Tax cuts for the wealthy

yellow8yellowM · #1 May 17, '12, 6:48 am

Yesterday on the radio Matt and Jim Blackburn (forgive me if I got the names wrong) had a caller who said she couldn't vote because both parties were bad. One party is pro-abortion and pro-same sex marriage, and the other party is for tax cuts for the wealthy. She claimed that tax cuts for the wealthy cannot be Christian.

Jim Blackburn then said that although he is sure there could be Christian motivations for tax cuts for the wealthy, that he could not think of any offhand. I was shocked to hear that he couldn't name a single good Christian reason to give tax cuts to the wealthy. Do you think he purposefully withheld his answer for some reason?

If not, is it not obvious to everybody (even liberals) why tax cuts to the wealthy could be good Christian policies, even if you disagree with them?

feed me · #2 May 17, '12, 7:09 am

Tax cuts to the wealthy do no good but inspire more greed. Just look at the economy now.

TarkanAttila · #3 May 17, '12, 7:28 am

...

What good do tax cuts for the wealthy do?

Trickle-down economics does not work.

Point being, which is the more vital issue - living under the thumb of the rich, or living under the thumb of those who hate life and love money? Not every greedy person is rich, as can be evidenced by the number of perfectly fertile couples who have only one, or maybe no, children. Or by the number of children whose fathers have absconded leaving their children and wives, quite partially because they hate the idea of a kid cutting into their paycheck.

aicirt · #4 May 17, '12, 8:13 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by feed me

Tax cuts to the wealthy do no good but inspire more greed. Just look at the economy now.

Define wealthy.

Maryland has instituted a new law defining wealthy as a single person making $100,000 a year and a family as wealthy if it makes $150,000 a year. So now Md is seeing an exodus from the state. What a surprise.

NJ demolished the boat industry there by taxing it to death. Bingo, that industry is gone as are the jobs. Oh which reminds me of Sen. Kerry moving his yatch from Mass. to Rhode Island to avoid paying the luxury tax there. A do as I say not as I do type of guy.

Greed? France is up to 75%. Why bother trying to get ahead when you have to turn your money over to the government? Who is greedy in these situations? I find the government guilty. First, cut out the fat. Get rid of the waste. But they will not go there because they want the votes of the government employees who, if the bureaucracy was cut, would lose their jobs.

Just because one is rich doesn't mean one is evil or sinful. There are many poor people who are not saints and they remain poor because they work the system.

constantconvert · #5 May 17, '12, 8:17 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by yellow8yellowM

Yesterday on the radio Matt and Jim Blackburn (forgive me if I got the names wrong) had a caller who said she couldn't vote because both parties were bad. One party is pro-abortion and pro-same sex marriage, and the other party is for tax cuts for the wealthy. She claimed that tax cuts for the wealthy cannot be Christian.

Jim Blackburn then said that although he is sure there could be Christian motivations for tax cuts for the wealthy, that he could not think of any offhand. I was shocked to hear that he couldn't name a single good Christian reason to give tax cuts to the wealthy. Do you think he purposefully withheld his answer for some reason?

I heard the show, and it was the very last caller so I think he was just trying to wrap things up. "Tax cuts for the wealthy" is a liberal sound bite to deflect the real issues. Don't get me wrong, republicans have them too. There is a moral basis for success based on merit and equality of opportunity. Responsibility for yourself is what gives us our basic human dignity. All that said, Republicans do need to emphasize and encourage charity and caring for the poor

catholictiger · #6 May 17, '12, 8:27 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by yellow8yellowM

Yesterday on the radio Matt and Jim Blackburn (forgive me if I got the names wrong) had a caller who said she couldn't vote because both parties were bad. One party is pro-abortion and pro-same sex marriage, and the other party is for tax cuts for the wealthy. She claimed that tax cuts for the wealthy cannot be Christian.

Jim Blackburn then said that although he is sure there could be Christian motivations for tax cuts for the wealthy, that he could not think of any offhand. I was shocked to hear that he couldn't name a single good Christian reason to give tax cuts to the wealthy. Do you think he purposefully withheld his answer for some reason?

If not, is it not obvious to everybody (even liberals) why tax cuts to the wealthy could be good Christian policies, even if you disagree with them?

cutting the taxes of the rich are good for the economy because it frees up capital for mostly small businesses and such, they can hire more people expand their business and help the economy out.

chevalier · #7 May 17, '12, 8:37 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by yellow8yellowM

Yesterday on the radio Matt and Jim Blackburn (forgive me if I got the names wrong) had a caller who said she couldn't vote because both parties were bad. One party is pro-abortion and pro-same sex marriage, and the other party is for tax cuts for the wealthy. She claimed that tax cuts for the wealthy cannot be Christian.

Jim Blackburn then said that although he is sure there could be Christian motivations for tax cuts for the wealthy, that he could not think of any offhand. I was shocked to hear that he couldn't name a single good Christian reason to give tax cuts to the wealthy. Do you think he purposefully withheld his answer for some reason?

If not, is it not obvious to everybody (even liberals) why tax cuts to the wealthy could be good Christian policies, even if you disagree with them?

It would be unchristian to prefer the wealthy over the poor. As far as economic matters go, the social teaching of the Catholic Church demands a preference for the poor. In fact, I suppose you could say, "when in doubt, choose what's best for the poor," although justice must be served and overt redistribution of justly earned property would be questionable (on the other hand IMHO redistribution of property acquired under an unjust system wouldn't be wrong and Robin Hood may have operated excusably under dire necessity).

There may be expediency reasons for granting the wealthy a tax cut, such as to provide an incentive to them to earn or report even more money in order to get more effective tax from them by lowering the percentile rate. I don't think that would be unchristian; however, it does seem to have a little hint of opportunism.

As Christians we must be careful not to disdain in any way the less fortunate, who are dear to Our Lord, who hears their prayer. We also need to be careful to avoid thinking that poverty results from personal fault, which may of course be the case but is not guaranteed (and perhaps not actually frequent). Charity is an important virtue and while both the wealthy and the poor deserve justice and deserve it equally at least in terms of having equal human dignity, but economic injustice for the poor can mean death by starvation whereas a little harsh tax regime for the wealthy, while unpleasant and perhaps unjust, will generally be much further removed from the bare necessities of life. Therefore I believe one should err on the side of the poor.

feed me · #8 May 17, '12, 8:56 am

@ aicirt: Sorry I meant for the people that make all this absurd amount of money and then can jobs (people that work hard to provide for their families) just so that they can make more money, Then they want more money from the government, and promise jobs; when they get that money, they still can more jobs, more hardworking Americans.

@Catholictiger: Cutting taxes for the rich like TarkanAttila said does no good. Again look at the economy now, and look at all the trickle down effects that have been applied and failed.

catholictiger · #9 May 17, '12, 9:45 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by feed me

@ aicirt: Sorry I meant for the people that make all this absurd amount of money and then can jobs (people that work hard to provide for their families) just so that they can make more money, Then they want more money from the government, and promise jobs; when they get that money, they still can more jobs, more hardworking Americans.

@Catholictiger: Cutting taxes for the rich like TarkanAttila said does no good. Again look at the economy now, and look at all the trickle down effects that have been applied and failed.

even with the tax cuts its still high for the wealthy, but I'd like you to explain why freeing up money for the small business owner. Lets say a guy owns an organic food growing company makes enough income to be considered wealthy.

or how does raising taxes on people like amazon or walmart help the economy?

ricofall · #10 May 17, '12, 10:07 am

Taxes are really not longer fair. You can look and see that about 50% of Americans who could pay federal tax, don't because of legal loop holes. (Source). We could answer the question by raising peoples income level higher through education and opportunity, but that would be a different thread.

feed me · #11 May 17, '12, 10:18 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by catholictiger

even with the tax cuts its still high for the wealthy, but I'd like you to explain why freeing up money for the small business owner. Lets say a guy owns an organic food growing company makes enough income to be considered wealthy.

or how does raising taxes on people like amazon or walmart help the economy?

Actually, raising taxed on people like amazon or walmart aren't going to help the economy especially if you have a revolving door at the top where all the money from taxes on the wealthy come back at double the taxes spent. I fully agree that freeing up money for the small business owner is going to help him create jobs, but if you put it in the hands of really big folks and expect it to get down to the small business owner isn't going to help at all especially if that business owner has to pay for insurance and taxes, exe.

Brendan · #12 May 17, '12, 10:58 am

St. John Chrystom - Doctor of the Church, had this to say

Quote:

Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person's gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone?

Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold form the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift.

Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people's hearts first - and then they will joyfully share their wealth.

I would have to say that his statement was almost prophetic. The Rich do feel bitter and the poor feel no gratitute ( governmental programs are an entitlement, not an act of charity towards them by others)

So the Christian outlook would not to look towards taxation to obtain material justice, but rather in the spreading of the Gospel. Anything else would, and has, cause moral harm to society.

JackHandy · #13 May 17, '12, 11:24 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brendan

St. John Chrystom - Doctor of the Church, had this to say

I would have to say that his statement was almost prophetic. The Rich do feel bitter and the poor feel no gratitute ( governmental programs are an entitlement, not an act of charity towards them by others)

So the Christian outlook would not to look towards taxation to obtain material justice, but rather in the spreading of the Gospel. Anything else would, and has, cause moral harm to society.

I second, third even quadruple the sentiments! Very well stated.

JackHandy

Ben F · #14 May 17, '12, 11:30 am

There should be no tax breaks for anyone, poor or rich. The flat tax rate with no exemption is the way I would go. How about everybody pay ten percent. You make ten bucks, then one buck goes to Uncle Sam. God bless

MidnightSun12 · #15 May 17, '12, 11:57 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by chevalier

As Christians we must be careful not to disdain in any way the less fortunate, who are dear to Our Lord, who hears their prayer. We also need to be careful to avoid thinking that poverty results from personal fault, which may of course be the case but is not guaranteed (and perhaps not actually frequent). Charity is an important virtue and while both the wealthy and the poor deserve justice and deserve it equally at least in terms of having equal human dignity, but economic injustice for the poor can mean death by starvation whereas a little harsh tax regime for the wealthy, while unpleasant and perhaps unjust, will generally be much further removed from the bare necessities of life. Therefore I believe one should err on the side of the poor.

This argument is built on the assumption that taxation and government wealth re-distribution are charitable, which is something I disagree with. Charity is based on one's personal love for his neighbour and for God. An individual who pays their taxes are not doing so out of charity simply because they have no choice in the matter (there is no free-will). We can't be guilty of sin without full-consent and, thus, it follows logically that we also can't be virtuous without full-consent.

Government assistance, can indeed provide for the physical needs of the poor and there certainly cases where it is warranted but this is NOT charitable. Charity comes from you and me, it's the generous giving of ourselves for the love of God. If anything, the presence of social programs in our society indicates that we (as individuals) are not being charitable enough in caring for the least of our brothers and it actually underlines the absence of charity in our society, not its fruition.