What a Christian Pastor says about Wealth Redistribution

[xsited1]

You can't?

How about if the haves took it away from the have-nots, first?

Both cases are wrong. We need to put an end to that.

 

[xsited1]

then explain to me when the government forcibly "takes" money from the haves and gives it to the have nots cuz I'm a have not and I've missed my check in the mail.

Raising taxes on the top 1% is entire premise of redistribution of wealth as discussed by McCain/Palin.

so you try again.

You didn't miss your check in the mail. There are taxes that certain people pay which are unconstitutional. Some of these taxes get redistributed to people that did not earn the money. That flies in the face of liberty. One reason why the United States is the most giving country on the planet is because the people, for the most part, are not taxed as heavily as people in other countries. You do not want the government the define charity for the people. That should be a personal choice.

 

[editec]

Both cases are wrong. We need to put an end to that.

You know....it's a whole lot easier to suggest that blind justice must start today if you happen to be the winner of the blind justice that happened yesterday.

Then it is very easy to say that what we ought to do is forget about the past and just start applying things like FLAT TAX immediately.

I'm 100% for things like a flat tax and an end to all welfare, the moment AFTER we split EVERYTHING equally.

You game for that?

I doubt it right.

So now asking people whose families have been on the losing end of the injustice for generations to suddenly want to play the game fairly as some people think it ought to be played is rather goofy, don't you think?

You want a fair tax system that ends all welfare for everyone?

I have it. It's simple and it's easy enough for a libertarian to understand, too.

Its the 100% inheritance tax.

Make as much you want, never pay any taxes while you're alive, either.

When you die your entire estate is divided equally among all citizens.

You game for that?

There's a tax that could not POSSIBLY be any FLATTER than that.

But whenever I suggest this FLAT TAX to scions of great wealth they all object.

I really can't understand why.

After all they whine like babies about how unfair the progressive tax structure it, and this gives them a perfectly FLAT tax, but they don't like it.

Go figure.

 

[xsited1]

You know....it's a whole lot easier to suggest that blind justice must start today if you happen to be the winner of the blind justice that happened yesterday.

Then it is very easy to say that what we ought to do is forget about the past and just start applying things like FLAT TAX immediately.

I'm 100% for things like a flat tax and an end to all welfare, the moment AFTER we split EVERYTHING equally.

You game for that?

I doubt it right.

So now asking people whose families have been on the losing end of the injustice for generations to suddenly want to play the game fairly as some people think it ought to be played is rather goofy, don't you think?

You want a fair tax system that ends all welfare for everyone?

I have it. It's simple and it's easy enough for a libertarian to understand, too.

Its the 100% inheritance tax.

Make as much you want, never pay any taxes while you're alive, either.

When you die your entire estate is divided equally among all citizens.

You game for that?

There's a tax that could not POSSIBLY be any FLATTER than that.

But whenever I suggest this FLAT TAX to scions of great wealth they all object.

I really can't understand why.

After all they whine like babies about how unfair the progressive tax structure it, and this gives them a perfectly FLAT tax, but they don't like it.

Go figure.

What do you mean about splitting everything equally? What is it that you want to split? And why do you want to end welfare?

A flat tax or a consumption tax is the only fair form of taxation. It will eliminate ambiguities and hidden taxes.

 

[AllieBaba]

I think people misunderstand the true purpose of charity. I think the true purpose is to make those receiving it want to STOP receiving it as soon as possible, and to make those who give it determined never to need it.

True charity, of the personal, individual, face-to-face, voluntary sort, is damned uncomfortable for everyone involved. Being forced to admit to another person that you can't handle your situation on your own and need help sucks. It requires gratitude, and I don't know anyone who actually ENJOYS having to feel grateful and beholden for things. Remember the last time you had to ask to borrow money from your parents or some other relative? Brrrr!

And being the person asked is no picnic, either. It requires you to feel pity and embarrassment on behalf of the asker, and while it's better to pity than to be pitied, I guess, it's still not pleasant.

Charity under these circumstances accomplishes much more than merely making sure that someone's physical needs are met. It provides an incentive for the recipient to become useful and productive in some manner, in order to earn back the self-esteem lost through the process of asking for charity. And it produces an opportunity for personal and spiritual growth for both parties.

Now replace that with welfare, and charity becomes merely one more bloodless, bureaucratic service provided by the faceless government, like road repair or trash pickup. It has no value or meaning. There is no gratitude involved, because who ever bothers to be grateful to the government? Its services are something you are entitled to. There is no shame involved, because the entire process is fronted by a disinterested, paper-pushing government drone who doesn't personally own the money you're requesting and has seen too many supplicants to care enough to make any judgements.

No, you couldn't be more wrong. If that were true, in your mind, charity should be unpleasant to give and unpleasant to receive.

The point of charity is to have a loving and giving heart. It generates thankfulness to God on the part of the recipient and it creates humbleness in the heart of the giver. Because any one of us could at any point be in a place where we need to receive charity. It should be done with a loving and giving nature, or it's pointless.

If you're giving charity just to make the person receiving the charity feel bad, then really, you should rethink giving it at all because that isn't charity. It's simply a way to make yourself feel superior.

 

[Ravi]

I find it amusing that a church would preach against a program that they are excused from participating in. Churches don't pay taxes. Talk about unfair.

 

[Ravi]

Not to mention the extreme selfishness this preacher is implying...he's excusing his followers from being charitable because they pay taxes.

Jesus must be so proud.

 

[xsited1]

I find it amusing that a church would preach against a program that they are excused from participating in. Churches don't pay taxes. Talk about unfair.

The members of the church pay taxes and the church pays taxes on goods purchased. Since they are a non-profit organization, there is nothing to tax.
Property taxes are unconstitutional.

 

[Ravi]

The members of the church pay taxes and the church pays taxes on goods purchased. Since they are a non-profit organization, there is nothing to tax.
Property taxes are unconstitutional.

Churches don't pay taxes on goods purchased.

 

[xsited1]

Churches don't pay taxes on goods purchased.

Ah, you are correct. Same as all non-profit organizations.

 

[AllieBaba]

define forcibly? paying taxes isn't force. you live in this country, you benefit from the government works such as military, infrastructure, education, etc.

should the wealthy be the only ones allowed to ride on the roads their tax payer dollars help build? should they be the only people treated in the hospitals funded by tax dollars? should their children be the only ones educated through public schools?

This bullshit of paying no taxes is laughable IMO. When did paying for the things our country needs become a bad thing?

No, anyone can ride the roads our tax dollars pay. However, everyone is not "entitled" to a vehicle if they don't work to pay for one, they aren't "entitled" to a house, they aren't "entitled" to eat at good restaurants, they aren't entitled to high end clothing.

The only thing our government is supposed to provide to us is PROTECTION from tyranny. That's it. We pay taxes to make this possible. Roads mean that our armed forces and our populations can move quickly and efficiently when danger is looming. They aren't there for the pleasure of the welfare class.

And what hospitals, exactly, are funded by "tax dollars"? And last I heard, public schools were primarily for the middle class and low income populations. Those with any money are quick to send their kids to charter schools or private schools.

 

[xsited1]

Not to mention the extreme selfishness this preacher is implying...he's excusing his followers from being charitable because they pay taxes.

Jesus must be so proud.

Not really. He's taking a pragmatic approach. If you don't have any money left after paying living expenses and taxes, you can't give money to charity. That's why citizens from countries with high taxes give little to charity.

 

[aztech]

Ravi, what a crock. Warren is saying no such thing. He is stating that charity begins and ends in the home, he is stating that people will spread the wealth of their own accord. He is saying that people are always willing to help others in need and the amount of that giving should not be controlled by the state.

When the government takes $10 and gives to the needy, how much of that goes to the people who actually need it and how much goes to the government departments that control it? If I give it directly to the charitable organizations working directly with the needy you can bet your life more of it gets put to good use.

Warren is 100% correct.

 

[Ravi]

Ravi, what a crock. Warren is saying no such thing. He is stating that charity begins and ends in the home, he is stating that people will spread the wealth of their own accord. He is saying that people are always willing to help others in need and the amount of that giving should not be controlled by the state.

When the government takes $10 and gives to the needy, how much of that goes to the people who actually need it and how much goes to the government departments that control it? If I give it directly to the charitable organizations working directly with the needy you can bet your life more of it gets put to good use.

Warren is 100% correct.

You're welcome to that opinion, but I don't share it. I think he is advocating his followers be selfish in an effort to undermine the laws of the United States. Not a very spiritual man, I guess.

 

[Care4all]

Not to mention the extreme selfishness this preacher is implying...he's excusing his followers from being charitable because they pay taxes.

Jesus must be so proud.

It's about CONTROL.....Churches like his want to control the masses i would suppose?

Churches don't have the money NOW to help all the needy that have fallen through the cracks....THEY TAKE GOVERNMENT MONEY to operate....

FAITH BASED INITIATIVES......the government is now paying the churches to do charitible things, no?

You would THINK churces like these would TURN DOWN government tax monies if "Charity beigins at home"....but they sure as heck ain't turning it down, now are they? That's called hypocrisy in my book....

 

[Ravi]

It's about CONTROL.....Churches like his want to control the masses i would suppose?

Churches don't have the money NOW to help all the needy that have fallen through the cracks....THEY TAKE GOVERNMENT MONEY to operate....

FAITH BASED INITIATIVES......the government is now paying the churches to do charitible things, no?

You would THINK churces like these would TURN DOWN government tax monies if "Charity beigins at home"....but they sure as heck ain't turning it down, now are they? That's called hypocrisy in my book....

Good point, Care. I forgot all about those faith based initiatives. The man's hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 

[aztech]

Ravi, seems to me you have an agenda on this topic as you clearly know little about what you are writing. Rick Warren is one of the foremost advocates for giving to the community and actively encourages the attendees at Saddleback to do do the same.

He, personally, and Saddleback as a whole give huge sums of money and time to people in need. Do a little research on the man....This is a man that no longer takes a salary from his role as Pastor of the church (in fact with the success of his writings, he paid back all of the money he had received from the Church over his initial 25 years)....he currently gives away 90% of his income (after tax) and lives of the remaining 10%.

This man is as far from (as is his teaching and message) from selfishness as you can get.

Maybe it is worth looking at facts before spewing BS.

 

[Turboswede]

The members of the church pay taxes and the church pays taxes on goods purchased. Since they are a non-profit organization, there is nothing to tax.
Property taxes are unconstitutional.

But donations are deductible and the Church is probobly exempt from state sales tax as a 501(c)3 entity.

 

[xsited1]

But donations are deductible and the Church is probobly exempt from state sales tax as a 501(c)3 entity.

That was mentioned in a previous post.

 

[xsited1]

It's about CONTROL.....Churches like his want to control the masses i would suppose?

Churches don't have the money NOW to help all the needy that have fallen through the cracks....THEY TAKE GOVERNMENT MONEY to operate....

FAITH BASED INITIATIVES......the government is now paying the churches to do charitible things, no?

You would THINK churces like these would TURN DOWN government tax monies if "Charity beigins at home"....but they sure as heck ain't turning it down, now are they? That's called hypocrisy in my book....

Faith-based initiatives are a bad idea. They should be terminated immediately.