Unconscionable” tax bill


Also, people tend to leave high cost states when they retire and start collecting their SSI.
The topic is too complicated to aggregate all the programs and expenditures into a single total, and pretend it’s relevant.


Actually, they are welfare programs.


Listening to some of you is like listening to people quarreling over kidnapping. It’s not the kidnapping that you’re worried about but the amount of the ransom.


Yes, if we were talking about job growth in the Tax Market. :wink:


It is one thing to address general objectives, such as you mentioned, but it is quite another to propose solutions to those varied social problems. It is in proposing specific solutions that there are no moral choices. What works best is not a question of good and evil. If the bishops limited themselves to pleas to look after the disadvantaged that would be quite acceptable. Where they get off track is by suggesting, supporting, or opposing specific proposals, which is what they have done in this case.


It depends on the usage of it being copied and pasted.

Is it done with love and charity?


The church is certainly not political, just as the USCCB certainly is. Their manifesto against the proposed tax plan is every bit as political as the comments from the Democrat party and every other special interest lobbying group.

It is precisely because the church is not political that I am free to form my own opinions about how social problems are best resolved, the USCCB notwithstanding.


I generally do agree with you, but in some ways your argument takes us down a rabbit hole.
As you noted, the fact is that the courts and government have defined income tax the way they have, regardless of what Daniel Pilla or George Hansen say.

So, narrowed to your specific point, income tax is both immoral and un-American, because it assumes government ownership of a person’s property off the top.


Do you really not recognize the difference between identifying a problem and calling for it to be addressed, and specifying the best way to resolve the problem? Yes, we are to help the poor. That’s not actually the point being debated. The question is what is the best way to help them? For example: should we raise the minimum wage? That’s an economic question, not a moral one. If on aggregate the poor are better off with a higher minimum wage then perhaps it should be raised. On the other hand, there is a great deal of evidence that raising the minimum wage results in lost jobs and reduced opportunities for the poor. What is the moral question involved in determining which position is correct? What does the church say on what the minimum wage should be set to? Will I find in the gospels? Revelations? Aquinas? The fact is that the church is silent on the matter. All she demands of us is that we do what we think is “best”, and since reasonable people will reach different conclusions on what that is, we are morally equal no matter which position we take.

Given that the church is silent on these matters it would probably be a good thing if the bishops were too since when they speak out it implies that they are speaking for the church when in fact they are speaking for themselves.


No one is against caring for the poor or strengthening families. The issue (for me) is whether Washington DC does a better job then could, say, the pastor of my parish.

The tax game now requires everyone to send their money to DC and the monies are first used to pay the bloated salaries to and expenses of federal bureaucrats. What’s left then goes in part to false claimants and whatever remains to the aid the poor.

Why not skip the middlemen and give aid directly to the poor (again) through the Church? The founders knew that big is bad in government. Politics is about power. Money is power. Power corrupts. More money equals more corruption. For me, I will give to poor box and other local charities whatever tax decrease I experience.


Because like liberal causes, it’s never about what they say it’s really about. This about creating a permanent underclass of people who will perpetually vote for the same politicians no matter what. When we get to that point, they can tell all the sad little farming coops and unions to take a hike. They won’t even have to campaign anymore after that.

Of course, once that happens, everyone and their mother (including those bishops) will be “surprised” and “can’t believe it”, “though it’d be different, cause they were special”----the usual craptastic excuses used.

We already have this in every American urban enclave filled with people who routine break the 1st Commandment (Chrisitan leaders included) and can’t see past the colour of this skin.

These liberals don’t really care about the poor. They just like to use the force of government to take from people who are actually productive and then they take credit for it because they vote Democrat/Labour/Green/Liberal every 2-6 years and it makes them look good in front of the right people in the faculty lounge or on Facebook.

There’s a reason why conservatives, despite making less money, give more to charity than liberals than over a factor of four.


See, that’s thier narrative though. If you don’t agree with their economy-destroying tax policies, you must hate the poor and want to throw granny off a cliff.

It’s no different when they call you a racist or sexist for disagreeing.

They have no argument and they know it.

Lower taxes helps the poor and a progressive tax is a drain on the economy.


no they are not,

explain how they are


This trick is used by the one-dimensional thinking left all the time.

The fact is broken down by Congressional District, Democrat districts are more likely to be on welfare than GOP ones.

Otherwise, start asking the left where all this white male privilege is.


I’m not sure if I should celebrate or cry about North Dakota. Not only do we feed a good chunk of the US, we apparently also help pay everybody else’s bills at tax time. But, because we are low population, we have zero effective representation. So, where’s the fairness for us?

Theo: Even with our big bases plus reservations here, we’re still #50 out of 50 on that map.


**[quote=“upant, post:139, topic:460058, full:true”]

no they are not,

explain how they are

Stinkcat has not been able to explain why, if they are welfare programs, the vast majority of people must pay in in order to collect benefits, and further must wait until age 65. I’m not aware of WIC recipients having those restrictions


Social security was, in the beginning, something akin to a forced savings/retirement account. You put money in with the expectation of getting money out. It’s now turned into something to pay people with disabilities ranging from 100% to a hang nail in addition to its original idea.

I have come to the realization that, despite the thousands I am paying in per year, I probably won’t see a dime of that come back to me.


Which is why it should be privatized, but the politicians do not want to give up control of our money.


Simpler is better. The tax bill is meant to help the decimation of the middle class by providing a climate to produce more jobs in the US.


But it doesn’t work. Kansas is proof.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.