Child Tax Credit: Better Late Than Never

We'll reach some degree of moral clarity on this once we explore the distinction between tax cut (letting people keep their money) and tax credit (giving people someone else's money). Discussing these distinctions might keep us from making hyperbolic declarations of "political sin," but at least it would be a more honest conversation.

If I preferred to give tax cuts to the rich so they'd provide more jobs for the poor, would that make me a "political sinner"?

It's amazing how Jim gets away with calling a transfer of wealth a "tax credit." Seriously, Jim, how do you sleep at night? It's dishonest.

As for the poorest of the poor and the mothers who need assistance, I'm not against that per se. I'm very much against Jim Wallis praising Obama on giving money away to people it did not initially belong to and not calling it what it is. You may disagree with the ethics involved, but let's call a spade a spade.

I fear the notion that people will be "keeping their money" is a delusion. The politicians are attempting to resuscitate the economy, however I see no reason to think that they know what they are doing. As far as being incensed at giving ("someone else's") money to the poor, most of "it" would be coming from the Chinese, to be repaid by our grandchildren. A data point of interest might be that the $700 billion gift to Wall street divided by 300 million people is $2000. Further if we were to have a "housing bailout", why didn't new Orleans get "bailed out"? Were they too "poor"?
I don't begrudge the rich "giving" jobs to the poor, even if the poor are in Mexico or Maylasia, but I also believe that if you are going to give a man a fishing pole, there is nothing wrong with giving him a fish for starters.

Good points. One thing that should be added is that when the rich are taxed more, they'll simply hide the money or put it offshore, or they'll sit on it and not spend or invest. That hurts the economy as well, and the government actually receives more, further exacerbating the problem.

"We'll reach some degree of moral clarity on this once we explore the distinction between tax cut (letting people keep their money) and tax credit (giving people someone else's money"

Thank you , this is so very important in such discussions . Especially when we are suppose to be speaking from a Christian position . Perhaps a better way to discuss this would be if we are for vouchers to the poorest familes in order to help them out . But you can not refund what was not given in the first place .

"Seriously, Jim, how do you sleep at night? It's dishonest."

And YOU recently admonished me to be ASHAMED!? Please, xfree.

I'm glad, though, that your not against the "poorest of the poor and the mothers" getting assistance. Even though the money doesn't "belong" to them. Very compassionate. And the wealthy obviously worked so hard to get that right to a tax break, right?

Now get away, Caesar!

Touché!

But simply because your opinion is that the wealthy didn't "work hard enough" for it does not mean it does not belong to them. My wife's car I worked zero for, but it is still legally my property as well as hers.

There appears to be a lot of piling on by those who deeply resent efforts to help those who are less fortunate among us. I would suggest that you go reread the story of the Good Samaritan. Maybe you'd prefer that he simply perish by the side of the road. may God have mercy on the souls of us who just expended hundreds of dollars to purchase toys for children whose toy boxes are already overflowing and who would begrudge these efforts to help the needy.

Receives more what?

Okay, I'm issuing "F's" in biblical theology to anyone who implied that any money we possess is "our" money or that "we" earned it.

"A's" to anyone who understands that it is ALL God's money-- and that "our" hard work and efforts are also gifts!!! from God.

Until we get the understanding that God is the Creator and OWNER of everything- we'll continue to be messed up. We are managers of what belongs to God. We are to use creation's gifts according to God's purposes.

Please keep this understanding in mind when discussing tax credits and tax cuts. Otherwise, to quote the Sarcastic Lutheran, I'll have to throw up in my mouth a little bit.

Sheesh, Duhsciple

You assume it's either A) our money or B) God's money, but those aren't the options. The real options here are whether it is A) our money, or B) someone else's to take by force. Would you have a problem with me taking your money from you (or your neighbor) by force? It's all "God's money" anyway, right? Does theft mean anything at all in this context?

Counterfeit Social Justice

Jim Willis blogs at God's Politics and believes it will be a sin (presumably collectively), if we don't extend tax credits to even more people who already pay no taxes.

>The decision to drop child tax credits for America's poorest families and children in >favor of further tax cuts for the rich is morally offensive. It is blatant disregard for the >poor, and an outrageous bias toward the rich. In religious terms, the exclusion of >any benefits for poor children in the new tax bill should be named as a political sin. >And those politicians who utter the words of religion and faith, yet who supported >this exclusion of the poor, deserve to be called hypocrites.

I don't know much about Mr. Willis' morals, but his politics are decidedly socialist. I'm not sure about his faith; his bio doesn't specifically say, but he was raised a Methodist and is married to a female minister in the Church of England, so he's at least influenced by Christianity. I raise this point only because I have some familiarity with Christian doctrine and don't recall a commandment obliging Christian peoples to worship at the altar of socialist redistribution.

Let's recall that these tax credits are payments by the federal government to people who do NOT pay taxes. They are not tax refunds for people who are poor and paying taxes. It is free money. More than likely these people are already on food stamps, Medicare or Medicaid and other government assistance.

What Mr. Willis is advocating is creating (or rather, expanding) a system whereby the government pays people to remain poor. Maybe he is not aware that LBJ's War on Poverty has been a utter failure, having spent trillions of dollars with no change in the number of permanent poor.

Unfortunately, this is a growing trend among Christians (if I have accurately identified Mr. Willis as such) towards a faux Social Justice. It is socialism dressed up in a chasuble. When Mr. Willis says 'excluded', perhaps he meant they had already been excluded from their obligation to 'Render unto Ceasar

"but he was raised a Methodist and is married to a female minister in the Church of England, so he's at least influenced by Christianity."

And on his right hand, he called the Baptists and the Pentecostals. And on his left hand He assembled all of the heresies - the Methodists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, etc. And He spoke to those on his right hand and said, "Enter into the joys of heaven which you deserve by virtue of your correct political choices." And he spoke to those on His left hand and said, "Depart from Me, you Bleeding Heart Liberals; I never knew you." And there was much rejoicing by those on His right hand as they checked that the contents of their wallets were undisturbed and that their 401k was intact. But on the left hand, there was weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I thought Jim Willis always wears an amphibalus, not a chasuble. I'm not sure whether Jim Wallis wears a chasuble or paenula.

Most socialists that I know wear hairshirts.

"True social justice is calling non-believers to conversion, urging the sinful to repent, and pursuing a life of pesonal (sic) sanctity."

I thought we are called to proclaim the good news AND feed the poor and heal the sick. I believe that that's the kind of social justice that Reverend Wallis is talking about here.

"The so-called 'Gospel of Prosperity' that seeks material advancement as a primary objective/benefit of faith is precisely what Our Lord warned of:"

Reverend Wallis does NOT preach prosperity gospel. You are mistaken here.

FYI, besides being married to an Anglican priest (a less loaded term than "female minister"), Reverend Wallis is an ordained minister himself so yes, you might say he was "influenced by Christianity."

Jean, when God called us to feed the poor and heal the sick, he didn't intended for us to shirk that duty and push it off on others, viz., the government. It's part of our own path to sanctity to engage in charitable works.

As for what Anglicans call their ordained ministers, I'll admit to some ignorance there. Would 'priestess' be appropriate?

Let's see, we have the Semantic-icists who can't get past the description of these benefits as a "tax credit". While they're right, they're also irrelevant. Technically you can't get a credit for a tax you do not pay anyway. So let's just call them benefits that simply use the income tax payment mechanism to distribute.

Then on the other hand we have the Christian Capitalists who cannot swallow the unfairness of poor people getting something for nothing (um, ever heard of your own salvation?). Their manifesto is "From each according to how productive you can be; To each according to how many taxes you currently pay". Some actually think Jesus said that in the Sermon on the Mount.

And elsewhere we have the "It's All God's Money Anyway" purists whose purity all too often ends at their own wallet. "Take his money, not mine, he's "rich". Okay, let's all just share one big single bank account. That'll work just fine and God's ends will be furthered right?

What most everyone misses, Mr. Wallis respectfully included, is that the so called "rich" is not an inexhaustible resource. The single best thing the rich can do for members of the lower class is not to become a member themselves (not the only thing, just the single best thing). It is the excess funds of "the rich" that drives the capital that makes it possible to employ more people, pay them the living wages Mr. Wallis also argues for, furnish benefits like health and retirement savings, and thrive economically. Not to mention pay into social security, the greatest legal Ponzi scheme the world has ever seen. I am somewhat offended that Mr. Wallis would use the term "political sin" to describe those who understand this and would prefer an alternative way to aid the poor.

As a man of some wealth himself, President-elect Obama undoubtedly understands that and his sensible, moderate actions to date reveal that he knows this is a tight rope to walk. Jesus was not a free enterprise republican and socialism is not automatically a 4-letter word.

I am uncomfortable with thinking our money"belongs to us" because we work for it????? If a person is a Christian, are we not vessels for God to work in and through? while also receiving a fee for services rendered? If we believe what scripture says, that "all good things come from God", including our gifts, talents, skills and abilities, if we make money using the blessings received from God, wouldn't it make sense to let God disperse that money , for His Glory and our good. As we serve God, and are monetarily compensated for it, I believe the money earned belongs to HIM, not me. And if I am serious about my faith, I will want to share what I have, and or sacrifice in areas for others to have what they need. I think we need to consider the Biblical principals regarding sharing one another's burdens, and giving to those who need help, while loving and accepting them for who they are - created in the image of God....I believe God demands impartiality, for all people are equally valuable in His eyes. He wants us to respect all people and treat them equally, regardless of their background or economic status. Each person is God's creation.

"Failure to share one's surplus with the needy is like theft." - St. Augustine

"The surplus goods of the rich are the necessities of the poor. When you possess surplus goods, you possess the goods of others." - Saint Augustine

You shall not murder.
What does this mean?
We are to fear and love God, so that we neither endanger nor harm the lives of our neighbors, but instead help and support them in all of life's needs.-- Martin Luther

You shall not steal.
What does this mean?
We are to fear and love God, so that we neither take our neighbor's money or property nor acquire them them by using shoddy merchandise or crooked deals, but instead help them to improve and protect their property and income.-- Martin Luther

Yes, I believe there are such things as theft and murder.

No, I do not believe in taking things by force.

Yes, I do believe that Jesus means it when he says give US this day OUR daily bread. Translation: if anyone is hungry and your belly is full, then what you have left must be used to feed your neighbor.

Yes, I am a great and mighty sinner by these standards.

Lord, have mercy upon me,

Duhsciple

An example of living by the knowledge that everything belongs to God:

In 1731 Wesley began to limit his expenses so that he would have more money to give to the poor. He records that one year his income was 30 pounds and his living expenses 28 pounds, so he had 2 pounds to give away. The next year his income doubled, but he still managed to live on 28 pounds, so he had 32 pounds to give to the poor. In the third year, his income jumped to 90 pounds.

Instead of letting his expenses rise with his income, he kept them to 28 pounds and gave away 62 pounds. In the fourth year, he received 120 pounds. As before, his expenses were 28 pounds, so his giving rose to 92 pounds.

Wesley felt that the Christian should not merely tithe but give away all extra income once the family and creditors were taken care of. He believed that with increasing income, what should rise is not the Christian's standard of living but the standard of giving.

Duhsciple

See Luke 12:13-21 for a story told by Jesus about a man who thought that he was the owner instead of God.

Duhsciple

Priest is appropriate.

I read in a book that you're supposed to give to Caesar what is Caeser's, and to GOD what is GOD's.
When activist government goes to extremes in redistributing wealth, Caesar becomes god.

Can you explain that further? I don't understand what you mean.