toldailytopic: Is it wrong for the government to take money from one person and give

[WandererInFog]

Let me throw you a twist...

The disabled veteran.

Is it wrong for the government to take money from one neighbor and give it to a disabled veteran in the form of welfare or food stamps?

They should be paying the disabled veteran a pension large enough their expenses where they need no additional financial assistance as well as covering the cost of any medical expenses related to his disability. That's just proper compensation for services rendered to the country, not welfare.

 

[Cracked]

Wrong? No. However, we need reform.

Welfare/food stamps/etc. can be good things that do make a difference in peoples lives. However, this system is often abused. There should be tighter limits on who receives government aid and for how long.

People who would abuse such a system are capable of procreating. Thus, we put into a position of having to step in and look out for the welfare of the children when the parent will not. Unless we are willing to take every child from "deadbeats" and/or render the parents infertile then we have a self-perpetuating problem.

 

[Buzzword]

A friend of mine proposed a policy awhile back that, while not entirely realistic, at least looks good on paper.

All levels of government should make their budgets public, to the point of sending monthly statements to citizens. (this part should be in play anyway)
Then, when tax time comes around, if a citizen feels it would be immoral to support a particular government program (say, military spending), then they could opt to not pay X-percentage of their state/federal tax, equal to the percentage being spent on the program with which they disagree.

Physical example:
Mr. Smith is a mid-20's, gainfully employed citizen, who feels Social Security will run dry long before he will be old enough to benefit, and therefore doesn't wish to contribute to someone else's retirement.
For the sake of example, let's say the federal government is spending 30% of its total budget on Social Security.
Under the proposed system, Mr. Smith could opt to not pay for Social Security, and either keep 30% of the money he would have sent to the federal government, or have 30% of his federal tax money returned to him.

In reality, people would simply opt out of EVERYTHING (which might be a good thing by itself), and the federal government would have NO money available.
Sad part of it is, these same people would still want libraries, food stamps, interstate highways, etc etc.


On the overall subject of taxation, the simple equation is this:
Higher taxes, more services.
Lower taxes, less services.

Pretty simple, even when those "services" are illegal wars perpetrated by capitalistic overlords who have absolutely no concern for the common man past his wallet.

If the average citizen doesn't care about road conditions, libraries, public transit, unemployment benefits, veteran/police/fire department pensions, etc etc., then by all means, cut taxes completely and put the most money in the hands of the citizenry.

However, Americans have for five or six generations been conditioned to feel entitled to more and more government-provided services, even as we whine about higher and higher taxes. Can't have the cake and eat it too.

The ideal, then, is a balancing act, holding the forces of consumer power and government-provided service in tension, trying to find the sweet spot in which the government provides necessary services AND the citizenry retains monetary power.

 

[Lighthouse]

Yes, it is wrong.

it is not wrong
but
we should not take away the incentive to work

how we are taxed is the important thing

You're a good little Republican, aren't you?

 

[drbrumley]

What's the big deal here? Don't you know ALL TAXES are theft?

 

[drbrumley]

Yes, it is wrong.


You're a good little Republican, aren't you?

He is John McCain's best friend you know

 

[Lighthouse]

He is John McCain's best friend you know

I think he might be the growth on McCain's cheek.

 

[WandererInFog]

What's the big deal here? Don't you know ALL TAXES are theft?

Except that Biblically speaking, they aren't. In the OT, under the Mosaic Law, we see a government which had been directly ordained by God and which was ordered to collect taxes. Now those taxes were limited in a number of ways and the precedent there couldn't be used to support a great deal of how modern taxation works, but the simplistic libertarian formula of "taxes = theft" is in direct opposition to what Scripture teaches.

 

[Frank Ernest]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for August 4th, 2010 09:09 AM

toldailytopic: Is it wrong for the government to take money from one person and give it to another person in the form of welfare, or food stamps, etc.

Yes. There is no Constitutional authority or mandate for the federal government to enshrine noblesse oblige into law.

I've seen and heard all the excuses for putting the taxpayers into bondage and the self-serving Biblical eisegesis for many years. The result has been to encourage an increasing segment of the population to demand reward without effort and to oppress what appears to be a decreasing segment of the population to support it.

Divide and conquer. It's the government way.


The answer is still "yes."

 

[Lighthouse]

Except that Biblically speaking, they aren't. In the OT, under the Mosaic Law, we see a government which had been directly ordained by God and which was ordered to collect taxes. Now those taxes were limited in a number of ways and the precedent there couldn't be used to support a great deal of how modern taxation works, but the simplistic libertarian formula of "taxes = theft" is in direct opposition to what Scripture teaches.

Having trouble recognizing sarcasm?

 

[The Horn]

People who think that the church and private charities should be the only source of help for people in need and that the government
has no business providing things such as welfare etc are deluding themselves.
While the charities provides by religion etc are good things,they cannot possibly provide enough help for every one in need.
If the US government were to get rid of all its programs to help those in need,it would be catastrophic for this nation.
All the quotes by the founding fathers saying that the government should not do this and that and hand out money are completely obsolete and irrelevant. Conditions in America have changes so vastly that what they say is no longer valid. It was easy enough for them to say these things in the past,but they could never have imagined what things are like today in this country.

 

[MaryContrary]

People who think that the church and private charities should be the only source of help for people in need and that the government
has no business providing things such as welfare etc are deluding themselves.
While the charities provides by religion etc are good things,they cannot possibly provide enough help for every one in need.

Irrelevant. The government can't provide that either and you'd be hard pressed to establish they even do a better job of it. I invite you to try.

If the US government were to get rid of all its programs to help those in need,it would be catastrophic for this nation.

Just as a heroin addict faces catastrophe when quitting stone cold. And for the same reasons.

All the quotes by the founding fathers saying that the government should not do this and that and hand out money are completely obsolete and irrelevant. Conditions in America have changes so vastly that what they say is no longer valid. It was easy enough for them to say these things in the past,but they could never have imagined what things are like today in this country.

Sorry, that's stupid. What exactly has changed so dramatically between this day and that couldn't have been foreseen and renders any of that invalid? Other than the fact that the government has taken on that role, of course.

 

[Buzzword]

Sorry, that's stupid. What exactly has changed to dramatically between this day and that couldn't have been foreseen and renders any of that invalid? Other than the fact that the government has taken on that role, of course.

I think they couldn't have foreseen how the American public has become so dependent on the government in day-to-day life, whether literally or just mentally.

We now EXPECT the government to take care of us in our unemployment, our disability, and our old age.

The Founders also probably couldn't imagine the drastic changes in married and family life, in government bureaucracy at all levels, and in the overall sense of entitlement most Americans feel toward the services various levels of government provide.

Just my thoughts, judging from the apparent lack of mention of any of the above in the original Constitution.

 

[Lighthouse]

I think they couldn't have foreseen how the American public has become so dependent on the government in day-to-day life, whether literally or just mentally.

We now EXPECT the government to take care of us in our unemployment, our disability, and our old age.

The Founders also probably couldn't imagine the drastic changes in married and family life, in government bureaucracy at all levels, and in the overall sense of entitlement most Americans feel toward the services various levels of government provide.

Just my thoughts, judging from the apparent lack of mention of any of the above in the original Constitution.

Actually they knew full well that their plan could fail. They just weren't smart enough to know that it would.

 

[WandererInFog]

Actually they knew full well that their plan could fail. They just weren't smart enough to know that it would.

Actually, many of them (ie: Jefferson) thought that it was likely to last, at most, about a century before it would become so corrupt that another revolution would be required. The founders were not utopians. They didn't believe they had created the perfect government, merely a good one, but having a deeply realistic view of human nature they knew full well it would eventually become corrupted and need to be replaced.

 

[Lighthouse]

Actually, many of them (ie: Jefferson) thought that it was likely to last, at most, about a century before it would become so corrupt that another revolution would be required. The founders were not utopians. They didn't believe they had created the perfect government, merely a good one, but having a deeply realistic view of human nature they knew full well it would eventually become corrupted and need to be replaced.

The smart thing would have been to do something else then, eh?

 

[WandererInFog]

The smart thing would have been to do something else then, eh?

Like having a government and society that isn't composed of humans? Because so long as there are people involved, eventually any system will become corrupt.

 

[lightbringer]

The smart thing would have been to do something else then, eh?

If all systems become corrupt with time, what is this, "something else", you advise?

 

[Lighthouse]

Like having a government and society that isn't composed of humans? Because so long as there are people involved, eventually any system will become corrupt.

More like creating a government based on a preexisting system that is not set upon human ideals.

 

[kmoney]

Having trouble recognizing sarcasm?

Actually, I don't think doc was being sarcastic. I believe I've seen him say that before, genuinely.