Worried about the new document from Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace..

[Fantine]

Most of you were not alive before the social safety net was constructed.

Neither was I, but my parents and grandparents were.

My grandmother, for example. Her parents died in a fire when she was very young. She went to live with her older sister, who died in childbirth when she was 9. And so she went to work in a baking factory, and when the inspectors came she would hide in the flour barrels so that they wouldn't catch her.

Pretty sad story, huh? Home destroyed by fire, orphaned, orphaned again when sister died....

Where were the private charities when she was hiding in the flour barrels? Those private charities you say are perfectly adequate to handle such situations.

They weren't there. Not for her. Not for anyone else.

BTW, she died young...I guess breathing in all that flour as a child laborer does that to you.

My parents lived through the depression, and had lots and lots of stories. Inspiring stories of neighbor helping neighbor at times, but no matter how you sliced it, "nothing times nothing means nothing."

Private charities weren't there. Not for them. Not for anyone else.

I know that many of you console and delude yourselves with the romantic notion that government isn't necessary.

That romantic notion won't feed the hungry, clothe the naked. or shelter the homeless...all it will do is make you feel good about values you shouldn't feel so good about.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Sorry to hear that.

There are child labor laws in place.
And the foster system to ensure someone is caring for children now.

 

[AMDG]

I have noticed that there is actually a common wanting to help folks, but it's how we each want to go about it that leads to differences.

I think this really hit home to me on a recent argument at another place about the minimum wage. One side indicated that it would help folks support their families and all. It sounded caring. However, the other side would say that it would keep folks from working--it would make it impossible for a business to hire on another person. Then they asked--it's great if you are already making a salary above the minimum wage, but what about people whose salaries aren't? How caring is it to force businesses to fire people if the employees cannot produce the goods and services that the minimum wage entails? Never thought like that before. Each side was talking about caring for people. They aren't enemies. They were just coming at the solution from different directions.

That's like here--we aren't enemies. We just think the solution of making certain that God's children are cared for is different.

 

[Assisi]

And people with the "I need, I want, I gotta have" whether or not they can afford it bear no responsibility?

America is far from socialist and America is famous for this attitude. It is not created by taxation or welfare, it is cultural and I would argue that it is caused by wealth.

 

[Assisi]

I have noticed that there is actually a common wanting to help folks, but it's how we each want to go about it that leads to differences.

I think this really hit home to me on a recent argument at another place about the minimum wage. One side indicated that it would help folks support their families and all. It sounded caring. However, the other side would say that it would keep folks from working--it would make it impossible for a business to hire on another person. Then they asked--it's great if you are already making a salary above the minimum wage, but what about people whose salaries aren't? How caring is it to force businesses to fire people if the employees cannot produce the goods and services that the minimum wage entails? Never thought like that before. Each side was talking about caring for people. They aren't enemies. They were just coming at the solution from different directions.

That's like here--we aren't enemies. We just think the solution of making certain that God's children are cared for is different.

I think you're right, but you have to bear in mind that the American model looks pretty foreign to the rest of the world. It's hard to imagine how the ideas often put forward in this forum could possibly help the poor.

 

[MKJ]

Private Charity was up to the task as long as the government or corporations (and in history it has always been one or the other) did not remove the means of providing for themselves and others from the people...either by taking it totally for the state like in many monarchy or socialist models or in investing it too narrowly in corporations and private companies as in monopoly capitalism.

Charity on behalf of a massive state edifice has also failed repeatedly.

Private generosity has not...when people have it to give. The key is finding a manner when people have it to give and the state can handle the massive issues like health, war, helping sustain agriculture and other things smaller groups of people can not.

But when government starts taking the means of production or regulating them too strongly or too lightly it produces problems. People need to be given the means to provide for themselves, help others and have the aid of government in large issues but the government can not overstep.

It is a balance. But to say private charity did not work for 6,000 years is wrong when you look at history. It is the best foundation as long as government or corporate greed does not take the ability to give away from the people by taking or interfering with their means to do so.

I am curious - how far back are you looking? I can't think of a modern or even medieval society where private charity alleviated poverty adequately.

 

[MKJ]

Let's take three taxpayers (all married filing jointly.)

Taxpayer A works at a factory and earns $40K a year. His marginal tax rate is 15%.

Taxpayer B works as a pharmacist and earns $100K a year. His marginal tax rate is also 15% on that first $40K of taxable income.

Taxpayer C is the CEO of a big business. His salary is $700K a year. His marginal tax rate is also 15% on that first $40K of taxable income.

And that is what makes the progressive tax system "fair." When you cross over into a higher bracket, you still pay lower bracket taxes on all the income up to that threshold. You pay the same percentage that Joe the Plumber does, even if your income is higher.

Another little known fact, which I learned from brilliant economist Robert Reich, is that during the 1950's and 1960's when tax rates on the rich were much higher, the rich still prospered and their incomes grew. The healthy middle class kept demand strong, and that grew their businesses.

A diminishing middle class, as we have today, will eventually hurt their income (of course they have no one to blame but themselves...)

And the great depression of 1929 and the great recession of 2008 both occurred when the wealthiest 1% of Americans held 23% or more of the wealth.....and so you see the selfishness and greed that makes them want to hold on to every last penny is actually hurting them more than a sensible, moderately progressive tax policy would.

Interestingly, this is what some distributist commentators have suggested is a basic problem at the heart of capitalism. In a fully formed capitalist system, almost everyone is a wage earner, employed by the capitalists, say 1% of the population.

As employers the capitalists want to keep wages and benefits as low as possible so as to keep production costs down.

The problem is, the consumers who but their products are also the same employees who they hope to pay less. So the less they pay in wages, increasing profits that way, the less disposable income the consumers have.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Does it bother you that many of these posters would rather have let you suffer and die than to see the United States adopt a sensible, humane policy that exists in every other industrialized nation in the world?

It would bother me.

Yes, it bothers me greatly. Living near a huge multicultural centre has exposed me to many immigrants from all sorts of other countries, from "poor" countries (Vietnam) to countries that are "on par" with Canada and the US (like Great Britain and Australia). EVERYONE is grateful for this healthcare system. Most of them didn't have one like it back home, and those that did are grateful that they can still receive the sort of care here like they did back home. (Interestingly enough, Canada & Great Britain have an agreement where their citizens receive free care when in either country.)

I simply don't understand the American desire to let people deal with serious illnesses and die, rather than embrace a system that is truly pro-life. It seems to be rooted in the American concepts of "freedom" and individualism - if you don't work hard or get a good job, you're on your own and you're seen as lazy. Then it's YOUR fault if you can't afford healthcare, and it's YOUR fault if you get sick and you can't afford treatment. Sink or swim. Somehow that equals "freedom", because apparently the poor people choose to be poor. We've even seen threads here where people insist that poverty doesn't even exist, because some people abuse the welfare system and therefore all poor people must be like that. It's ridiculous.

WA, like I said, if you are so against socialism, why do you support police departments, justice systems, fire departments, 911, things like that? Is there something inherently evil about universal healthcare that isn't evil when it involves things that you like and are convenient?

Most of you were not alive before the social safety net was constructed.

Neither was I, but my parents and grandparents were.

My grandmother, for example. Her parents died in a fire when she was very young. She went to live with her older sister, who died in childbirth when she was 9. And so she went to work in a baking factory, and when the inspectors came she would hide in the flour barrels so that they wouldn't catch her.

Pretty sad story, huh? Home destroyed by fire, orphaned, orphaned again when sister died....

Where were the private charities when she was hiding in the flour barrels? Those private charities you say are perfectly adequate to handle such situations.

They weren't there. Not for her. Not for anyone else.

BTW, she died young...I guess breathing in all that flour as a child laborer does that to you.

My parents lived through the depression, and had lots and lots of stories. Inspiring stories of neighbor helping neighbor at times, but no matter how you sliced it, "nothing times nothing means nothing."

Private charities weren't there. Not for them. Not for anyone else.

When my grandfather was alive, he would tell us stories of what it was like to live through the Great Depression. Rationing food, not being able to eat regularly, even rationing things like sugar and salt. He was a child during the Depression, but he saw how tense and desperate his parents were and he saw families who could no longer feed or care for their children, and so those poor children died.

Even before the 911 safety net existed, my dad has horrible stories. He witnessed car accidents where people died, he was at get-togethers where people died... and they would have had a chance if 911 had been in place and an ambulance could have been there in minutes.

But apparently since 911 is socialist, it should go, too - because any appearance of socialism is a grave evil, no matter how small.

 

[Davidnic]

I am curious - how far back are you looking? I can't think of a modern or even medieval society where private charity alleviated poverty adequately.

American Poverty levels pre-great depression were so low that people were declaring that in the near future it would be eliminated.

At that time you had a nation with many farms and growing capitalism but one that still believed in God and greed on a corporate level had not taken root to the level it does today. The national government was limited, but had the flaw of not understanding yet the dangers of no regulation of stocks and related banking practices.

All welfare was private and church based.

So as far as modern goes...experts will agree in everything I have seen that late 1800's to 1920's America had poverty rates lower than the statistics kept since 1959. The lowest in the kept statistics is around 1970-4 which was around 11%

Here is the kicker on that. Arguably the rate per-depression post Gilded Age was lower than 11% and that was achieved by no public welfare. But 11% and that is still good was achieved by public welfare (Kennedy and Johnson) and regulation of banks. So both can work when done intelligently. The variable here that causes the problem is corporate or governmental greed.

Going further back there are monarchies that have achieved low poverty by compassionate rule and encouraging private giving combined with state generosity.

So it is a combination, but those with money (at all levels of having) must have two things..the freedom from the state to have the means to give and a morality that encourages it.

So a strong middle class with upper, middle and lower middle class levels that does not suffer from being labeled rich, incentives for those actually rich to move the wheels of job creation and a reasonable government welfare will help. But corporate greed must be controlled by moral legislation and a national moral center where the person has value.

And that is the key. Neither monopoly capitalism or large socialism value the person. But a reasonable capitalism with common sense government involvement in welfare and regulation where people have vast possession of the means of wealth in both food and goods production where workers have investment in the success of the product in proportional levels to their work done....is an effective model.

This had happened at times in transitory stages. But the success produced has caused corporate and government greed and interference to soar and destroy it.

Most notably in per-depression America and historically kind monarchies but those were followed by the wall street greed of the 20's and heirs to thrones who felt entitled to excess.

So there are modern examples.

It is a wonderfully rich discussion where common ground can be found if all come from the place of the person has dignity.

 

[Davidnic]

Interestingly, this is what some distributist commentators have suggested is a basic problem at the heart of capitalism. In a fully formed capitalist system, almost everyone is a wage earner, employed by the capitalists, say 1% of the population.

As employers the capitalists want to keep wages and benefits as low as possible so as to keep production costs down.

The problem is, the consumers who but their products are also the same employees who they hope to pay less. So the less they pay in wages, increasing profits that way, the less disposable income the consumers have.

Yep when Capitalism becomes too few capitalists. Like Chesterton said:
"Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists."

But it is not at the heart of capitalism, it is the temptation of greed unfettered...which is not an economic issue but one that has profound economic effect.

It happens in Capitalist, Socialist, Communist, Monarchies...all sorts. There has been crushing poverty and huge successes in both. And the key is human dignity and a moral center for the people involved.

We've lost those last too in many places today.

But yes a fully formed Capitalist system gives way to monopoly capitalism and greed where the worker becomes a commodity. It is the flaw in the system. The ghost of the serpent in the machinery.

 

[Needing_Grace]

Interesting...I see the argument not to be capitalism vs. socialism rather unregulated, unfettered absolute capitalism vs. regulated capitalism. Regulated capitalism WORKS while unregulated, unfettered absolute capitalism leads to wild economic cycles what include massive recessions/depressions.

 

[benedictaoo]

Hey everybody calm down

Its still ok to vote fascist as long as the fascist isn't for abortion.

and its still ok to diss Democrats for being Democrats.

I can always count on you to make me smile.

 

[AMDG]

Let's take three taxpayers (all married filing jointly.)

Taxpayer A works at a factory and earns $40K a year. His marginal tax rate is 15%.

Taxpayer B works as a pharmacist and earns $100K a year. His marginal tax rate is also 15% on that first $40K of taxable income.

Taxpayer C is the CEO of a big business. His salary is $700K a year. His marginal tax rate is also 15% on that first $40K of taxable income.

Don't you worry none about the married and taxes. According to the news reports they've found another little thing in that Obamacare thing that they never bothered to read before passing. The thing is that folks will be penalized if they are married or get married. Looks like in the future--marriage will be out.

Of course, maybe Obamacare will "go"--seems like it went up another 8 points in unpopularity in the polls since this little thing was found out. There just doesn't seem to be a viable way forward for it. But as to tax reform, I think most people want it. It's just a matter of how--repeal the 16th Amendment, an optional 15% flat tax, an optional 20% flat tax, the 9-9-9 plan, or the 59 point plan.

 

[ebia]

Interesting...I see the argument not to be capitalism vs. socialism rather unregulated, unfettered absolute capitalism vs. regulated capitalism. Regulated capitalism WORKS while unregulated, unfettered absolute capitalism leads to wild economic cycles what include massive recessions/depressions.

Yes, but some Pope said socialism was evil, so nevermind what that Pope had in mind by socialism; if I can label something as socialism I no longer have to consider its actual merits.

 

[Davidnic]

Well we kind of should use socialism in the context he did, not label all charity from the government socialism. That's not what he meant...but I get you know that and are being more sarcastic at the general way people label everything socialism and pretend it fits the context the Church used for the immoral application of it.

 

[S.ilvio]

Please tell me that you are not advocating the breaking of the Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Steal".

It's called redistribution. If Moses has a problem with resources being directed to those who most need them refer him to a few soup kitchens and it might be an eye opener for him...

 

[AMDG]

Simplest way I can put it is that charity is done for and with and because of God, while redistribution is a Godless system.

I guess that's why the Popes have spoken out against the redistribution part of socialism--it's not a reliance on God and it's not an active part of charity (caring for one's neighbor). It's just another power over man. "Look *I'm* handing you some cheese (so you don't have to work for food--never mind that I've taken this other guys ability to be charitable toward you, as God wants) and now you can do a "favor" for me <wink-wink>" This keeping folks dependent on *man* is known in some places as
plantation politics".

 

[WarriorAngel]

The Church said it is not an economic teacher. It is a moral teacher.

And we the people of the Church must 'DO' charity. If everyone in the Church actually helped in charity one way or another - according to their means - we would have people forging their own livelihood as well see our examples and want to live the moral life.

The moral life - which the US lost - and ppl live together and the man is no longer responsible for children - the woman goes on welfare...while living with free loading men. [who can buy beer, drugs and toys with their own money since the bills are already taken care of]
If we could end that abuse - our economy would improve.

Its pure greed when ppl want a hand out now, without working hard, and not taking the responsible measures to get married and commit to one another.

Sin begets more sin. Children raised in this lifestyle - follow suit. And the avalanche gets bigger.

Teach people to live self sufficiently, be responsible and stop abusing the system that will crumble.
There are not enough rich to compensate even in taxes for all the ppl who want the easy life and take hand outs they really should not be taking.

 

[Fantine]

After the industrial revolution and the creation of the assembly line, few families were self-sufficient anymore.

They moved from farms to cities, and couldn't produce very much of their own fruit, vegetables, milk, cheese,and meat. They spent long hours outside the home, and didn't have the time to sew their own clothes, etc.

While I recognize that distributism might work in smaller agrarian societies, I don't think it's workable in the urban jungles most people all over the world live in.

And maybe that's why encyclicals written in the 19th century aren't that relevant to modern times--no matter how valid and enlightened they might have appeared 125 years earlier.

 

[Needing_Grace]

No soup kichens around here are called redistribution (nor would they want to be.) Charity (what we are called to do) is not the same as redistribution. Simplest way I can put it is that charity is done for and with and because of God, while redistribution is a Godless system. (But I have another feeling that something "is getting lost in the translation" when it comes to things done "across the pond" and things done here.)

Read up on the Jubilee in the Old Testament.