Not Ours to Give (or Take)
by Matt Kaufman on 11/20/2009 at 1:34 PM
"Poll Supports Taxing Rich for Overhaul," read the headline in my hometown paper on this story about health-care reform. "Americans Sour on Other Options for Meeting Costs," added the subhead.
In other words, same old, same old.
I have to wonder how many of the people who take the tax-the-rich line pause, even briefly, to ask themselves what gives them a claim on other people's money, and a pretty much limitless claim at that. Not many, I'm afraid. It's habitual by now.
But they should pause. And more to the point, we should. We, meaning Christians. We have it on good Authority that it's a sin to steal. Should we be quick to conclude it's not stealing if it's done by the state? Automatically? Should we blithely assume it's OK if the government is democratic? Might that not make it worse -- increasing the complicity, and the corruption, of the people?
Shouldn't we at least ask these questions?
Yes, I know: There are mitigating factors. Health care isn't a luxury, it's a necessity. (I really know: I've had major medical bills with no insurance.) But the issues remain, and we still need to wrestle with them. And we can't forget that the people always support making "the rich" pick up the tab. The spirit of the nation isn't "we're deeply sorry to take other people's money, but we're desperate." It's simply "We're entitled."
And yes, I know: Scripture has many warnings about attachment to wealth and many calls to care for others. But those words aren't just for the wealthiest of us: They're for all of us. When we feel we're entitled, we're not getting our spirits into harmony with God. We're only doing that when we're voluntarily giving, not forcibly taking.
I'm not entirely closed to ethical arguments for government programs of this sort, though I'm skeptical of them. The trouble is, few people seem to feel they even need to make those arguments. They just feel free to take the money.
So let's talk about this. A ground rule: Let's not talk about the details or the practicalities of health-care reform. We've done that a lot already on this site, and we may do it again, but it's not today's topic. Let's focus on the moral and spiritual issues raised above. There's plenty to chew on right there.
1. Julie said the following at 3:08 PM on Nov 20:
1
Why is it that you don't hear the Christians in England and France and Sweden and Canada getting so up in arms about taxes and social programs? If taxing someone is stealing, why should the government take any taxes at all? If people with more money should not pay more than people with less money, why not advocate for a flat tax?
2. Hieronymus Illinensis said the following at 3:12 PM on Nov 20:
2
I think the reason the poll supports taxing the rich is the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks. If people agree that something has to be done that can't be done unless someone is taxed to pay for it, better, they think, it should be those who seem as though they'll be able to afford it than those who obviously can't.
This is something different from class envy -- a distinction lost on, say, Rush.
So the moral question would have to be, what things have to be done even if it means taxing someone to pay for them?
In the days before employers started offering health insurance as a way to get around World War II wage controls, how did people live?
3. JVR from Denver said the following at 3:42 PM on Nov 20:
3
Some people came up to Jesus, and asked him about this.
He said: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's..."
And I also agree with #1, Julia. You don't hear Christians raging about this in countries with full, single-pay health care systems. If you ask them, they'll shrug and say "Well, not everyone is in a position to afford something like that."
It's simple. The same way we justify a public school system: "Well, not everyone can pay to send their kids to school."
So enough with this.
4. JVR from Denver said the following at 3:48 PM on Nov 20:
4
#2 Heironymous:
"In the days before employers started offering health insurance as a way to get around World War II wage controls, how did people live?"
Irrelevant - the method of delivery doesn't matter. What matters is those that *do* have health care, and those that don't.
The answer to your question is that, as today, those who could afford health care lived longer, healthier lives.
5. Jeremy said the following at 3:52 PM on Nov 20:
5
That is a revealing question and seems to be a base assumption that many people share -- rich people SHOULD pay more. Success SHOULD be punished, that is what seems fair to many. And while I fundamentally disagree, I also think it is important to keep in mind the relative unimportance of all this in the bigger picture of life.
Note Jesus's attitude in relation to the tricky tax question -- he brushed it aside in favor of getting at a more important spiritual issue.
6. Tara said the following at 3:58 PM on Nov 20:
6
Julie (#1) has some good questions. As a non-American resident of this country, I wonder if this isn't just a somewhat worldly American tradition: rebellion against anything that could somehow imply a "bigger government". America has a long history of this, and included in it are those anti-tax folks who still hold tea parties... and those a little less "out there" who protest against greater taxation for the greater good.
Many Christians (at least in the South where I live) don't believe that lethal injections (killing done by the State) constitute murder - so why should they believe that taxation (taking of money by the State) constitutes theft? I'm not quite seeing the logic there.
I don't plan to conduct a thorough debate on this subject, so you won't hear any follow-up arguments from me - as someone whose "citizenship is in heaven", I try to stay morally and spiritually impassioned while politically neutral. :) But as a relative outsider to America, I wonder if the American luxury to insist "Don't tax me!" is exercised too liberally. This insistence is not considered a Christian mandate in other countries, which hints to me that there must be something unique about Americanism that wants to hang onto its hard-earned cash.
Spiritually, shouldn't you be as live quietly and peacably with all men and be as grateful for the government as you can, and save the major protests for the major issues?
We should all also keep in mind that throwing out a rather extreme-sounding blog post ("taxation is stealing, therefore it's un-Christian!") is a super way to start a discussion, whereas neutrality doesn't win Boundless a long list of responding comments. Hey, it sure worked on me! :)
7. Peter said the following at 4:07 PM on Nov 20:
7
I agree with Matt.
Those responding should not deceive themselves. This question is not so much about whether we should pay tax, but whether we should make one group - usually not our own - pay more.
8. Caleb Woodbridge said the following at 4:16 PM on Nov 20:
8
As a Christian living in the United Kingdom, I see it as a positive sign of the influence of the ethic of Christian generosity that the majority in the UK support giving their taxes to pay for the NHS, to care for all in society.
Although there are a lot of issues surrounding the National Health Service, most British people are very glad and very proud that there is universal healthcare for all in society, free at point of delivery, paid for out of the public purse. It's a lot more cost effective than the American health care (16% of GDP in the US compared to 8% in the UK). It's not a perfect system, but everyone gets a good level of provision, and can pay for private care if they can afford and want to go beyond that.
I'm proud of the NHS, and I'd vote in favour of it. As a matter of Christian generosity, I am willing to give my support to taxes when I believe that they are the best way of contributing to the common good. Sometimes private charity or enterprise is more effective, but some public services are best supported by government, and where this is the case, Christians should be at the front of the queue to contribute to that.
Further, Christians should be committed to encouraging a general political will towards the common good, to providing for all in society. We should encourage the rich to be generous with what they have, and not to begrudge taxes when they are used to care for those in need. We should try and generate genuine consensus and political will, to have wide popular support, rather than imposing taxes on an unwilling population. But through peaceful, non-coercive means - through argument, through appealing to people's sense of fair play and generosity, and most importantly by calling people to know Jesus and be transformed by him, and to follow his example of radical generosity. We need changed hearts before changed laws, but as far as hearts *are* changed and *are* willing to care for all in society, we should put this in practice in law and government.
Of course, we need to hold politicians accountable to use that money wisely and well. We need to scrutinise any particular policy to see whether it will actually deliver what politicians claim it will deliver. And we shouldn't automatically assume that doing things through the government is automatically the best option - but neither is it automatically the worst.
9. Marie said the following at 4:20 PM on Nov 20:
9
"Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caeser."- Jesus
We Christians shouldn't worry so much about money, but about doing the will of God. We will necessarily face laws we do not like and opinions we do not agree with. However, Jesus definitively did answer the question about paying taxes when challenged by the Pharisees.
We're a bit too focused on Mammon here. Honestly, how much does it hurt these people to lose more money? They can still live, and paying taxes IS supported by the Bible.
10. Michael Fumento said the following at 4:20 PM on Nov 20:
10
It IS important to keep in mind something sometimes lost on conservatives and especially libertarians that we do need tax revenue.
That's why I found the desperate fight against inheritance taxes so bizarre. I'm not saying a person doesn't have a right to leave his money to heirs, but I am saying it's ridiculous to put that off limits when we tax income, sales, business, and virtually everything else. I think that was pushed by rich people who DON'T want fair taxation -- which is what it's all about.
But no, I won't take the space here to define "fair." A flat tax may not necessarily be the "fairest" but it has the inherent advantage of being simple. As a self-employed person who also invests in the stock market, simply doing my taxes is horribly taxing. I would gladly pay more in taxes if I could spend less time figuring out how much I owed.
11. Denny said the following at 4:21 PM on Nov 20:
11
What people don't realize is under the Democratic health "reform" everyone in America is "rich" and will be taxed.
12. Gerv said the following at 4:26 PM on Nov 20:
12
As a Christian from the UK, some of us are up in arms about taxes and social programs. It's just that there aren't so many of us as one would wish for, and economic illiteracy is rife among Christians as well as among non-Christians. And having a long history of people being dependent on the state for stuff makes them accept it as the normal thing.
"If taxing someone is stealing, why should the government take any taxes at all?"
The government has the right to raise taxes to perform the valid functions of government. The question is: is providing for the sick, social support etc. a valid function of government? Or is it the function of another community body called, er, the church? Nowhere in Scripture do I see government called upon to perform these functions. But Christians are often called upon to do them.
13. obewan said the following at 4:26 PM on Nov 20:
13
I think it really depends on HOW a person gets “rich”. If is is on the “backs” of the "lower" class workforce that does not get employer paid health care, then some case for a moral justification might exist. I mean, their wealth did come from the labor contributions of others.
I mean, with employer paid health care we place more individual “worth” on the “professional” employee than the minimum wage hourly "labor" worker bee. Say a multi-millionaire owner of grocery store chains pays his employees $7 an hour and no health benefits. He is “rich” in part because he holds his “costs” down. Their labor is what contributes to his wealth, so in return, he should offer a just and moral compensation for the contribution they have made to his “good” life.
The same might be true with a stockholder of say a fast food chain. People will attack me and argue that those jobs are "temporary", but I know one woman in her 50's with two fast food jobs and no-medical insurance. She developed some kind of problem with her legs which caused her medical expenses to bankrupt her. It took two 40 hour jobs at $6 an hour to support herself with no car and public transportation. Because she could work in a "desk" job, she was denied disability for her leg problems. She wound up unable to work (because she could no longer stand), was evicted from her apartment, and living at the homeless shelter. She gave the fast food chain something like 25 years of hard labor - for what return? She was also learning disabled, so some other kind of “career” was not a viable option.
But, to defend the rich, there are many investors who have a moral compass who will not invest in ventures that abuse the human race. There are even mutual funds that focus on “moral” corporations and avoid the sin ventures etc…So, maybe there is a fund out there that would include businesses that provide medical insurance. I would argue that in that case, a wealthy investor in such a fund should be free from the tax we are discussing.
14. twilley said the following at 4:57 PM on Nov 20:
14
Personally, I do think there are some things we are all entitled to. Health care (preventative and basic care for certain, and the highest level of services which can be reasonably achieved), free education (including undergraduate level or solid vocational training), and affordable and accessible food and housing.
After having thought about the issue, I do not feel it is immoral in America today to raise taxes on all of us (with wealthier people being taxed at proportionately higher rates), since the gap between rich and poor is incredibly large and is artificial. The way our economic, educational, and health care systems work right now depends on keeping some people without the basic things they need to live, and I find that immoral.
I also do not feel it is immoral to feel entitled to these four things, since they are the basic building blocks of life, and since our country in no way lacks the resources to provide them to everyone.
The post included this quote:
"When we feel we're entitled, we're not getting our spirits into harmony with God."
The way I feel about God is: that God sees us all as equals. When God created the world, it didn't come with property boundaries stamped on it. I don't believe anyone can actually own a part of the earth. God even commanded the Israelites to redistribute their wealth every 49 years in the Year of Jubilee. Why did God do this? To remind them that they were all the same, that they were all one people, and that the land they were holding onto wasn't really important. That there was enough for everyone. That it wasn't good for them to accumulate more than they could use, but that it was good for them to live as equals.
It would be wrong for me to feel entitled to something someone else had achieved without working for it myself. But to feel entitled to have the same use of the resources that he used to achieve what he did, I do not feel this is immoral. (I'm stealing straight out of elementary Marx here, I will shamelessly admit)
15. Leah said the following at 8:20 PM on Nov 20:
15
Julie (1) - how do you know you don't get Christians in England and France and Sweden and Canada up in arms over taxes and stuff? Do you know a large number of Christians in those countries?
I also don't think Matt is saying all tax is stealing, but perhaps laying excessive taxes on the rich only (or perhaps he's just suggesting it's akin to stealing, and not actually stealing). He acknowledges tax is a necessity.
16. farmer Tom said the following at 9:49 PM on Nov 20:
16
I'm biting my tongue and biding my time.
Until then I think I'll just go read the 8th commandment again, and see if I can figure some way around obedience to the Law of God.
I mean really, you don't think God actually intended for us to obey that stuff do you?
17. Samantha said the following at 10:05 PM on Nov 20:
17
Taxes are ethical because everyone benefits from some of the services that taxes pay for. Roads, the Military and Emergency Services, at least in Canada, are paid by taxes and post-secondary is highly subsidized.
I believe that everyone should have to pay the same % of their income, with wealthy people that will be more than if someone of lesser means was paying.
18. Ben said the following at 10:08 PM on Nov 20:
18
I don't believe it's the government's place to provide for the needs of private citizens. According to the Bible, that's for families, churches, and good neighbors to do, and I think that we as Christians have often abdicated our personal responsibility. I think it's pretty hypocritical to argue that the government shouldn't be providing for citizens if we're not doing our part.
But bad things happen when the government starts making sure people's needs are met, because by definition, that means "robbing Peter to pay Paul." If I have a good income, it means I no longer actually own what I earn; if I don't want to work, I can just receive money that's forcibly taken from others. It means I lose more freedom, because I'm either dependent on the government, or my money is taken by the government.
By the way, it's one thing to tax everyone in society in order to provide things that no one owns and everyone uses (eg. roads). It's another thing to tax everyone in order to give certain people personal health insurance, or personal income because they don't have a job, ... It's definitely not how our country was founded, either.
19. Keith said the following at 1:46 AM on Nov 21:
19
Julie (#1) has an excellent point.
Why is that only in America do Christians complain about government social programs. In other nations, Christians are some of the strongest promoters of social programs, including public health care.
The truth is that the reason that most Christians in America oppose government social programs is that Americans in general (not Christians in general) fear government, and most American Christians put American values above Christian values. They oppose public health care because they are American, and not because they are Christian. They even twist scripture to support their agenda.
The truth is that the command not to steal has absolutely nothing to do with government social programs and who should pay for them. It is about an individual greedily taking something which isn't theirs.
If you are an American Christian who doesn't support public health care, you are entitled to your opinion, but PLEASE don't twist God's word to support an American agenda.
20. John said the following at 7:52 AM on Nov 21:
20
It is NEVER the responsibility of the state to "give" people anything.
Redistribution of anybody's wealth, rich or otherwise, is simply stealing.
Taxing isn't stealing. Taxing and then giving that money to special groups is!
Before WWII, people paid for things directly, not through third parties.
It is the churches responsibility to care for the sick! Not the governments!
21. Charlotte said the following at 10:05 AM on Nov 21:
21
I disagree with the general idea raised for the following reason:
The Proportional Value of One Dollar:
If everyone were taxed equally at say 30%, the burden on the poor would be much greater than that on the rich. The rich would lose a chunk of their disposable income, but the poor would lose their ability to buy food and shelter. In essence, the price the poor would have to pay is not equal, but much greater. The poor would be unable to care for themselves, and would need to be supported, either through government subsidies (so basically given their taxes back – inefficient) or through charity (which not everyone would participate in, leaving the rich and selfish to get richer). Although I believe this article is arguing for the second alternative, I think it is an undesirable outcome as it increases inequality.
So, yes, I do believe the rich should be taxed more than the poor. How much more is a whole new issue :)
22. Sara said the following at 12:11 PM on Nov 21:
22
"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
I haven't taken a theology course for a few years now, but isn't this pretty clear? Our money is not just ours, and for our government to take it in the form of taxes isn't stealing... it is just us giving to them what is theirs. Plus, I would much rather my taxes going to health care than useless wars.
I think this is a problem with the American mindset, not the Christian sensibility. Every place with free health care admits there are problems with it, but very few of us (even our wealthy citizens) would want to give it up.
23. DannieA said the following at 1:19 PM on Nov 21:
23
Keith,
I'm a part of a Christian family that doesn't support a national health plan and I find it not offensive to support America....
My parents ESCAPED from a country that became communist....they have "free" health care, free everything....yet they live in absolute poverty and if given the choice to work hard and be poor and climb up the ladder to pay for health care as my parents have done vs. getting 'free health care' back in the old country...
my parents choose AMERICA with actually working to provide the best health care they can do now....yes now they have good healthcare coverage unlike when I was growing up, but they're not running towards a NHS.
Don't generalize everyone that has experience with another life to feel as though this is the best idea ever.
24. twilley said the following at 1:21 PM on Nov 21:
24
John, #20:
With regards to the healthcare debate, which are the "special groups" you are referring to?
25. twilley said the following at 1:23 PM on Nov 21:
25
I'm really encouraged to see so many voices here from people who come from or have lived outside of the U.S. I think that if more Americans had international experience, if they had ever lived in a place with universal health care, they would have a greater understanding of how it actually works.
26. Peter said the following at 4:15 PM on Nov 21:
26
Yes. Australia hasa a *degree* of such universal health care..... and considerable government encouragement to NOT rely on it. Our public health system is underfunded to a significant degree, and waiting lists for "elective" surgery (such as hip replacements) can be considerable.
And if you think that the majority support paying taxes for such things, just try investigating what proportion of tax-payers pay more than they have to, and what proportion do all that they can to MINIMISE their tax bill.
Matt is right. We have too many people - even on a supposedly Christian website - talking about their "rights", without talking about their "responsibilities". We've transformed the idea of a government provided "safety net", intended to catch those who absolutely cannot help themselves, into a "comfort net", for those who haven't undertaken the responsibility to educate and employ themselves in order to support the lifestyle that they want. It's easier to vote for politicians who will make somebody else pay for it.
27. Peter said the following at 4:33 PM on Nov 21:
27
I'll further say that the mandatory payment of taxes for universal care is contrary to the New Testament church's view of handling such issues.
Firstly, it was the responsibility of family to ensure that family were provided for. As it is written in 1Tim5:8 "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
Secondly, I'll point out that the NT church abandoned the concept of mandatory contribution. It did not continue the Jewish practice of tithing, but relied on and encouraged gifts given with a free will, to support those in need. Consider the implications of the Apostle Peter's words to Ananias in Acts 5:4. The money in question belongs to Ananias.It was for lying about his gift that Ananias and Sapphire were punished, not for keeping it. It was theirs to do with as they pleased.
The "wordly" attitude that I'm seeing here, is that government should require by force of law and threat of punishment, what scripture says we should do out of love and gratefulness.
..... and of course, you want someone else to pay more than you do.
28. Julie said the following at 7:16 PM on Nov 21:
28
In response to Leah #15 "how do you know you don't get Christians in England and France and Sweden and Canada up in arms over taxes and stuff? Do you know a large number of Christians in those countries?"
Yes.
29. obewan said the following at 7:36 PM on Nov 21:
29
In a sense, part of this debate is about who holds the "power". One side of the debate insists that taxing the "rich" is equal to “robbery”.
Well, a counter point could be made if the "rich" got that way by "robbing" the "poor" of their right to “reasonable compensation”.
It is back to the fast food example. Let’s say a single mom can ONLY find work at a fast food store for $7- an hour with no medical benefits. Now, lets also say that Mr. CEO of the fast food chain earns $8,000,000 a year PLUS a golden medical benefits plan. Now, it goes without saying that he could well afford a $12,000 family medical policy on his own, but he gets it free. Now, since his underlings do not, who is robbing who?
If you argue that he has earned more, you must be willing to concede that he in fact gets his pay, but then why is he of more "value" to society than the "worker bee" who might be thrown on the "scrap heap" if seriously ill with no medical insurance?
Also regarding the tax rates of the rich, many who live on dividend income are only required to pay 15% income tax - even on billions of earnings. I was most recently in the 30% tax bracket with less than 6 figure income as a single. Now, who is "robbing" who?
Also, as a single, I am "forced" to pay for the education of other people’s children. Now, who is "robbing" who? I am not worried though because I am willing to concede that those children will contribute to a better society for me and will also work and earn money and pay for my social security when I am old.
One thing people need to realize is that we are all in this together!
30. Steve said the following at 10:04 PM on Nov 21:
30
I'm a bit disheartened to see so many people state the need to grant government the right to take our income or the "need for taxes."
As Christians we're so quick to state "Give to Caeser's which is Caeser's" as if they will put the question aside so we don't have to think about it.
You're saying Caesar is entitled to a certain level of taxation? I'd say he's entitled to none.
Let's remember the Commandment of "Thou Shalt Not Steal" in Exodus.
This is actually pretty revolutionary. As you can not steal something of which you have partial or mutual ownership, this means that God actually created the entity of private property and ownership. People do not have equal claim to things. Something that you own and work for, I have no entitlement to.
"The worker is worthy of his wages," Timothy 5:18...
"The hard-working farmer ought to be the first to receive his share of the crops," II Timothy 2:6...
and, "He who does not work, does not eat" II Thessalonians 3:10
So not only are thing like an income tax and other types of taxation Un-Constitution, and immoral. They are actually un-Biblical.
We are giving government the first fruits of our labor and giving an agency or institution money and items that has produced nothing and only talent is stealing from people via the barrel of a gun.
31. khalil said the following at 11:43 PM on Nov 21:
31
Twiley, #25...
I am an American living in a country that has a sort of universal/socialized-type health care. I don't have the opportunity to rely on my host country's system as I am a foreigner and have to provide my own insurance, which I don't mind at all. There do seem to be benefits, there are also some challenges, esp. the way that the government sets up certain hoops individuals have to jump through.
I'd much rather provide and be responsible for my own insurance than have someone else manage (government) it for me. Working with the poor and inner-city families (in America, before moving) I admit I am biased. When you see a family that has a PS3 for the kids, iPhone for each member of the family, big screen tv, but don't work and depends on social services (hand outs) I think there is a problem. Many of these people if they *tried* could provide for their families, when the definition of providing for a family is correct (not getting the latest toys and urban fashion). The US government has no business sticking their nose into this. Whenever the American government tries to manage stuff like this it fails, usually quite messily.
32. Alex B. said the following at 11:46 PM on Nov 21:
32
Why unnecessary government is bad, as succinctly as I can put it:
- Government programs take money to run.
- That money comes from the citizenry, specifically from those that have lots of money.
- The people that have lots of money employ those who do not.
- As a result of higher taxes, those people have less money with which to employ people.
- Employers lay off their least valuable workers (those with the least experience, skills, training, etc.).
- More people become poor, and it becomes harder for the hard-working poor to get out of their situation.
Longer version:
Government is self-serving and self-perpetuating. How often do you go to a government agency and find good service? If the government did things well, wouldn't the DMV, or USPS, or Amtrak, be a model of efficiency? Don't you think your church probably does a better job of helping the poor around you than government welfare does? A church will encourage people to make better decisions, to find a job, to avoid getting pregnant out of wedlock, to cease addictions. Government says, "You messed up? Aw, have a check. And don't worry; there's plenty more if you do it again!"
Why do people with special medical needs who live in countries with national health care come to the U.S. for treatment when they have the money to do so? Countries with socialized health care provide low-quality health care to everyone. People wait months or years for a procedure because the government has decided to pay for only a certain number of said procedures in a given year. People DIE because of this. Is that really a system of which to be proud?
The issue really isn't about selfish rich people, or about American Christians who put American values before Christian ones. Doesn't the Bible encourage us to give willingly, not out of a sense of obligation? ("Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.") Doesn't the Bible emphasize hard work? ("If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.")
I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that people should have the freedom to do as they please with the money they work for. Should people who have more give generously to those who don't? Of course. But why should anyone have the right to take a hard-working person's money and hand it to someone who doesn't work hard? Obviously, not everyone who has a fair amount of money works hard for it. But that's no reason to take from everyone and hurt all those who do.
I could ramble all day, but I'll stop here for now.
33. Ben said the following at 6:07 AM on Nov 22:
33
twilley #25 - I've spent most of my life outside the United States. DannieA #23 tells about his parents coming from a Communist country and how well Communism worked for them. Gerv #12 is not American. It is *not* just "ignorant Americans" who are opposed to the "take from the rich and give to poor" mentality of Communism.
By the way, I don't think anyone here is actually saying that the government can't tax at all - it's a necessary evil in some cases to provide things for all of society (but not for individuals).
On another note - how moral is it to live in astronomical debt? To spend trillions of dollars more than you have? If we're talking morals here, let's talk about the morals of a government that pays mountains of *interest* on its debt, let alone trying to pay the debt back. Let's talk about the results of defaulting on that debt, or the hyperinflation that will come (even worse than the inflation that we've already had). Even if you think the government should be providing for everyone's needs, you still have to consider that a collapse of US government finances will send the *world* into a depression. Will that be good for the poor, here or in other countries?
34. Julie said the following at 8:21 AM on Nov 22:
34
P.S. It's not that Christians in these countries think that their universal healthcare and their social programs are perfect and in no need of reform. It's that I have never heard anyone say that they need reforming because they are unbiblical. They would likely find this connection quite alien.
35. Alex C. said the following at 12:20 PM on Nov 22:
35
For anyone who really believes that ALL taxation is theft" I'm really curious to know how exactly you would expect the goverment to function and properly fulfill its duties without taxation. The goverment is not a business that produces a product that it sells like entities in the private sector; the services it provides (making and enforcing laws, protecting us from outside threats, regulating trade between the states) are not services that could effectively be charged for, and without taxation you'd run into free rider problems and such.
Of course, the fact that goverment needs taxes doesn't automaticly make taxation right, and the Bible tells us not to do evil so that good might result. But if goverment is an entity that must exist on the support of an immoral act, then what does that leave us with? No goverment at all? Seems like the only answer would be a state of "capatilist anarchy" like the kind promoted by some liberterians and Austrian School Economists like Murray Rothbard.
36. DannieA said the following at 1:30 PM on Nov 22:
36
twilley
Like a dictator regimenting how much medicine doctor's clinics can have and really bad health care, refusing to see you because of xyz because xyz is your fault?????
At a private forum where I participate, many people that are unaffilliated with any church and have lived in England are vehemently opposed to a public health care/national health care system.
I can assure you, there is no Church agenda there....
37. farmer Tom said the following at 2:46 PM on Nov 22:
37
Although we have had this discussion before at this blog, some of you need a refresher course in the truth, so go to this previous thread, and learn something.
Read the comments about the income tax, the principle of first fruits, and Amir's comments.
Social Justice
Many of you do not have the slightest idea of the Biblical principles behind taxes, provision for the needy, personal responsibility, and the proper role of limited government.
Many of you have been edmucated in the government indoctrination centers by radical socialist/Communist teachers/professors who worship at the altar of the state/government. They desire a secular humanist utopia where there is no God and all sheeple worship the state as God. And you have swallowed their vile and unBiblical regurgitations as if they contain truth.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are based on the foundation that there is a Creator God who gave His created beings certain unalienable rights. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness(Property). That mankind created in the image of God is a free agent, able to choose to do good or evil. Free to act in a manner consistent with the laws of Nature and Nature's God, or to act in violation of those laws. And when the government attempts to infringe on the God given rights of the people by depriving them of life, liberty or property, the government is no longer legitimate, since it is violating God's Law.
And many of you want the government to give or take (that to which they are not authorized by the Creator) life, liberty or property(money) from the people. This act alone, makes you a lawbreaker. For you covet the property of someone (the rich) to give to someone else (the "needy").
You are covetous.
Exodus 20:17 (KJV)
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
You have attempted in your (even legitimate) desire to care for the poor and needy, the widow and orphans, to use the sword of the state, to force free people to comply your desire to satiate those needs. But, you have no Biblical basis on which to establish your claims on someone else's property for the purpose of charity.
38. Kimberly Eddy said the following at 2:57 PM on Nov 22:
38
Having lived in Europe (Austria) I think that comparing our health care in the USA (expensive but efficient and of high quality) with health care in socialized medicine countries (inefficient, but hey, you get what you pay for--it's free) is comparing apples to oranges. As a nanny, I had to spend time with the children I watched at doctors' offices and clinics and saw the inefficiency, not to mention the 40-60% of income going to taxes to pay for all of this "free" stuff.
The thing that says it all about the quality of the health care that we are about to be given is the fact that the congress is excluding their blessed little selves from the program.
In America, we have a gov't that is of the people, by the people, and for the people...and the representatives are supposed to represent us, and listen to us. They have been ignoring us, and that is why tempers are flaring more than over the minutae of the bill. In our country, being a good citizen means speaking up, and letting our voice be heard. In other countries that don't have our laws, being a good citizen means shutting up and doing what you're told. Christians are called to be good citizens of whatever country they are in, and in this land, participating in the democratic process is part of that: voting and contacting congress when we have an informed opinion about an issue they are voting on.
Another thing that sets us apart in the USA from our European brothers and sisters. We have something in America that they don't have in Europe: a system that allows you to spill hot coffee in your lap while driving, sue McDonalds, and become a millionaire. Medical professionals pay a huge amount of their income towards malpractice insurance because of how lawsuit happy our society is, and they pass that cost on to us, the consumer.
In America, doctors earn more than they do in European countries, because the government medical plans don't pay them as much. So, are we going to ask our doctors to take a pay cut? Are we going to make that pay cut easier by enacting some Tort Reform?
I also feel it is unjust to make it ILLEGAL and punishable by huge fines and jail time to not have gov't approved health insurance. There are going to be many more falling through the cracks on that issue than currently go without insurance, including us.
39. Aussie Taxpayer said the following at 6:09 PM on Nov 22:
39
Keith (#19): "Why is that only in America do Christians complain about government social programs."
Come and hang out with my friends in Australia. We can complain with the best of you. ;) Our government gives you $6000 if you have a baby. Imagine the outrage that goes along with that! Not to mention that the welfare system means that people can surf all day and never even think about working, because the government takes care of them. And by "government" I mean "taxes from the people who actually do work".
My tax bill this coming year is $75000. (The top tax tier is ~47% of your income.) So obviously I'm one of the 'rich' who is always subject to increased taxes. (Yes, it's the same in Aus, the cry is "tax the rich more!")
Can you imagine what a difference that would make if I could give it to my local church instead of the government? If I could CHOOSE where that money goes instead of having the government redistribute it to programs I do not support?
40. Bryce said the following at 7:37 PM on Nov 22:
40
@ Michael Fumento (#10)
"we do need tax revenue."
And why do we need it? Oh, is it because we're giving $900 million to Palestine, funding a country that seeks to destroy God's chosen land and people? Or is it because we spent $350 million per year funding Planned Parenthood, funding murdering defenseless children?
Yes, I agree that there are government functions that need to be funded. We can't just ignore the fact that there are things that need funds, even if we don't really *want* to pay our taxes every April. But those who are bitter over being forced to fund immorality have a point. Likewise you can't just give us this multi trillion dollar budget and say "Hey, we've need revenue. We've got to fund it somehow." Our government seriously needs to be trimmed down.
But ... I also agree with those posting with the thought that we need to be a lot less concerned about holding on to our money. We as a society, and I as an individual, need to learn to live on less and be more generous all around. This is an issue I'm working on in myself.
41. Rose said the following at 7:52 PM on Nov 22:
41
I'm frustrated because I've tried to write this comment at least three times and can't get out what I want to say. I think obewan(13) probably covered it fairly well anyway. It seems to me that often the rich get rich through profiting(directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally) from the misfortunes of others - in effect 'stealing' from those who cannot stand up for themselves. Redistribution of wealth may not repair the injustice, but it does mitigate the effects.
42. Ultraviolet said the following at 9:35 PM on Nov 22:
42
Ben (#18): "...if I don't want to work, I can just receive money that's forcibly taken from others."
Whoaaaa. Don't assume that people who are (financially) less fortunate, or receiving money from the government don't WANT to work. There are a ton of different factors that keep people at low-paying jobs or unemployed, and it's really unfair to assume that it's just laziness.
43. Laura said the following at 1:25 AM on Nov 23:
43
Leah 15 - I am a Christian living in a place with free healthcare, and have all of my life. I have not spoken to any Christians who vocally do not support universal health care. All of my friends that I have spoken for feel quite the opposite. We have lived all of our lives with the immense benefits of universal healthcare, and see it as as important as universal education. In fact, I have had discussions with friends (we like to move and live internationally) stating that one of the things that would make us reluctant to move to the US if the opportunity arose is the health care system.
I have NO ISSUE whatsoever paying slightly higher taxes to ensure that my neighbour is well looked after. I recognise that sometimes circumstances prohibit people from earning enough to support themselves. As a schoolteacher, I find it so important that chidlren are able to be cared for, otherwise thier education, therefore the whole future of a generation vis jeopardised.
44. Colin Elliott said the following at 4:40 AM on Nov 23:
44
I live in the UK and I agree entirely with this post.
As Christians, it is not our right to take people's money - end of debate. Even if we are going to give it to others who need it. IT IS NOT OUR MONEY TO GIVE. Stealing money to give it to the poor, the church, the elderly, the sick or anyone else is just as wrong as stealing money to spend it on material possessions, drugs, new cars or whatever.
I realise that for Christians living in an overwhelmingly statist world, which has forgotten that taxation is theft, this means some radical changes in your philosophy. But as Christians, we have to stop demanding that the government steal other people's money (regardless of income) to pay for things that we want - even if these things are good for society.
As Christians, we should be giving OUR money and OUR time for these things. WE are the ones who are called to give, and we are to do it cheerfully, not under compulsion. And we are definitely not to compel others to do what we ourselves are not doing. It is sin and hypocrisy.
Colin
http://www.zealfortruth.org
45. Saidah said the following at 8:01 AM on Nov 23:
45
So, a lot of people seem to think the question is, "should we pay taxes?" or "should we have health care?" or something else. The question is, should we feel entitled to take money from the rich because they are rich? The question is, "yes we should want the rich to give their money freely, but if they don't want to share, should we make them?"
In my opinion, it's kind of like teaching preschool (I teach preschool). They tell you, "If one child has a doll, and another child wants it, and is crying for it, don't take the doll and give it to the child who wants it, saying "share!" That's not sharing. That's robbery! You encourage the child to share. You help the child to see why they should share and what else they might play with, but you don't force them to share. Because then they equate sharing with being robbed. You can't force a child to want to give. You have to show a child why it's good to give."
I don't think it's our place to force the "rich," ie, people who make $100,000/year to "share." It's they're money. Now, if you want to regulate how they get that money,(for example, paying unlivable wages, not providing healthcare, etc), that's a different story.
46. Pak said the following at 8:31 AM on Nov 23:
46
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." - Adrian Rogers
47. Dan Gill said the following at 8:50 AM on Nov 23:
47
"Why is it that you don't hear the Christians in England and France and Sweden and Canada getting so up in arms about taxes and social programs?"
Perhaps because all they have known since infancy are confiscatory tax laws?
48. twilley said the following at 9:34 AM on Nov 23:
48
Several people have responded to me and others with anecdotal stories about themselves or friends in countries outside the U.S. who are dissatisfied with their country's health system for some reason, or who have had a bad experience using that health system.
Reports on the efficiency of the U.S. system vs. the efficiency of various universal health care systems are easy to find, as are reports on the satisfaction of Europeans or Australians vs. Americans with our respective health care systems.
These are scientific, objective, and easy to find. Google them. The questions of whether people who live under universal health care systems are 1) satisfied, or 2) receiving better quality care than Americans are not really up for debate, but have already been answered through extensive research.
The question at hand is whether it is moral to tax the extremely wealthy to pay for the healthcare of the extremely poor. I believe that it is, and that believing so doesn't have anything to do with feeling entitled to someone else's money.
49. Holly said the following at 9:49 AM on Nov 23:
49
Wow, I'm surprised by this!
Let's put our hope in God! The government, the richer people, the poorer people, our wealth, our health, and our morality will all fail us! But we know God uses these things to accomplish His purposes. Love God and those around you, give until it hurts, and trust God.
50. obewan said the following at 10:08 AM on Nov 23:
50
But, you have no Biblical basis on which to establish your claims on someone else's property for the purpose of charity.
(Farmer Tom)--------------------------
No basis? What about the tithe? In the OT 1/3 of all tithes collected went to care for the poor, widows, and disabled people. It was called the "poor tithe". Today, most churches no longer comply with that "law".
I looked at my pay stub and was interested to see that 3% of my total income was going to social programs like welfare and medicare. That is equal to the poor tithe amount.
Maybe if churches would start honoring the poor tithe the government would not have to do it for them.
51. Chris said the following at 11:10 AM on Nov 23:
51
The amount of "mine, mine, mine" on this supposedly Christian blog is amazing. Usually, one has to watch preschoolers to see children fight over worldly possessions.
52. Jo said the following at 11:29 AM on Nov 23:
52
Alex B,
"Why do people with special medical needs who live in countries with national health care come to the U.S. for treatment when they have the money to do so? Countries with socialized health care provide low-quality health care to everyone."
That's an unreasonable conclusion to draw. Yes, if you pay more for a service it's likely to be better. Yes, if you have enough money, you're likely to choose the expensive service in order to get the best you can. It doesn't follow that the universal service that everyone enjoys is 'low-quality', and it doesn't follow that the universal service isn't sufficient for the vast majority of people. If you have a very serious illness and can get quicker or more effective treatment by paying, of course you're going to do that if you can. But if you can't afford it, at least you know you'll get treated anyway, even if it takes longer or isn't quite as state-of-the-art.
I'm not going to get sucked into this whole debate yet again. But what I would ask of you people who oppose universal healthcare is that you don't make it a matter of 'what's truly Christian'. This has more to do with culture than anything else. If America doesn't want it, that's fine by me. But countries that have chosen to provide it have seen success with it and do not have millions of people dying unnecessarily because they just can't get the treatment they need. Their populations don't think the systems are perfect, but they overwhelmingly do support the principle. And the Christians in those countries are trying to live by Biblical standards just as much as you guys are.
53. farmer Tom said the following at 11:56 AM on Nov 23:
53
50. obewan said,
I've been very kind, patient and tolerant of that particular answer from you every time we have this discussion. I've let you bring that up every time we talk about taxes here, and I've let you go away believing you scored points by bringing up the tithe.
Well I've had it. This is the last time.
You are an unmitigated idiot, as well as a socialist.
In this country, THE STATE IS NOT THE CHURCH, nor is it GOD.
When the state is part of the church, you may bring up your incessant ramblings about the tithe, until then, get a freaking life.
54. Hieronymus Illinensis said the following at 12:06 PM on Nov 23:
54
@Michael (#10), the problem with inheritance taxes is that they hit hardest those whose estate value in the form of plant and equipment of a family business rather than cash, securities, yachts, etc. Instead of carrying on the family business, the heirs have to liquidate it to pay the taxes.
55. Sean said the following at 1:07 PM on Nov 23:
55
Charity without compassion equals entitlement. When a nation sets up a system of welfare and massive wealth redistribution, the most efficient way to have one's needs met is by relying on the government. This then creates a permanent underclass of people who never learn how to work and never teach their children to work, but instead rely on the pittance of their entitlement. Therefore, government programs are actually more destructive to a society in the long run than they are beneficial in the short run as they create successive generations of underachievers and members of a lower class.
56. Brad K said the following at 1:21 PM on Nov 23:
56
Those of you who want more social programs, the I.R.S. will take donations. So send them a check if you wish, as for me, I will choose to donate my money elswhere.
57. obewan said the following at 1:25 PM on Nov 23:
57
Farmer Tom #53:
I never said the state was equal to the church. I SUGGESTED that if the church today took care of the poor like they did in the OT the state would not have to do it.
You on the other hand explicitly stated that there was no biblical precedent for redistribution of wealth from haves to have nots.
I will not stoop to name calling though. But if you saw my stock market portfolio you would never dare call me a "socialist". I am very much a CAPITALIST - albeit a compassionate one. I am in line with the libertarians except on the issue of health care. My choice would be for every employer to provide it to every employee as part of fair compensation.
58. Alex B. said the following at 1:32 PM on Nov 23:
58
Jo (#52),
That's a fair point. I should have said "lower" quality rather than "low" quality (which I think is hard to dispute). I don't intend to be sarcastic or snide there, if it reads that way. Even if the basic service is adequate for most people, I think most of the rest of what I was saying still stands, though. It's great if most people can get what they need for free, I suppose, but it's not good when government basically controls what healthcare is even available, which is usually the case.
Regardless, I agree that those against universal healthcare should avoid saying that their views are more Christian. By the same token, others need to stop acting like we're biblically mandated to support it.
Does the Bible encourage and even command that Christians give to the poor and help those in need? Yes. Does it ever state that anyone has the right to take money from other people for those same purposes? No.
I think there's an unfortunate tendency among Christians to be in favor of increased government spending because government policies sound like nice things to do that will help people. That's great and all, but it's not good to support a program based on how it works in theory rather than whether it works in practice.
59. Lia said the following at 1:37 PM on Nov 23:
59
Sean (55)
I would argue that every human being on the face of this earth is entitled to a decent standard of living, including basic and emergency health care. Health care is not a privilege, reserved just for those who can afford it!
60. Chris said the following at 1:59 PM on Nov 23:
60
farmer Tom writes (#53):
Well I've had it. This is the last time.
You are an unmitigated idiot, as well as a socialist.
I'd like to update my comment #51 to read:
Usually, one has to watch preschoolers to see children fight over worldly possessions and elementary school children to hear name calling.
61. Peter said the following at 2:26 PM on Nov 23:
61
A few posters - Obewan and Rose come to mind - attempt to justify a disproportionate tax on the rich, by claiming that the rich have(may have) become rich by exploiting the poor.
In other words, you wish to judge the motivation and morals of a man by the size of his bank balance, not by the fruit of his hands or the thought of his heart.
Do you think that no-one rises above the lowest-common-denominator except by illegitimate means? That no-one gains wealth because God blesses and enables them? We have clear biblical examples - such as Abraham and Job - in which men are blessed financially by God because of their righteousness.
God judges people by their hearts. Do you claim to know better than God?
62. Matt Kaufman said the following at 3:19 PM on Nov 23:
62
In all this discussion, one of my original themes hasn't been talked about much, and I'd like to get more reaction to it.
Several people have said things like (I'm paraphrasing here) "I'm happy to pay my share" and "we're all in this together." But our willingness to pay taxes per se wasn't the topic of the post. The topic was the public's demand that other people pay much more than the rest of us.
I'd like to see more discussion of the following:
1) What does it do to the spirit of a nation's people when they develop a sense of entitlement to other people's money? Shouldn't we worry about the impact on the nation's character?
2) Zooming in on the same problem closer to home: What about us, personally? How many of us (I'm assuming few of us are "the rich") feel we have a claim to demand other people -- strangers -- should be forced (not asked) to pay our bills?
This isn't theoretical to me. As I say, I've had big medical bills with no insurance. And a low income. For a long time. When the problem seemed chronic. I understand the temptation to agree that the state should force someone else to pay my way. I badly wanted to find a way to believe that.
But I could never get past the question: What gives me that right? It just kept nagging at me. And I'd hope that question would nag at everyone in the same circumstances: They should at least have to wrestle with it, whatever conclusion they came to.
Instead, a majority seemingly breeze right by it. And not just in the case of health care. That's how they are with all the welfare-state programs (and I'm talking mostly about the middle-class welfare state.) A relatively few people are supposed to pay for most of us.
It seems to me that even if you think these programs are ethically justified, you should still worry about their impact on the people's character. I think it's no accident that a people accustomed to running up big debts for big government programs also (subsequently) started running up big debts on their credit cards. Both are reflections not of a compassionate populace, but a corrupted populace.
63. Jethro said the following at 4:02 PM on Nov 23:
63
Farmer Tom (#53),
I am not sure you understand the concept of socialism. Taxation and socialism are not the same thing. Welfare and socialism are not the same thing. You do actually get that, right?
A general question to the eds: how did this comment "You are an unmitigated idiot, as well as a socialist" make it through the screening process?
Recently I made a comment about a person (you know who) in which I said that "He had caused immeasurable harm to the country he claims to love" and you didn't publish it. Where oh where oh where is your consitency?
64. A.M.C. said the following at 4:08 PM on Nov 23:
64
I will say this again:
While American individualism might not be inherently bad, when it occurs in the form of not caring for our neighbor that's a different story.
==> Hadn't this been the case, why else would we have this ongoing argument regarding who should provide welfare? We all know what the stereotypical "liberal" argument is: private charity isn't doing enough, so the government has to step in through taxes-- preferably, a progressive one. But then there's also the stereotypical "conservative" argument: the government is inefficient. Why not lower taxes so that people can give more to causes that they really care about?
==> Both sides have their point. So, I will reiterate an alternative solution I had mentioned elsewhere:
* Modify the tax code so that a fraction of the income tax may be "paid" through voluntary donations. In other words, charity would not only be tax deductible in the sense of reducing your taxable income (which reduces your tax burden by the difference of your marginal tax and the amount given away), but actually replace part of the income tax itself.
* To increase the incentive for doing this, donations would count more than 100%. Say, you could either pay the IRS $1000 or donate $800 to charity.
* Because this policy would significantly decrease tax revenues, the federal government has to be significantly downsized to balance the budget. This could be done, for example, by gradually passing own social programs to the private sector.
[Disclaimer: As this move is quite drastic--and most important, untried--I honestly do not know whether it would work in practice. But I would be in favor of it as a theoretical idea, simply because it gives even more incentive to give to charity than simply a tax cut.]
65. Jethro said the following at 4:09 PM on Nov 23:
65
Bryce (#40),
I have no problem with your comments, provided that you also think that people who don't approve of war shouldn't have to pay to fund the military. Or that athiests ought to pay less tax because they shouldn't have to subsidize the tax breaks given to religious organizations.
Also, just to be technical - Palestine isn't a country.
66. Mike Toreno said the following at 6:08 PM on Nov 23:
66
Matt, I am also concerned about those who don't pay their fair share. I think the first thing that needs to be done is for all users of federal land and water, such as ranchers, miners, farmers, and the like, to pay the actual costs of the federal resources they use. That'll vastly improve their character by stopping them from being basically squatters and freeloaders. And these are people who choose to take federal handouts and use federal resources without paying for them, unlike sick people, who are sick involuntarily.
What you have to understand about taxes is, there is always going to be some kind of tax structure and some people are going to pay less and some people are going to pay more. Right now we have a health care system that pays vastly more than any other country for health care and by no means delivers the best result, and which causes even insured people, who have paid huge sums to insurance companies year after year, to go bankrupt or to die. Some people think it's important to institute a health care policy that will save the lives of the 44,789 people per year who die due to a lack of health insurance.
The wealthiest people have mightily prospered under the conservative polices instituted by conservative presidents and Congress, and, as we've seen, their wealth has generally not come from the value of their contributions, but of their ability to engage in financial manipulation to collect large sums for unproductive work. I don't think it is going to destroy the character of sick people to collect a few taxes from bankers who got rich wrecking their banks.
67. Mike Toreno said the following at 6:10 PM on Nov 23:
67
Jethro, the integrity of the eds. controls which comments are allowed and blocked.
68. David Daniel said the following at 6:14 PM on Nov 23:
68
Palestine is a country, an older one than modern Israel. I won't stand by as Westerners claim that a country (Palestine) does not have the right to exist (#65). Or imply that Palestine is the only country that's fighting for its existence (#40).
Palestine has every right to exist, as a country. All peace initiatives have agreed on this, and I'm for peace, not war.
The United States (alleged) support of Palestine's violence is nothing compared to its support of the nuclear state of Israel's violence.
#62:
(irony) How selfish of us! Imagine! Standing up for our rights! Using our voting power to actually try and be a democracy! Doesn't it worry you, that just because people can vote, that they actually expect the government to serve them? What effect is democracy having on our nation's character?
To answer your question: democracy gives you the right to petition for raised taxes, the same way it allows you to petition for free education, for example.
I realize that I might come across as unfair and frustrated. That's because I am frustrated. Please don't take it personally. Peace out. :p
69. Alex B. said the following at 6:22 PM on Nov 23:
69
Matt (#62), I think it goes without saying that the modern entitlement culture is extremely destructive to people's character. It leads people to not only think that they "deserve" things that are good, but that they "have a right to" them. Even now, people don't appreciate the extent to which hard work is necessary to have nice things, and that includes being able to go to the doctor, or own a car, or buy a house.
Instead, we have a culture drowning in debt. Individuals rack up thousands of dollars in credit card debt because they think they are entitled to that new TV, or those nice clothes, or what have you, and that they'll get it now and pay for it when they can. They have things exactly backwards: first, *earn* the item by making money so you can pay for it, and *then* buy it.
The debt extends to our government's policies, too: we are in debt on a national scale, as well. And why? Because as a *society*, we've done the same thing. We've concluded that people deserve certain services and privileges, and so we give these things to them, even though we don't have the money to pay for it.
All this does is raise subsequent generations of people who think that the government just has a ton of money sitting around that it can hand out to everyone, with no understanding that ordinary people (who work hard in most cases) are footing the bill for them. They think that paying for their needs is just what government does, so they can waste their time and money and never take any responsibility for their poor decisions.
And that's the crux of the problem: nobody takes responsibility for their actions anymore. Did you become pregnant out of wedlock? That's very unfortunate, but it's your problem (and that of the man who impregnated you). Did you slack off and lose your job? Too bad; maybe you should work harder next time.
Instead, what happens? Government subsidizes poor decisions. Look again at single mothers. Have government programs to support single mothers reduced the rate of single motherhood? No. Instead, single motherhood (especially among certain segments of the population) has become more common. Women don't feel the same need to reserve their sexuality for marriage, and men become more prone to flee from the responsibilities of fatherhood.
Single motherhood is terrible, but government help just encourages it, so I would argue that this is yet another area where government does more harm than good. I know you're trying to focus on the spiritual and moral aspects of these issues, but I think it's easier to illustrate some of these things with specific examples.
70. Jethro said the following at 6:58 PM on Nov 23:
70
OK Matt (#62), I would like to address your questions:
1. No, we shouldn’t worry about the nation’s character. Should we not worry more about the character of a nation that considers all taxation stealing? That would rather hoard for themselves that partake in the social contract? I am infinitely more concerned about a society where people would rather watch their neighbour die of cancer than pay taxes to cover his medical bills. If that is corrupt then you can consider me proud to be so.
I think it is easy for people on the right to say that everyone who gets welfare feels entitled to it, but that simply isn’t the case. Many people who receive welfare hate it, they want to work, but they accept it because the alternative is much worse. Trust me when I say that no-one ‘likes’ relying on the government. I bet you that every single welfare recipient would prefer it if they were independently wealthy and didn’t need government assistance.
2. The problem with the question as you have framed it is that it does not reflect reality. You ask these things as though the “rich” are some class apart who we are targeting for fun and fancy. The reality is that the rich become so off the back of the society they inhabit. Cheap labour, government grants, tax subsidies, etc etc. In truth, big business (the source of from which the rich largely obtain their wealth) receives welfare on a scale that would make the average man blush. People who profit from society should be asked to put more back into it. That is not the least bit unfair in my mind. I am in a high earning profession. The taxes I pay, and am likely to pay in the future, are several times in excess of the average wage. It doesn’t concern me. I like it. To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes (a conservative no less) “I like paying taxes, with them I buy civilisation”.
You asked how many of us feel we have “a claim to demand other people -- strangers -- should be forced (not asked) to pay our bills?”
Well, I ask you, why should I be forced to pay farmers to grow inefficient crops? Or to pay a defence contractor to build a weapon I am morally opposed to? Or to give tax breaks to churches who preach a morality I don’t agree with? The answer, once again, is that we live in a society. The social contract asks that each of us make sacrifices for the greater good. So on what basis do I “claim to demand” that others pay my bills? On the same basis they do that to me. On the same basis you do that to me.
You know, FDR once said that “the true test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much, but whether we provide enough for those who have too little”. Frankly I cannot see how anyone could cavil with that sentiment.
I apologize for such a long post.
71. farmer Tom said the following at 9:03 PM on Nov 23:
71
from Dictionary.com
socialist
noun
1. an advocate or supporter of socialism.
socialism
An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.
I quote obewan,
But if you saw my stock market portfolio you would never dare call me a "socialist". I am very much a CAPITALIST - albeit a compassionate one.
and then I highlight the definition of socialists one more time,
Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy;
obewannabe said, My choice would be for every employer to provide it to every employee as part of fair compensation.
And who made you god?
My choice would be that we take your "stock market portfolio" (la ti freaking da) and give it all to the poor and widows!!!! Anybody else here with me on that????? Since obewan is such a compassionate person, I say lets take all that he has and give it to the poor. And using obewan's logic, it's even Biblical to boot.
Matthew 19:21
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Biblical interpretation according to obewan,
Matthew 27:3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him,................................. went and hanged himself.
Luke 10:37
And he said, ..........................
Go, and do thou likewise.
Yo, obewan, what part of "But, you have no Biblical basis on which to establish your claims on someone else's property for the purpose of charity."
obewan is having trouble understanding the difference between something being mentioned in the Bible (suicide), and that topic being a command/mandate for us today. Yes, the Bible mentions the tithe for widows and orphans, and it also mentions suicide, so what.
We are discussing whether or not is it morally acceptable for the government to take from one group (the rich) and give to another group (those who are not rich).
A tithe mandated by God for His people has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation because, we do not live in a theocracy.
theocracy
a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
Yes God established a tithe to help the widows and the poor, and when God tells us to pay for someone else's health care, I'll do so, until then, I'll take care of my own, thank you very much, and you can keep your covetous hands off of it.
Trying to link the tithe and our current social welfare state is akin to claiming that because the Bible mentions the Egyptians, we should consider worshiping bulls, cats, and the crocodiles because the Egyptians considered them holy.
obewan tells us what a compassionate person he is, because he wants to force employers to pay for insurance, he wants to force you to pay for someone else's healthcare, he wants a socialist welfare state, where the state acts as god, taking from those it deems unworthy and giving to those it wishes to control.
I do not want to live in a country where obewan's version of compassion is acceptable, because it will mean we are no longer free.
72. farmer Tom said the following at 9:14 PM on Nov 23:
72
Matt,
Addressing your additional comments in 62,
Yes there is a huge danger in people developing a sense of entitlement to the programs of the social welfare state.
Since the thirties the government has been stealing money from the taxpayers, and giving it to farmers in all kinds of programs. And now the farmers have developed a mentality that they are entitled to those programs in perpetuity.
Land owners rent or lease their land based on the assumption that they will somehow be compensated for their share of the government handouts. Farmers rent land, based on how large the government payments are.
When I was farming for myself, I had a real problem with a guilty conscience because I was expected to take the governments handouts by the banker, the landlord, even the landowner. The entire system corrupts the conscience of those participating in it.
And that is one reason I'm not farming for myself today. I refuse to be a participant in the redistribution of wealth which is the current farm program. And since I refuse to participate, I can not find landlords and/or bankers, willing to let me opt out of the current system.
73. Richard said the following at 10:25 PM on Nov 23:
73
Matt: #62
The way one words a question can polarize your audience before the debate has even started.
You won't get a lot of contrary opionions on whether those who "have a sense of entitlement" can damage the nations character. But is that what this debate is about? Sounds like the "sense of entitlement" angle is YOUR conclusion.
74. Texas Craig said the following at 10:36 PM on Nov 23:
74
I agree that Farmer Tom's comment should have never made it through the screening process. Honestly, such comments are not God-honoring and should be challenged as un-Christlike. Certainly it is not consistent with the scriptural commands that tell us "as much as it is in our power, we are to live at peace with all men" and that "no unwholesome talk should come out of our mouths, but only that which is useful for building up."
For somone who purports to adhere strongly to scripture, I am shocked by Farmer Tom's callous disregard for scriptural admonitions, and I sincerely pray that he will see this and humbly apologize.
For anyone who gets too worked up over these issues, need I remind you of Jesus's words: "You cannot serve both God and money." Thus, anyone who desires to hold onto his money, should check his heart and ask why he cares so much about it?
Now, onto Matt's question about using other people's money to pay for things. Honestly, that only becomes an issue in a society with large discrepancies in income. When income distribution is not vastly disproportionate, then everyone will be paying similar amounts. But, when income is distributed very disproportionately, then the majority will believe that it is fair to tax those with much more. The basic reason for this is simple - man is sinful and selfish. This is why people consistently apply a double standard when evaluating their own actions versus the actions of others. People get angry when someone wrongs them, but then rationalize when they wrong someone else. It is sin, and it is prevalent in the heart of man.
In contrast, our attitude should be that of Christ, who considered himself nothing and took on the nature of a servant. Thus, instead of looking to others to do something, we should always ask ourself how we can meet the need.
75. Bryce said the following at 11:32 PM on Nov 23:
75
Jethro (#65),
Actually, in my semi-ideal state of government, it works more like that. The government doesn't provide services that only cater to certain groups, and are offensive to others. The government provides what it needs to provide in order to function, and not the rest.
So..
The government doesn't subsidize abortion.
Religious organizations don't get tax breaks.
The government doesn't involve itself in marriages. No tax benefits or hikes based on marital status.
etc.
War is a government function that can't be replaced. You can't opt out of that. So everybody's got to pay for that.
And thanks for the correction about Palestine.
76. Jo said the following at 12:22 AM on Nov 24:
76
Alex B:
"By the same token, others need to stop acting like we're biblically mandated to support it."
Yeah, that's a fair point.
Matt:
"The topic was the public's demand that other people pay much more than the rest of us."
I understand that concern, but just to add one other thing: healthcare is never going to be like a normal service where those who pay more get more - you only use it if you need it. So I happen to be one of those in the UK who uses it a lot, while lots of people who pay more than me and lots of people who pay less than me use it far less. No one in the UK is merely paying for themselves, and many ordinary 'non-rich' people pay in more than they get out.
The problem is that illness doesn't discriminate. Illness doesn't care whether you can afford treatment or not. It's no one's fault that my illness is an expensive one, and I don't think think anyone's jealous of me because of all the healthcare I get for 'free' - I think they're just glad they don't need it. Fact is, you can be a wealthy tycoon or a road sweeper, and you can still get cancer. The British road sweeper isn't saying "I'm entitled to the rich man's money so I can get well", he's saying "Thank God I live in a society where we all contribute what we can afford so that treatment is available for everyone." Because he has contributed too, and up 'til now perhaps others like me have reaped the benefits of his contribution.
The lady in my local pharmacy jokingly said I could 'have her share' of healthcare when she saw how much one of my medications cost. I appreciate that attitude, and it's one that I absolutely would have too if I was in her position. I do understand the danger you're talking about Matt, and maybe that's more of a danger in the US, where universal healthcare hasn't been part of the culture. But I honestly don't think most people here have a sense of entitlement about healthcare, I think we have a sense of everyone pitching in so that whoever needs it can have it.
77. Sean said the following at 2:22 AM on Nov 24:
77
Lia (#59):
Did you not read my entire post? Entitlement makes the benefactors and their successive generations worse off in the long run. Working for a living and earning one's keep are learned traits, and those learned traits are passed on to successive generations. By entitling a family to a certain standard of living now, you create generations of helpless people dependent on their government for survival.
People like you probably think that you are the compassionate members of society. Oh, the irony is delicious! You want to doom entire generations of people to poverty and government dependence and rob them of the opportunity to ever work and earn. That is anything but compassionate - its instead downright dehumanizing and humiliating.
78. Peter said the following at 5:06 AM on Nov 24:
78
Jethro (#65)
If you actually did the sums, i think that you'll find that religious organisations are free of tax because the government recognises that it would cost more to replace the work done by such organisations than it doers to exempt them from tax.
I know that this is true for schools, welfare and counselling services provided by Christian Churches in Australia.
So by this standard, the religious bodies are subsidising atheists.
Now back to the topic......
Peter
79. Peter said the following at 5:29 AM on Nov 24:
79
Matt K... (#62)
It has been written by wiser men than I that a democracy is not simply whatever the majority wills. A true Democracy values and protects the rights of minorities.... That includes the right to fair and equitable treatment by a government elected by the majority. The moment that we cease to do this, we do not have a democracy, we have mob rule.
I'll also argue strongly that a willingness to treat people differently (and adversely) because they differ in some way is contrary to any claim we may have to equality and justice. Whether that difference is race or socio-economic status, the motivation is the same.
We would despise the rich if they used their advantage in that area to abuse the rest of us, yet if we use our advantage in political power in the same manner, then we are hypocrites.
As a landowner, I have more than once been on the receiving end of laws made to please city dwellers, but for which I and my fellows are required to pay the price. I know from first-hand experience how that injustice stinks. It is a selfish and irresponsible people who abuse their power to make others pay for their desires, rather than taking up the responsibility of paying for it themselves.
We've had another topic under discussion in which we've agreed that a man is not adult until he is paying his own bills. A population in which the majority will not pay for what it mandates, is deeply and culturally immature.
Peter.
80. Louise from Chicago said the following at 5:49 AM on Nov 24:
80
Re comment 53 being approved by this blog moderation:
There is an old saying, "It's not what you know but who you know."
In this particular instance I would say, "It's not the comment itself, it's the individual submitting the comment."
:)
Have a nice day everyone, and remember, you do sow what you reap (I think's that's in the Holy Bible somewhere, isn't it?)
81. John said the following at 8:26 AM on Nov 24:
81
Obewan,
Just one small, little problem with your analogy.
The tithe is voluntary. Nobody will throw you in jail for not paying it, then or now.
It is still charity.
AND, you're putting the cart before the horse.
It is not, "if the church would do its job, maybe the government wouldn't have to"
It's, "the state is overstepping its bounds, usurping the church's, individual's and family's responsitility in order to create a power base from which to gain more and maintain power. Thereby marginalizing the church, family and individual and making it harder for them to engage in TRUE charity, which is never forced and is always voluntary."
Why can liberals and so called "christians" who are really socialists/communists see the abuses of the "rich", "corporations", etc. but not see the very same abuse which is far more dangerous?
The state has the power of the sword people! Wal-Mart doesn't!
82. Julie said the following at 9:21 AM on Nov 24:
82
I think it's interesting that people opposed to public healthcare are not usually opposed to public eduction. It's recognized that the public school system is imperfect--and therefore some people choose private school or homeschooling. But I never hear anyone suggest that we do away with the public school system completely, and that it's just too bad if that means some children can't go to school at all. It's recognized that education is a social good, and that everyone should pay taxes toward it, regardless of whether they directly benefit. Now, considering that healthcare can be a matter of life and death, and that the consequences of not having adequate care can be so dire, why do we not place it in the same category as education? I think it's more important actually.
83. Jo said the following at 10:18 AM on Nov 24:
83
Julie #82,
Good point. I'd like to hear some responses to that. Although to be honest I think the hardcore opposers like farmer Tom will probably have the same views on education as they do on healthcare.
And I forgot to reply to this one earlier, Peter #27:
"Firstly, it was the responsibility of family to ensure that family were provided for. As it is written in 1Tim5:8 "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.""
Which works brilliantly until you have a child with a severe disability that requires 24-hour care, or a child with a chronic incurable illness that requires medication costing thousands per month. However godly the family, however determined to care for their relatives, very few could afford these kinds of financial burdens. Even churches and local communities would be hard-pressed to support these families. Central government is in a better position to provide help, to tax its citizens and pool resources so that those who need (and I do mean need) help can get it.
84. John said the following at 10:40 AM on Nov 24:
84
Julie,
I, among many, would in fact call for the abolition of state run communist indoctrination centers.
Education is the domain of the family, church and individual NOT the government, even at the state level.
Doing away with "public" schools would not mean that some would not go to school at all.
It would mean that people would find far better ways to train and educate themselves, including the church providing education in the form of charity.
So, no, it is not "recognized". It is foisted upon those who know better by power brokers, namely, the NEA and other anti-Christian organizations.
Again, why do liberals seem to always call on the state to do everything? Why is their solution to every problem more government? What is it about this pathology that it is so rampant and pervasive?
Has it never occurred to any liberal that the private sector CAN do these things if given the chance? (Which it hasn't so don't even start) That individuals, the church and families can solve these problems WITHOUT the state? Or better yet, let's just take it one thing at a time, how about federalism? Do you liberals grasp that concept? Let each state have its own "universal health care" like Hawaii and Massachusetts. That way when their state budgets go down the toilet, it only affects them and they can do whatever they need to turn it around instead of dragging the rest of the country down with them.
As Jethro, amazingly enough sort of said, though trying to make a different point, why should I pay for a type 2 diabetic (read lazy fat guy who drinks, smokes, eats too much and never exercises) on the east coast while I'm taking care of myself on the west coast?
At least let me only have to pay for that guy when he lives next door, so I can give him a swift kick for being stupid and costing me more money!
85. twilley said the following at 10:49 AM on Nov 24:
85
Julie, #82:
Great point, comparing universal health care to universal child education.
And there seems to be a pretty deep seated hatred in many of these comments, and in the discussion of healthcare in general, for socialism.
Personally, I don't consider myself a socialist, and I don't consider myself a free market capitalist. I think both economic systems have major benefits, and major negative points as well.
But how many of you decrying socialism have read deeply into Karl Marx's works? The current platforms of socialist parties worldwide? Not many, I think. Might be a good thing for people to drop the label as a simple insult, and get out there to the library to spend a few weeks really reading. Then come back and speak more specifically, don't rely on labels.
Here's the important point I'm rambling towards:
***Not all universal health care programs are socialist in nature.***
And I really, deeply appreciate those of you who are able to recognize that many Christians do live in countries with universal health care, and that their support of their nation's health system is not un-Christian.
86. Lia said the following at 10:59 AM on Nov 24:
86
Farmer Tom,
What I'm reading here from your comments is that because it isn't a Biblical mandate that we support widows and orphans, this somehow absolves you from your duty to do so. While this may be peferctly correct from a Scriptural standpoint, I don't think that an attitude like that is at all Christian. You have every right to do whatever you want with your money, of course. But please don't conflate your politics with your religion.
Sean (77)
"By entitling a family to a certain standard of living now, you create generations of helpless people dependent on their government for survival."
I beg your pardon? One of the duties of a state, especially one as wealthy as the US, is to protect the rights, freedoms and welfares of its citizens. You cannot exercise your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if you are starving, hungry or sick.
I also want to know what you think the alternative is-- Darwinian survival of the fittest? Should we just let the poor die out?
87. Texas Craig said the following at 11:15 AM on Nov 24:
87
For all of you who are complaining about the government doing what the church ought to do, I would throw out this question:
Do you buy health insurance? If so, why? Why are you not letting the church meet that medical need if you get sick and need care? Why do you feel the need to usurp the role of the church by buying insurance?
Government is simply a social compact, as Jethro correctly noted. By choosing to live in this country, we are entering into that compact (i.e., a social contract). That means that we adhere to the legal systems that apply or else we should apply to move to another country. I think that Somalia is currently in a state of anarchy, so perhaps that would be a good place to start.
Nowhere did Jesus or the apostles argue against the government, and I find no biblical basis for those on here to do so as vociferously as they do. As someone who loves God's truth and studies his word, I find no biblical foundation for the views of Farmer Tom. Rather, he appears to have elevated his love for certain political principles about the Constitution and ways of government to equality with God's principles. The tired reference to "thou shalt not steal" has absolutely no basis when talking about lawfully-imposed taxes and Jesus certainly did not use it when faced with a question directly about taxes. Rather, his response was basically (paraphrased) "pay them because money is not what my kingdom is about."
As for government-sponsored healthcare or health insurance, there are very good arguments against it. But, those arguments do not have their basis in scripture, but rather are based upon policy and practical considerations. Let's focus on those, rather than on the gross distortion of scripture to support arguments against it.
88. BDB said the following at 11:51 AM on Nov 24:
88
Julie (#82) wrote:
>>But I never hear anyone suggest that we do away with the public school system completely<<
OK, I will.
I actually had a letter to the Wall Street Journal published on this subject. The term "education" is not in the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Federal Government should NEVER have gotten involved in education. It is absolutely wrong for the Federal Government to be involved in education.
In many places, the Public School system is hopelessly corrupt and needs to be dismantled. The highest spending per student is in central cities - cities that have been controlled by one-party rule of Democrats for 40 years. Two generations! The Democratic party obviously cares nothing for the poor, because for TWO GENERATIONS they have funnelled vast amounts of money to their union allies and the children get NOTHING - a near worthless partial education.
By all means, we should dismantle the current public-education monopoly. Let every parent get a voucher for their share of the tax dollars for their kid. Let them use that for any school or home-schooling program that meets minimum curriculum requirements.
Strong school districts have nothing to fear from this program - parents will continue to use their vouchers to send their kids to good public schools.
Corrupt school systems will be erased, as they should be. Let the Catholics and other organizations build real schools.
And this could work brilliantly - just as the parental choice in college education keeps government from being directly entangled in COLLEGE choices. All students choose their college themselves, and their government subsidized loans are supporting the STUDENT - even if the student goes to a religious school. It would work just as well for K-12 education.
89. Jason said the following at 11:54 AM on Nov 24:
89
I was going to make a point similar to #66 in that we pay way more (in % of GDP) than most countries for health care and aren't by any objective measure more healthy than other countries, but I think he hit the nail on the head.
90. Sean said the following at 11:55 AM on Nov 24:
90
Julie (#82) and Jo (#83):
That's an easy question to answer. The purpose of public education is to train individuals to become functioning members of society. Naturally, its the job of citizens to train others in their society how to productively live within the bounds of the society that they have created. That is done through public education. The benefits of education are shared by all, as educated citizens are productive and add back to the society. Therefore, it is a public good, and the cost is most efficiently allocated to the public.
However, health care is like food, clothing, shelter, and entertainment in that it is a consumer good. It is enjoyed and utilized by the person purchasing it. Consumption of such goods by others does not benefit the individual, and therefore the burden of paying for these goods should not be placed on the individual, either.
Jo (#83): As for your question, that is why we have health insurance. Health insurance is misunderstood as a tool to keep individuals healthy, but it is instead a mechanism of pooling financial risk. The government is not needed to achieve this.
Now, if someone cannot afford insurance, that is what charity is for. Charity is the mechanism by which needs are met when people cannot meet their needs themselves. When a society creates a centralized, mandatory system by which to provide these goods, a system of entitlement is created instead. Entitlement is a way that needs are met regardless of whether the individual can provide those needs for himself or not, burdening the rest of the society. As observed in the USA, entitlement creates an unbreakable cycle of perpetual dependence on government. Perpetual dependence on government actually hurts the individual it was supposed to help more that it helps that individual, as it robs that person of the opportunity to learn how to work and earn for themselves, and pass such knowledge and ability to successive generations.
91. faye said the following at 12:02 PM on Nov 24:
91
#39, thanks for posting... your comments open my eyes.
As for the whole debate... All I can ask is, "What happened to thinking about the children and future generations?" We used to be so concerned, we used to be responsible, we used to care about what would happen to them. I'm so deeply sadened to think about what burdens the future generations will have to be wading through, due to my generations total lack of a brain... not to mention heart. I mean, really? We can't come up with a better plan? We're just going to drive our country into the ground with debt without a second thought? I'd like to see all Americans/Christians/people come up with a decent plan to care for our country's people (ESP. children) who are living with health problems now (such as St. Jude) and figure out affordable plans that are open to all, but not FORCED upon all so that unnatural amounts of money aren't wasted on weak plans and quick fixes.
It's going to be impossible for the next generation to recover from our messes.
92. Josh M said the following at 12:38 PM on Nov 24:
92
Jethro (#70):
I bet you that every single welfare recipient would prefer it if they were independently wealthy and didn’t need government assistance.
Wanting to be independently wealthy and wanting to work are very different things. While I'm sure there are some on welfare who wish they could work and be without welfare, I am personally aware of people who could provide for themselves, but choose to live under welfare. For instance, there are members of my brother-in-law's family who are on welfare by choice. As in they intentionally limit themselves so that they do not earn too much that they would go off welfare or be refused state health coverage.
93. obewan said the following at 2:36 PM on Nov 24:
93
And we can't forget that the people always support making "the rich" pick up the tab. The spirit of the nation isn't "we're deeply sorry to take other people's money, but we're desperate." It's simply "We're entitled."--------Matt Kaufman
And we should never deny that the rich and even the middle class will insist that they are "entitled" to "services" from a "lower class" workforce that brings them cheap groceries and $0.99 hamburgers aplenty. Any protests suggesting raising the minimum wage or having employers provide health insurance will be met with loud crys against "inflation" or reduced "spending power". Most people are more than happy to the "entitlement" of a budget "savings" when it comes to this issue even if it means abusing the so-called underclass. There are even many posting on this thread who would advocate for total removal of all minimum wage laws. Again, the give and take is a two way street.
94. Jethro said the following at 4:03 PM on Nov 24:
94
John (#84),
Do you really think that state run schools are 'communist indoctrination centres'? Do you actually? know what communism is?
It sounds to me like you want to replace the state schools with church run indoctrination centres. That would be a great idea. Except of course when we need scientists who understand evolution. Or philosophers who understand critical evaluation. Or Democrats.
95. Texas Craig said the following at 4:47 PM on Nov 24:
95
Speaking about an "entitlement mentality," how about the contradiction between those who advocate government staying out of their business, but then argue against illegal immigrants coming into this country! Basically, that is an attitude of "I've got mine, but I don't want any of those poor foreigners coming here and impacting my standard of living." If one is truly libertarian in regard to the freedom of men, then he should also be generous in giving others the opportunity to achieve the same ends he has. There is something supremely hypocritical in claiming that people should not have governmental help and should use their own labor to accomplish something, and then wanting government to keep out those who would want to come to this country and try and use their labor to make something of themselves. Ah, the heart of man. . . it is so selfish and sinful even when it thinks it is not...
96. Chris said the following at 6:28 PM on Nov 24:
96
John writes (#84):
As Jethro, amazingly enough sort of said, though trying to make a different point, why should I pay for a type 2 diabetic (read lazy fat guy who drinks, smokes, eats too much and never exercises) on the east coast while I'm taking care of myself on the west coast?
Um, because maybe that type 2 diabetic is not what you think but actually doesn't smoke, eats properly, is active, and watches his sugar like hawk.....and would not be able to afford the medicine that keeps him healthy on his own. Oh, no, that's right. Everyone who receives a benefit from the government is a lazy bum who deserves whatever fate he gets.
I, among many, would in fact call for the abolition of state run communist indoctrination centers.
They're bad around here. They make my kids learn the Pledge of Allegiance. And they make them learn patriotic songs. The state's "guidelines" also speak about learning critical thinking. It's amazing what the Commie Pinko Red goons are shoving down kids' throats these days.
97. Julie said the following at 6:33 PM on Nov 24:
97
Sean 90 said "However, health care is like food, clothing, shelter, and entertainment in that it is a consumer good. It is enjoyed and utilized by the person purchasing it. Consumption of such goods by others does not benefit the individual, and therefore the burden of paying for these goods should not be placed on the individual, either."
Thanks for explaining how you see this. It sort of makes sense to me. I disagree with what you said about other people's healthcare ot benefitting me. I think it benefits a society when disease is reduced, fewer babies are born prematurely, and people can get help for addictions.
98. BDB said the following at 6:59 PM on Nov 24:
98
Jason (#89) wrote:
>>and aren't by any objective measure more healthy than other countries,<<
Can you point us to any studies that compare health outcomes for people with health insurance to those without insurance?
Because from what I've seen, those with health insurance now have MUCH better outcomes, which leads me to believe that the proper policy outcome is to not touch existing insurance companies or plans.
Of course, the pending legislation makes HUGE changes to those existing plans, and puts them under government dictates for many things. So, the current legislation will basically dismantle the health care that works for Americans today, reducing outcomes for those individuals.
The claim is that people currently without insurance will fare better. This is theoretically possible. But from a public policy point of view, the right thing to do is junk all the existing legislation, and start over without touching any existing insurance plans. Instead, have an honest debate about extending Medicaid to all uncovered people and set the premiums so that for non-poverty patients the plan breaks even. Then Medicaid, and only medicaid, would be subject to all these new mandates. And heck, if they were honest and proposed it this way, I think a lot of people might be willing to discuss the idea of slightly higher taxes to cover the uninsured.
But that's not what the proposed legislation does. The proposed legislation, by messing with the ERISA law, is deliberately designed to wipe out existing private health insurance. It is a dishonest and corrupt approach.
99. farmer Tom said the following at 7:42 PM on Nov 24:
99
Texas Craig is having difficulty making logical observations today, kind of like obewannbe.
I quote Mr. genius,
and I quote again,
Now which is it genius?? If the social contract (the law), says that it is illegal for you to entire the country without permission, then why is is somehow immoral for those who obey the law, to want those coming into the country attempting to join the "contract" to do so in a way which obeys (The Law)". Are you suggesting that we should extend the social contract to the entire world, inviting all of them to Texas? Are you suggesting that obedience to the law is unnecessary if you are an illegal entering the country and don't like the social contract as written, but the social contract still applies to those living here?
Futhermore, if my memory of social contract theory is correct, isn't one of the principles it espouses that when the government becomes tyrannical, (like forcing the citizens to buy health insurance or throwing them in debtors prison), that the people have a God given right to overthrow that government and establish a new contract????
As to this claptrap,
You seem to lack some basic Biblical knowledge, maybe you better do some more research. First, start with graven images,(Caesar), then, who owns everything, then, who owns the silver and the gold, then, the penalty for worshiping false gods, then figure out what the trick in the question was,
you have failed to read the entire passage with understanding, let me help.
Matthew 22
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
If Jesus asserted that, as you claim, and I quote you again, "pay them because money is not what my kingdom is about." then why did the Jewish leaders later make the following charge,
Luke 23:2 (KJV)
2 "And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King."
Craig, if it was a trick question, whatever answer He gave could get Him in trouble. Like, Have you stopped beating your wife??? Now, Jesus did not give the answer you think He did. But, you will have to do your own research.
Was the tribute tax to Caesar lawful?
According to Psalm 24 Craig, what is God's? What then belongs to Caesar?
Do you know what the inscription on the coin said? Do you know what Pontifex Maximus means?
the coin in question
100. Al said the following at 9:17 PM on Nov 24:
100
Farmer Tom, said:
"obewan is having trouble understanding the difference between something being mentioned in the Bible (suicide), and that topic being a command/mandate for us today. Yes, the Bible mentions the tithe for widows and orphans, and it also mentions suicide, so what."
The bible does mention caring for widows and orphans as a command to believers-- stating that this is "true religion" in James 1:
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
It's also more than merely mentioned in the old testament as a rebuke to Israel, which failed to take care of the poor and instead oppressed them as a nation.
Now I wouldn't go so far as to say that justifies any and all taxation for social programs. Israel also had a different purpose and relationship with God than the United States -- in fact, I believe asking our government to require others to do things we should be doing ourselves is bad form and creates a poor spirit where we wash our hands of our own responsibility by way of a letter to our congressman.
But for believers, caring for the poor is a mandate and a command. This may take various shapes, and it's not necessary that one specifically ministers to orphans and widows, but Jesus's command to care for those on the fringes of society is clear:
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Government's role in caring for the poor and its appropriate scope is frankly debateable. But our personal responsibilities are not.
I should also mention that you were combative and unkind in your treatment of obewan in post 53, and the name-calling was entirely inappropriate. Frankly, we do not have the right to be inappropriately harsh just because we are ourselves frustrated in the midst of an argument over subjects we are passionate about. It would be more helpful to leave the discussion than tear a fellow believer down simply because they disagree on what is frankly a non-essential when it comes to the gospel. It also does damage to your arguments and character, and I hope you extend a deserved apology to obewan even as you disagree with him. I hope the moderators will do a better job screening posts in the future as well.