and they will produce jobs. I’d ROTFLOL if it the results hadn’t failed so miserably.
Click to expand...
Because we all have seen the long history of rising taxes that inspire massive hiring sprees by corporations.
 
SamH said:
Who did that?
Click to expand...
I’m not into playing games in these discussions. I take them as serious.

Now, instead of playing around, are you going to address the request for supporting scriptures to the passage I believe you’re misinterpreting?:rolleyes:
 
Persuader said:
I have answered the question. I think it is fair to raise taxes on the rich now, and I have explained why by referencing to income inequality and the growth patterns of the economy the last 30 years. Now, the reality is that this economic growth have been concentrated at the top, and the higher you go, the higher the growth. So, the top 1% have seen more growth than the top 10% and so on.

I am open to concentrating tax increases for those earning over $500 000 or $1 million. The details is best left to relevant experts. What is important is the principle of it. To imagine that the rich is somehow burdened unfairly in this economy is ludicrous (as I have explained). What is clear is that those who have to pay in this economy is those who have benefited from its structure, and that (as I have explained) is the rich.
Click to expand...
How much money would additionally taxing those earning over $500,000 or a million bring in at whatever rate you think is “fair”?

I realize your statement is theoretical, but if, as Warren Buffett says, his secretary pays taxes at a higher rate than he does, he’ll do the same even if the highest bracket rates are increased. How do you expect to actually reach the Warren Buffetts without changing more than the tax rate? And if you do, do you have a reasonable expectation that he won’t just find another way to pay less in taxes?

I’m not terribly interested in the “principle” of taxing the rich more. What is their life to me? If I’m okay in my life, why should I care that they have more money than I do? To me, the real question is how much money it would bring into the government and at what other cost to the society.

It’s of interest that the proportion of national income going to “property”, i.e., capital, relative to that of “labor” almost never changes, and hasn’t changed significantly since statistics began in 1929. What DOES change is the percentage of labor’s share that goes to income from workers who work versus income to “workers” for not working. As income from “not working” goes up, income from working goes down as a percentage of national income. Why? Because the cost of paying non-working folks is paid by both income from work and income from property, but since the overall ratio of income from property and labor/non labor never changes significantly, income from work is the most seriously affected, percentage-wise. And the greater the percentage of money spent on “non-work” (i.e. government transfer payments) the less the percentage of money that goes to those who work.

One could perhaps argue that things like the “earned income credit” is a far better way to aid the poor than is paying them to not work at all, because it burdens income from labor less, and actually results in production. In truth, one could apply that to social security as well.

But, of course, reduction in income from labor exactly follows the abortion rate, but with about a 20 year lag. That’s because “transfer payments” increase per capita because additional workers are missing from the labor force; additional workers whose work would decrease transfer payments as a percentage of national income.

Understanding all that, government support of abortion and magnifying of transfer payments are anti-labor in a very big way.
 
SamH said:
Actually I was wondering why in your haste to tax all in Jesus’s name corporations would be included.
Click to expand...
You have to understand the liberal concept of corporations. From a tax standpoint they areto be treated as people. From a campaign-finance standpoint they are not to be treated as people. . Hope that clears it up.
 
rlg94086 said:
Do you mean like this:
Click to expand...
Maybe I’m not making myself clear. I find either horrendous, but I’ve already said that. Do you think a starving baby is more acceptable than an abortion? What if the baby died of malnutrition? Doesn’t it become the same thing at that point?

I really dislike my words being twisted into something they’re not. But it seems some would rather use those tactics than stick to a topic of discussion. 🤷
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I’m not into playing games in these discussions. I take them as serious.

Now, instead of playing around, are you going to address the request for supporting scriptures to the passage I believe you’re misinterpreting?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Didn’t you read them?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Maybe I’m not making myself clear. Do you think a starving baby is more acceptable than an abortion? What if the baby died of malnutrition? Doesn’t it become the same thing at that point?
Click to expand...
See what I mean about wording it better? It’s not “better dead than underfed” but it is the exact same thing only with a warm fuzzy righteous tone. . :angel1:
 
SamH said:
So you refused.
Click to expand...
I gave you two Catholic commentaries showing you are misinterpreting the ‘verse’ you provided. I then requested you provide supporting scriptures; thus reading scriptures, within scriptures. I even suggested it would be more helpful to provide something Jesus said to support the verse I believe you misinterpreted, or we risk placing Him in a position of contradicting, which I don’t believe He ever did. So, it was not me refusing to continue a point…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top