A Fairness Issue
by Jim Wallis 03-12-2009 | 2:30pm
"Without justice, what are kingdoms but bands of robbers?"
Get E-Mail Updates
Related Stories
Resources
Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!
"This is a fairness issue. The system of employee-employer relations is fundamentally lopsided. There's a need to level the playing field, to redress a great imbalance."
What many on the left just don't get is that prices are communicators. That includes labor. There are millions of economic decisions that go into setting these prices. It's not like CEOs sit in a room and say, "You know, let's take more money from our employees and give it to ourselves."
The economy has changed. Information technology has made white collar workers incredibly more productive. While it has made the blue collar worker or lower level employees more productive, their increase in productivity is not at the same rate.
And In many cases technology has eliminated lower level jobs. This results in fewer lower level jobs and lower demand for these jobs. Therefore, the price of their labor is lower. The only way to change this quickly is to stop technological advances or to artificially increase the price of labor. Both options have economic consequences.
I have only ever seen "pro-abortion" used by the anti-abortion crowd to make a point. And I have no idea what it means that it's used "legislatively", but is certainly sounds official Can you point me to some examples of where pro-abortion is used as a respectful short-hand for "pro-legal abortion rights"? Thanks.
Jane
I agree with JIm that the relationship between workers and employers in some businesses in broken. These businesses and workers need to renew those relationships. And I agree with the statement made by the Catholic Bishops, although I'd challenge them to define the term "fair wage".
In the end, Jim doesn't make much of case for the EFCA though. And I'm not surprised he doesn't want to get into the details of it.
"Supply and demand laws cannot simply be suspended because we don't like the result of those laws. We must work within those means, otherwise we create shortages and surpluses."
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy."
- Wendell Berry
What I think Jim fails to understand is that employees do not HAVE to work for an employer who makes more than they believe the employer should. Nobody does work for anybody else unless they believe it will improve their lot. If Wal-Mart pays me $8/hour, and I don't like it, I still have to choose whether or not I want to trade my labor for money.
Union supporters somehow believe that since somebody makes a quadrillion dollars an hour, that's "unfair." So please explain to me the definition of "fairness." Does it mean equal treatment? Or is it arbitrary depending on who is in authority? If we go for "fairness," Mr. Wallis, what exactly is fair about a progressive tax? How does that treat all people as equals?
"Level the playing field" didn't work in Russia, Cambodia, and other nations around the world where the idea was to keep all people "equal" in the productin of goods and services. The reality is, wealth inequality is only a societal problem if you value people by what they make. Union workers make over the median income of those in the United States; they make more than I do, and I make ends meet. To outcry for people who have a living standard in the 95 percentile is incredibly silly and foolish.
DITE, you are absolutely correct. The employees of CEOs who make "too much" do not have to work for those CEOs. Their labor is a contractual agreement to trade labor for wages, and if they don't like it, they can choose a different venue of trading their labor they feel is more "fair." My hunch is that where they'll find work the CEOs may make a lot less comparatively, but the salaries given to them is also less. (Yes, I know that's not always the case.)
Supply and demand laws cannot simply be suspended because we don't like the result of those laws. We must work within those means, otherwise we create shortages and surpluses. If raising wages to a "living wage" or some "fair wage" were the solution, why not make minimum wage $100/hour? But nobody seems to be advocating that because that wouldn't make much sense.
I hate these long threads of discussions where we apparently forget our Christianity and argue from worldly perspectives.
You ask a lot of questions about fairness. Don't ask Jim; ask God. In particular, what does the bible say about justice? "Does it mean equal treatment?" Clearly not. "What exactly is fair about a progressive tax?" Clearly the status quo of conducting business in this world is not doing a great job with justice. A progressive tax might help to ameliorate that.
We have a shameful number of homeless and hungry people among us. If you look at the world with God's eyes, how can you possibly advocate a flat tax that will create yet more.
A flat tax does not "create" homeles and hungry people. A flat tax treats all people as equal and not deserving special benefits. Besides, I would advocate a flat tax on consumption, not income, because income tax implies government owns part of your labor, which it does not. Also, I would advocate a flat tax above a certain level, say $30,000.
If we eliminate income taxes altogether, we'd have to go back to the government spending of.... 1997. I don't think anybody would complain with the type of society we had in 1997, because we had low unemployment, most liberals liked it better under Clinton, etc etc. Income taxes only account for 1/3 the taxes in the US. If we eliminated them, spending would immediately increase because people would have more, and the stimulus would happen naturally.
But that's another topic.
As for fairness, where are you finding what God defines as fair? God does not show favoritism (that is a quote, can't remember the reference). Why should we? Yes, we should have compassion on the poor. But that doesn't mean that if we have majority vote over society we drag them along with us. If I don't like how the rich are using their "excess money," I still have no right to take it from them and give it to somebody else. "Thou shalt not steal" has no caveats to it. I do, however, as somebody witha moderate level of means, have an obligation to serve my neighbor in need. But that is MY responsibility. If I want to encourage others to do the same, then it is incumbent upon me to encourage them to do so, not employ the State to take their money to use it how I prefer the rich would use it.
My preference is to leave discussion of "fair" behind and talk about
biblical "justice". Justice is a much more important goal than
fairness.
You say that a flat tax treats all people as equal and not deserving
special benefits, but that is NOT justice. God's justice assures that
all people get what they need and recognizes that different people have
different levels of need.
You say "Thou shalt not steal" and emphasize that it has no caveats, yet
still accept taxation as legitimate. I guess taxation must not be
considered "stealing" -- so I can make no sense out of the argument.
So what is the purpose of taxation? It is to support government so that
government can set up a stable society in which we all benefit. Since
the current economic system disproportionately benefits rich people over
poor people, it makes sense to ask them to pay the overwhelming share of
the cost of the system that so favors them. If you disagree we my
statement that the system favor the rich, then you need to explain why
the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. If it did not, then I would
expect much more fluid shakeup of wealth.
Well, I guess I did waffle a bit, there, but only to make a consent that since we must have taxes, all should be taxed equally. The Fair Tax is also an alternative to what we have, and the rich would be taxed more simply because they consume more.
Your notion of justice may be correct, but justice cannot also violate other principles, such as not favoring one person over another, respecting each person as made in God's image and given property to steward for his Kingdom. I do believe taxes are coercive, and therefore is "theft," though since it is an undeniable part of life, I would like to minimize the theft and treat people as equals, not as somebody to be plundered because they have what I consider to be "excessive resources." That, my friend, is envy and it is equally as immoral.
Please explain how a flat tax would create homelessness and poverty?
I see people struggling. I see people living at the margins who are in
danger of losing their homes.
My assumption is that a flat tax will turn out to be tax relief for
people who are NOT struggling, and either result in a loss of help-money
or an increase in tax (to make up the difference and keep the roads
paved, so to speak) from those who are struggling.
You may challenge my assumption that a flat tax will shift the tax
burden down to people in lower economic positions. But if the
assumption holds, it is a direct consequence that doing that shift will
result in marginalized people being hurt. That kind of hurt is what the
prophets of the Old Testament challenged the society of their day about.
I opt out of this discussion. I think our underlying assumptions about
the whole purpose (God's whole purpose?) of society/economy differ --
and unless we are willing to dig at those roots, we can't possibly
agree, e.g., whether tax is theft or not. That digging is not
appropriate for this thread.
"Does a pro-abortion pol like Nancy Pelosi also earn such an accolade?"
Sigh. Words mean things. If pro-fetal-life people get to call themselves "pro-life", then people who believe women are capable of making personal moral decisions should be able to call themselves "pro-choice". If you can show me where Nancy Pelosi refers to herself as pro-abortion, I will withdraw my complaint.
I know this is off-topic, but you hit one of my pet peeves.
Jane
I have only ever seen "pro-abortion" used by the anti-abortion crowd to make a point. And I have no idea what it means that it's used "legislatively", but is certainly sounds official Can you point me to some examples of where pro-abortion is used as a respectful short-hand for "pro-legal abortion rights"? Thanks.
Jane
"Supply and demand laws cannot simply be suspended because we don't like the result of those laws. We must work within those means, otherwise we create shortages and surpluses."
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy."
- Wendell Berry
"Supply and demand laws cannot simply be suspended because we don't like the result of those laws. We must work within those means, otherwise we create shortages and surpluses."
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy."
- Wendell Berry
When it comes to making American law, is Church teaching relevant? It appears it is relevant...when the Church takes a position in favor of one's personal position.
Is it especially meaningful to mention or judge Sen. Casey's commitment to Catholicism? Does a pro-abortion pol like Nancy Pelosi also earn such an accolade? And more importantly, does that Catholic commitment have any meaning for US law, which is to govern all Americans, not just Catholics or believers?
Is there a problem -- that's open for debate. Is EFCA the solution? The answer is plainly no.
EFCA would practically eliminate secret-ballot elections when unions want to organize workplaces. But the thing is, even if you accept unions at their word, secret ballots themselves aren't the problem. Union officials themselves aren't saying that there's vote tampering or other problems -- their gripe is about violations by employers prior to the vote.
So why are unions trying to get rid of secret-ballot elections? Why not go after the violations themselves?
Jim is missing the real issue here, this debate isn't about ends, its about means.
LV
So is check card intimidation fair, Mr. Wallis? And when you're discussing CEO pay, please consider that a CEO's pay should be commensurate with his/her responsibilities, which far exceed the responsibilities of a corporation's average employee. The "buck stops" with the CEO in regard to personnel management, profits, losses, etc. I'm not lobbying for exorbitant pay and golden parachutes but for that which is in line with bearing responsibilities that typically are not left on the office desk at 5 p.m.
"This is a fairness issue. The system of employee-employer relations is fundamentally lopsided. There's a need to level the playing field, to redress a great imbalance."
What many on the left just don't get is that prices are communicators. That includes labor. There are millions of economic decisions that go into setting these prices. It's not like CEOs sit in a room and say, "You know, let's take more money from our employees and give it to ourselves."
The economy has changed. Information technology has made white collar workers incredibly more productive. While it has made the blue collar worker or lower level employees more productive, their increase in productivity is not at the same rate.
And In many cases technology has eliminated lower level jobs. This results in fewer lower level jobs and lower demand for these jobs. Therefore, the price of their labor is lower. The only way to change this quickly is to stop technological advances or to artificially increase the price of labor. Both options have economic consequences.
I agree with JIm that the relationship between workers and employers in some businesses in broken. These businesses and workers need to renew those relationships. And I agree with the statement made by the Catholic Bishops, although I'd challenge them to define the term "fair wage".
In the end, Jim doesn't make much of case for the EFCA though. And I'm not surprised he doesn't want to get into the details of it.
What I think Jim fails to understand is that employees do not HAVE to work for an employer who makes more than they believe the employer should. Nobody does work for anybody else unless they believe it will improve their lot. If Wal-Mart pays me $8/hour, and I don't like it, I still have to choose whether or not I want to trade my labor for money.
Union supporters somehow believe that since somebody makes a quadrillion dollars an hour, that's "unfair." So please explain to me the definition of "fairness." Does it mean equal treatment? Or is it arbitrary depending on who is in authority? If we go for "fairness," Mr. Wallis, what exactly is fair about a progressive tax? How does that treat all people as equals?
"Level the playing field" didn't work in Russia, Cambodia, and other nations around the world where the idea was to keep all people "equal" in the productin of goods and services. The reality is, wealth inequality is only a societal problem if you value people by what they make. Union workers make over the median income of those in the United States; they make more than I do, and I make ends meet. To outcry for people who have a living standard in the 95 percentile is incredibly silly and foolish.
DITE, you are absolutely correct. The employees of CEOs who make "too much" do not have to work for those CEOs. Their labor is a contractual agreement to trade labor for wages, and if they don't like it, they can choose a different venue of trading their labor they feel is more "fair." My hunch is that where they'll find work the CEOs may make a lot less comparatively, but the salaries given to them is also less. (Yes, I know that's not always the case.)
Supply and demand laws cannot simply be suspended because we don't like the result of those laws. We must work within those means, otherwise we create shortages and surpluses. If raising wages to a "living wage" or some "fair wage" were the solution, why not make minimum wage $100/hour? But nobody seems to be advocating that because that wouldn't make much sense.
I hate these long threads of discussions where we apparently forget our Christianity and argue from worldly perspectives.
You ask a lot of questions about fairness. Don't ask Jim; ask God. In particular, what does the bible say about justice? "Does it mean equal treatment?" Clearly not. "What exactly is fair about a progressive tax?" Clearly the status quo of conducting business in this world is not doing a great job with justice. A progressive tax might help to ameliorate that.
We have a shameful number of homeless and hungry people among us. If you look at the world with God's eyes, how can you possibly advocate a flat tax that will create yet more.
A flat tax does not "create" homeles and hungry people. A flat tax treats all people as equal and not deserving special benefits. Besides, I would advocate a flat tax on consumption, not income, because income tax implies government owns part of your labor, which it does not. Also, I would advocate a flat tax above a certain level, say $30,000.
If we eliminate income taxes altogether, we'd have to go back to the government spending of.... 1997. I don't think anybody would complain with the type of society we had in 1997, because we had low unemployment, most liberals liked it better under Clinton, etc etc. Income taxes only account for 1/3 the taxes in the US. If we eliminated them, spending would immediately increase because people would have more, and the stimulus would happen naturally.
But that's another topic.
As for fairness, where are you finding what God defines as fair? God does not show favoritism (that is a quote, can't remember the reference). Why should we? Yes, we should have compassion on the poor. But that doesn't mean that if we have majority vote over society we drag them along with us. If I don't like how the rich are using their "excess money," I still have no right to take it from them and give it to somebody else. "Thou shalt not steal" has no caveats to it. I do, however, as somebody witha moderate level of means, have an obligation to serve my neighbor in need. But that is MY responsibility. If I want to encourage others to do the same, then it is incumbent upon me to encourage them to do so, not employ the State to take their money to use it how I prefer the rich would use it.
My preference is to leave discussion of "fair" behind and talk about
biblical "justice". Justice is a much more important goal than
fairness.
You say that a flat tax treats all people as equal and not deserving
special benefits, but that is NOT justice. God's justice assures that
all people get what they need and recognizes that different people have
different levels of need.
You say "Thou shalt not steal" and emphasize that it has no caveats, yet
still accept taxation as legitimate. I guess taxation must not be
considered "stealing" -- so I can make no sense out of the argument.
So what is the purpose of taxation? It is to support government so that
government can set up a stable society in which we all benefit. Since
the current economic system disproportionately benefits rich people over
poor people, it makes sense to ask them to pay the overwhelming share of
the cost of the system that so favors them. If you disagree we my
statement that the system favor the rich, then you need to explain why
the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. If it did not, then I would
expect much more fluid shakeup of wealth.
Well, I guess I did waffle a bit, there, but only to make a consent that since we must have taxes, all should be taxed equally. The Fair Tax is also an alternative to what we have, and the rich would be taxed more simply because they consume more.
Your notion of justice may be correct, but justice cannot also violate other principles, such as not favoring one person over another, respecting each person as made in God's image and given property to steward for his Kingdom. I do believe taxes are coercive, and therefore is "theft," though since it is an undeniable part of life, I would like to minimize the theft and treat people as equals, not as somebody to be plundered because they have what I consider to be "excessive resources." That, my friend, is envy and it is equally as immoral.
Please explain how a flat tax would create homelessness and poverty?
"Supply and demand laws cannot simply be suspended because we don't like the result of those laws. We must work within those means, otherwise we create shortages and surpluses."
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy."
- Wendell Berry
I see people struggling. I see people living at the margins who are in
danger of losing their homes.
My assumption is that a flat tax will turn out to be tax relief for
people who are NOT struggling, and either result in a loss of help-money
or an increase in tax (to make up the difference and keep the roads
paved, so to speak) from those who are struggling.
You may challenge my assumption that a flat tax will shift the tax
burden down to people in lower economic positions. But if the
assumption holds, it is a direct consequence that doing that shift will
result in marginalized people being hurt. That kind of hurt is what the
prophets of the Old Testament challenged the society of their day about.
I opt out of this discussion. I think our underlying assumptions about
the whole purpose (God's whole purpose?) of society/economy differ --
and unless we are willing to dig at those roots, we can't possibly
agree, e.g., whether tax is theft or not. That digging is not
appropriate for this thread.
When it comes to making American law, is Church teaching relevant? It appears it is relevant...when the Church takes a position in favor of one's personal position.
Is it especially meaningful to mention or judge Sen. Casey's commitment to Catholicism? Does a pro-abortion pol like Nancy Pelosi also earn such an accolade? And more importantly, does that Catholic commitment have any meaning for US law, which is to govern all Americans, not just Catholics or believers?
Is there a problem -- that's open for debate. Is EFCA the solution? The answer is plainly no.
EFCA would practically eliminate secret-ballot elections when unions want to organize workplaces. But the thing is, even if you accept unions at their word, secret ballots themselves aren't the problem. Union officials themselves aren't saying that there's vote tampering or other problems -- their gripe is about violations by employers prior to the vote.
So why are unions trying to get rid of secret-ballot elections? Why not go after the violations themselves?
Jim is missing the real issue here, this debate isn't about ends, its about means.
LV
"Does a pro-abortion pol like Nancy Pelosi also earn such an accolade?"
Sigh. Words mean things. If pro-fetal-life people get to call themselves "pro-life", then people who believe women are capable of making personal moral decisions should be able to call themselves "pro-choice". If you can show me where Nancy Pelosi refers to herself as pro-abortion, I will withdraw my complaint.
I know this is off-topic, but you hit one of my pet peeves.
Jane
So is check card intimidation fair, Mr. Wallis? And when you're discussing CEO pay, please consider that a CEO's pay should be commensurate with his/her responsibilities, which far exceed the responsibilities of a corporation's average employee. The "buck stops" with the CEO in regard to personnel management, profits, losses, etc. I'm not lobbying for exorbitant pay and golden parachutes but for that which is in line with bearing responsibilities that typically are not left on the office desk at 5 p.m.
Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.
When it comes to making American law, is Church teaching relevant? It appears it is relevant...when the Church takes a position in favor of one's personal position.
Is it especially meaningful to mention or judge Sen. Casey's commitment to Catholicism? Does a pro-abortion pol like Nancy Pelosi also earn such an accolade? And more importantly, does that Catholic commitment have any meaning for US law, which is to govern all Americans, not just Catholics or believers?
When it comes to making American law, is Church teaching relevant? It appears it is relevant...when the Church takes a position in favor of one's personal position.
Is it especially meaningful to mention or judge Sen. Casey's commitment to Catholicism? Does a pro-abortion pol like Nancy Pelosi also earn such an accolade? And more importantly, does that Catholic commitment have any meaning for US law, which is to govern all Americans, not just Catholics or believers?
Is there a problem -- that's open for debate. Is EFCA the solution? The answer is plainly no.
EFCA would practically eliminate secret-ballot elections when unions want to organize workplaces. But the thing is, even if you accept unions at their word, secret ballots themselves aren't the problem. Union officials themselves aren't saying that there's vote tampering or other problems -- their gripe is about violations by employers prior to the vote.
So why are unions trying to get rid of secret-ballot elections? Why not go after the violations themselves?
Jim is missing the real issue here, this debate isn't about ends, its about means.
LV
Is there a problem -- that's open for debate. Is EFCA the solution? The answer is plainly no.
EFCA would practically eliminate secret-ballot elections when unions want to organize workplaces. But the thing is, even if you accept unions at their word, secret ballots themselves aren't the problem. Union officials themselves aren't saying that there's vote tampering or other problems -- their gripe is about violations by employers prior to the vote.
So why are unions trying to get rid of secret-ballot elections? Why not go after the violations themselves?
Jim is missing the real issue here, this debate isn't about ends, its about means.
LV
So is check card intimidation fair, Mr. Wallis? And when you're discussing CEO pay, please consider that a CEO's pay should be commensurate with his/her responsibilities, which far exceed the responsibilities of a corporation's average employee. The "buck stops" with the CEO in regard to personnel management, profits, losses, etc. I'm not lobbying for exorbitant pay and golden parachutes but for that which is in line with bearing responsibilities that typically are not left on the office desk at 5 p.m.
So is check card intimidation fair, Mr. Wallis? And when you're discussing CEO pay, please consider that a CEO's pay should be commensurate with his/her responsibilities, which far exceed the responsibilities of a corporation's average employee. The "buck stops" with the CEO in regard to personnel management, profits, losses, etc. I'm not lobbying for exorbitant pay and golden parachutes but for that which is in line with bearing responsibilities that typically are not left on the office desk at 5 p.m.
"This is a fairness issue. The system of employee-employer relations is fundamentally lopsided. There's a need to level the playing field, to redress a great imbalance."
What many on the left just don't get is that prices are communicators. That includes labor. There are millions of economic decisions that go into setting these prices. It's not like CEOs sit in a room and say, "You know, let's take more money from our employees and give it to ourselves."
The economy has changed. Information technology has made white collar workers incredibly more productive. While it has made the blue collar worker or lower level employees more productive, their increase in productivity is not at the same rate.
And In many cases technology has eliminated lower level jobs. This results in fewer lower level jobs and lower demand for these jobs. Therefore, the price of their labor is lower. The only way to change this quickly is to stop technological advances or to artificially increase the price of labor. Both options have economic consequences.
"This is a fairness issue. The system of employee-employer relations is fundamentally lopsided. There's a need to level the playing field, to redress a great imbalance."
What many on the left just don't get is that prices are communicators. That includes labor. There are millions of economic decisions that go into setting these prices. It's not like CEOs sit in a room and say, "You know, let's take more money from our employees and give it to ourselves."
The economy has changed. Information technology has made white collar workers incredibly more productive. While it has made the blue collar worker or lower level employees more productive, their increase in productivity is not at the same rate.
And In many cases technology has eliminated lower level jobs. This results in fewer lower level jobs and lower demand for these jobs. Therefore, the price of their labor is lower. The only way to change this quickly is to stop technological advances or to artificially increase the price of labor. Both options have economic consequences.
I agree with JIm that the relationship between workers and employers in some businesses in broken. These businesses and workers need to renew those relationships. And I agree with the statement made by the Catholic Bishops, although I'd challenge them to define the term "fair wage".
In the end, Jim doesn't make much of case for the EFCA though. And I'm not surprised he doesn't want to get into the details of it.
I agree with JIm that the relationship between workers and employers in some businesses in broken. These businesses and workers need to renew those relationships. And I agree with the statement made by the Catholic Bishops, although I'd challenge them to define the term "fair wage".
In the end, Jim doesn't make much of case for the EFCA though. And I'm not surprised he doesn't want to get into the details of it.
What I think Jim fails to understand is that employees do not HAVE to work for an employer who makes more than they believe the employer should. Nobody does work for anybody else unless they believe it will improve their lot. If Wal-Mart pays me $8/hour, and I don't like it, I still have to choose whether or not I want to trade my labor for money.
Union supporters somehow believe that since somebody makes a quadrillion dollars an hour, that's "unfair." So please explain to me the definition of "fairness." Does it mean equal treatment? Or is it arbitrary depending on who is in authority? If we go for "fairness," Mr. Wallis, what exactly is fair about a progressive tax? How does that treat all people as equals?
"Level the playing field" didn't work in Russia, Cambodia, and other nations around the world where the idea was to keep all people "equal" in the productin of goods and services. The reality is, wealth inequality is only a societal problem if you value people by what they make. Union workers make over the median income of those in the United States; they make more than I do, and I make ends meet. To outcry for people who have a living standard in the 95 percentile is incredibly silly and foolish.
What I think Jim fails to understand is that employees do not HAVE to work for an employer who makes more than they believe the employer should. Nobody does work for anybody else unless they believe it will improve their lot. If Wal-Mart pays me $8/hour, and I don't like it, I still have to choose whether or not I want to trade my labor for money.
Union supporters somehow believe that since somebody makes a quadrillion dollars an hour, that's "unfair." So please explain to me the definition of "fairness." Does it mean equal treatment? Or is it arbitrary depending on who is in authority? If we go for "fairness," Mr. Wallis, what exactly is fair about a progressive tax? How does that treat all people as equals?
"Level the playing field" didn't work in Russia, Cambodia, and other nations around the world where the idea was to keep all people "equal" in the productin of goods and services. The reality is, wealth inequality is only a societal problem if you value people by what they make. Union workers make over the median income of those in the United States; they make more than I do, and I make ends meet. To outcry for people who have a living standard in the 95 percentile is incredibly silly and foolish.
DITE, you are absolutely correct. The employees of CEOs who make "too much" do not have to work for those CEOs. Their labor is a contractual agreement to trade labor for wages, and if they don't like it, they can choose a different venue of trading their labor they feel is more "fair." My hunch is that where they'll find work the CEOs may make a lot less comparatively, but the salaries given to them is also less. (Yes, I know that's not always the case.)
Supply and demand laws cannot simply be suspended because we don't like the result of those laws. We must work within those means, otherwise we create shortages and surpluses. If raising wages to a "living wage" or some "fair wage" were the solution, why not make minimum wage $100/hour? But nobody seems to be advocating that because that wouldn't make much sense.
DITE, you are absolutely correct. The employees of CEOs who make "too much" do not have to work for those CEOs. Their labor is a contractual agreement to trade labor for wages, and if they don't like it, they can choose a different venue of trading their labor they feel is more "fair." My hunch is that where they'll find work the CEOs may make a lot less comparatively, but the salaries given to them is also less. (Yes, I know that's not always the case.)
Supply and demand laws cannot simply be suspended because we don't like the result of those laws. We must work within those means, otherwise we create shortages and surpluses. If raising wages to a "living wage" or some "fair wage" were the solution, why not make minimum wage $100/hour? But nobody seems to be advocating that because that wouldn't make much sense.
I hate these long threads of discussions where we apparently forget our Christianity and argue from worldly perspectives.
You ask a lot of questions about fairness. Don't ask Jim; ask God. In particular, what does the bible say about justice? "Does it mean equal treatment?" Clearly not. "What exactly is fair about a progressive tax?" Clearly the status quo of conducting business in this world is not doing a great job with justice. A progressive tax might help to ameliorate that.
We have a shameful number of homeless and hungry people among us. If you look at the world with God's eyes, how can you possibly advocate a flat tax that will create yet more.
I hate these long threads of discussions where we apparently forget our Christianity and argue from worldly perspectives.
You ask a lot of questions about fairness. Don't ask Jim; ask God. In particular, what does the bible say about justice? "Does it mean equal treatment?" Clearly not. "What exactly is fair about a progressive tax?" Clearly the status quo of conducting business in this world is not doing a great job with justice. A progressive tax might help to ameliorate that.
We have a shameful number of homeless and hungry people among us. If you look at the world with God's eyes, how can you possibly advocate a flat tax that will create yet more.
A flat tax does not "create" homeles and hungry people. A flat tax treats all people as equal and not deserving special benefits. Besides, I would advocate a flat tax on consumption, not income, because income tax implies government owns part of your labor, which it does not. Also, I would advocate a flat tax above a certain level, say $30,000.
If we eliminate income taxes altogether, we'd have to go back to the government spending of.... 1997. I don't think anybody would complain with the type of society we had in 1997, because we had low unemployment, most liberals liked it better under Clinton, etc etc. Income taxes only account for 1/3 the taxes in the US. If we eliminated them, spending would immediately increase because people would have more, and the stimulus would happen naturally.
But that's another topic.
As for fairness, where are you finding what God defines as fair? God does not show favoritism (that is a quote, can't remember the reference). Why should we? Yes, we should have compassion on the poor. But that doesn't mean that if we have majority vote over society we drag them along with us. If I don't like how the rich are using their "excess money," I still have no right to take it from them and give it to somebody else. "Thou shalt not steal" has no caveats to it. I do, however, as somebody witha moderate level of means, have an obligation to serve my neighbor in need. But that is MY responsibility. If I want to encourage others to do the same, then it is incumbent upon me to encourage them to do so, not employ the State to take their money to use it how I prefer the rich would use it.
A flat tax does not "create" homeles and hungry people. A flat tax treats all people as equal and not deserving special benefits. Besides, I would advocate a flat tax on consumption, not income, because income tax implies government owns part of your labor, which it does not. Also, I would advocate a flat tax above a certain level, say $30,000.
If we eliminate income taxes altogether, we'd have to go back to the government spending of.... 1997. I don't think anybody would complain with the type of society we had in 1997, because we had low unemployment, most liberals liked it better under Clinton, etc etc. Income taxes only account for 1/3 the taxes in the US. If we eliminated them, spending would immediately increase because people would have more, and the stimulus would happen naturally.
But that's another topic.
As for fairness, where are you finding what God defines as fair? God does not show favoritism (that is a quote, can't remember the reference). Why should we? Yes, we should have compassion on the poor. But that doesn't mean that if we have majority vote over society we drag them along with us. If I don't like how the rich are using their "excess money," I still have no right to take it from them and give it to somebody else. "Thou shalt not steal" has no caveats to it. I do, however, as somebody witha moderate level of means, have an obligation to serve my neighbor in need. But that is MY responsibility. If I want to encourage others to do the same, then it is incumbent upon me to encourage them to do so, not employ the State to take their money to use it how I prefer the rich would use it.
My preference is to leave discussion of "fair" behind and talk about
biblical "justice". Justice is a much more important goal than
fairness.
You say that a flat tax treats all people as equal and not deserving
special benefits, but that is NOT justice. God's justice assures that
all people get what they need and recognizes that different people have
different levels of need.
You say "Thou shalt not steal" and emphasize that it has no caveats, yet
still accept taxation as legitimate. I guess taxation must not be
considered "stealing" -- so I can make no sense out of the argument.
So what is the purpose of taxation? It is to support government so that
government can set up a stable society in which we all benefit. Since
the current economic system disproportionately benefits rich people over
poor people, it makes sense to ask them to pay the overwhelming share of
the cost of the system that so favors them. If you disagree we my
statement that the system favor the rich, then you need to explain why
the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. If it did not, then I would
expect much more fluid shakeup of wealth.
My preference is to leave discussion of "fair" behind and talk about
biblical "justice". Justice is a much more important goal than
fairness.
You say that a flat tax treats all people as equal and not deserving
special benefits, but that is NOT justice. God's justice assures that
all people get what they need and recognizes that different people have
different levels of need.
You say "Thou shalt not steal" and emphasize that it has no caveats, yet
still accept taxation as legitimate. I guess taxation must not be
considered "stealing" -- so I can make no sense out of the argument.
So what is the purpose of taxation? It is to support government so that
government can set up a stable society in which we all benefit. Since
the current economic system disproportionately benefits rich people over
poor people, it makes sense to ask them to pay the overwhelming share of
the cost of the system that so favors them. If you disagree we my
statement that the system favor the rich, then you need to explain why
the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. If it did not, then I would
expect much more fluid shakeup of wealth.
Well, I guess I did waffle a bit, there, but only to make a consent that since we must have taxes, all should be taxed equally. The Fair Tax is also an alternative to what we have, and the rich would be taxed more simply because they consume more.
Your notion of justice may be correct, but justice cannot also violate other principles, such as not favoring one person over another, respecting each person as made in God's image and given property to steward for his Kingdom. I do believe taxes are coercive, and therefore is "theft," though since it is an undeniable part of life, I would like to minimize the theft and treat people as equals, not as somebody to be plundered because they have what I consider to be "excessive resources." That, my friend, is envy and it is equally as immoral.
Please explain how a flat tax would create homelessness and poverty?
Well, I guess I did waffle a bit, there, but only to make a consent that since we must have taxes, all should be taxed equally. The Fair Tax is also an alternative to what we have, and the rich would be taxed more simply because they consume more.
Your notion of justice may be correct, but justice cannot also violate other principles, such as not favoring one person over another, respecting each person as made in God's image and given property to steward for his Kingdom. I do believe taxes are coercive, and therefore is "theft," though since it is an undeniable part of life, I would like to minimize the theft and treat people as equals, not as somebody to be plundered because they have what I consider to be "excessive resources." That, my friend, is envy and it is equally as immoral.
Please explain how a flat tax would create homelessness and poverty?
I see people struggling. I see people living at the margins who are in
danger of losing their homes.
My assumption is that a flat tax will turn out to be tax relief for
people who are NOT struggling, and either result in a loss of help-money
or an increase in tax (to make up the difference and keep the roads
paved, so to speak) from those who are struggling.
You may challenge my assumption that a flat tax will shift the tax
burden down to people in lower economic positions. But if the
assumption holds, it is a direct consequence that doing that shift will
result in marginalized people being hurt. That kind of hurt is what the
prophets of the Old Testament challenged the society of their day about.
I opt out of this discussion. I think our underlying assumptions about
the whole purpose (God's whole purpose?) of society/economy differ --
and unless we are willing to dig at those roots, we can't possibly
agree, e.g., whether tax is theft or not. That digging is not
appropriate for this thread.
I see people struggling. I see people living at the margins who are in
danger of losing their homes.
My assumption is that a flat tax will turn out to be tax relief for
people who are NOT struggling, and either result in a loss of help-money
or an increase in tax (to make up the difference and keep the roads
paved, so to speak) from those who are struggling.
You may challenge my assumption that a flat tax will shift the tax
burden down to people in lower economic positions. But if the
assumption holds, it is a direct consequence that doing that shift will
result in marginalized people being hurt. That kind of hurt is what the
prophets of the Old Testament challenged the society of their day about.
I opt out of this discussion. I think our underlying assumptions about
the whole purpose (God's whole purpose?) of society/economy differ --
and unless we are willing to dig at those roots, we can't possibly
agree, e.g., whether tax is theft or not. That digging is not
appropriate for this thread.
"Does a pro-abortion pol like Nancy Pelosi also earn such an accolade?"
Sigh. Words mean things. If pro-fetal-life people get to call themselves "pro-life", then people who believe women are capable of making personal moral decisions should be able to call themselves "pro-choice". If you can show me where Nancy Pelosi refers to herself as pro-abortion, I will withdraw my complaint.
I know this is off-topic, but you hit one of my pet peeves.
Jane
"Does a pro-abortion pol like Nancy Pelosi also earn such an accolade?"
Sigh. Words mean things. If pro-fetal-life people get to call themselves "pro-life", then people who believe women are capable of making personal moral decisions should be able to call themselves "pro-choice". If you can show me where Nancy Pelosi refers to herself as pro-abortion, I will withdraw my complaint.
I know this is off-topic, but you hit one of my pet peeves.
Jane
I have only ever seen "pro-abortion" used by the anti-abortion crowd to make a point. And I have no idea what it means that it's used "legislatively", but is certainly sounds official Can you point me to some examples of where pro-abortion is used as a respectful short-hand for "pro-legal abortion rights"? Thanks.
Jane
I have only ever seen "pro-abortion" used by the anti-abortion crowd to make a point. And I have no idea what it means that it's used "legislatively", but is certainly sounds official Can you point me to some examples of where pro-abortion is used as a respectful short-hand for "pro-legal abortion rights"? Thanks.
Jane
"Supply and demand laws cannot simply be suspended because we don't like the result of those laws. We must work within those means, otherwise we create shortages and surpluses."
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy."
- Wendell Berry
"Supply and demand laws cannot simply be suspended because we don't like the result of those laws. We must work within those means, otherwise we create shortages and surpluses."
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy."
- Wendell Berry
"Supply and demand laws cannot simply be suspended because we don't like the result of those laws. We must work within those means, otherwise we create shortages and surpluses."
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy."
- Wendell Berry
"Supply and demand laws cannot simply be suspended because we don't like the result of those laws. We must work within those means, otherwise we create shortages and surpluses."
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy."
- Wendell Berry
Top Blog Posts
- The Bait and Switch of Contemporary Christianity
- Christian 'Exorcism' Leads to Gay Teen's Suicide
- He Said, She Said: Driscoll's "Real Marriage" is Really Not
- Racial Jeopardy and American Politics
- Viral: "Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus"
- He Said, She Said: Driscoll's "Real Marriage" is Really Not
- God, PBS and Paul Simon, The "God Chronicler By Accident"
- The Bait and Switch of Contemporary Christianity
- Defining "Evangelical" and Other Unsolved Mysteries
by Alec Hill 02-08-2012
by David Gibson 02-07-2012
How Can You Get Health Insurance if You're American with a Pre-existing Condition? Live Long Enough.
by LaVonne Neff 02-10-2012
by Martin Long 02-10-2012
by God's Politics Editor 02-10-2012
Blog Tag Cloud
Activism
America
Bible
change
Children
Christ
Christian
Church
Community
Culture
Economics
Environment
Evangelical
Faith
Faith and Politics
general
global issues
government
Human Rights
Immigration
Jesus
Justice
Ministry
Nonviolence
Peace
Politics
Poor
Poverty
Prayer
President
President Obama
Race
Religion
Sojourners
Spirituality
Theology
United States
Violence
War
Women
More On These Topics
Topics
Tag
