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

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
- United States has one of the highest concentrations of wealth of any modern democracy

- 2007, top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth

-19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5% of all privately wealth

- just 20% of the people owned 85% of all privately heldwealth

- leaving 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).

-top 1% of households had 42.7% of the nation's financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home)

- Edward Wolff states that there has been a 36.1% drop in the wealth (marketable assets) of the median household since the peak of the housing bubble in 2007, in contrast to a 11.1% drop by the top 1% of households

-as of April 2010, the wealth distribution is even more unequal than it was in 2007. (See Wolff, 2010 for more details.)

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

toldailytopic: Is it wrong for the government to take money from one person and give - a more relevant topic will how much more can the bottom 80% of households be financially squeezed before America experiences major social unrest?
 
Last edited:
J

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
Knight said:
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.






Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.
Click to expand...

All one has to do is look at 18thC France under Louis XVII and early 20thC Russia under Czar Nicholas to see what happens when governments and the wealthy become isolated from reality and dismiss the poor as expendable "ne'er-do-wells!"
 
Last edited:
Frank Ernest

Frank Ernest

New member
Hall of Fame
jgarden said:
All one has to do is look at 18thC France under Louis XVII and early 20thC Russia under Czar Nicholas to see what happens when governments and the wealthy become isolated from reality and dismiss the poor as expendable "ne'er-do-wells!"
Click to expand...
Noted that the Obama administration is proceeding in those general directions.
 
chatmaggot

chatmaggot

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
jgarden said:
- United States has one of the highest concentrations of wealth of any modern democracy

- 2007, top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth

-19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5% of all privately wealth

- just 20% of the people owned 85% of all privately heldwealth

- leaving 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).

-top 1% of households had 42.7% of the nation's financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home)

- Edward Wolff states that there has been a 36.1% drop in the wealth (marketable assets) of the median household since the peak of the housing bubble in 2007, in contrast to a 11.1% drop by the top 1% of households

-as of April 2010, the wealth distribution is even more unequal than it was in 2007. (See Wolff, 2010 for more details.)

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

toldailytopic: Is it wrong for the government to take money from one person and give - a more relevant topic will how much more can the bottom 80% of households be financially squeezed before America experiences major social unrest?
Click to expand...

Is it wrong for one person to have more of something than someone else? If so, why?
 
J

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
chatmaggot said:
Is it wrong for one person to have more of something than someone else? If so, why?
Click to expand...
****************************************************
The Rich Young Ruler (Luke 18:18-23)

[18] A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

[19] "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good -- except God alone.

[20] You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'"

[21] "All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.

[22] When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

[23] When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth.

[24] Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!

[25] Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Click to expand...
Who am I to say "Is it wrong for one person to have more of something than someone else?"

BUT

according to Luke 18:25, it isn't "the poor" that will require "a camel to go through the eye of a needle" in order to "enter the kingdom of God."
 
Ktoyou

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
chatmaggot said:
Is it wrong for one person to have more of something than someone else? If so, why?
Click to expand...

Of course not! Someone has to own the land, provide houses and jobs, if all people were of the same means, then no one would have work.:think:
 
Buzzword

Buzzword

New member
Ktoyou said:
Of course not! Someone has to own the land, provide houses and jobs, if all people were of the same means, then no one would have work.:think:
Click to expand...

Your ending emoticon intrigues me (as do many on TOL by their usage).

Do you mean to imply that your statement is sarcastic?

Or do you mean to call your statement "something to consider" when discussing taxation?


I think it's fair to say that completely equal distribution of wealth looks amazing on paper....it just runs into problems when people, by their nature, want and try to take more for themselves than they need.

It seems that human behavior over time has turned more and more inward, shedding the responsibilities of the tribe, in which the tasks of individuals help the whole group survive, in favor of personal responsibilities, in which my tasks are to help ME and MY family, apathetic of and/or to the detriment of everyone else.

Seems to explain why we now have to force ourselves to "get involved in the community," when in previous centuries (and even nowadays in certain parts of the world), there was no such thing as NOT being involved in the community, because selfishness or laziness on one person's part could mean the deaths of everyone else.
 
Ktoyou

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Buzzword said:
Your ending emoticon intrigues me (as do many on TOL by their usage).

Do you mean to imply that your statement is sarcastic?

Or do you mean to call your statement "something to consider" when discussing taxation?


I think it's fair to say that completely equal distribution of wealth looks amazing on paper....it just runs into problems when people, by their nature, want and try to take more for themselves than they need.

It seems that human behavior over time has turned more and more inward, shedding the responsibilities of the tribe, in which the tasks of individuals help the whole group survive, in favor of personal responsibilities, in which my tasks are to help ME and MY family, apathetic of and/or to the detriment of everyone else.

Seems to explain why we now have to force ourselves to "get involved in the community," when in previous centuries (and even nowadays in certain parts of the world), there was no such thing as NOT being involved in the community, because selfishness or laziness on one person's part could mean the deaths of everyone else.
Click to expand...

Just responding to a one liner; sure, look at the Middle Ages, landlords provided the land and protection, the workers did the work. The same after the industrial revolution, much was the same, other than workers having to find a place to live.
 
nicholsmom

nicholsmom

New member
chrysostom said:
the answer of course is no
but
when just a few have way too much
and
too many are left impoverished
then
something needs to be addressed
Click to expand...

Poverty must be addressed - so said Christ. But by whom? Christ said by you and me - by the individual as he encounters it. The government doesn't do that - encounter people in need - because it's not a person that can feel compassion and act upon it. The government ought to leave our dollars in our pockets so that we may better address the poverty around us.

Taxing one to give to another is born of the notion that the government is better at charity than we are - that they know better where that money is needed and that in passing through their hands and control (and their hands being paid to manage it...) it does more good. It's hubris.
 
Buzzword

Buzzword

New member
nicholsmom said:
Poverty must be addressed - so said Christ. But by whom? Christ said by you and me - by the individual as he encounters it. The government doesn't do that - encounter people in need - because it's not a person that can feel compassion and act upon it. The government ought to leave our dollars in our pockets so that we may better address the poverty around us.

Taxing one to give to another is born of the notion that the government is better at charity than we are - that they know better where that money is needed and that in passing through their hands and control (and their hands being paid to manage it...) it does more good. It's hubris.
Click to expand...

True, BUT there is also the truth that individuals have just as much if not greater capacity for hubris, greed, corruption...whatever you want to call taking care of "ME" instead of taking care of others...than a group of individuals (government or no).

Many of the same people (Christian and non) who want "more dollars left in their pockets" because they EARNED them would also refuse to help the poor because the poor didn't EARN the money.

It's a big reason (that being, hubris) why people don't give money to men and women who stand on streetcorners with signs.
Because "we worked for this instead of begging" (aka "'God, I thank you that I am not like other men") we make ourselves feel superior to anyone begging on the corner, and thus do not give to others or to charities.


Essentially, NEITHER WAY (complete government regulation AND complete dependence on civilian charity) is perfect, because BOTH rely on imperfect humans, who have equal capacity to take the money and run OR give just enough to SAY they're a "giving sort," to puff themselves up.

I'd personally prefer a bottom-of-the-barrel safety net, especially when jobs are scarce, for BASIC NECESSITIES ONLY (food/clothing/shelter), maintained by both government and civilian workers.
 
Ktoyou

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Buzzword said:
True, BUT there is also the truth that individuals have just as much if not greater capacity for hubris, greed, corruption...whatever you want to call taking care of "ME" instead of taking care of others...than a group of individuals (government or no).

Many of the same people (Christian and non) who want "more dollars left in their pockets" because they EARNED them would also refuse to help the poor because the poor didn't EARN the money.

It's a big reason (that being, hubris) why people don't give money to men and women who stand on streetcorners with signs.
Because "we worked for this instead of begging" (aka "'God, I thank you that I am not like other men") we make ourselves feel superior to anyone begging on the corner, and thus do not give to others or to charities.


Essentially, NEITHER WAY (complete government regulation AND complete dependence on civilian charity) is perfect, because BOTH rely on imperfect humans, who have equal capacity to take the money and run OR give just enough to SAY they're a "giving sort," to puff themselves up.

I'd personally prefer a bottom-of-the-barrel safety net, especially when jobs are scarce, for BASIC NECESSITIES ONLY (food/clothing/shelter), maintained by both government and civilian workers.
Click to expand...

I partly agree, yet people on welfare do not work. They should be forced to work for their welfare checks, or be denied. There is a difference in what the economy will bear in wages, yet this is not a reason to have them not work, as there are plenty of jobs they could do, which offer a living wage without government sponsorship. It is better than the, sitting around ll day watching TV.
 
WandererInFog

WandererInFog

New member
drbrumley said:
What scripture says about taxation? Hmmmmm! Ok, what does scripture say about taxation? Your meaning render to Ceaser right?
Click to expand...

Nope. I mean how we clearly see taxation implemented under the Mosaic law, a poll tax specifically. Unless you're going to say that God was ordering theft, then one really can't say that all taxation is theft.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top