Will an economic stimulus package help us during recession?

[stinkcat_14]

But one pays, and another skates. And we can make judgements about that.

skates what? Your idea of skating assumes that there is some moral obligation to pay taxes. There is no moral obligation to pay any taxes that are not legally owed?

So it’s not moral to put up a red light, or set a speed limit? 'Cause I can’t find anything in the Catechism about red lights and speed limits.

The catechism says that governments have the right to make laws and that it is our moral obligation to follow them.

No, you have no support from the Church that says a woman or man who can work and won’t is making a morally acceptable choice.

I have Saint Paul, who wrote, “Who will not work, let him not eat.”

Who said this lady didn’t work, just not for money. Did Saint Paul say that one must work in the marketplace? No. So her decision to work, for her family for a zero salary was a perfectly moral choice.

 

[mapleoak]

Let’s see the data.

nationmaster.com/red/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-per-capita&int=-1

 

[stinkcat_14]

nationmaster.com/red/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-per-capita&int=-1

GDP per capita is not household income. Try again.

 

[Al_Masetti]

skates what? Your idea of skating assumes that there is some moral obligation to pay taxes. There is no moral obligation to pay any taxes that are not legally owed?

The catechism says that governments have the right to make laws and that it is our moral obligation to follow them.

Who said this lady didn’t work, just not for money. Did Saint Paul say that one must work in the marketplace? No. So her decision to work, for her family for a zero salary was a perfectly moral choice.

Citizens, at least in countries such as the United States, have the authority to attempt to change laws that are onerous.

Citizens are entitled to “redress of grievances”. Some claim that lobbying is immoral, illegal and fattening, but that is what “redress of grievances” is. Anyone can petition Congress to get a private law passed.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights place limits on the central (i.e., Federal ) government. And the concept of checks and balances plays the executive branch against the legislative branch. AND the Constitution authorizes Congress (i.e., the legislative branch) to control the Supreme Court and other Federal courts.

If anyone reading this has not read the Constitution (and also the Declaration of Independence), they should do so immediately.

In addition, they should read Mark Levin’s book “Men in Black” and also read Schlafly’s book, “The Supremacists”.

amazon.com/gp/product/0895260506?ie=UTF8&tag=thmalesh-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0895260506

amazon.com/Supremacists-Tyranny-Judges-How-Stop/dp/1890626651/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201222677&sr=1-3

There is more to the law than just the law.

 

[vern_humphrey]

skates what? Your idea of skating assumes that there is some moral obligation to pay taxes. There is no moral obligation to pay any taxes that are not legally owed?

There is a moral obligation to carry your share of the load, is there not?

The catechism says that governments have the right to make laws and that it is our moral obligation to follow them.

Just a few posts back you were demanding that I find in the Catechism specific authority for specific laws, and now you admit it’s only a general statement?

Who said this lady didn’t work, just not for money. Did Saint Paul say that one must work in the marketplace? No. So her decision to work, for her family for a zero salary was a perfectly moral choice.

But her husband’s decision not to pay her was not.

And weren’t you claiming a few weeks ago that ownership of a home is income?

Well, ownership of an advanced degree must be income, too.

 

[stinkcat_14]

There is a moral obligation to carry your share of the load, is there not?

I think Jesus left it up to the state to determine what the fair share of the tax load is.

 

[mapleoak]

GDP per capita is not household income. Try again.

Actually GDP is a much more reliable number to use when comparing wealth among different countries, since income to debt ratios are highly skewed. Obviously if most of the world’s countries have a low GDP, it will also likely have low income levels. For further info: mindfully.org/WTO/2006/Household-Wealth-Gap5dec06.htm

Note once again that income level doesn’t equal wealth nor does it equal rich.

 

[Benedictus]

That’s a matter of opinion. I guess we all love where we are from.

No, it’s a matter of fact. I’m not from New York. I’ve only been there once, but I do have the misfortune of living a short distance from the previously mentioned city in Alabama, and I assure you that no sane person, rich or poor, would want to live in this part of the country.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Actually GDP is a much more reliable number to use when comparing wealth among different countries, since income to debt ratios are highly skewed. Obviously if most of the world’s countries have a low GDP, it will also likely have low income levels. For further info: mindfully.org/WTO/2006/Household-Wealth-Gap5dec06.htm

But of course, we are talking about wealth in households, not wealth in countries. Those are two different things.

Note once again that income level doesn’t equal wealth nor does it equal rich

Income and wealth are positively correlated are they not?

 

[mapleoak]

But of course, we are talking about wealth in households, not wealth in countries. Those are two different things.

You said someone is rich based on their comparison to what others have.

Income and wealth are positively correlated are they not?

I know several people with lots of assests and cash, but no income. They would or wouldn’t be rich?
There is farmer nearby who has an enormous cash flow. In order to have a large cash flow, there needs to be a lot of income. Does that make him rich?
There is another family with 6 adopted children from Vietnam and one child from Cambodia who were victims of minefield accidents requiring extensive and intensive medical care. They have an income of around $180,000. Would you say they are rich? With that much income, they must be pretty wealthy.

 

[stinkcat_14]

You said someone is rich based on their comparison to what others have.

Yes, I said someone. I was clearly not referring to countries, so GDP per capita is irrelevent.

I know several people with lots of assests and cash, but no income. They would or wouldn’t be rich?

Certainly wealth is a reasonable measure of whether someone is rich. If they have lots of assets and cash but no income, perhaps they are not allocating their assets properly if the lack of income is a concern.

There is farmer nearby who has an enormous cash flow. In order to have a large cash flow, there needs to be a lot of income. Does that make him rich?

Certainly, if someone has a business that generates a large cash flow, that business is going to be very valuable, so yes, someone with a large cash flow in their business (assuming its not a temporary windfall) is likely to be rich.

There is another family with 6 adopted children from Vietnam and one child from Cambodia who were victims of minefield accidents requiring extensive and intensive medical care. They have an income of around $180,000. Would you say they are rich? With that much income, they must be pretty wealthy

How may people who earn $180,000 per year are taking care of 7 minefield accident victims? Now of course, when we look at whether someone is rich do we look at income or expenditure? If someone has $180k in income and buys a house on the coast with a big mortgage, are they rich? What is the difference between the two for determining whether or not someone is rich?

 

[iamrefreshed]

I’d argue that a woman who stays at home with a family works harder than any of us!

However, that in no way means she should be taxed.

If you think that then I assume you are paying yourself to do your yardwork and sending the government their share of the taxes.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Actually Per capita income is the best comparator, GDP is only good if populations as near equal. Household income is cultural related. However since the top 10 countries per capita income is so much above others reasonable assumptions can be drawn for example it would take 25 Chinese workers living in one house to equal a single USA worker.

Certainly the top 6% of income earners should be considered “rich” usually anybody who consistently earns in the top 20% is considered “rich”. This should not be confused with wealthy. Wealthy is usually used to refer to income derived from assets which exceeds a normal income of wages derived from working. So rich have cash flow control while wealthy have excess income even when not working.

None of that is related to the thread which deals with whether the US government action of passing an economic stimulus package will work, and is the correct action at this time.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’d argue that a woman who stays at home with a family works harder than any of us!

And a wife who works as a nurse and raises a family (as my wife did) works harder still. And pays taxes.

However, that in no way means she should be taxed.

My wife is taxed.

If you think that then I assume you are paying yourself to do your yardwork and sending the government their share of the taxes.

I don’t have a yard.

But in this case we have a person with an impressive asset – and she chooses not to use it for the betterment of all. She is not pulling her share of the load.

 

[iamrefreshed]

And a wife who works as a nurse and raises a family (as my wife did) works harder still. And pays taxes.

My wife is taxed.

I don’t have a yard.

But in this case we have a person with an impressive asset – and she chooses not to use it for the betterment of all. She is not pulling her share of the load.

I’m not sure I’m following you. Are you suggesting that a SAHM should be taxed?

How can someone work in the workforce **and **raise a family?

Again, I’m failing to understand. What constitutes ‘not pulling her share of the load’?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m not sure I’m following you. Are you suggesting that a SAHM should be taxed?

How can someone work in the workforce **and **raise a family?

My wife did it.

Again, I’m failing to understand. What constitutes ‘not pulling her share of the load’?

The person in question has a Ph. D. in a very lucerative field, and chose not to use it – that is, not to work up to her full potential.

Now in an earlier debate, the gentlemen who told us about her claimed that home ownership is income. If that is true, then ownership (or posession) of a Ph. D. is surely income – and a person blessed with such a posession has an obligation to use it for the benefit of mankind.

People who will not work up to their potential are not pulling their share of the load.

 

[iamrefreshed]

My wife did it.

How did she do it? Example, when your wife was working, who changed diapers?

The person in question has a Ph. D. in a very lucerative field, and chose not to use it – that is, not to work up to her full potential.

Now in an earlier debate, the gentlemen who told us about her claimed that home ownership is income. If that is true, then ownership (or posession) of a Ph. D. is surely income – and a person blessed with such a posession has an obligation to use it for the benefit of mankind.

People who will not work up to their potential are not pulling their share of the load.

So are you telling me you support Endowment Taxation?

 

[mapleoak]

Yes, I said someone. I was clearly not referring to countries, so GDP per capita is irrelevent.

But it illustrates the fact that the wealth of most countries (which of course the wealth is owned by the people in those countries) therefore a good indication that most of the worlds population has a net worth of less than 10K. Now of course if most of the wealth of a particular nation is owned by the government, than the average wealth of its individual citizens would be even lower yet.

Certainly wealth is a reasonable measure of whether someone is rich.

You said someone is rich based on what their income level is.

If they have lots of assets and cash but no income, perhaps they are not allocating their assets properly if the lack of income is a concern.

Not having an income is not a problem in this case since they don’t need an income and choose not to have one. Since they have no income, are they poor? They pay no income tax obviously and are even eligible for EIC. They would invest their cash if they wanted to earn income from interest.

Certainly, if someone has a business that generates a large cash flow,

Cash flow is not income.

that business is going to be very valuable,

not true, a business can have a very large cash flow and be worthless.

so yes, someone with a large cash flow in their business (assuming its not a temporary windfall) is likely to be rich.

Cash flow does not equate to rich.

How may people who earn $180,000 per year are taking care of 7 minefield accident victims?

Very few, I would hazard to guess.

Now of course, when we look at whether someone is rich do we look at income or expenditure? If someone has $180k in income and buys a house on the coast with a big mortgage, are they rich? What is the difference between the two for determining whether or not someone is rich?

So now you agree that income does not determine whether someone is rich?

 

[vern_humphrey]

How did she do it? Example, when your wife was working, who changed diapers?

She did it by working long and hard. When our oldest was born, I was in Viet Nam. At various times in my life, I was overseas unaccompanied, and she coped without me.

So are you telling me you support Endowment Taxation?

I support people pulling their share of the load.

 

[iamrefreshed]

She did it by working long and hard. When our oldest was born, I was in Viet Nam. At various times in my life, I was overseas unaccompanied, and she coped without me.

I can appreciate that. I too served in the military. But I’m still trying to understand your post. Do you believe a SAHM should be taxed?

I support people pulling their share of the load.

Me too. I’m just curious based upon your comments if you are in support of Endowment Taxation. I bring this up because you mentioned ‘potential earnings’.