Topic: Taxing The Rich Hurts The Poor

[jpatrickham]

rev.larry said 2 hours, 40 minutes ago:

Written on September 3, 2011 by The Godfather

Taxing the Rich Hurts the Poor

"

Liberal talker Alan Colmes claims that Jesus “believed the rich should give to the poor.” Let’s assume that Colmes’ analysis of Jesus is correct. This is a far cry from saying that rich people should be taxed and that the government should give indiscriminately to the poor even though they might be sluggards, lazy, and thoughtless about the future (Prov. 6:6–11; 13:4, 18; 19:15; 20:13; 21:25–26; 24:30–34; 28:19). A person who refuses to work is not to be assisted: “If anyone will not work, neither let him eat” (2 Thess. 3:10).

The Gospel narratives do not call on the Roman Empire to help the poor except by limiting the State’s power (Luke 3:13–14; Matt. 22:21). Jesus makes it clear that it’s individuals at the local level who are to help the poor:

The local administration of charity is crucial. It ensures that funds go to those who are truly needy, rather than to professional paupers. The charitable aspects of the tithe did not mean simply a handout to everyone who lined up. Charity is to be dispensed by responsible leaders of the covenant community who are in daily contact with the needs of the people. The general principle still holds: those who won’t work don’t eat. Those who attempt to live by a welfare ethic are quickly exposed in a locally-administered program, and will be unable to get away with “mooching.” Even in charity, God’s law teaches responsibility.[1]

Liberals like Colmes believe that redistributing wealth by taking it from the rich and giving it to the poor will create an equitable society. Taxing policies designed to create social programs inhibit economic expansion in the business sector. Without an expanding economy, businesses can’t grow. If businesses can’t grow, they cannot hire new workers.

Liberals believe that the remedy for economically displaced workers, a condition their policies often create, is to raise more taxes and subsidize the unemployed. This is state-sponsored slavery under the guise of compassion. It has the effect of squelching the incentive to work and creates a perpetual underclass that is constantly appealed to by liberals so they can stay in power. Those dependent on the State most often vote to increase the power of the State out of self-interest. Murray Rothbard observes:

State poor relief is clearly a subsidization of poverty, for men are now automatically entitled to money from the state because of their poverty. Hence, the marginal disutility of income foregone from leisure diminishes, and idleness and poverty tend to increase further, which in turn increases the amount of subsidy that must be extracted from the taxpayers. Thus, a system of legally subsidized poverty tends to call forth more of the very poverty that is supposedly being alleviated.[2]

Private charity eliminates the political empowering of a poverty class. The incentive of governments is to keep people dependent and grow the base by classifying more people as below the poverty line. There is little motivation for the poor to abandon dependency because the initial rewards from employment are minimal. Why put in an eight-hour work day, travel to and from a job, pay Social Security, federal, and state taxes for only a little more than what can be gotten by sitting at home and receiving a check at a government subsidized apartment?

Since the implementation of the “Great Society” program in the 1960s, the number of those designated as poor has increased. What have we gotten with the infusion of more than two trillion dollars of tax-payer money to help the poor? Charles Murray showed that “Progress against poverty stopped . . . with the implementation of the Great Society’s social welfare reforms. . . . Huge increases in expenditures coincided with an end to progress.”[3]

Conservatives understand that a free economy, private property rights, and substantially reduced tax liability are the best remedies to help the poor. Those who can’t work and take care of themselves can be cared for by the generosity of the people through churches and private agencies. With less money taken in taxes, more money can be given to real charity work."

[4]
Notes:

David Chilton, Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators: A Biblical Response to Ronald J. Sider, 3rd rev. ed. (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1996), 55. [?]
Murray Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State (New York: New York University Press, [1962] 1975), 818. [?]
Charles Murray, Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950–1980 (New York: Basic Books, 1984), 63. [?]
See John Jefferson Davis, Your Wealth in God’s World: Does the Bible Support the Free Market? (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1984); Robert H. Bremer, American Philanthropy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, [1960] 1982); Marvin Olasky, The Tragedy of American Compassion (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1992). [?]

Read more: Taxing the Rich Hurts the Poor | Godfather Politics http://godfatherpolitics.com/813/taxing-the-rich-hurts-the-poor/#ixzz1XPHi53dC
————————————————————————-

[Pandora]

Aw, fck this social justice, Jesus was a communist, bullsht.

Yeah, it's long.  Tough.  Read it all.

The weekend before His Passion, Jesus went and stayed with His friend Lazarus (whom He had raised from the dead) and Lazarus' sisters Martha and Mary. Mary brought out a very expensive flask of ointment for the dead and applied it to Jesus' feet with her hair. The whole house was filled with the sweet smell of that ointment. And guess who gets all pissy about this? Yep. Judas Iscariot - who already was planning to sell out Jesus, and had been planning on cashing in on Jesus since the miracle of the loaves and fishes a few days earlier. Specifically, when Jesus told the people that they must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, and kept repeating it over and over and over again to be sure that everyone understood that He meant it literally, Judas (with urging from satan) decided that Jesus was nuts and started planning to betray Him and profit from it. That whole episode is in John chapter 6. Read it.

Back to Lazarus' house in John 12. Judas gets all holier-than-thou and complains that the flask of ointment could have been sold for 300 pence and "given to the poor". Does this not sound like the godless Marxist liberals of today who are so quick to tell everyone else what they should be doing with their money and assets, all in the name of the poor, of course? Then, an absolutely delightful verse - verse 6:

"Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the purse, carried the things therein."

Um, hello? The Holy Spirit is talking to us. Are we listening? That verse should make the hair on your arms stand up. Is this not a PERFECT mapping to our contemporary situation? You have a "disciple" who doesn't really believe in Jesus or what He says - he just pretends to because he thinks he can gain power and wealth by associating with Jesus for now. He's just working the "Jesus angle". But everything he is doing behind the scenes is working in direct opposition to Jesus. Now, this "disciple" starts trying to appear pious and devout by pontificating that all wealth and resources should, by definition, be redistributed to "the poor". But in truth, he is just a thief. Dude. Can this be any more obvious?

Now here is the key passage from Jesus Himself:

"Jesus therefore said: Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of My burial. For the poor you have always with you; but Me you have not always."

First of all, Jesus says, "Let her alone." (Sinite illam.) Judas has appointed himself the arbiter of wealth and asset distribution and has decided that Mary's flask of ointment (or the cash value thereof) should have gone to the poor. And Jesus says, "Let her alone." It is hers to do with as she (and her family) sees fit, and they have seen fit to use it to anoint their beloved Jesus. Judas, sit down and shut your proto-Marxist piehole. THWAP!

In the next phrase, Jesus explains economics in eight words (FIVE in Latin):

"For the poor you have always with you."
(Pauperes enim semper habetis vobiscum.)

What does He mean? Does He mean, "Bah, forget the poor! Live it up!" Absolutely not. What He is explaining is that in all free societies wealth will always exist within a SPECTRUM. Let's compare a "poor" person in the U.S. to a "poor" person in Bangladesh. A poor person in Bangladesh literally lives in the gutter without so much as a cardboard shelter to sleep under. They are sick from malnutrition and starvation. They probably dress in literal rags, and certainly do not own a pair of shoes. Bathing only occurs when they can immerse themselves in a river, which is opaque with sewage. They own nothing except the rags that they wear. Every day is a struggle to get a bit of clean water and enough food to merely survive. That's a poor person in Bangladesh. What constitutes a "poor" person in the U.S.? A poor person in the U.S. does not have cable. A poor person in the U.S. does not have broadband internet access, and may not even own a PC. A poor person in the U.S. may have just within the last year or two finally switched from a cathode ray tube television to a flat screen, digital model. A poor person in the U.S. receives food stamps, medicaid and a welfare check. A poor person in the U.S. is probably overweight. A poor person in the U.S. drives a car that is so old that it came with a factory cassette player. A poor person in the U.S. lives either in a trailer or a HUD apartment complex. A poor person in the U.S. probably DOES have a cell phone.

Understand that on a percentage level, these two descriptions are equivalent. A "poor" person in the U.S. has a standard of living that would be considered luxurious in Bangladesh and other impoverished countries. The notions of "wealth" and "poverty", by logical and mathematical definition, exist within a SPECTRUM. And no matter what we do, that spectrum will always, always exist. That is what Jesus is saying. There will always be a top-end, and there will always be a bottom-end. In some nations (like Bangladesh), that spectrum is very broad and reaches very far down into poverty, indeed. There are billionaires in Bangladesh, and there are people starving in the gutters in rags. In the U.S., we certainly have a wealth spectrum, but the low end is much higher and the spectrum is much narrower. We have many billionaires, but our lower-end is nowhere NEAR as low as Bangladesh's. The point is, no matter how much you bring up the bottom-end, there will ALWAYS, by mathematical definition, BE a bottom-end. If the bottom-end was a $100,000 per year household income and a $300,000 home in today's dollars, then a household with a $100,000 income and a $300,000 home would be considered "poor", called "poor", and Marxists would tell those "poor" that they were being "oppressed" and "deserved" and were "entitled to" a $500,000 annual household income and an $800,000 home. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Someone is always going to have more money and assets than somebody else. It is impossible to have a free society wherein every person has exactly the same level of wealth. Someone has to be the business OWNER, and someone has to be the EMPLOYEE. Someone has to be the wage PAYER and someone has to be the wage EARNER. If everyone in a culture was economically equal at all times, there would be zero employment because no one would work for anyone except themselves. You can't have a company with 10,000 CEOs. Conversely, you can't have a company that is nothing but entry-level laborers. Someone has to be responsible. Someone has to sign the paychecks. Someone has to determine the course of the business. Someone has to risk their assets and wealth to start-up the company in the first place. And, at the other end, someone has to scrub the toilets. The only way to get true, complete equality of wealth would be to kill EVERYBODY.

Since we know from Jesus that there will always be a wealth spectrum, it is obviously disordered to eliminate said spectrum and collapse it down to a single point of "economic equality". To do that would collapse the society itself and result is chaos and poverty for ALL. (Ahem, MARXISM, cough, cough.) What then should the objective be? I think that the U.S. and other free-market capitalist societies are the closest humanity has ever been to the ideal, and though imperfect, are certainly pointed in the right direction. The ideal is a healthy wealth spectrum that is always moving higher through growth and moral technological advancements and innovations, is open-ended on the top side, but has an intrinsic morality such that the top-end of the wealth spectrum always makes certain that the bottom end advances apace and that the spectrum maintains its proportional width - or even narrows a bit. This is achieved through personal charity AND through a moral, lawful society that allows for movement both up AND down the spectrum. The top-end cooperates with the bottom end to enable upward mobility for those who work hard, and are innovative. Conversely, if someone on the top-end does not work hard or is dishonest in his dealings, he can and will fail and slide back down the spectrum. This freedom of movement within the spectrum - both up AND down - is essential. Trapping people on the low-end (ahem, cough, WELFARE STATE, cough) is equally as immoral as the disgusting patrician upper-classes who think themselves immune from morality, the rule of law or personal responsibility (ahem, cough, ENTIRE POLITICAL CLASS, cough, cough).

So, there you go. Economics as explained by our Blessed Lord in five little words while He was hanging out at His friends' house having supper the weekend before He died. And proof that Judas Iscariot was the intellectual father of Marxism and of scumbag politicians in general. Frances Fox Piven, thy name is Judas.

http://barnhardt.biz/

[charlesoakwood]

Aw, fck this social justice, Jesus was a communist, bullsht.

Yeah, it's long.  Tough.  Read it all.

The weekend before His Passion, Jesus went and stayed with His friend Lazarus (whom He had raised from the dead) and Lazarus' sisters Martha and Mary. Mary brought out a very expensive flask of ointment for the dead and applied it to Jesus' feet with her hair. The whole house was filled with the sweet smell of that ointment. And guess who gets all pissy about this? Yep. Judas Iscariot - who already was planning to sell out Jesus, and had been planning on cashing in on Jesus since the miracle of the loaves and fishes a few days earlier. Specifically, when Jesus told the people that they must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, and kept repeating it over and over and over again to be sure that everyone understood that He meant it literally, Judas (with urging from satan) decided that Jesus was nuts and started planning to betray Him and profit from it. That whole episode is in John chapter 6. Read it.

Back to Lazarus' house in John 12. Judas gets all holier-than-thou and complains that the flask of ointment could have been sold for 300 pence and "given to the poor". Does this not sound like the godless Marxist liberals of today who are so quick to tell everyone else what they should be doing with their money and assets, all in the name of the poor, of course? Then, an absolutely delightful verse - verse 6:

"Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the purse, carried the things therein."

Um, hello? The Holy Spirit is talking to us. Are we listening? That verse should make the hair on your arms stand up. Is this not a PERFECT mapping to our contemporary situation? You have a "disciple" who doesn't really believe in Jesus or what He says - he just pretends to because he thinks he can gain power and wealth by associating with Jesus for now. He's just working the "Jesus angle". But everything he is doing behind the scenes is working in direct opposition to Jesus. Now, this "disciple" starts trying to appear pious and devout by pontificating that all wealth and resources should, by definition, be redistributed to "the poor". But in truth, he is just a thief. Dude. Can this be any more obvious?

Now here is the key passage from Jesus Himself:

"Jesus therefore said: Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of My burial. For the poor you have always with you; but Me you have not always."

First of all, Jesus says, "Let her alone." (Sinite illam.) Judas has appointed himself the arbiter of wealth and asset distribution and has decided that Mary's flask of ointment (or the cash value thereof) should have gone to the poor. And Jesus says, "Let her alone." It is hers to do with as she (and her family) sees fit, and they have seen fit to use it to anoint their beloved Jesus. Judas, sit down and shut your proto-Marxist piehole. THWAP!

In the next phrase, Jesus explains economics in eight words (FIVE in Latin):

"For the poor you have always with you."
(Pauperes enim semper habetis vobiscum.)

What does He mean? Does He mean, "Bah, forget the poor! Live it up!" Absolutely not. What He is explaining is that in all free societies wealth will always exist within a SPECTRUM. Let's compare a "poor" person in the U.S. to a "poor" person in Bangladesh. A poor person in Bangladesh literally lives in the gutter without so much as a cardboard shelter to sleep under. They are sick from malnutrition and starvation. They probably dress in literal rags, and certainly do not own a pair of shoes. Bathing only occurs when they can immerse themselves in a river, which is opaque with sewage. They own nothing except the rags that they wear. Every day is a struggle to get a bit of clean water and enough food to merely survive. That's a poor person in Bangladesh. What constitutes a "poor" person in the U.S.? A poor person in the U.S. does not have cable. A poor person in the U.S. does not have broadband internet access, and may not even own a PC. A poor person in the U.S. may have just within the last year or two finally switched from a cathode ray tube television to a flat screen, digital model. A poor person in the U.S. receives food stamps, medicaid and a welfare check. A poor person in the U.S. is probably overweight. A poor person in the U.S. drives a car that is so old that it came with a factory cassette player. A poor person in the U.S. lives either in a trailer or a HUD apartment complex. A poor person in the U.S. probably DOES have a cell phone.

Understand that on a percentage level, these two descriptions are equivalent. A "poor" person in the U.S. has a standard of living that would be considered luxurious in Bangladesh and other impoverished countries. The notions of "wealth" and "poverty", by logical and mathematical definition, exist within a SPECTRUM. And no matter what we do, that spectrum will always, always exist. That is what Jesus is saying. There will always be a top-end, and there will always be a bottom-end. In some nations (like Bangladesh), that spectrum is very broad and reaches very far down into poverty, indeed. There are billionaires in Bangladesh, and there are people starving in the gutters in rags. In the U.S., we certainly have a wealth spectrum, but the low end is much higher and the spectrum is much narrower. We have many billionaires, but our lower-end is nowhere NEAR as low as Bangladesh's. The point is, no matter how much you bring up the bottom-end, there will ALWAYS, by mathematical definition, BE a bottom-end. If the bottom-end was a $100,000 per year household income and a $300,000 home in today's dollars, then a household with a $100,000 income and a $300,000 home would be considered "poor", called "poor", and Marxists would tell those "poor" that they were being "oppressed" and "deserved" and were "entitled to" a $500,000 annual household income and an $800,000 home. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Someone is always going to have more money and assets than somebody else. It is impossible to have a free society wherein every person has exactly the same level of wealth. Someone has to be the business OWNER, and someone has to be the EMPLOYEE. Someone has to be the wage PAYER and someone has to be the wage EARNER. If everyone in a culture was economically equal at all times, there would be zero employment because no one would work for anyone except themselves. You can't have a company with 10,000 CEOs. Conversely, you can't have a company that is nothing but entry-level laborers. Someone has to be responsible. Someone has to sign the paychecks. Someone has to determine the course of the business. Someone has to risk their assets and wealth to start-up the company in the first place. And, at the other end, someone has to scrub the toilets. The only way to get true, complete equality of wealth would be to kill EVERYBODY.

Since we know from Jesus that there will always be a wealth spectrum, it is obviously disordered to eliminate said spectrum and collapse it down to a single point of "economic equality". To do that would collapse the society itself and result is chaos and poverty for ALL. (Ahem, MARXISM, cough, cough.) What then should the objective be? I think that the U.S. and other free-market capitalist societies are the closest humanity has ever been to the ideal, and though imperfect, are certainly pointed in the right direction. The ideal is a healthy wealth spectrum that is always moving higher through growth and moral technological advancements and innovations, is open-ended on the top side, but has an intrinsic morality such that the top-end of the wealth spectrum always makes certain that the bottom end advances apace and that the spectrum maintains its proportional width - or even narrows a bit. This is achieved through personal charity AND through a moral, lawful society that allows for movement both up AND down the spectrum. The top-end cooperates with the bottom end to enable upward mobility for those who work hard, and are innovative. Conversely, if someone on the top-end does not work hard or is dishonest in his dealings, he can and will fail and slide back down the spectrum. This freedom of movement within the spectrum - both up AND down - is essential. Trapping people on the low-end (ahem, cough, WELFARE STATE, cough) is equally as immoral as the disgusting patrician upper-classes who think themselves immune from morality, the rule of law or personal responsibility (ahem, cough, ENTIRE POLITICAL CLASS, cough, cough).

So, there you go. Economics as explained by our Blessed Lord in five little words while He was hanging out at His friends' house having supper the weekend before He died. And proof that Judas Iscariot was the intellectual father of Marxism and of scumbag politicians in general. Frances Fox Piven, thy name is Judas.

http://barnhardt.biz/

 


Plucked the thought right out of my brain.

[Libertas]

"Judas, sit down and shut your proto-Marxist piehole. THWAP!"

"Judas Iscariot was the intellectual father of Marxism and of scumbag politicians in general."

                

[LadyVirginia]

On the way to taking my daughter to her job this morning she said to me "I think all these government entitlements are anti-Christian."  She explained they encourage people to be lazy, greedy, etc and basically to avoid being virtuous. 

                                                                                                     

[AlanS]

On the way to taking my daughter to her job this morning she said to me "I think all these government entitlements are anti-Christian."  She explained they encourage people to be lazy, greedy, etc and basically to avoid being virtuous. 

                                                                                                     

Sounds like you did an EXCELLENT job, Mom. Your daughter has a brain she uses.

[LadyVirginia]

On the way to taking my daughter to her job this morning she said to me "I think all these government entitlements are anti-Christian."  She explained they encourage people to be lazy, greedy, etc and basically to avoid being virtuous.  

                                                                                                    

Sounds like you did an EXCELLENT job, Mom. Your daughter has a brain she uses.

Thank you.

I figured out a long time ago the brain develops properly if exercised.  A brain gets exercise while learning and learning comes from doing. Doing requires getting off one's butt.  My kids all have a job by age 16 if not before.  That particular daughter had a job at 15 off the books for a friend's small business and at 16 got a legit job for 20 hours and promptly got another at the same time(no one was looking at how many hours she worked--but she quit when she questioned their business practices). She's worked ever since.  There are times she's had 3 jobs at one time.  

My kids want a computer, ipod or fancy phone they buy it.  (I admit I'm a sucker for toys when they're little--way too many in the house.) They also help around the house--as in actually doing something.  I don't care if they have homework they do their chores everyday.  It's up to them to learn how to organize their time.

Oh, I'm big on book learning but in the vein of the founding fathers--primary sources that form a the well-rounded person.  And they learn math, grammar, science.  Whether they like those subjects or not I don't care.  Hard or boring or not liking doesn't mean they can't do it. They're not leaving this house stupid.

I don't yell at them to do any of this.  I have high expectations and they strive to meet them.  

And yet they still claim I'm a big softy.  

[Pandora]

On the way to taking my daughter to her job this morning she said to me "I think all these government entitlements are anti-Christian."  She explained they encourage people to be lazy, greedy, etc and basically to avoid being virtuous. 

                                                                                                     

Sounds like you did an EXCELLENT job, Mom. Your daughter has a brain she uses.

Indeed, LV.

The entitlements are anti-Christian for the "givers" as well.  Any Christian that wants the government delivering taxpayer-funded charity is also evading his responsibility to discern true need in down-on-their-luck persons of character -- in other words, shirking his job too.

[LadyVirginia]

The entitlements are anti-Christian for the "givers" as well.  Any Christian that wants the government delivering taxpayer-funded charity is also evading his responsibility to discern true need in down-on-their-luck persons of character -- in other words, shirking his job too.

very true!

[radioman]

This is what scripture says:
Proverbs 12:24
"The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute" - KJV
"Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in forced labor" - NIV

Jefferson said:
Paraphrased: "What do you expect when you reward idleness?"

Please, I'm getting tired hearing how welfare is the Christian thing to do. Redistribution of wealth, and all the other crap that Satan spews out all day long.

[Pandora]

This is what scripture says:
Proverbs 12:24
"The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute" - KJV
"Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in forced labor" - NIV

Jefferson said:
Paraphrased: "What do you expect when you reward idleness?"

Please, I'm getting tired hearing how welfare is the Christian thing to do. Redistribution of wealth, and all the other crap that Satan spews out all day long.

It's the "social justice" bullsht with which the left has infected the churches.

[LadyVirginia]

HEY, LEFTISTS! CHRISTIANS ALSO BELIEVE THOU SHALL NOT STEAL!

[Pandora]

Did some body really pull your chain today or is your capslock stuck?

[LadyVirginia]

Did some body really pull your chain today or is your capslock stuck?

Hey, I went to the trouble of locking those caps, thank you very much.

/


Some days I get to the point where I've had a enough.