Taxing the rich to help poor is theft

98cwitr said:

I am very glad you brought up Romans 13:

"For he is the minister of God to thee for good."

When what is being asked of us is not for good, but for evil, and when those asking of us are in vocal opposition to God and Christianity, then we should not submit; for by doing so we submit to satan himself. If the federal government were in proper scope and acting in that accord, we would not be having this conversation nor would I be in my position.

I am not a slave, yet by the 16th amendment, 28% of my labor is usurped from me and handed over to bolster overgrown, undermanaged, corrupt budgets that proliferate evil.

"for they are God's ministers"

They may have been, but are not now. They're atheists.

Click to expand...

If you feel that way about it, why don't you move to a country with a Christian government?

Speedwell said:

If you feel that way about it, why don't you move to a country with a Christian government?

Click to expand...

I'm already here: North Carolina.

98cwitr said:

I'm already here: North Carolina.

Click to expand...

I didn't know that North Carolina was officially Christian-- didn't think they had passed that bill. Tell me more.

98cwitr said:

Yes, lets.

Click to expand...

I'm all ears.

98cwitr said:

Also, let's also get to the point where the public owns 28% of your and my labor. Does that make us 28% a slave?

Click to expand...

Not even if the public owned 100% of our labor. Slavery is owning people, not labor. Hyperbole is not helping you explain your case.

RaymondG said:

I say we go ahead and tax the rich......to help the poor......if we agree to never say a bad word about them again..... dont mention the rich young ruler or say "blessed are the poor" anymore, in relationship to them. No more eyes of needles and wealthy men comparisons.

If you want to use them to better yourselves.....start speaking more positive about them.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would say that "making a lot of money" is inherently bad, nor is anyone referring to the "the Rich" as a monolithic entity.

Many folks, like myself, aren't even suggesting that we redistribute their money. I don't think that would be fair to them either.

The thing I object to is this mindset that insulating the rich from paying a proportionally greater amount (whether it be via income or corporate tax) in order to offset their proportionally greater use of public services and shared public resources is somehow this fiscally conservative virtue that needs to be honored and protected, otherwise it's "evil socialism".

I don't have any desire to take $500 from a rich guy, and give it to a poor guy...

I just simply feel that if a rich guy is getting greater utilization of shared/public services, it makes sense for their tax bill to reflect that.

IE: If a poor person, who has 1 car (or no cars), lives in an area with minimal public investment (roads, schools, public facilities), and is paying 24% effective tax rate on their income, there's nothing wrong with a well-to-do business owner (who gets the best roads, best schools, perhaps has trucks utilizing public roads for business reasons, utilizing a greater amount of public infrastructure for their business, etc...) paying a 26 or 27% effective tax rate.

State taxes go toward public road upkeep, yet, the roads in the poorer part of town are in serious need of repair, the public libraries are junk, some of the public schools don't even have A/C in them...yet, it's a whole different world when you go the "nice part of town".

If the wealthy folks insist that "we shouldn't have to pay a higher effective tax rate than anyone else, because that's not fair", then the state-tax funded infrastructure should be of the same quality (or lack of quality) that other parts of town have.

Meaning, we shouldn't have two high schools, 8 miles apart from one another, where one looks like this:

(70 year old building, no A/C, issues with plumbing and HVAC)

...and the other looks like this:


(and currently just got it approved to put in a new Cafe for the students and upgrade their computer lab to have all new iMac workstations)


I think the sentiment about how "people need to quit demonizing the rich if they want their help" is a bit misguided...the reason why people are demonizing them in the first place is because they've been given the best of everything with regards to use of public funds, yet even the mere mention of adjusting tax rates to reflect that is met with crying and gnashing of teeth about how "this tax system is unfair" by a bunch of people with incomes well over the six figure mark.

The people in the poorer areas have been told since the 1980's "if we just lower the taxes for the rich, it'll make things better for everyone"...and after 35 years of that same speech, with it never coming to fruition, it's not surprising that people in the lower income communities are frustrated by that and want things to go back to the way they were prior to the Reagan tax cuts.

The lowered tax revenues haven't negatively impacted the rich at all...they still get their schools upgraded, still get new facilities, still get good roads, etc... it's the poorer areas that take the hit to try to make up the difference in lost tax revenue. (AKA: "after the tax cuts for the top 10%, we don't have enough money to fix all the roads now, so we just won't repair the ones in the poor community in order to stay within the budget)

Speedwell said:

In most cases not. One of the conditions of a free market is that both buyers and sellers are of about equal market power. If the market is dominated by a few big buyers then it is not a free market. If there are burger flippers looking for work and most of the burger stands are small mom and pop joints then yes, the labor market for burger flippers is more or less of a free market. On the other hand, if the burger stands belong mostly to McDonalds and Burger King then it is not a free market. The only way that burger flippers could hope to achieve parity in market power in that case would be to form a burger-flippers union.

Click to expand...

A free market is not about equality. A free market is simply about buying and selling power free from government interference. It's about the ability of workers to form a union if they wish. It's about employers determining what they will pay and the workers deciding if they will sell their services for that. This is all about ebb and flow of an economy. At times the employers have more power because there are far more workers than jobs. At other times workers have more power due to there are more jobs than workers. Markets are not static. A free market allows for this. Government control of the market is anti free market.
Unions can be good, but they can also cause problems because if the market reduces the unions still demand the same pay and benefits they may have gotten while the market was up.

We have burger chains where we live. We also have mom and pop burger shops. There is a free market here with both. The consumer decides how the businesses do. And the mom and pop shops are doing very well because they offer good food! That's how the free market works. Offer a better product and people will support it.

Speedwell said:

I didn't know that North Carolina was officially Christian-- didn't think they had passed that bill. Tell me more.

Click to expand...

I recommend you read our Constitution; specifically the Preamble, Article 6 and Article 11.

rjs330 said:

A free market is not about equality. A free market is simply about buying and selling power free from government interference. It's about the ability of workers to form a union if they wish. It's about employers determining what they will pay and the workers deciding if they will sell their services for that. This is all about ebb and flow of an economy. At times the employers have more power because there are far more workers than jobs. At other times workers have more power due to there are more jobs than workers. Markets are not static. A free market allows for this. Government control of the market is anti free market.
Unions can be good, but they can also cause problems because if the market reduces the unions still demand the same pay and benefits they may have gotten while the market was up.

We have burger chains where we live. We also have mom and pop burger shops. There is a free market here with both. The consumer decides how the businesses do. And the mom and pop shops are doing very well because they offer good food! That's how the free market works. Offer a better product and people will support it.

Click to expand...

You miss the point. To be a free market, it must have the following characteristics:
1. There must be ease of entry into and exit from participation in the market.
2. There must be free circulation of information about products and prices.
3. The buyers and sellers must be of about equal market power.
If a market does not meet those standards it is not a free market as that term has been understood in classical economics all the way back to Adam Smith. Absence of government oversight is not one of the characteristics; in fact, in most cases a free market could not exist without some degree of government regulation.

Belk said:

I'm all ears.

Click to expand...

Taking what doesn't belong to you by force is theft. Can we agree on a definition first?

Not even if the public owned 100% of our labor. Slavery is owning people, not labor. Hyperbole is not helping you explain your case.

Click to expand...

Sure it is. Slavery, especially contemporary slavery still found in Africa and the Middle East today, is taking the fruits of what an individual produces and forcing them to produce more or face dire consequence. The only difference, and where I'll even make a case in your favor, is that I am allowed to leave this country to seek a better life IF the other country will take me; whereas true slavery would not permit me to leave.

Our NC Constitution reads as follows:

We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.

Click to expand...

I cannot enjoy any fruits of my labor if I don't own them.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

WHAT!? Where did you ever see that in most of the rich ? From all I've ever read or seen, they not only do not struggle with giving their lives to Him, they do not even consider it necessary and don't give it a thought .... (like it is written in the Apocalypse - the rest of the world who was not killed, did not even think of turning to God nor of repenting of serving (worshiping) demons. )

And I think King David cried out to Yahuweh - WHY do the RICH have it so good - partying every weekend, wine women and parties , as if no worries .....
While the ones after Yahuweh's Own Heart are on the run, hiding in the woods and caves, being sought as outlaws like thieves .....

Click to expand...

I know some some rich people who have their lives to Christ. I think you misunderstand me here. The rich when presented with the gospel still hear it. But they struggle with seeing the need since they have no needs.

I hope you are not saying it's impossible for a rich person to be a believer. I have known a few in my day that were very strong believers and did much for the cause of Christ.

Speedwell said:

3. The buyers and sellers must be of about equal market power.

Click to expand...

#3 from your list is the big one, and is the one that often gets overlooked when people want to push for supply-side economics (sometimes referred to as 'trickle-down')

Certain critical markets, with inelastic demand, simply can't have a true free market. Healthcare is a prime example.

If someone is facing a serious illness, they have absolutely zero leverage in that situation, and are subject to things like price gouging because if the supply side (providers) know that "without my services, this person will die", they know they can strongarm and basically charge whatever they want people will have no choice but to suck it up, or face dire consequences.

Speedwell said:

You miss the point. To be a free market, it must have the following characteristics:
1. There must be ease of entry into and exit from participation in the market.
2. There must be free circulation of information about products and prices.
3. The buyers and sellers must be of about equal market power.
If a market does not meet those standards it is not a free market as that term has been understood in classical economics all the way back to Adam Smith. Absence of government oversight is not one of the characteristics; in fact, in most cases a free market could not exist without some degree of government regulation.

Click to expand...

The free market economy is about having the buyer and seller making the choices. It's about little government control. Your example is not relevant to a free market.

Free Market Definition

Some government regulation is needed. A complete free market in a capitalistic society can lead to monopolies as we have seen in the past. It can also lead to polution and poor working conditions. So some regulations are needed.

But a free market offers opportunities of choice of the worker and employer. I think you misunderstand what equal market power is. Or perhaps misapply it.

rjs330 said:

The free market economy is about having the buyer and seller making the choices. It's about little government control. Your example is not relevant to a free market.

Free Market Definition

Some government regulation is needed. A complete free market in a capitalistic society can lead to monopolies as we have seen in the past. It can also lead to polution and poor working conditions. So some regulations are needed.

But a free market offers opportunities of choice of the worker and employer. I think you misunderstand what equal market power is. Or perhaps misapply it.

Click to expand...

I do not. From your definition (which is not Adam Smith's but it will do):

"A key feature of free markets is the absence of coerced (forced) transactions or conditions on transactions."

A labor market in which one or a few large employers offer "take it or leave it" wages is not a free market.

rjs330 said:

I know some some rich people who have their lives to Christ. I think you misunderstand me here. The rich when presented with the gospel still hear it. But they struggle with seeing the need since they have no needs.

I hope you are not saying it's impossible for a rich person to be a believer. I have known a few in my day that were very strong believers and did much for the cause of Christ.

Click to expand...

Like Jesus I agree with Jesus - for man /men/ it is impossible.

The students walking with Jesus thought so also, and He Agreed with them -
they cried out to Him "How then can ANYONE be saved !? " (not just the rich) ....

Note that being a 'believer' in Scripture does not equate with being saved nor with being born again.

Today, it may depend on who you're talking to, what they think a "believer" is, etc .....

98cwitr said:

I cannot enjoy any fruits of my labor if I don't own them.

Click to expand...

I GREATLY REJOICE, with ALL THE ANGELS IN HEAVEN!
Whenever even one soul gets saved unto eternal life with Jesus!

And on earth, and in heaven, I own nothing of mine own, but more especially I do not own those who are saved or who are getting saved !

Speedwell said:

If you feel that way about it, why don't you move to a country with a Christian government?

Click to expand...

There was apparently one country with a Christian leader for a couple years, in or around Indonesia a couple years ago. It made the news worldwide (at least in the USA).....

The country was and remained opposed to God though - it was/is? about 80% Muslim/Islam/Other? ...

According to Scripture, the leaders of the nations have <willingly?> committed spiritual fornication with the beast, so finding a "Christian" leader, let alone a so-called "Christian government", is not likely or at least not easy to do with any certainty and verification.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

I GREATLY REJOICE, with ALL THE ANGELS IN HEAVEN!
Whenever even one soul gets saved unto eternal life with Jesus!

And on earth, and in heaven, I own nothing of mine own, but more especially I do not own those who are saved or who are getting saved !

Click to expand...

Then God owns all, and Caesar gets nothing.

98cwitr said:

Then God owns all, and Caesar gets nothing.

Click to expand...

Yes, Yahuweh owns all. The ancient Jewish / Hebrews/ Israelites knew this, and likely more of them know this today than gentiles know it.

Give to Caesar what has Caesar's face on it,

isn't that what Jesus says to do , even though He told the children of Yahuweh that they are not required to pay the tax, but to pay it for some other reason ?

98cwitr said:

Taking what doesn't belong to you by force is theft. Can we agree on a definition first?




Sure it is. Slavery, especially contemporary slavery still found in Africa and the Middle East today, is taking the fruits of what an individual produces and forcing them to produce more or face dire consequence. The only difference, and where I'll even make a case in your favor, is that I am allowed to leave this country to seek a better life IF the other country will take me; whereas true slavery would not permit me to leave.

Our NC Constitution reads as follows:



I cannot enjoy any fruits of my labor if I don't own them.

Click to expand...

As a Christian, I don't own the fruits of my labor. God owns them. God owns everything. What He permits me to maintain an earthly ownership over is up to Him. It sounds like you have a serious desire to "own". When you give over everything to the Lord you don't worry about what you "own" or don't "own" because you realize you don't own a thing. You have in your possession only what God lets you have, no matter how He chooses to let you have it or not. He can take it all back from you too. Or He can give you even more. But either way, it's His, not yours.

If something is taken from me, whether by the government, or a thief, or whomever, I trust in God that he knows what's best. If He wants me to have it back or replaced, He will provide that. Or He will simply not provide it if that is His Will. Whatever a person or government or institution or anyone decides on earth doesn't matter because ultimately God's Will is in control.

Perhaps your problem lies with giving up ownership of things to God, because it sounds like ownership and possession are very strong drives in you.

98cwitr said:

Then God owns all, and Caesar gets nothing.

Click to expand...

God says to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and referred to coined money in saying so. Your statement goes against God's word, directly.