Why is Hillary (and the rest of the Democrat field of candidates) so determined to lift the tax burden from the middle class?
Answer:
They (Democrats) have already succeeded in lifting that particular burden off the poor. Lifting if from the middle class gives them the victory they seek.... only the "evil rich" will then pay taxes.
Let's work as a nation to lift the "Liberal" burden off ALL classes. Yes, let's.
130 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If so, I think you're in a tiny minority there. I'm relatively sure that most citizens believe that the more wealth and stuff we have, the greater percentage we should pay.
I'm sure you recognize that 10% of $10,000 is a heckuva lot more than 10% of $1,000,000, no?
10% of $10,000 = $1,000
10% of $1,000,000 = $100,000
Those two figures are not even in the same ballpark.
No. I do NOT want a "progressive" tax rate. Not many people I know DO. It's thievery... ESPECIALLY our current system.
If so, then I suspect you haven't lived in the real world long enough...
Regardless, you're in the minority on this issue. You'll have to do a better job of convincing folk that regressive or even flat taxes are just and moral. We simply disagree with you.
"Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostle's feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need" ~Luke, writing in Acts
"From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded." ~Jesus
As to your precious quote from Acts... they gave VOLUNTARILY. They were not compelled by a government who fully intended to confiscate property and wages if they didn't.
I'm not interested in a flat tax, that DOES create more of a burden on the poor than on the rich. I'm interested in the Fair Tax, which would insure the poor never paid ANY taxes. Those of us in favor of the Fair Tax may be few (relatively speaking) in number today, but our numbers are growing.
But DEMANDING the rich pay more simply because they can afford it is wrong. And if you can't see that, there's no hope for you.
We elect leaders to represent us and decide what programs are vital to our nat'l welfare and how much money we need to run those programs.
As to your precious quote from Acts... they gave VOLUNTARILY.
Same deal here. No one is forcing you to live in the US if you don't like the programs we collectively decide to run. You are free to campaign otherwise or leave to find a nation that doesn't tax you.
It's ALL voluntary. BUT, if you want to buy into our experiment called the US, you have to be willing to pay for the things we collectively agree upon. I certainly don't agree with every item in our budget (I bet I'd reduce the budget more than you), but no one is making me stay here.
If you wanted to be a member of a health club but demand that you get to do so for free, do you reckon it'd be right or fair for folk to say, "Oh, he wants to not pay for our services...well, okay!"?
We have a social contract here. It is wrong to confuse that with thievery. You're simply mistaken.
And I don't think you think it's thievery anyway, when it's taxation to pay for a program you want to support, am I correct?
You want to give a synopsis of the Fair Tax or should I look it up?
FairTax.org
Across all the tax brackets in the US the effective tax rate for the richest is only about 5% higher than it is for the bottom-most bracket.
The reason I choose this tack is BenT's complete lack of intellectual honesty on this subject. I've loaned him my copy of the Fair Tax, but can't honestly say he's read it. All his objections are "cut & pasted" from sites that seek (and fail) to debunk the joint bills HR25 and S1025.
The two biggest complaints he has is his dishonest assertion that 'rather than the 23% tax rate that would replace the current embedded taxes of 20-23% in everything we currently buy' BenT and all the other mathematically-challenged objectors falsely claim the rate to be 30%.
The other big objection and deal-breaker for BenT is the abolishment of the IRS.... all those employees without jobs!
That's not a good enough objection to continue down the "Rob and Steal" path our current tax system is on. By that logic we shouldn't seek to eliminate abortion because it would put abortionists out of business. Nevermind the fact that innocent life is destroyed for the sake of profit.
Finally, he closed with: "The Fair Tax is a windfall for the well-off and businesses."
But this is stupid. The Fair Tax is a windfall for EVERYONE... especially the poor. On top of that, the U.S. would become the number one tax haven in the world. Foreign companies would clamor to establish there companies in the U.S.
Furthermore... No one will be able to escape the tax. Not drug dealers, money-launderers, pimps, prostitutes, or politicians. Everyone ponies up, and everyone gets a monthly rebate up to the poverty level, ergo... the genuinely poor pay nothing.
But don't take my word for anything. Visit FairTax.org and read for yourself.
Or go to your local library and check out
The Fair Tax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS
A new book that answers the critics is due out next month, February 12th, and is available for pre-order at Amazon.com for a mere $8.97
FairTax: The Truth: Answering the Critics
Both books are Co-Authored by Congressman John Linder (R-GA) and Neal Boortz, loud-mouthed morning radio talk-show host.
That's not a good enough objection to continue down the "Rob and Steal" path our current tax system is on.
Why is "Rob and Steal" if we collectively decide to tax our incomes but it's okay to "take" the money by "forcing" them to pay 25% more on their goods?
An honest question - I am not buying your thievery line of thinking. It doesn't hold water, but if you'd care to make your case, I'm willing to listen.
As to the Fair Tax system, I still don't know much about it (although I've perused their material a bit). I'm certainly not tied to an income tax, but I'm not certain that there's any great advantage to this Fair Tax. Perhaps you could answer some questions and help me understand.
But this is stupid. The Fair Tax is a windfall for EVERYONE... especially the poor.
Are you saying that everyone pays less? If so, does that mean there will be fewer funds available in the gov't coffers and, if so, how will we pay for the programs that the US citizenry thinks appropriate? I read a little about why they think this wouldn't discourage consumption, but I'm not sure I'm getting it. Why do they think this won't encourage people spending less (generating less income and leaving we the people with insufficient funds for the programs we vote for)?
I also wonder if this wouldn't really encourage a strengthened black market, trading goods and services "off the books."
Understand, this to me is one of the strengths of this Fair Tax - I think we overconsume as it is. I'd love to see something that would discourage hyperconsumption. And an increase in bartering is something that I believe would be beneficial, as well.
But I'm not sure how they are answering concerns that we the people would end up with a smaller pot of funds for our roads, military, etc.
Then of course there is the perennial issue that Fair Tax advocates use an inclusive rate when promoting their program. Under the Fair Tax an object with a base price of $100 when the Fair Tax is added would have a final price of about $130. EL can claim that the Fair Tax is 23% because he says $100 is 23% of $130. I think that is weasel words.
Then of coarse we get into enforcement. The Fair Tax abolishes the IRS so there's no one to enforce this new national sales tax. Black market stores will spring up all over the place, unless you expand the treasury dept significantly. Oh wait, the Fair Tax doesn't bring in enough money for that.
Also one of the "evils" the Fair Tax combats is embedded taxes in consumer products. With the Fair Tax companies won't pay taxes on the item they purchase. So, if you create a business and start claiming all your purchases for that, you too can avoid paying taxes.
Take all the gee-whillickers stuff about the Fair Tax with a grain of salt. When you look at the details the idea as currently written falls apart.
In the 1970's CEO's made about 14 times more than what average workers made. Todays CEO's make on average almost 200 times what average workers do. Is that right? Are worth 1/200th of the Gray Television CEO's worth?
Almost without exception, every time you comment here I am left with an impression... an image in my mind. That of a man at the front of a soup line who spits into the pot because he doesn't like the the man on the other side hoping to serve all those others behind you.
You are intentionally hostile toward me here, despite the efforts at civility we project at work. How hypocritical of both of us.
Every time you comment here, know what I immediately think? "Another BenT attack..." Have you given me any reason to NOT think this? The instances in which you have NOT attacked are as rare snow storms in SE Alabama.
What ticks me off specifically on this subject is your repeated objections... parroted objections. No amount of explanation satisfies you. ALL of your objections have been repeatedly answered and debunked here and elsewhere. Most of those who speak against the FairTax demonstrate with every opening of their mouths that they don't even have a clue what the bills HR25 and S1025 actually say. They, like you, simply parrot what they've heard others say or write. Or worse yet, they simply hope to trash it and make it go away.
Frankly I'm tired of it.
Dan has asked questions because he honestly doesn't know anything about the Fair Tax, but you won't even give me an opportunity to answer before you swoop in and do what you do best. I didn't have the privilege of working from home last night... and yet you found time to troll my blog... I work a second job in the morning. My time is limited... your's apparently is not. Yeah, I blog at work too.
Now look what you've done! Your indignation has made ME indignant. Congratulations! I'm sure you're pleased as punch.
It's like going into a grocery store where, after ringing up everything in the rich man's basket the cashier then adds an addition $50.00 to the total. The rich man asks "Why?" The cashier replies, "The poor man behind you doesn't have enough money for everything in his basket, and you can afford the extra "surcharge."
Now, how ridiculous is that? The cashier has no way of knowing what is or isn't in the poor man's pocket... let alone the rich man.
Furthermore, there is 1000-fold more opportunity today than during the Depression. No one NEED BE POOR! Everyone, even down to the homeless man sleeping on a heating grate has the ability and opportunity to rise above his circumstances. But the problem with this 'Brave New Society' you and the 'Founts of American Liberalism' are hell-bent on shoving down everyone's throat is one very simple truth.........
Just as you cannot legislate Morality (a favorite mantra of the Left), you cannot legislate PROSPERITY! To punish productivity that slothfulness may then be rewarded is wrong. wrong. wrong. And it does nothing to help the slothful become more productive. It encourages MORE slothfulness.
If you reward bad behavior by punishing good behavior you risk those "guilty" of good behavior turning to bad behavior to avoid punishment.
Help the poor? Absolutely! But make that help contingent upon an honest effort toward improving their lives and thereby, their future outlook. Government programs already exist to help in this. Don't tell me it can't be done. Oprah has had too many success stories on her show that puts that lie to shame.
Another truth exists here, however.
"There will always be poor people"
And we must therefore be compassionate. But that compassion should not take the form of punishment upon those who ARE productive. The rich aren't evil. But Liberalism's attack on them IS.
I'm not interested in punishing the rich. I'm among them (at least compared to the single mom working two waitress jobs 50 hours a week to bring home $10,000). I'm telling my legislators that I believe in a progressive tax system.
Where I pay more than the person under me for the benefits of our system. John Kerry, the Clintons and others (who are much wealthier than I am) have said the same thing.
I don't want to benefit from the American experiment without paying and I want to pay proportionately more because I am enjoying the benefits proportionately more. I believe that most of us have voted for this equitable system.
Those who don't like it can lobby for change or, if they find it distasteful enough, they can go start their own country where no one pays taxes, or where they establish a Fair Tax or however they want to handle it.
It is not thievery. It's an implementation of a Republic.
Your illustration about the store is not an apt comparison to the country.
Rather, it'd be like joining the YMCA where they have instituted a sliding scale. The Y did so because they think that the best and most fair way to encourage healthy living.
The millionaire who joins the Y and has to pay $10,000/year (while the poor fella only has to pay $10/year) can complain if he wants to and make the case for change. Or he can take his business elsewhere.
What he can't do legitimately is join the club and then complain that he is being robbed. It's an agreement. Take it, lobby for change, or leave it.
There's a great deal that I pay for with my taxes that I loathe. Corporate welfare, infinite road-building, an obscenely large military machine, etc. I don't like my tax dollars going to these programs at the rate they do. But I'm not being robbed. I am willingly a part of this great nation of ours. I lobby for change where I can and otherwise take it. It's how the system works.
"That of a man at the front of a soup line who spits into the pot because he doesn't like the the man on the other side hoping to serve all those others behind you."
And I get this image of a self-righteous european instructing native americans in how to be civilized.
If others have similar objections to the Fair Tax then that is no surprise. The problems I see others have seen before and after me. Should I accuse you of parroting Rush Limbaugh and Neal Boortz?
A better analogy for modern tax inequality would be derived from looking at feudal europe. The peasants toil and produce the goods and then the lords come along and take 60% of the profit. The the government comes along and takes 10% from the peasants and the lords. That sort of system didn't work so well in Europe did it?
Your YMCA example fails since it's a business that is free to operate as it chooses without benefit of voters telling it how to do business.
It is true that we live in a democratic republic wherein our laws are often based on a majority vote. But to say that that makes tax policy fair or right is not true. As often indicated, the rich are a minority and as so often we are told, the minority needs to be protected. While I don't personally hold with that philosophy, it is indeed a case where they are without much choice considering how out numbered they are. It's a case where our way democracy is being used in a negative manner by forcibly squeezing the rich for the benefit of the poor, who, too often, are poor by choice.
As yet, I have problems with the Fair Tax, too. A recent article at Townhall.com presents some good questions, and I'll try to find it and come back with it.
But a flat tax, to me, is indeed the most fair if it is fixed to the best of our ability to do so. In truth, that seems to be the biggest problem of any tax plan. Can we keep activists and politicians from tweaking the crap out of it after implementation? That's how our current plan got so out of hand with deductions and such.
The beauty of the flat tax is its simpicity. If there are no deductions, and any earnings get taxed, the rate can remain constant. Dan's problem with it, that the poor have little to begin with so the rate is more brutal, means that we are not really looking at what's fair, but keeping it progressive. Well, OK. We can agree to a particular cutoff and flat tax everyone above it. That's as progressive a tax as I'd like to see happen. But what needs to be stressed and encouraged to everyone from the time each is old enough to understand is that they need to consider the costs of their actions and provide for them first, then engage in them. If someone is poor due to their choices, and that's really how everyone who's poor becomes so, life will be tough.
As to those lefty rich dudes, I don't suppose the feds or the state governments will ever refuse donations atop their proper tax rate, so why the hell would they complain? We'll then see just how much they really care about the needy. Frankly, anyone who claims they want to maintain the current tax plan needs to donate every dime above what they need to live on, or they're being hypocritical about caring for the poor. But democratic republic or not, voting to squeeze the rich is stealing and not a sign or your personally charity, so that argument is lame.
Whilst a teacher (special ed), I had this class that made the following point: If there is a blind student, we may provide extra (and costly) material in braille and allow their seeing eye dog in class. No one else would have that provided to them.
We definitely would not be treating that student equally as the others. BUT, then, the others don't need braille nor a seeing eye dog. So we would be treating ALL students fairly.
I'm opposed to treating everyone equally - circumstances differ and they make a difference.
I support treating everyone fairly. There's a difference - one that I think the majority of citizens agree with and recognize that it would be unfair to treat everyone equally. Therein lies the morality of progressive tax systems and the immorality of flat taxes.
Fine. The progressive system is neither fair nor equal. Again, your example misses the mark. The poor aren't handicapped except by their own choices. That's apples and oranges comparing it to physical handicaps like blindness. You have to understand that many wealthy people suffered through times of poverty, and I mean heavy debt with no cash on hand to pay it off. I've read several auto-bios of wealthy people and it seems that it's a consistant pattern. They struggle, create wealth, screw up and lose it all, and then seek welfare. No, that's not true, they don't seek welfare. They recall what got them wealthy in the first place, do it all again with the exception of altering the plan according what they did wrong that caused them to lose it all. In all that time, they made choices regarding how they will live, work and what they will do with whatever they earn. They avoid behaviors that threaten their plan and stay focussed until they meet their goals and then they set new ones. They don't worry about goodies until they have far more than necessary to aquire them. They expend the effort and make the sacrifices and when trouble hits they deal with it on their own and overcome. And you think it's fair to take from them and give to those who have abused, ignored or mishandled their opportunities to choose or who feel they aren't required to deal with their own adversities. Now THAT'S not fair. You're way in fact rewards those who have failed, or have never tried to succeed, or haven't the courage to risk. Frankly, most people do well when their backs are to the wall, but you want to remove the wall with money that you did absolutely nothing to earn.
And that's even more unfairness and shameful coming from you since you've stated that you've purposely tried to live with less. How dare you even begin to say what should be done with someone's hard earned wealth when you've chosen to live a more spartan existence. If you truly care for the less fortunate, then you go out and create an income stream that you can then divert to those you insist others should support.
The "progressive" Income Tax (what we now have)--
It's grossly unfair. And the reason it IS so unfair is because politicians tinker with it year to year. Look at your Social Security statement next time it comes in. Somewhere in that letter is a statement to the effect: 'These totals are only estimates. Congress can at any time change law that will directly affect your government mandated 'ponzi-scheme' safety net.' The same is true of the Income Tax. Congress can at any time raise or lower your taxes for whatever reason is 'hip' at the time, causing the taxpayer any number of griefs or elations... dependent on the whim of Congress alone. At least half of America believes there has to be a better way.
Flat Tax-- sounds like a good idea; but again, Congress can at any time change the laws, percentages, for whatever reason they choose. Taxpayers are again at the mercy of Congressional whim. Many Americans would shortly wonder if there wasn't a better way to tax.
Interesting notes about our current "Income" tax system:
1) It began as a single rate (FLAT) tax. That's right! Our income tax began as a flat tax. Do we really want to go back to square one only to end up where we are now in, say, eighty years? Again... going to a Flat Tax still allows congress to tinker with it. How? Congress has the power of legislation, and "We the People" have little input or control. Lobbyists will continue to procure tax breaks for special interests-- they have more access to congressmen than "We the People" have! Precedents have been set! Each tax break complicates the tax code just a little more, and they all add up to a code with over 66,000 pages that even tax professionals don’t fully understand.
2) A "Flat Tax" is still an income tax! And is contrary to the Founders' vision as set forth in the Constitution. The income tax was made possible only after self-serving politicians did an end run around the Constitution and "We the people" in 1913, taking powers for themselves that the Constitution denied them.
Now let's look at the...
FairTax-- It's biggest selling point? Congress' fingers are out of the cookie jar, so to speak. The greatest transfer of power in American history occurs the moment the Fair Tax is enacted.
It’s time to scrap all income-based taxes once and for all and replace them with a single, one-time retail tax... one that WE control! At the same time, we need to repeal the 16th Amendment so that income taxes will remain a memory. The FaitTax will keep the politicians out of our wallets, 401k's, retirement funds, and the inheritances our dead loved ones leave to us. How's that for thievery? Your parents paid taxes on the wealth they possess, but when they die, politicians want to tax them again.
All this goes away with the FairTax. The only time you will ever be taxed is when you purchase something. And the government pays you for the basic necessities of life UP TO the poverty level..... No poor family need ever worry about taxes. Everyone gets every penny of their paychecks. And the things you buy will not cost you noticeably more than under the income tax. Why? The taxes embedded in everything we buy NOW will disappear.
There are several core principles of the FairTax, and one of them is that the new national retail sales tax will replace the federal taxes that are already embedded in the price of everything we buy. A study was done by Harvard economists that determined that, on the average, 22 percent of the cost of everything we buy represents the total embedded tax burden of every person or company responsible for bringing that product to the marketplace. Those taxes disappear under the FairTax, and when they disappear competitive marketplace pressures will drive that tax component out of the price. Then along comes the 23 percent FairTax to replace it. Result? The item costs pretty much the same. Anyone who wanted to do ANY research at all would be able to figure this out. This is a concept that hundreds of thousands of waiters and waitresses, truck drivers, construction workers, electricians, retail and service workers, farmers, hotel housekeepers and yes, even accountants understand....
Currently there are over 70 sponsors of HR25, the FairTax Act, in the Congress. Surely none of these congressmen put their name to a bill that would add 30% to the price of everything we buy?
And about this 30 percent crap, under the FairTax when you walk into the store to buy a $100 toaster, the price tag will say "$100." When you get to the cash register you will pay $100. No more, no less. On your receipt you will see that $23 of the purchase price went to the government as the FairTax. The rest is retained by the retailer. Most people can figure out that $23 is 23 percent of $100... some people obviously can't.
THIS brand of tax reform... the FAIR TAX... is the only one that will grow our economy, transfer massive amounts of power from the government to the people, and make the United States the world's tax haven for business and industry.
A Flat Tax (and I agree with Dan on this) just plain sucks. It puts us right back where we were in 1913... at the beginning of a long dark nightmare.
The income tax began much the way today's liberal rhetoric is aimed at raising taxes on the "Evil Rich." The government needed money, so politicians told 'We the People,' "pass the 16th Amendment and we'll tax the rich on a percentage of your income. You will never have to pay anything... only the rich will pay." But it wasn't long before the middle class began paying the "income" tax. The poor soon followed.
The Alternative Minimum Tax began how? There was a small... VERY small group of Americans who were avoiding the Income Tax altogether... legally! Congress said, "Can't have that! These folks need to pay their fair share!"
Sound familiar?
Guess what happened? Unintended consequences.... or not...? Millions of Americans are now affected by the AMT. Congress dithered and hemmed and hawed all year before "tinkering" with it. Millions of Americans will now have to wait til the end of February before they can file.......... Because Congress didn't want to fix it.
And Congress doesn't want to surrender the purse string of the Income Tax. They won't willingly enact the FairTax. But momentum is building. More and more people are hearing about the FairTax and saying to themselves... "Now there's a better way!"
I have high hopes.
"We the People" have lost too much of the freedoms our founders gave us. It's time to start taking them back.
Do you vote? Do you get a say in how we govern our great nation?
Then quit yer twitchin'. (made you look?)
Convince me.
How can everybody pay less and we the people still have funds to run the programs we deem necessary? Will it mean fewer available tax dollars? Will that mean that congress just raises the Fair Tax rate to raise the extra money?
Convince me.
EL's example of the $100 toaster is flimflam of the greatest order. He says that the Fair tax will be already calculated into price tags, but how can that be when earlier he said people would see how much they're paying at the register? And of coarse if a business buys the toaster then they get it without having to pay the fair tax. To get a $100 toaster you take a $77 base price and multiply it by 30% to get $100. In a fair tax store that's what you would have to do to see how much items will cost after adding in this federal sales tax.
--
In strict terms the economy is the movement of value from entity to entity. Corporations, individuals, all sorts of transactions, all of the movement of value makes up the economy. Some of that value is cash, some non-tangible vehicles like stocks, and some is material goods, like land. There is no beginning or ending point for wealth. Our current tax system sips just a little of this value from almost all of these transactions. And when the flow ebbs in one place those reductions are made up somewhere else. The Fair Tax though would exempt almost the entire economic system from being taxed except of the individual consumer.
Retirement experts recommend having a multitude of income sources, and investments. They call it diversifying. Why wouldn't we want our federal government to be diversified too?
EL's stats on the subsequent post show why the "we all just agreed on this tax structure" can kill the goose that laid the golden egg. When 51% of the people realize they can tax the upper earners into oblivion - and selfish / short-sighted politicians are only too glad to help them - things start to go down hill. The really rich come up with new loopholes and such and the middle class eats the burden.
I still favor the flat tax because of its simplicity, and because I'm not up to snuff on the fair tax. But, I don't see anything about the fair tax that protects it from being messed with by politicians and special interest groups just as the progressive and flat tax systems can be. If these two can be raised, so can the fair tax.
" How dare I say that I want to pay a greater percentage than those who make less than I do?" You didn't say that and you don't say that. You are always free to send more of your dough if you choose. Do with it what you please. But when you vote to raise taxes on the rich, that your money you're talking about and you're forcing others to pay because they've done what you're too lazy or incompetent, but pretend is noble and non-materialistic, to do. I say again, if you are serious about supporting the less fortunate, create the type of wealth you wish to see taxed and send your excess funds to the government or the charitable organizations of your choice.
God also was fine with income redistribution in God's theocracy. You game?
But where's the evidence? I don't have the slightest desire for half of my own stuff much less any of "their" stuff - whoever "they" may be.
No, generally speaking:
1. No one is talking about "soaking the rich." Rather, we're talking about "To those who have much, much will be expected," and along those biblical, Christian lines.
2. None of my friends covet the stuff of the wealthy. We may pity those who are so caught up in materialism and we may well be guilty of pride in not being AS caught up in materialism, but we're simply not being covetous.
'Tis a smear, not an actual point of discussion. And how can we know it's a smear? Because this "They're merely jealous or covetous" is always offered with no proof, it's just a smear.
Thou shalt not...
You and your circle, Dan, may not be interested in "soaking the rich" ...in so many words ...but many.... MANY... who aren't in your circle DO want to soak the rich. And it's evident in their choice of language....
...in asking the rich to "Pay their fair share"
Well... what's fair is 'everyone pays the same amount' regardless of HOW many cows they have in the barn. that would be a "flat" tax.
If the Bible were 'all about wealth redistribution, why then did Jesus speak of taking away from the slothful and giving it to the productive?
Hmmmm.
Seems to me the bible is all about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, not allowing government to soak the rich (penalize the productive) to give it to the poor (the, typically, unproductive)
It's about a landlord forgiving several months worth of back rent because the tenant, newly hired at the auto plant, has other bills to catch up on... AND feed his family. And if not "forgive" outright, then at least to work with the man until what's past due is paid in full.
We are called to be compassionate... not reward those who 'bury their talents.'
Do you really think that "asking for folk to pay their fair share," is evidence of covetousness or a desire to soak the rich?
As I've noted earlier, there is a marked difference between what's fair and what's equal. Unless I'm mistaken, you're suggesting that the poor paying the same percentage is fair. Most people recognize that as blatantly unfair. The Bible recognizes that as blatantly unfair.
Again, to whom much has been given, much will be expected. Those who gathered much did not have too much and those who gathered little did not have too little.
I'll put my "unproductive" poor friends up against your "productive" rich in hour for hour hard work in most instances.
The "lazy welfare queen" is mostly a myth.
Just to be clear, Eric, I thought I would point out to you (although I've said it before) that no one is talking about helping people to NOT work. Social workers, our urban ministries in churches, welfare workers, ALL of these types recognize how vital it is that folk have work to do.
So, to be clear, no one is advocating taking from the wealthy to give to people who don't work just because they don't want to work.
But by your measure above, do you advocate soaking those who don't work (corporate executives, managers, - the "unproductive" ones) and giving it to those who DO work (sanitation workers, nurse's aides, janitors - the "productive")?
I am in favor of helping everyone have productive work - the winos and the executives alike. And that people receive a fair wage for their work. Is it fair that a hardworking janitor makes $7/hour and a corporate exec makes $7000!??/hour?
In Jesus' day, the people recognized that someone who could take what a master had given them and return it, threefold! HAD to be doing something illegal or immoral. It wasn't possible to do this within the bounds of legality/morality in their day and age.
I tend to think the same today.
Well, actually...no, it isn't.
I've lived among the "welfare queens". I lived right next door to one, named Yolanda, who did nothing. Ever. She sat in her front yard and chain smoked cigarettes bought with her welfare money, and complained constantly thet the government didn't give her more and more and more. Meanwhile, her kids were learning that they didn't have to work either.
Welfare without some obligation to wean oneself off welfare begats more welfare for the lazy and unproductive. I've seen it over and over and over.
Listen:
Welfare was originally intended to help people who COULD NOT help themselves. That is mostly those who don't have the physical or mental capacity to earn a living by themselves. It was not supposed to pay people who didn't want to work. It was supposed to benefit the poor who had no opportunity, not the poor who had no ambition.
The system has been abused and manipulated to where it has finally become utterly ineffective.
And the rich Liberal politicians are betting richer and richer from the tax shelters they have created through legislation intended, ostensibly, to help the poor. It has evolved now to the point where "the poor" have more advantages than the middle class. And the Liberal rich still clamor for even more taxation to help "the poor", while honest working men like myself sink ever deeper into poverty created by this class envy based tax system.
Remove all tax shelters. Place a fixed percentage tax on all assets, as well as all earned income. That makes the rich truly pay their own fair share, and lifts much of the tax burden off the middle class, who have earned income but don't have very many assets.
And place the same percentage on income and assets generated by welfare. It just might make some of those lazy welfare queens get off their fat duffs and go to work.
And Mark, with all his experience with this one lady, knows that this must then be true for everyone else on welfare.
Note: I said it is "mostly a myth." I didn't say it doesn't happen.
For your one person who you suspect was able to work, I can offer three others who DO work and STILL aren't making ends meet.
I can then offer three more who have mental or physical issues that prevent them from working at the jobs they can find.
I can then offer three more who have been in the penitentiary (9/10 for the drug "crimes") and now find it nearly impossible to find work because they have a record.
I can then offer ten others who - because of family breakdowns and not having parents at home because their single mom was out working to make ends meet - never learned a good work ethic and how to be responsible. And a cycle continues. But we can't invest money to support families like this because that's "welfare" and "soaking the rich to give to bums".
And so, the cycle continues.
Social workers (at least the good ones - I'm sure there are bad ones out there, I haven't met any but I'm sure they're out there) are all about helping people develop a work ethic and work skills that will enable them to be part of the producers.
But churches are not out there in enough numbers with enough church social workers to reach all those who need the help and many in the churches are opposed to gov't taking up the slack that churches could be but aren't doing.
And so, the cycle continues.
Actually, what that would encourage would be a black market and working "off the books," because if you're making $10,000/year, you can't really afford to have $1,000 go to taxes.
"...those who don't work (corporate executives, managers, - the "unproductive" ones)"
What? CEO's don't work? They don't work as hard as janitors? What a jaundiced view you have of "corporate executives"! Sure, some are not worth the money they're paid, but quite a few are. What? You think the man who oversees a multi-billion dollar corporation that plays above board and gives the board and investors a return on their investment doesn't deserve a check commensurate with his/her success? People are largely paid based on their skill-level, and what the market will bear FOR their skills. Raises and bonuses are largely based on effort and success. A Corporate CEO, provided he has the right training and skills can bring in far more cashola for the Corporation and its investors than a Janitor. That's not to say a janitor's work isn't important, but just about ANYONE can be a good janitor... the same is not true of good CEO's.
Dan said:
"In Jesus' day, the people recognized that someone who could take what a master had given them and return it, threefold! HAD to be doing something illegal or immoral. It wasn't possible to do this within the bounds of legality/morality in their day and age."
What a complete load of dishonest bull. What? Jesus gave the people a parable that was predicated upon the servants "doing something illegal or immoral"? That it wasn't "Possible" to do as the master asked within the "bounds of legality/morality"?
How unjust of a Master, then, to punish the slothful servant who buried his talent-- cheating no one but the Master! --by taking it away and giving it to the one who best cheated his customers!
That's hardly the image of a righteous Master. Furthermore, you have no evidence to prove, let alone suggest, that "the people recognized that someone who could take what a master had given them and return it, threefold." Plenty of people look at the successes of the rich and think the same thing today. But the truth is, there are Biblical Principles that when applied will allow for great returns on Godly investments. Those who are most successful tend to be those who give generously, and from the heart.
The point of the parable is that in order for God to bless us with great responsibility, we must show we can succeed with little responsibility. Our Master desires a return on His investment. Hence the original command to "be fruitful, and multiply." You take on this parable is completely backward.
She, unlike Yolanda, was the exception, not the rule. Welfare creates an entitlement mindset, and I have seen it first hand. And frankly, it insults me when people like you imply my life experiences don't have any relevance to the facts that you were told in your liberal social conciousness classes.
He says:
The notorious parable of the talents (pounds) shows how Sabbath perspective as an interpretive key can rescue us from a long tradition of both bad theology and bad economics (Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:11-28). This story has, in capitalist religion, been interpreted allegorically from the perspective of the cruel master (= God!), requiring spiritualizing gymnastics to rescue the story from its own depressing conclusion that haves will always triumph over the have-nots (Matthew 25:29). But it reads much more coherently when turned on its head and read as a cautionary tale of realism about the mercenary selfishness of the debt system. This reading understands the servant who refused to play the greedy master's money-market games as the hero who pays a high price for speaking truth to power (Matthew 25:24-30)—just as Jesus himself did.
Read the whole essay, Myers is a great biblical teacher - very concerned about getting at the Bible's real meaning as opposed to the traditions of various religions.
Mark, I never discounted your experience as not real. I said it was YOUR experience and not the norm. Just because it is your real experience (how did you know the capacity for working of all those neighbors?) does not mean that your anectdotal evidence represents the majority of cases.
As stated, hard evidence and studies show that the welfare queen is a myth. As with all myths, there may be some kernel of truth in it, but it doesn't make it the over-arching reality.
And, Eric, I didn't say that all CEOs were unproductive. Instead, I specifically pointed to "the unproductive ones."
here
here
here
Check out especially that first one. Good facts are a basis for sound policy.
If you yourself never lived in public housing, and your entire experience with welfare recipients comes from third person narratives, and studies found on the internet, you have no real knowledge of the subject. Don't insist studies conducted by elitists who have no hands on experience in the field have any relevance in the real world.
Thou shalt not..."
Yeah, thou shalt not judge, Dan, so why not stop it?!
Seriously, when one person thinks another person has "too much money" and wants to give that money to someone else (and consider themself charitable in the process!) it looks like covetousness to me. What more proof do you need? The offense is self evident. I hear libs say things like, "They have too much already." Maybe they do. Why not share the Gospel with the rich and change their hearts, then maybe they'll want to give more?
Call it what you like. And keep sending extra $$ to the IRS over and above what they require then we'll talk.
I heard Hillary say, "I want to take those profits..."
I've even heard libs say, "it's time to make the rich pay their fair share..."
Myers might have an different take on Scripture, but from what you've printed here, it sounds like an incredibly idiotic one. The parable of the talents has nothing to do with finance anymore than building a house on a rock has to do with architecture or sewing seeds has to do with farming. On the other hand, Jesus used real world notions to make the connection to the spiritual and Meyers take misses the point entirely. Your exerpt does, however, explain a lot about your take on Scripture if Meyers is the type of "scholar" from whom you learn. In fact, it makes me feel sorry for you.
There is no way that studies will ever trump real life experience.
And there you have it.
It doesn’t matter what the experts say if I’ve experienced something else. It doesn’t matter what scientists say if I think something else.
The triumph of personal opinion over scholarly study.
Anti-intellectualism.
Well, how about this, Mark: I have “real life” personal experience, too. For the last 20 years I have lived in Louisville’s urban “wasteland.” Next to the mentally ill, welfare recipients, drug dealers, homeless and other of those “human” types.
For the last 12 years, I have attended church that is located in “the projects” and down the street from several homeless shelters. We have a homeless drop in center. We have welfare recipients and homeless as members of our church. Sometimes, as deacons.
For seven of those years, we had two homeless families living in our house with us. Those Cadillac queens (who, strangely, had no Cadillac or car of any kind) with their gang of children who sometimes received money from those oppressed taxpayers.
And in my “real life” experience, there are a variety of American poor. Many have mental illness issues. They want desperately to be “normal” and to be able to hold down a job. My friend, “Mr. Smith,” for example, was from a wealthy family who tried their best to help him. He wrote plays and poems describing how deeply he wanted to be like a regular guy. But his mental illness problems kept him down and often on the streets.
He eventually killed himself and is no longer on the public dole.
Others have been raised without parents and rules and have not learned very well how to manage money or time and often make bad decisions. Maybe if we force them to live on the streets for a while or in prison, somehow they’ll learn these skills? In my “personal experience,” being reduced to homelessness or prison doesn’t generally help folk learn to be more independent or important life skills.
And I could go on but I won’t.
So there you have it, Mark. “Personal experience” that conflicts with yours. So, now what do we do? IF “personal experience” trumps all, then does my "personal experience" trump yours or vice versa?
when one person thinks another person has "too much money" and wants to give that money to someone else (and consider themself charitable in the process!) it looks like covetousness to me. What more proof do you need?
Aaannnd, there you have it. Neil thinks it, therefore it must be. We don't need no stinkin' evidence, it's enough if Neil thinks it to be true.
What proof? How about ANY? WHO thinks some people have "too much money?" Have I said that? Can you cite anyone who has said that?
And even if someone has said that, thinking that someone has too much money is not the same as covetousness. We are all aware, aren't we, of the definition of "covetousness"? To want what others have or to be greedy, right?
How does thinking that someone has too much equal greedy? IF someone said, "I wish I had HIS money," THAT would be evidence of covetousness, not your "proof."
The offense is self evident. I hear libs say things like, "They have too much already."
So, you find that to be "self-evident," and no further proof is needed, because Neil thinks it, it must be?
Neil, come now, let's stick to actual evidence and not imagined evidence, please.
Thank you.
It is simply logic, my friend, and self evident from the arguments.
I actually don't have an issue with
some progressiveness with the tax code. Every flat tax / fair tax proposal I've seen has huge breaks for earners under $50k.
I just think it is bad reasoning to say that the Bible supports you taking OTHER people's money and giving it away, and considering that a Christian virtue.
How people get that out of the Bible is beyond me. Of course, some people can read the Bible and come away thinking that it supports the "gay marriage" oxymoron, so I suppose there are no limits to how badly people will misinterpret it.
Peace, all!
Medical bills and divorce?
1. Poor decision making skills
2. Poor money management skills
Everything else is subjective.
Dan, you continually chide me and others about taking the bible literally, yet you latch on to Myers who does the very same thing.
For your first question, which is not in any way analogous to the issue, I would wager that a woman dressing provocatively is far more attractive to you than if she were to dress in a burqa(sp). So not only is dressing modestly pleasing to God, but it is less likely to draw the attention of scumbags. Is it cause of rape? Of course, not in and of itself, but it can be a factor. Dress like a slut and folks are likely to treat you like one. (That's why my kilt is at the knee.)
Regarding your quiz, I'd wager that whatever the answer, personal responsibility would positively impact those numbers. It certainly would if Dan's guess is correct.
"Again, asking folk to pay a "fair share" is not a bad thing."
But you aren't "asking" when you vote for those who would raise the taxes of those of means. You are demanding and forcing. It's as if Jesus said to you, "I was hungry and you robbed a wealthy man to feed me." How about this: since you feel you are wealthy living the simple life, why not show the poor in your area how you do it. That would be more honest since you avoid materialism of any kind.
"Maybe if we force them to live on the streets for a while or in prison, somehow they’ll learn these skills?"
Who's forcing them to live on the streets or in prison? They are there as a result of their own choices or have been abandoned by their own families and friends. As far as learning the skills goes, how freakin' hard is it to understand that you don't buy a Playstation if the rent's due. You don't engage in fornication if you can't support the kid that will be born. Some behaviors are easy to learn as there are churches and Bibles everywhere. Other education can be had for free in many cases. You see, there are these places most towns have, perhaps you've seen or heard of them, that are called "libraries". Tons of info of all kinds can be had for those who wish to better themselves. Back's to the wall? Do what you gotta do.
Actually, what I chide you for is taking each and every word of the Bible literally (or what you define as literally). What Myers is doing and what I try to do is take the TRUTHS of the Bible VERY literally. The teachings as they apply to us, I strive to take literally.
I don't chide anyone for taking Jesus' ethical teachings literally. I wish more folk would do so. BUT, that's not the same as taking some of the rules found in the OT literally. Some DO still apply to us, others less so. Still others would be an abomination if we were to follow them today (killing disrespectful children, for instance).
I'm among those who have said for a long time that the religious Right takes all the wrong parts literally and all the right parts, they spiritualize away as not being applicable to us in the real world.
Just so we're clear: PLEASE take Jesus' ethical teachings literally. Sell your goods, give alms to the poor and follow in Jesus' community.
That's what taxes are: The people deciding on a means of raising money from the population to pay for our common wealth. And yes, it is required. But unless you want to live in an anarchy, that's just the way it works.
I don't believe you're advocating No Taxes. You want to have a big military. You want to have a roadway system. You may want to continue to subsidize motorists and corporations, for all I know (it's only "welfare" if it's for the poor, right?). You do not have a problem with taxation.
Nor do I. I just want a fair means of taxation. NOT equal, but fair. If the Fair Tax people could make their case, I'm willing to listen. So far, I've not seen answers to some basic questions. I seriously don't like our current method of taxation and am open to a better proposal.
I've not heard one, yet.
And this will be the last time I repeat that I want fair taxation and define that - not robbery any more than anyone else here wants robbery, but rather a fair and equitable tax system to pay for the things we agree we need to run our society.
A village of 100 families have been troubled by 10 families within their community who are unable to make ends meet. Some through sheer laziness, some through poor choice, and others just down on their luck.
So the village Elder calls everyone together and asks if there isn't something they can do to support their communities "less fortunate."
A majority (including the "less fortunate") agree that taxes should be raised upon all, so that the community may take care of its own in their time of need.
20 families who have been "very fortunate" don't mind helping out, but they're concerned about what the village as a whole will deem a fair increase.
When the plan is revealed, and it becomes apparent that the elder and his councilors want to exempt the "less fortunate" and much of the middle class, they are naturally upset and indignant. Why should the "very fortunate" pay 75% of the new tax? This is hardly fair? Let's find work for the less fortunate, forgive them their debts, and all come together to both ease their burdens and teach them how to be more fortunate. Because the "very fortunate" recognize it is unfair to make them pair more and more simply because they have been "very fortunate."
But the village Elder his Council decide to send the troops in to take by force, crops from the field and ore from the mines of the "very fortunate." These troops culled their herds, and confiscated a portion of their looms... by force.
What seemed most unfair to the "very fortunate" was that the "less fortunate" were afford a vote.... Those who were to receive the bounty of the "very fortunate" were allowed to take part in the vote to "soak" the "very fortunate."
That's what Dan advocates. Theft. However good his intentions, theft is still theft.
For myself, I believe anyone on welfare should not be allowed to vote. There is no constitutional guarantee to vote in presidential elections anyway. Even the US Supreme court said as much in Bush vs. Gore, declaring, "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote [for presidential electors]." And this was BEFORE Roberts and Alito! .... My, how ignorant this nation has become! How backward! Theft has become "asking them to pay their fair share"! And the fact that almost anyone can register to vote has given the populous a false belief that the Constitution gives them the right to vote.
Anyone with a vested interest in the outcome of an election... those on the governmental teat... should have no say in WHO or HOW the government taxes the citizenry.
In times past, only men who were landholders were allowed to vote. Those receiving public funds to sustain a meager living within the community should be exempted from voting, especially since each vote, in no small measure, extends to the winner of each election some measure of "say" in how and who gets milked by our out of control government. Especially congressional representative elections.
Oh geez! Shall we have to be white and male, as well? Man, do you know how you come off when you say crap like this??
Anyone with a vested interest in the outcome of an election... those on the governmental teat... should have no say in WHO or HOW the government taxes the citizenry.
By this reasoning, then the rich should have no vote at all, since they're the ones benefiting the most off the system. We ALL have a vested interest in the outcome of an election.
Y'all are too wack. I'll pass on this goofball of a discussion.
If you want to return to the real world and offer some compelling non-elitist reasons for a Fair Tax, let me know. Just know that it doesn't matter how many times you say that taxation = theft does not make it so.
And if it DOES make it so, does that mean you are condemning yourself as a thief (assuming you take part in the tax system)? If you REALLY thought it was a crime against God and you continue to support it by paying into it, well then Lord have mercy on your soul, right? You're deliberately sinning so as to meet society's rules?
The early church, when confronted with a choice of obeying the state or God, chose God and paid the price. Are you going to live up to your values?
Peace out. [rolls eyes]
The number 1 cause of bankruptcies in the US is major medical events. Heart attacks, car accidents, etc. The nubmer 2 cause is job loss. Now tell me EL and Marshall could either of you lose your job suddenly? I know I couldn't. Today the amount of financial risk that the middle class faces is hgher than ever before.
EL and Marshall keep saying that the power rests in the hands of the poor voter, but reality tells us differently. Last year Congress passed the Bankruptcy bills that cracked down of the middle and lower classes' ability to file for bankruptcy. Why? Because large campaign donors wanted it.
In the current campaign the populist candidate, John Edwards, is third in democratic polls. Why? Again because the big money donors are supporting Hillary and Obama.
I've been rolling my eyes at your comments since this thread began. And for the record, I take "denying the poor the right to vote" about as seriously as I take your suggestion that "the rich should pay their fair share," because the poor, on average, DON'T vote, and the rich already pay their fair share.
BenT just got done rattling off his latest remark so I think I'll finish this and take a gander. It'll likely be just as "eye-rolling" as your material.
....
Job loss and medical bills? I won't argue that. I've been in the poor house because of medical bills for the last three years, which is why I'm trying to take my health in my own hands... despite the fact that I frequently fall flat on my face.
....
God save us from populists! That's how we got the FIRST black president... Mr. William Jefferson Clinton! A man who is all things to all people.... no thanks. Give me someone who stands for something and stands on it despite polling numbers. Clinton had a moistened finger in the air his entire presidency.
The main problem with your point of view is that it takes into consideration unique situations, and forces them into what must be based upon the norms. First you deal with the normal situations and then you look to see what can be done for the special cases. The flat tax is ideal, in my opinion, because it is fixed and simple. No degree necessary to understand or implement it. One makes 10K, they know they have to live on 9K and it's up to them to make sure they don't behave as if they make more than that. What is unfair about it? Again, how did they secure their poverty? What do they do to get out of it? Why does anyone else have to concern themselves when they have enough to do conerning themselves with their own lives?
Keep in mind that charity is to be encouraged and I do what I can with my humble income. But it is also my intention and more to the point, my responsibility, that I do not join the ranks of the the tin cup holders. It's my job. Be something more than a burden on anyone. My troubles are my troubles.
But I'll go further than Eric, Dan. I say that YOU shouldn't have a say in tax law, since you've chosen a lifestyle that is not conducive to generating large amounts of taxable income. You deny yourself material wealth, which is your choice, but then believe you have the right to take from those who put in the time, money, and sweat, who take the risks, who do what it takes to become financially successful. And your votes for those that will tax them is theft, not fairness. Your ideas of fairness are as skewed as your ideas on Biblical teaching.
" And if it DOES make it so, does that mean you are condemning yourself as a thief (assuming you take part in the tax system)? If you REALLY thought it was a crime against God and you continue to support it by paying into it, well then Lord have mercy on your soul, right? You're deliberately sinning so as to meet society's rules?"
Can an opinion be more misrepresented? Are you taking lessons from Geoffrey? We abide the law as it stands. We're disussing the merits and righteousness of changing the law to what YOU believe is proper. Should enough believe as you, then we will have to abide by the theft you have supported. We are instructed by Christ to render unto Caesar, so there is no sin on our parts by paying taxes with which we don't agree and see as wrong. Yeah, you should pass on this discussion, but it is YOU who is the goofball.
For my part, I wouldn't like it in the least, but I could weather a few months if not more. A basic rule is to save enough to get through six months or more should one lose one's job. I found this rule through seeking out financial information and education. ANYONE can find this type of basic information and ANYONE can apply it to their own lives. They are universal and work for ANYONE. I'm not rolling in it, but what I've accumulated I did inspite of my pathetic income because it's my job as a citizen and human being to be self sufficient.
I've been poor. I've been in a situation where all my pay went to debts and all my time went to earning that pay. I've had a refrigerator with noting in it but condiments and a freakin' potato (mmm, good!) Didn't much care for it. I've worked jobs I didn't like to avoid ever being in that place again. I've miscalculated and suffered accordingly, but dealt with it on my own. I pay my debts because they are mine to pay. I would never file for bankruptcy. It screws one's credit rating for years, but also, IT'S MY PROBLEM AND DUTY TO SOLVE IT!!!
BTW, bankruptcy laws changed because too many used bankruptcy to abdicate their own responsibilities to their debtors. The debtors NEVER get all the money owed to them after a bankruptcy and often get nothing. They are forced to eat it. I can forgive debts to me, but not what I owe to others.
As to rape, I would wager that ugly chicks don't get raped too often. I've nothing to support that whatsoever.
If I sell or give away my goods, how can I give alms to the poor? Are you falling back on the story of the rich young man who asked what more he could do?
1. Jesus commands us all in Luke to sell our goods, give alms and come follow him.
2. I'm not talking about followers of Christ becoming panhandlers. Never suggested such a thing.
3. Your take on the rich coming to the rescue of the poor appears to be very patriarchal, "don't you worry about voting or nothing - we'll save you; just emulate us and you'll be cool" and not very biblical.
4. The bible, and I think basic morality and logic, advocate a life of Plenty. Plenty for all. In the case of manna - "he who gathered much did not have too much, he who gathered little did not have too little;" "Do not store treasures for yourself on earth," Jesus bluntly tells us. The Bible, morality and logic dictate a life of plenty BUT NOT a life of hoarding and overabundance;
If you're interested in talking about what I actually think about wealth and poverty, and what I think the Bible and logic have to say about it, come by sometime when it's a topic of discussion at my place.
Sorry for wandering off topic, Eric; just addressing a couple of misconceptions of what I've said.
As to rape, I would wager that ugly chicks don't get raped too often. I've nothing to support that whatsoever.
How about thousands of years of Neanderthal thinking?
And now, I really must quit. My eyeballs just rolled out of my head and on to the floor.
Viva La Sixteenth Century!!
He also continues to miss the point regarding "storing up treasures" and forcing others to give. One would think the distinction would be plain to anyone. Do you mean to suggest that you don't believe people who have "stored up treasures" don't give large amounts to charity without being compelled by hypocrites like yourself through voting for candidates exploiting class envy? I've personally met a couple of people who have built up seven figure incomes and the established charitable organizations and funds. My wife's boss routinely deals with charitable events and organizations. Some of these people routinely give away amounts greater than your annual income and do more for the needy in that manner than could any government program. There's a huge difference between storing up wealth and being a slave to it. Many seek greater wealth to provide them with ample funds to donate. But you go ahead, Dan, and pretend you are living a more noble and Christian life by denying all but what you need to survive. Go ahead and pretend that you're making more than a momentary difference by dishing out soup at a homeless shelter or donating your old clothes. I think you're lazy and use Scripture to justify it. The more wealthy in this country, the better it is for everyone.
So tell me. How does point 2 work if you just said "sell your goods"? What can one give after he's given all away? That person is now among the needy. To give away in this manner is not what Christ is teaching. I'm not attached to money, I just understand what can be done with it. Even if we were to simply rely on God to provide, you really think the provisions would never include money? Food and donated clothes don't pay the rent.
You're wrong on point 3 as well. It is Biblical to take responsibility for one's actions and to live in a manner that is beneficial rather than a burden on others. If the lower classes adopt some of the ethics of the successful, they will at the very least improve their lot. This is a fact that is undeniable.
You really need to find better teachers of Scripture.
Utah State University Sexual Assault and Anti Violence Information Myth: Rape victims provoke the attach by wearing provocative clothing - A Federal Commission on Crime of Violence Study found that only 4.4% of all reported rapes involved provocative behavior on the part of the victim. In murder cases 22% involved such behavior (as simple as a glance). - Most convicted rapists do not remember what their victims were wearing. - Victims range in age from days old to those in their nineties, hardly provocative dressers. Utah State University
http://www.usu.edu/saavi/pdf/myths_facts.pdf
Welcome to the 20th century. Join us in the 21st century whenever you're ready, brother.
Or are you amongst those who think that your hunches are more important than research?
I apologize for my tone in this series of comments. I have been especially harsh, I realize.
But I hope you all realize that, from thinking that women are "asking for it," to suggesting that taxation = theft (when you support taxation yourselves), to suggesting that anectdotal experiences are more important than research, to suggesting that the vote be taken from the poor, some of you are sounding especially...
Polite words fail me.
I have to admit, your take on Jubilee as it pertains to a shaky-- to my mind --correlation with the book of Acts and its Christian/pseudo-agrarian/communal community is very appealing. And I do see support for it in scripture.
Why then do I say 'shaky'?
Because, if nothing else, Israel spent 70 years in exile because of a system God demanded, yet men were incapable of following-- incapable because of man's innate greed... self-seeking, self-serving greed... and the desire to hoard unto themselves.
I haven't yet read any of your or Art's comments from this morning, but I wanted to get that out there. What makes what you see as ideal-- what I also see as ideal --impractical in the 'here and now' is government. What you would like to see-- and I as well --cannot be achieved under the government of not only THIS nation, but the nations of the WORLD. Just as Muslim nations are not culturally amenable to Western-style democracies-- voting in Hamas in the "Palestinian's" first election! Iraq struggling to maintain its own Parliament --so too are the nations of the world incapable of the system of "governance" you and I both see as ideal.
That's not to say we will never see it. We will. But we will only see it when Jesus returns. Study your scriptures closely... Heaven will not be somewhere out in the deepest portions of the Universe. It will be here. God is in the business of "restoration." Heaven will be on earth, and everyone will live as you envision. What will make this possible is this:
All sin will be removed from us. We will no longer think in terms of "yours, mine, ours," we will think only in terms of "OUR"
This is not possible in the "here and now."
Our government specifically has shown itself to be too corrupt to honestly implement this kind of society. And American hearts and minds are too filled with "I, ME, MINE."
Which is why I do not trust anyone who desires to see one segment of the population pay more in taxes simply because they can afford to do so.
Furthermore, Jesus' command to the rich young ruler was an individual command. ""YOU" sell all you have, give it to the poor, and follow me." Governments are incapable of this... Communist Russia comes immediately to mind.
Lastly, and off topic... one thing we will never do in heaven is eat meat. That's what I believe at least. Don't like your fruits and vegetables in the "here and now"? You'll love them then.
Seriously, I lived about a year on a vegan regimen. Most veggies I used to hate, I can at least tolerate when raw. Spinach, I actually enjoy, but couldn't when cooked or sauteed.
I'd like to critique one thing you said in your last, Eric. I think we will consider everything "HIS", rather than "mine" or "ours". Would you agree?
The question regarding provocative dress, not behavior. The question was specific to that particular point, so your info regarding child rape was unnecessary as it was irrelevant to the question.
We can say that to dress provocatively is in itself provocative behavior, but one can be dressed in that manner yet not act provocatively while doing so.
It also doesn't matter what the rapist remembers, and why anyone would take the word of a rapist anyway is beyond me, but if there is any struggling with the desire, provocative dress is surely likely to further burden the rapists decision making process. Provocative dress arouses just about anyone who views it. Some can deal and some can't. This salient FACT cannot be honestly dismissed in deciding if provocative dress has any impact on the decisions of a pervert.
We should raise the tax on thongs and mini-skirts.
*just trying to stay on topic*
Where you said:
This is not possible in the "here and now."
I agree, we will have nothing perfect in our life. We won't be able to perfectly share, to perfectly love, to perfectly be faithful to our spouses and friends, to perfectly tell the truth, etc, etc. We're humanity created in God's images, and yet with the ability and tendency to make wrong decisions.
Do you think that means we ought not strive to live, as Jesus put it, "God's Kingdom come, God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven"?
That is, just because we sometimes are unfaithful, should we not worry about fidelity? Just because we get sometimes mad enough to kill, we ought not worry about murder laws? People WILL kill, after all, in fits of anger or jealousy or whatever. This isn't heaven, so we ought not try to push for laws that require us live in that way now?
I'm relatively sure you don't have a problem with Christians and others supporting laws against murder and theft, against embezzlement and dumping toxic waste in the hear and now. Why would you have a problem with advocating economic policy that reflects your values, as well?
Now, I will say that I don't think we ought to advocate laws based on our faith system alone - with no "civic" reasoning attached. We ought not advocate a law that says you have to believe in a virgin birth or a Triune nature of God.
But we can and should advocate laws that make some logical sense and, if they happen to coincide with our belief system, that's okay. And so, even though my Bible tells me, "Thou shalt not steal," we can make the logical case that it's not right to take what belongs to someone else.
And we can advocate laws, if we wanted to, that say, "You have to provide some portion of your goods to the poor, orphaned, widowed, ill and foreigner" (as Israel did off and on with their Jubilee and Sabbath laws) and, as long as we can make a logical case for it - and not say, "This should be the law because the Bible says so!" - then that's okay, as far as I'm concerned.
So I guess it comes down to, does it make sense to have limitations on our spending and consumption. Is the sharing style of life that we believe will be the norm in Heaven, is that a reasonable sort of life to support?
I think it is, for many rational, civic-based reasons (such as, we'll have to pay for the ill effects of poverty in one way or the other - through education or imprisonment, for instance - and it's cheaper and more ethical to pay for them proactively instead of reactively), in addition to being sound theologically.
And yet, it has often worked, when tried. Israel DID at times, follow the Jubilee and Sabbath laws and was blessed for doing so. The Amish, the Hutterites, the Mennonites, the !Kung of the Kalahari, various tribal peoples all have lived a more Jubilee lifestyle to great effect in varied places and times. It's not an impossibility, any more than fidelity or truthiness is an impossibility.
As Wendell Berry notes, "we can't justify NOT living aright because we too often have a hard time for not living right. That is the addict's excuse." (that's a rough quote, working from memory).
You might like Myers, if you read him more. He's very bibliocentric. Or, you might consider anabaptist writer, Art Gish, who said in his book, Living in Christian Community words to the effect of, "IF we truly long for that Day, when there is no war, no hatred, no hunger or thirst, no devastating poverty and where we share all things in common, why wait for the sweet by and by? Why not begin to live that life now?"
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.
Amen?
In terms of Taxation: Because everyone is a liar and a thief at heart... and much, much worse.
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" [Jer 17:9]
If we are guilty in even a single point of God's Law, we are guilty of the whole.
Furthermore, you base your argument on the validity of a system of "values," but whose values? This nation is corrupt! Whose values? MTV's? VH1's? Liberal? Conservative? Atheist? Christian? Agnostic? Muslim? Hindu? Whose values? And how do we agree? "Can two walk together, except they be agreed? " [Amos 3:3]
What may sound good to you and me, is anathema to others. And because Man is a thief at heart, he can't be trusted to deal honestly or fairly, or JUSTLY with us OR the poor.
It's one thing to be optimistic like Karen Carpenter...
"I know I ask perfection of a quite imperfect world
And fool enough to think that's what I’ll find
So here I am with pockets full of good intentions..."
Whose values? Mine? Yours? The Liberal down the street? The Sikh next door? God's?
And IF God's, whose interpretation of God???? Because according to some, we here are guilty of poor eschatology.
Yes, it will all be God's. But as children of God, and joint heirs with Christ, will it not also be OURS?
Imagine a time, when you will never be unwelcome ANYWHERE, at ANYONES home... A time when it will never ever occur to us to be envious of anyone.
Imagine being married to the King of Glory! Will our Husband deny us anything? No. Because we will not want anything He would not love to give us.
Wow. Pretty progressive of you, Eric. So, you will join me in standing opposed to blocking gay marriages (after all, why should we try to legislate the values of just SOME Americans)? Will you join me in rejecting criminalizing abortion - we wouldn't want to legislate our values, after all, right?
You know you can throw your meager coins in the poor box and imagine you're akin to the old woman at the temple, but she wasn't poor by choice, but by circumstance. YOU have chosen to forsake any talents or gifts God might have given you in a time when the poor you claim to champion would better benefit with one more person with abundance to share or spend. This is a country with success available to anyone who wants it and no one need step on toes to get there. So the choice to forsake any attempt to do so disqualifies you from making suggestions about how much others should give of what they've worked hard to attain. If everyone lived by your example, there'd be more poor with fewer people to tax into poverty to help them. So cut the crap.
How dare I and the majority of American citizens have an opinion about what is fair?
How dare we create policies that encourage hyperconsumptive behavior? Behavior that negatively impacts the rest of the world?
How dare we live in such a manner that rapes the land - God's Creation? How dare we contribute to destroying the earth - when God has said that "I shall destroy those who destroy the earth"?
The point is, you and I and all of us make decisions that impact upon the lives of others. It's called a Democratic Republic and it's not a perfect system by any means. (Imagine that!)
We are limited in our genius and don't often know the impact of seemingly harmless or even helpful actions, but we can't freeze up and do nothing because it might have negative impact.
We must make the most reasonable decisions we can with the facts we have on hand as to what is the best way to live.
In our great Republic, the people believe that a progressive tax system is the most fair, ethical way of pooling resources to pay for our great Republic.
Anyone who doesn't like it is free (FREE! - not always the case in other countries) to leave and find a country that taxes in a way they find more preferable. Or, they can continue to try to convince the People of the efficacy and morality of a Better taxation system. Believe me, I think the People are hungry for a better solution if one were proposed that was workable.
Similarly, the People have decided to have policy that encourages overconsumption and living beyond our means. I don't like it and I'm trying to convince folk otherwise - that there is a better way and the Simple Living movement is gaining some ground - I think the Peaking of Oil will force us into it at least a bit.
Again, YOUR policies that you support create what I consider deadly, negative and unfair/immoral results on others. My policies that I support create what you consider unfair/immoral results on others.
It is, I'm sure, both our intentions to live the best life possible. Feel free to try to convince me other than what I think - I have much to learn. I shall continue to teach what I think are more ethical ways.
I'd suggest we could do so much better when we - you and I - can do so without demonization of the Other.
I’m honestly curious. The best that I’ve understood from Eric (and I’m probably understanding incorrectly) is that the Jubilee/Sabbath laws were for the purpose of showing us that we couldn’t possibly live to that sort of heavenly ideal?
Would you (Eric and Marshall) reject the King’s or Prophets demand to set aside a part of your land/goods for Others?
It is truly a gift that you dance around the issue upon which I've based my comments. Do you cha-cha as well?
You want to include yourself with "we the people" to respond to what I directly squarely at you. The fact of the matter is that most people in this country seek a better life, and for most of them that means better financially so that they have as many bases covered should life take a nasty turn. This they do to be as burdenless to others as possible. That some wallow in greed and consumerism is irrelevant to the point, so let me state it again:
YOU, Dan Trabue, have taken the path of "Simple Living" and have eshewed any move toward achieving great wealth. I have no problem with that other than the irresponsibility of it. So here you are with just what you need to survive, and you reside there by choice. But then you insist you care for the needy of this country. And how do move to help them? By digging into the pockets of other people who, like most, have decided they want the security of more. By having more, these folks are potentially self-sufficient no matter what befalls them. In addition, by having more, they are able to help and serve in a vastly more complete and impactful manner. Consider what the wealthy can do and often does:
1. Donate large sums, often large enough to dwarf your income.
2. Teach others, directly or by example, how to build and maintain a wealthier existence, so that they are also self-sufficient.
What can you donate to them? Some pittance that buys them a meal once? Old coats that you've discarded as being too ruddy for yourself?
What can you teach them? Simple Living, as if being poor and needy isn't as simple as it gets? That shoe leather is digestable through better mastication? How to pray for God's peace and mercy while their children remain hungry?
(I'm sure you try to teach them a lot, Dan, and I'm sure that what you teach them is as meaningless to their economic state as is the comments you've posted here.)
If you truly care about the needy, you are in no position to help them in a meaningful way as a practioner of the Simple Living Movement (gag). So any votes you cast to tax those who DO work for financial success is outright theft and hypocrisy on your part because you've CHOSEN to live as you do.
Now forgive me if I've misunderstood you. If by Simple Living you mean that you don't spend any of your seven figure income on the trappings of your tax bracket, then your hypocrisy is even greater than I suspected, for then you are hoarding if you have anything beyond what allows you to survive. I base this on your own goofily stated philosophy of living.
In addition, whether or not you can prove that "most people" prefer progressive taxation, it doesn't make it right or just. Nor would be a king that demands donations. What you demand of those from whom you have no right to do so, must be asked. You demand of those who already bear most of the tax burden. And most of them are giving at the same time.
I believe the Jubilee laws were to teach the concepts of charity to a people, if not the world, who were not doing so as a rule, if at all. But again, was it a mandate or a teaching of what would be pleasing to God? I'll have to review, but I don't know that the failure to forgive debts during Jubilee carried a penalty.
The Jubilee and Sabbath Laws were just that: LAWS, from God's mouth to Israel's ear and hearts. The failure to follow which caused Israel to get into constant trouble.
And it was a law that the King was told to implement in the Israeli monarchy by prophets and which most times, the King ignored.
Found in Lev. 25 initially, the Jubilee laws are right there after "Whoever takes the life of any human being shall be put to death" in Leviticus 24 and before "Do not make false gods for yourselves" in Leviticus 26.
We are told in 25:17, this bit of summary: "Do not deal unfairly, then; but stand in fear of your God. I, the LORD, am your God."
BUT, God says, if you fail to keep the sabbath and jubilee laws, God says in Lev 26, "then I, in turn, will give you your deserts. I will punish you with terrible woes--with wasting and fever to dim the eyes and sap the life. You will sow your seed in vain, for your enemies will consume the crop..."
And other warnings.
The Jubilee and Sabbath laws are echoed in Isaiah 5 (prohibition against joining field to field), which Jesus echoes again in some of his parables and again in Isaiah 61 (announcing the Year of God's favor), which again, Jesus echoes when he states at the beginning of his ministry that THIS is why he had come, To proclaim the year of God's favor (Luke 4).
I could go on and on. Jeremiah 34's another example. Jubilee and Sabbath is the message for most of the prophets. Jubilee and Sabbath themes run rampant through the Bible.
Here is an article with more info and scriptures pertaining to these laws.
SO, research away. But once you have, I still want to know:
How you would have reacted to Israel's decision (when they behaved properly) to implement Jubilee laws?
Would you have chafed against the notion that one can't own land in perpetuity?
Would you have called "Communistic" making into Law the command to allow complete strangers - the poor and FOREIGNERS! (they might be terrorists!) - to walk right on to YOUR land and take with impunity YOUR crops, as if it belonged to them (which it DOES, according to these laws)?
How would you (and you, too, Eric) have liked living under that law of the land? Would you have attempted to overthrow that gov't which implemented such laws?
But again, was it a mandate or a teaching of what would be pleasing to God? I'll have to review, but I don't know that the failure to forgive debts during Jubilee carried a penalty.
As you've seen if you've researched the actual passages, it was a mandate, not a suggestion.
And - interesting that you should bring up the penalty aspect - it is a slightly different mandate from many OT laws, in that THIS law was a NATIONAL law, one meant to be implemented across the whole of the nation and the penalties for violating the Jubilee/Sabbath codes were penalties against the whole nation.
It was sort of like the bans on worshiping other gods: If the leaders didn't implement it, there'd be hell to pay for Israel as a nation, as opposed to sins such as being a disrespectful child, in which case the offending child was the one to be punished.
Anxiously awaiting more Bible study, brothers.
Yoder is a pre-eminent anabaptist theologian and speaks well for what I believe.
Here's Ched Myers talking about Yoder.
If you can find any of his books, Art Gish is an excellent anabaptist theologian. Living in Christian Community is the book that more than any other book besides the Bible, helped me realize that I'm anabaptist in my belief system. He also has two other works, Beyond the Rat Race and another book that he contributes to called Wealth and Poverty: Four Christian Views of Economics.
I offer anabaptist theologians mainly because that is what I'm familiar with but partially because they are the ones (along with perhaps the Catholics) who discuss Jubilee most. It seems to be a silent topic in most evangelical churches. Taboo, even.
How many sermons have you had on Jubilee themes? For me, growing up Southern Baptist, the number would have been about zero.
Interesting, since Jesus references it as being the reason he has come as he announces him ministry in Luke 4 ("I have come to..."). Not that I say Jesus ONLY came to proclaim Jubilee. He also said he'd come to seek and save the lost, among other things. But it is a central teaching of Jesus, we really ought to know more about it.
So...
No, Dan, I will not join you in seeking legal recognition for homosexual unions. Nor will I join you in rejecting the criminalization of Abortion. I'm going to side with the people on that one. More and more people are coming to see abortion as murder. I like that trend. It is a good trend. A Godly trend. To quote BenT from dozens of posts back...
"WWJD? Get a clue!"
By demanding that the "rich" pay more and more of their-- as well as much of the middle and all of the lower class' --"Fair Share..." To compare that to the Old Testament principle of gleaning and other such laws is dishonest. God demanded this of His people, but God is a gentleman, and sent no governmental agents to confiscate and redistribute the holdings of those who didn't comply.
Trying to remake the Old Testament Jubilee via the Laws of this thoroughly modern nation, which has its OWN ideas of what is Right and Wrong (that more often than not disagrees with what God says is Right and Wrong) is exactly what MANY on the Left accuse the Right of trying to do (which is exactly what the Right accuses the Left of). That being, legislate "Morality."
Another of your statements at another post still gives me pause... your questioning of Israel's right to the land since God can raise up Children unto Abraham from stones. Do you believe God has "replaced" the Jews with the Church? That the promises of God are null and void since their rejection of Christ?
So which is it, Eric? Are those who'd want to implement some Jubilee-like laws wrong to do so because it's trying to force their religion on others AND those who'd oppose gay marriage are ALSO wrong for the same reason?
OR, is it okay to try to implement laws that align with your beliefs even if it's not the beliefs of the society at large?
It seems to me you're trying to have it both ways. That it's okay for the religious to push for bans on gay marriage because of their belief system BUT that it's wrong for others to push Jubilee-like laws because of their belief system.
You can't have it both ways and not be charged with hypocrisy, seems to me.
For me, I DON'T want to implement laws because of my religion. Not any.
I don't want to force Just Peacemaking as the law if it were against the will of the people. I don't want to force farmers to set aside a portion of the field for foreigners and the poor.
What I'm talking about is that I'm informed by the Bible's clear teaching on Jubilee laws (unlike any clear rules at all on gay marriage) and my belief system therefore includes the notion that it's okay for nations to implement rules to assist those who need it.
And further, my logic - my civic reasoning - says it is fiscally wise to invest in education, health care, rehabilitation programs, parenting programs IF it saves the taxpayers down the road.
So, I have no conflict between my belief system in this case (that sometimes it's okay for nations to implement poverty assistance programs - even if it "takes" resources from folk) and my civic reasoning (if it is cheaper to invest money in education, etc than paying for prisons, etc, then it's obvious we should invest that money, using taxpayer dollars if necessary).
I'm VERY fine with non-profit agencies and churches doing their part to implement these sorts of programs on their own aside from any gov't assistance, but if charitable groups aren't taking care of the needs, then it just makes sense to invest taxpayer dollars for those sorts of programs.
So, was Israel's kings wrong for demanding that people surrender their land and goods?
Have you read what the Bible has to say about this? Did you see the part where God promised to devastate Israel if they didn't implement these rules? "I will punish you with terrible woes."
Have you read about the repeated prophetic "doom and gloom" preaching telling Israel that they'd be carried away because of their failure to heed the Jubilee laws?
Did you read Ezekiel's comparison of Israel to Sodom saying...
And look at the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were proud, sated with food, complacent in their prosperity, and they gave no help to the poor and needy.
Would you like some time to read through all the passages that deal with Jubilee before talking about this further? Or are you familiar with them?
God indeed held Israel accountable for failure to observe the Jubilee Laws. God promised to and did hold them accountable and other nations, too.
No. God did not send Israeli gov't agents in to fine those who didn't cooperate. Rather, God sent an invading hoard to capture Israel. God sent fire and brimstone to Sodom and Gomorrah for failing to take care of the poor and needy, if you want to be literal about it.
Would you heed Israel's laws had you lived at a time when they were heeding God's Will?
Why?
Because you seem to have no problem with legislating it in the here and now, while at the very same moment balk at legislative attempts to restore morality in OTHER areas of our society... namely homosexuality and abortion.
If you're going to go so far as to legislate some tenets of biblical morality, and not others... THAT is dishonest.
"God sent fire and brimstone to Sodom and Gomorrah for failing to take care of the poor and needy, if you want to be literal about it."
Yes, but let's not forget Jude 1:7. Too many people conveniently, if not deceitfully, forget Jude 1:7... If we want to be literal.
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
And Jude 1:8 ALSO speaks to the character of Sodom and Gomorrah..
"Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities."
The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were 'defilers of the flesh...'
It wasn't JUST their failure to relieve the poor.
I agree 100% fully and wholly with what you just wrote. That is why I wrote what I wrote in my previous answers above - That it seems you are being dishonest or hypocritical in trying to legislate against gay marriage because of your beliefs but you don't want to legislate the Jubilee.
EVEN THO there's much more biblical evidence about the validity of a Jubilee sort of code (dozens if not hundreds of passages) versus biblical evidence against gay marriage (zero - or maybe a handful if you stretch and interpret it that way).
That is why I also clearly stated that I am OPPOSED to all implementation of legislation/policy based on somebody's religious beliefs.
So, there's no dishonesty on my part. I'm still waiting to find out how you and M.Arts walk through that land mine.
And so, I still wonder: Would you call an Israeli King back in the day a thief if he implemented the Jubilee/Sabbath Laws?
A hypothetical question that's impossible to answer honestly. No can know how living in such a time would shape our lives and thought processes. Who knows HOW any of us would react to such a command from the king? Honestly? I don't know.
I'd like to think I'd have no problem with it, but I honestly don't know.
Now, having admitted this, I think a fair guess would be to place that question in a context anyone reading this can understand.
"Would we call an American president a thief if he signed into law the Old Testament Jubilee/Sabbath Laws..." ?
A theif? perhaps not. Insane? Depends on his party affiliation!!!!
But talk about anarchy in the streets!!!
What this country needs is a Constitutional, in the streets, nation wide, at the ballot box, putting the fear of the voter BACK into the hearts of politicians everywhere, Revolution. When power is back in the hands of the people, rather than the corrupt, bloated, filthy hands of that entity we affectionately refer to as "Government," I might then consider the merits of instituting Jubilee/Shabbat Laws here in the U.S..
As things currently stand, there is too much corruption in Government to fairly and faithfully execute the laws of our government. I don't trust them to fairly tax me, and I don't trust them to fairly manage Jubilee/Shabbat. It has failed at managing Social Security, failed at managing Immigration, failed at managing our debt and the economy, failed at managing our tax dollars, failed at managing disasters, the FDA... you name it, and the federal government has either failed or mismanaged it.
Ms Pelosi is right about one thing, there is a culture of corruption in government, but it is not exclusively Democrat or Republican-- it is ideological, and it is systemic. Our culture is crashing and no one seems able to see it for what it is. We're like blind idiots dancing in the ash and fallout of our own atomic nightmare... Someone please wake up!
Take a closer look at our nation, Dan. It is deeply polarized. No fair management of government, or the apparatuses of government, is possible in such a climate. A climate of fear, suspicion, anger, vitriol, distrust....
That is what the usurpation of our Constitution has led us to-- Bickering and distrust; nuclear rhetoric and all it implies... We are a nation deeply divided. And mark my word, it will not end pretty.
Religious and private charities are better able to care for and assist the poor and down-trodden than the federal government, which sets up roadblocks to such organizations at every turn and opportunity.
Another thing our government has failed at, and miserably?
Public Education.
But did not the prophets tell Israel's leaders - from Ahab to Zerubabbel - to implement these laws and condemn them when they DIDN'T implement them - regardless of the moral fiber of the leader (and I'm sure you know Israel had more bad leaders than good)?
In fact, wasn't the implementation of these laws an indicator that the leader was striving to follow God and the failure to implement the laws an indicator that one wasn't following God?
In other words - murder, stealing and failing to create policies to provide for the poor were all sins and one shows one's righteousness by avoiding these behaviors? Or, put another way, you trust a corrupt gov't to kill (wage war, capital punishment) but you don't trust them to implement policies that tend to the poor?
Why the one and not the other?
(Note: I'm not disputing the lack of integrity in gov't. Not in our gov't. Not in Israel's.)
Only people like you need to be told more than once. Only people like you pretend they need to have a freakin' picture painted to understand what is clearly God's will regarding who shall whom? You seem to pretend also, that the poor are not being provided for. This is patently false, so Jubilee laws are unnecessary. Would I follow the laws were I in ancient Israel? Of course I would, if I was a good Jew. I follow the Scripture now (to the best of my ability), why wouldn't I follow it then?
But as I said, the poor have lots of options available to them and I personally donate to the needy. The purpose of Jubilee is covered by the Christian and Christian-like behaviors common in today's world. And should I give up what little land I own, who then is required to give up land for me, and how will that impact school districts? Try again, Sparky. You're misapplying once again.
More to the point, the issue here is "fair" taxation. Most who have, give already, and do so without government coercion. YOU, Danny-boy, want to suck dry the fruits of other mens' labors, labor you are unwilling to invest, to support the poor you are too lazy to help while you hide behind some nonsensical "Simple Living" code that keeps you too close to the poor to be taxed as heavily as you want to see the rich taxed.
I'm going to research this "anabaptist" philosophy to see how I, too, can excuse myself from responsibility.
If you'd like to discuss the merits of taxation - what is and isn't fair, the intricacies of the Jubilee Code and what it might mean for us, etc, then please, let's do so. But if you want to just whine and make personal attacks, then it is not a conversation but a shrill rant. I'll pass on that.
To try to address one nugget of your screed, I'll ask you what I asked Eric:
if you don't have a problem with Israel implementing laws that require "taking" people's goods/money to assist the poor, why do you have a problem with the US implementing similar laws?
Why is it "stealing" for us now but Good for them then?
If you prefer to stick to the ad homimen attacks, this conversation with you is over on my end. Emotion-based whining will not lead us anywhere.
IF you ask like a reasonable and respectful adult. You can even express disagreement and ask respectfully. That would look like this:
"Dan, I don't see how advocating simple living helps the poor. It seems to me you would like to legislate that the wealthy pay to assist the poor, but you wouldn't lift your finger. How do you explain that?"
Something along those lines. IF you wish to have an adult conversation.
EL asserts, "As things currently stand, there is too much corruption in Government to fairly and faithfully execute the laws of our government. I don't trust them to fairly tax me, and I don't trust them to fairly manage Jubilee/Shabbat. It has failed at managing Social Security, failed at managing Immigration, failed at managing our debt and the economy, failed at managing our tax dollars, failed at managing disasters, the FDA." All your examples are failings by your own political party. That's what happens when you put in power a party that hates governing. Would you put a man who hates pets in charge of an animal shelter? These examples of failure are only recent events. What makes you think in the long-term 20-50 years government is corrupt and fallible?
What puzzles me is the consistent inconsistencies.
1. You don't trust Big Gov't to spend ~$25 billion/year on welfare but you DO trust Big Gov't to spend nearly $1 trillion a year on the most massive military machine in the history of the world - one that includes THOUSANDS of nuclear weapons and other WMDs?
2. It is thievery to ask people in the US to pay a progressive tax, but it is okay for Israel to demand that their people set aside part of their hard-earned crops and land for the poor and foreigners?
Do you understand how that seems inconsistent and illogical, even if your assertions were valid, which remains to be seen? That there is lacking an internal logic within your reasoning?
Ben, that is the most ignorant statement you've made yet. My "examples of failings" span decades. Your criticism is myopic at best.
Dan,
"Inconsistencies?" Lacking "Internal Logic?"
Your argument-- based upon an invalid hypothetical --has been anything but logical. Primarily because you compare apples to oranges. We're talking about a grossly unfair system of taxation, not a mandated "exact" requirement from God. Government changes the tax laws every year, sometimes drastically. God never required more than ten percent and a forgiveness of debt and a return of ancestral lands every fifty years. Besides which, God sent Israel into exile because they didn't allow the land to lie fallow every seven years... And He sent them away until the land laid fallow for seventy... One year for every sabbatical year they ignored. their exile was tied to their failure to let the land lie fallow.
Apples and oranges. God's requirements are holy and just. American progressive taxation is UNjust, and borderline criminal.
The only inconsistency here is your insistence upon consist logic while you yourself remain blindly and consistently ILLOGICAL.
And why is it stealing for the US gov't (we, the people) to agree that we all will pay taxes for various things (including assisting the poor) but it is not stealing for Israel to do so?
I'm just not understanding any answers you're giving. Are you saying that SOME taxation would be okay (ie, not stealing) but a progressive tax system ISN'T okay?
Or is it a matter that you're okay with a progressive tax system but you just disagree with the level of "progressivity" in our system?
Or would it be okay IF we kept it the same from year to year and it's the changes you object to?
I'm honestly just trying to understand your reasoning here, Eric.
Taxation is not the same as Tithing.
Even Jubilee and Sabbatical Law is different from taxation.
Giving to God is a good thing. Taking from men is a bad thing. The former is called "tithing." The latter is called "Theft."
The very fact that Congress can, on a whim, up the rate makes it unjust. Just as Social Security is an unjust umbrella because Congress can at any time change the laws that affect how much, if any, "security," recipients get, so too is our system of income taxation unjust.
So perhaps we could agree that the OT Jubilee/Sabbath model IS for a flat tax in order to raise "money" for poverty relief but a required tax for poverty relief it was, yes? No?
It's not until we get further in to the Bible that we start hearing language like "from those who have more, more is expected."
Admittedly, ancient Israel IS a different situation and it is tricky comparing an ancient situation to a modern one. Still, I think you and I agree that there are principles that can be ascertained, which is what I'm striving for here.
You said:
Even Jubilee and Sabbatical Law is different from taxation.
How? The king says, "You must set aside a portion of your goods for poverty relief." and the people must do so.
Our representatives say, "You must set aside X amount for poverty relief," and the people must do so.
How is that different? As noted in my previous comment, I reckon you could make the case that it was a flat tax perhaps, but it was a tax, or at least a tax-like equivelant - a giving up of one's goods by gov't edict.
Still wondering how you trust the gov't with a big military that you wouldn't trust to do welfare?
I wasn't "whining". I don't "whine". But I do attack personally, and generally when a poster fails to support a philosophy for which I've several times (a few in this here thread) exposed its obvious shortcomings. So, consider yourself asked again:
Where do get off insisting that others pay with what you have chosen to absolve yourself from earning? How will your philosophy of Simple Living eliminate poverty, or how will it possibly help if everyone adopts it?
My harsh comments are a result of frustration provoked by your illogical and naive sentiments and philosophies, as well as your poor understanding of Scripture.
"if you don't have a problem with Israel implementing laws that require "taking" people's goods/money to assist the poor..."
That would be ancient Israel, and unlike the people of that time, we here in this country are generally charitable to extremes. We already get the idea that God was teaching about caring for the needy among us.
"Ergo, your assertion is wrong."
Not at all. The provisions are there. Those with needs beyond money are generally treated as if they can think for themselves, when you've ably stated they often have mental problems. We need to cuff them and force them into hospitals where they can be properly treated, but some in this society balk strongly. All who seek aid can get it. There's billions available if they only take it. The mental cases won't. Now what? Send more money? Right.
I don't trust BIG GOVERNMENT with ANYTHING. But I especially do not trust a Big Government that guts the military and refuses to defend our sovereignty... Bombed embassies, bombed ships, bombs buildings INSIDE our national borders... Clinton gutted the military, ignored embassy bombings and attacks on vessels, tucked tail and ran in Somalia giving bin Laden the guts to attack the U.S. where Bush had guts enough to retaliate.
I do no trust government.
No sir, not at all.
From my perspective our current system of government is setup to benefit those with wealth. They get larger tax breaks. They have better access to legislators. They can hire specialized help with their finances. To me these benefits of our system should be balanced with increased demands of fiscal return.
And we need more resources for this nation. Everyday I see news stories about understaffed agencies, dilapidated public spaces, mouldering senior housing. To those that think there is enough help out there for the poor, go and visit a LIHEAP signup. Or simply stand at a pharmacy and watch seniors haggling over prescription medicines.
And these problems shouldn't be individual problems. No one should be without a roof and a bed. No one should be cold in the winter. No one should go hungry in this land of plenty. That they do gives lie to all the prattling about morality and goodness. How can you support spending 1 cent on a bullet when children in the USA are going hungry?
Okay. You do realize that this makes no logical or moral sense to most people? There is not much consistency in saying, "I don't trust gov't to spend money on social programs or education BUT I DO trust gov't with trillions of dollars in a massive military machine."
WHY? Why is the gov't trustworthy with WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!! when you don't trust them to educate your children or help the poor? The worse that can happen with education or poverty relief is that they can do a poor job of it. But the worse that can happen with WMDs... well, is a heckuva lot worse possibilities there.
Taxation discussions really cut at a person's moral identity.
Amen, Brother Ben!
1. It's off-topic and it's considered poor blog etiquette to stray from the topic
2. It's a misrepresentation of my position and/or an out-right lie
3. You're being rude and combative and not interested in genuine conversation
So's you know, if it seems like I'm ignoring you when you do that, well, I am.
Now, since Eric, by his silence, is approving the off-topic attacks and because, at its heart, your question is a good one - Why simplicity? - I'll address it.
1. The Bible and all the world's major religions and non-religious belief systems agree on at least this much: we ought to obey the Golden Rule. We ought to do unto others as we'd have them do unto ourselves.
2. Another way of stating the Golden Rule is that we ought not live in such a Way that we wouldn't be pleased if everyone embraced that Way.
3. This is a finite world, with finite resources.
Are we in agreement thus far? Then continuing:
4. Following the Golden Rule would also imply living within our means; We ought NOT over-consume. Assume there is an island of finite resources and 10 people live there. Person 1 consumes 70% of the resources. 2-6 consume 25% of the remaining resources, leaving 5% of the resources for the remaining four people. Now, if person 1 gives 10% of his resources away (9% to the church building he made for himself and 1% for the "poor" of the island), the "poor" may say, gee thanks for this 1% of all that you have, but what they really need is for that fella to stop consuming 70% of the resources.
Perhaps the term "Simple living" is throwing you off. I'm advocating living responsibly. Living within our means.
If everyone on earth consumed at the rate that the US does, we'd need something like 7 planet Earths to supply the goods. We can't all live as high on the hog as US citizens do.
So to speak in terms of "Dan, if you're REALLY concerned about the poor, you'd work to make MORE money so that you could give MORE to the poor," is missing the point entirely. We simply can't all consume at the rate we do. To do thusly IS to hurt the poor.
The best thing that we can do for world peace and justice, Wendell Berry tells us, is to grow a garden. That is, begin to live in smaller circles. Sustainably.
Recall the many warnings of the prophets about this, including Ezekiel's here:
This is the sin of your sister Sodom:she and her daughters were proud, sated with food, complacent in their prosperity, and they gave no help to the poor and needy.
So, when I talk about living simply, I'm talking about living within our means. Hebrew Bible scholar Richard Lowery frames it this way:
The purpose of this Sabbath is to enjoy the world forever, which is why it is "blessed," just like the creation itself. The Sabbath thus captures the double theme of the creation story:
1. Abundance as the divine gift, and
2. Self-limitation as the appropriate response
I agree. We can't all live like kings. And if we do and salve our conscience by giving a pittance back to "the poor," it still fails to make things right.
To quote famed Baptist theologian, Clarence Jordan:
What the poor need is not charity but capital, not caseworkers but co-workers.
And what the rich need is a wise, honorable, and just way of divesting themselves of their overabundance.
Does that clarify things any further or would you like to attack my failure to tithe or bathe regularly or some other bogus non-related subject?
But since you chided Art on straying from the topic, I'll also point out that this discussion of the military ALSO strays from the topic. The comparison is: God mandated Laws, set in stone (so to speak) versus Man-made laws of taxation set on paper, easily scratched out, rewritten... no promise written in stone (literally).
Injecting the military to prop up ones argument [at least in THIS argument] is invalid.
Getting back to laws such as "Gleaning." Yes, it was told to Israel not to harvest everything in their fields... to leave the corners so that the poor could glean and thereby gain sustenance.
But it must be pointed out that Harvests occurred once or twice a year-- depending on the crop, and the land owner was not obligated to pick the fruit for them. If they wanted to eat, they had to work. And I assure you, that what they earned from their labor was not enough to live the entire year, let alone between harvests. How then is this a Godly thing, and yet forced taxation to feed the underclass continuously without the benefit of work year round, is not? Because God expects people to work. Give them all they need without lifting a single hammer gives them a sense of entitlement. Which is why this nanny/welfare state Liberalism has fostered in the country is fraught will failure and corruption.
If a man will not work, neither should he eat.
But God is merciful-- He pays every man, regardless of when the began to work in the fields, paying them all the same wage. [Matthew 20:1-16]
Try asking the poor to hop a bus and head out to Yasgur's farm to glean from his fields, and see how many think THAT'S a good idea... or worth the effort. Why do even that much when "the check" comes like clock-work twice a month? Our system has bred slothfulness. Can the same be said for God's law?
As to this:
Try asking the poor to hop a bus and head out to Yasgur's farm to glean from his fields, and see how many think THAT'S a good idea...
Most welfare recipients that I know are hard-workers. They make bad decisions sometimes (which helps explain why they find themselves in poverty - having a cigarette habit, getting cable TV, etc) but it's not because they're not hard workers. Studies that I've seen support this notion.
If you have to get up at 4am to pay the bills to get your children ready to go to school at 6am (they have to leave early in order to catch the right buses - which is sometimes a 2-3 hour ride each day) so that YOU can catch the right buses to get to your part time job - oftentimes a labor-intensive job - so that you can get home in time to meet your children when they get home so that you can take them with you to meet your social worker so that you can get home (again, on bus) by 8pm so that you can get your children busy on homework so that you can prepare dinner so that you can wash dishes and get the children to bed so that you can collapse at midnight so that you can start the whole mess over again the next day (phew!), well, you can hardly be called lazy and I find it insulting of my brothers and sisters in Christ that people talk about them that way.
I try to be patient, though, because most times people are just speaking in ignorance, not really knowing what "poor folk" have to go through in order to avoid getting further behind. And, to be sure, some few in the "system" do take advantage of it because they're lazy.
Just as some few in the military system or the infrastructure systems take advantage so they can get wealthy without having to do so much work. But what's the point? That some folk will take advantage of situations? Well, sure they will.
I'm sure some folk took advantage of Israel's welfare system, too. Why bother planting and tending the farm when you can just go harvest stuff for free at the end of the day? And there weren't even any hoops to jump through back then! You didn't have to "prove" that you were poor or disabled or a foreigner!
It is the nature of humanity to cut corners sometimes. God knows this and yet, God ordered nations to provide for the poor with some sort of welfare system anyway. What was God thinking??
What IS noticeably missing in Israel's system is any corporate and middle class welfare. There's something to be learned from that, too.
No one - no one - is advocating people who are able to work get stuff for free. To the extent that our welfare system does this, it fails its purpose. All I am pointing out is that there is nothing unbiblical at all about gov't intervention in poverty relief. In fact, it is unbiblical to suggest that gov't SHOULDN'T get involved, when clearly, the gov't of Israel had policies to this end.
As stated, I think Israel's policy was a very elegant solution (although some would protest the lack of a "means test"). Do you have a preferred solution for poverty relief that is more in line with Israel's?
I have no objection to a percentage of my tax dollars going to support programs that in turn support the poor.
What I do have objections to is politicians who get elected on fomenting class-envy; using the trite and utterly dishonest battle-cry.... "They need to pay their fair share!" ...Or Hillary's, "I want to take those profits...!".
Who determines fair? Will politicians determine what percentage is fair for the "Rich" to pay? Will they balance that "fair-rate" with added burdens of responsibility on the recipients of welfare aid? Do frogs perform ballet?
What I find most troubling in America today is the polarization of this nation's electorate. And politicians and members of media using class-envy rhetoric to push the electorate to the right and left of seemingly every issue.
Don't think "class-envy" is a factor in national rhetoric? No fomenting of "class-warfare" among the less fortunate? Then I can't help you. This is what I see. Want to understand where I'm coming from? Take an honest look at what politicians are doing to the people. Because any HONEST look at the situation in this country will show you that class envy/class warfare is alive and well, and living high and fat on the backs of a nation of sheep. If you can't see that much, then there's no hope for this debate. We've come full circle. I understand your perspective, and I disagree with it not because it comes from you, but because it is fundamentally flawed...... not your understanding of Jubilee/Sabbatical/Charitable law, but your application of it. You trust too much and, seemingly, all the wrong people; namely, politicians and the ideologies they espouse, project, and cram down the throats of everyone with a desire to vote... and quite a few who don't.
My advice? Follow God. NOT politicians or one political party over another. Follow God. And the fact that you (unless I'm completely mistaken) see no problem with voting to make the "Moderately and/or Very Fortunate" pay more and more each election cycle because they can afford to do so shows me-- in this respect --that you're following an ideology and the tenets of a political faction rather than God, whatever you may think to the contrary.
There's nothing wrong with helping the poor. There is in fact a lot GOOD with helping the poor. But you haven't been advocating fairness here. You've been advocating something altogether different. And it troubles me that you can't see it.
We have yet to find common ground here. What's the point in continuing to dance?
Really? I think we've found a great deal of common ground, Eric. At least you and I. I think we're agreeing here more than not.
We agree:
1. That the Bible provides a model of gov't assistance for the poor as a good thing
2. That neither of us trusts gov't very far
3. That we both think we ought to trust God ultimately
4. That, nonetheless, there is, or can be, a role for gov't in defense and welfare (flawed though that gov't role may be) and other areas
5. That private efforts (church, family, non-profits) are often better providers of assistance to the poor than gov't
6. That political parties often have flawed solutions
7. That work is a good thing
8. That the ideal solution for poverty is for the poor to be able to work
9. That the polarization of this nation's electorate is a bad thing
Am I wrong?
We disagree mostly on degrees.
I don't have a problem with a small defensive army (as described in the OT) but I don't trust any gov't at all to have a military the size that we do (Bush has spent ~$3 T-T-Trillion on the military and WMDs in the last 8 years - a trillion here and a trillion there and it starts to add up! Bush's Daddy is one of those who provided WMDs to many of the same folk we now oppose, d'oh!).
You said that you don't have a problem with your tax dollars helping the poor. You just want what you perceive to be a "fair" approach to paying for that. Me, too. We disagree mainly, it seems, on what is and isn't fair.
I agree with you that we ought not steal. I think that when Jesus and others in the Bible say words to the effect of "to whom much is given, much is expected," it makes it clear that more is expected of those who have more. You disagree. So, on that one point, we appear to have not reached any common ground, but on nearly every point, we agree in generalities.
Come now, don't you think we've discovered some crucial commonalities? Let's strive to end the polarization of this nation's electorate, not contribute to it.
"to whom much is given, much is expected"
King James is more forceful...
"For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required."
Who "requires"? Government? No. GOD requires. Governments dictate fairly or unfairly, righteously or unrighteously. But God is always righteous. Men are not. For reasons I stated clearly in my last comment, what you're fine with; government mandated "giving", is not the least bit "righteous." And I can't see anything fair or righteous in a fluctuating scale of taxation to support a class of people that will never be brought out of poverty by taxation alone. You can't solve poverty by throwing money at it.
You cannot legislate morality. And as much as you think taxing the rich over and above what they're already taxed is the moral thing to do, I see it differently.
The Right is repeatedly told that it is, in effect, "morally wrong" to legislate morality... banning same-sex marriage, abortion, what-have-you. Yet there is this hypocritical issue on the Left which tries to do the very same thing... legislate morality for the purpose of "aiding the less fortunate."
But government corruption abounds. How much of every new tax-dollar raised by means of "Moral-Theft" actually get's spent on the "less fortunate" and how much of those same dollars goes to "administrative costs"?
You're chastising me and Art for being "immoral" in our attitude toward Godly giving, while brandishing an immoral artifice of theft-- taxation. A club made more immoral by the reasoning behind its use... "The rich can afford to pay more." That's not a good enough excuse to immorally milk a segment of society who, by means of their hard earned wealth, daily create jobs and opportunity for the less fortunate.
If you want good milk, and plenty of it, you gotta give that cow pasture. Want good eggs? Gotta feed that hen. But if you want cows and chickens to feed your own starving chilluns, you gotta leave enough milk for the calves, and eggs for to hatch. Rob the cow, rob the hens, where will next years roast, and next years fryers come from?
Tax the rich too much and jobs dry up. Opportunity dries up. The poor and middle classes suffer. The rich hunker down and hide all their eggs in foreign investments. Everyone suffers.
You can't legislate morality. And you can't milk a dry cow.
You continue to call taxation "theft" when it isn't. You know that words have meanings.
1. We agree that taxation is not theft. You advocate a Fair Tax plan so you obviously don't think taxation is theft.
2. You suggested that we are trying to legislate morality (progressive tax = more "fair") but you are doing the same (Fair Tax = more "fair")
We - you and I and the American citizenry - are having to make a judgement call on how to do the very legal non-theft action called "taxation." For most US citizens, the most moral, fair way to do taxation is a progressive tax.
You disagree. Which is fine. I've pointed out that many Americans, despite thinking a progressive tax is most fair, would love to see a workable alternative to our current system. Make your case. So far, I've not had some basic questions answered and so remain unconvinced.
But neither of us are advocating theft and we're both trying to legislate what we think the most fair so let's lose those arguments, as they have the effect of promoting division, not unity.
We can disagree on approaches without demonizing the other.
Well, good for you.
'Tis better to remain silent and thought a fool, you know...
(ha!)
I have plenty to say and the only straying from the topic I did was on the subject of rape, which I'm not concerned with discussing further. Just so you know, my silence generally indicates other things to do. I'll be back later to explain why you're wrong about so much, including when I've gone off topic.