Feeding the hungry: the work of mercy.

[james.rogerson]

Nope and nope.

The words of our Lord are clear. You oppose them. At least be a man and own your position.

As for "supporting a socialist concept of society" you've made that up out of whole cloth. Your definition of a socialist is anyone who thinks a man should be taxed in line with his ability to pay a tax and not otherwise.

Because you are a bourgeois liberal you support taxing the head of a Catholic family of 9 at the same rate as a deliberately barren contracepting single.  Anyone who thinks otherwise (and who could fail to do so?) is, in your peculiar lexicon, a "socialist."

[james03]

The words of our Lord are clear. You oppose them. At least be a man and own your position.

Priority 1:  Convert and baptize as many as possible.

Priority 2:  Teach them skills suitable for their IQ to utilize their local resources to support themselves. 

Priority 3:  If there is a natural disaster, ship them relief.

Now if shipping them food on a temporary basis buys time until you can teach them to fish, then it might be appropriate.  The danger is that you ruin them and I'm cautious about that.  At best I consider it very dangerous.

Another position I have is that the view that shipping them food will solve "the problem" is asinine.  These are my positions and I stand by them.

As for "supporting a socialist concept of society" you've made that up out of whole cloth.

No, I've read what the socialists have written.  You agreed with their concept of "From each according to his ability".

For what's it's worth, the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need" is a pretty sound premise for tax policy, regardless of whether Marx said it or not.

Be a man and stand by your "sound premise", which by the way is the key fundamental concept of socialism.

edit: typo

[james03]

Because you are a bourgeois liberal you support taxing the head of a Catholic family of 9 at the same rate as a deliberately barren contracepting single.  Anyone who thinks otherwise (and who could fail to do so?) is, in your peculiar lexicon, a "socialist."

I'm actually a subsidiarist, and my favorite work on political philosophy is Libertas.

Your simplistic accusation is a problem for our discussion.  I think most people who "care for the kids" are effeminate, and not socialist.  I don't think they give it much thought and just react to emotion.

First and foremost I support a subsidiarist concept of government.  I've laid out what this looks like on the Federal level.  4% national sales tax and a 10% import duty.  Now if this were implemented today, the head of the Catholic family of 9 would see an immediate 14.5% raise in his income.  The 10% fraction would be saved in a Chilean private retirement account since we nuked Social Security.  That leaves 4.5%.  If we take the hyper conservative estimate that ALL of his income goes to consumption, then we subtract a 4% portion to cover the new sales tax.  That leaves him a 0.5% portion which is an increase in his disposable income.  Now if he pays any income tax, that is all gravy.  So this Catholic family would be better off.  FACT.

Now this is manly thinking based on the Catholic concepts of subsidiarity, distributive justice, common good, anti-usury, and private property.  In order to think this through you have to set emotionalism aside and ignore the concepts hatched by an atheist jew who wrote poetry to the devil.

[james.rogerson]

Sure.

We can work through this. I say that, regardless of who said it, the proposition "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a perfectly sound premise for a taxation policy.

Let's take the two clauses separately:

"From each according to his ability." The opposite of this is "from each regardless of his ability." Most people can see the injustice of taxing people regardless of their ability to pay because it leads to taxing a Catholic father of a large family at the same rate as a deliberately barren single.

"To each according to his need." The opposite of this is "to each regardless of his need" which I presume even you would oppose as being completely absurd; it would imply not only feeding the hungry, but feeding the satiated too.

Questions?

[james.rogerson]

concepts hatched by an atheist jew

You know who Ayn Rand was right?

[james.rogerson]

I

'm actually a subsidiarist, and my favorite work on political philosophy is Libertas.

Your simplistic accusation is a problem for our discussion.  I think most people who "care for the kids" are effeminate, and not socialist.  I don't think they give it much thought and just react to emotion.

First and foremost I support a subsidiarist concept of government.  I've laid out what this looks like on the Federal level.  4% national sales tax and a 10% import duty.  Now if this were implemented today, the head of the Catholic family of 9 would see an immediate 14.5% raise in his income.  The 10% fraction would be saved in a Chilean private retirement account since we nuked Social Security.  That leaves 4.5%.  If we take the hyper conservative estimate that ALL of his income goes to consumption, then we subtract a 4% portion to cover the new sales tax.  That leaves him a 0.5% portion which is an increase in his disposable income.  Now if he pays any income tax, that is all gravy.  So this Catholic family would be better off.  FACT.

Now this is manly thinking based on the Catholic concepts of subsidiarity, distributive justice, common good, anti-usury, and private property.  In order to think this through you have to set emotionalism aside and ignore the concepts hatched by an atheist jew who wrote poetry to the devil.

Should a Catholic father of a family be taxed at the same rate as contracepting single? Just a yes or no please.

[james03]

Should a Catholic father of a family be taxed at the same rate as contracepting single? Just a yes or no please.

Yes he should pay the same interest rate.

The person making a higher income typically has more that needs protecting by the military and police, so he should pay more.  This would be in accord with distributive justice.  Now assigning a percentage to what is protected is reasonable, so the interest rate remains the same.  A person making $40,000 would pay $4,000 at 10%, the person making $400,000 would pay $40,000.

[james03]

You know who Ayn Rand was right?

An Aristotelian philosopher who predicted our current dystopian world based on Aristotelian principles.  She contradicted herself in her atheism which can't fit with Aristotle.  This show up in her denying Original Sin which contradicts her created fallen world.

[james03]

We can work through this. I say that, regardless of who said it, the proposition "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a perfectly sound premise for a taxation policy.

I appreciate the honesty, but unfortunately for you Pope Pius XI condemns this premise as opposed to Catholicism.

"From each according to his ability." The opposite of this is "from each regardless of his ability."

That would be what is called a "poll tax".  The person who can't work has little demand on services provided by government for the Common Good, so he shouldn't have to pay.

"To each according to his need." The opposite of this is "to each regardless of his need"

The opposite would be "to each according to his merit" which is a restatement of the Cardinal Virtue of Justice.

[james.rogerson]

Should a Catholic father of a family be taxed at the same rate as contracepting single? Just a yes or no please.

Yes he should pay the same interest rate.

But this is an answer to a different question. I understood that (after you came kicking and screaming to the admission that the state has the right to direct the exercise of private property towards the common good (as per Leo and Pius XI)- a far cry from your original statement that taking something from one person and giving it to another is theft) you were willing to defend a flat tax on income.

I'm not interested in your economic fantasy utopia. I'm interested in you giving an answer to a question about a principle.

Should a Catholic father of 9 have his income taxed at the same rate as a deliberately barren single?

[james.rogerson]

 

I appreciate the honesty, but unfortunately for you Pope Pius XI condemns this premise as opposed to Catholicism.

No, he doesn't. Moreover, as you haven't been able to name all the magisterial documents touching on tax from Leo XII through Pius XII, you're not in a position to tell anyone what the Church does or does not teach on the matter.

[james.rogerson]

She contradicted herself in her atheism which can't fit with Aristotle.  This show up in her denying Original Sin which contradicts her created fallen world.

That's quite a significant lapse on the part of your favoured atheist Jew. Personally, I think denying original sin makes anything else you have to say about human beings suspect. But then I would say that. I'm a Catholic.

[james.rogerson]

Your main problem I think is that you conflate fact with your own opinion.

It is an undisputed and salutary fact that socialism is condemned by the pontiffs.

It is your opinion that a graduated tax system is socialism (and no amount of appealing to its presence in Marx will help here. You are faced with decade after decade of papal magisterium not only NOT condemning graduated tax, but also instructing governments that tax may only be levied in view of the citizens' ability to pay)*. It is your opinion that the state may not provide any manner of welfare for its citizens under pain of becoming socialist.

You attempt to use sleight of hand to disguise your move from the realm of fact to the realm of opinion. Your argument, which is that the pontiffs condemn graduated tax by the very fact that they condemned socialism, rests on your opinion that graduated tax = socialism. It doesn't and the pontiffs haven't said it does.

As a side note, wasn't it interesting to see in Pius XII's address to the tax lawyers that: a) he nowhere suggests that there is any problem per se with the state levying an income tax; b) he takes cognisance of the fact that modern states have grown in the functions they perform, but doesn't condemn this in principle either.

* I wonder whether you know that the first graduated income tax was introduced in Britain some 20 years before Marx was born?

[james03]

Should a Catholic father of 9 have his income taxed at the same rate as a deliberately barren single?

I see my typo, "interest" should have read "tax".  Yes, both should be taxed at the same percentage.

If a successful Catholic father is bringing down $300K and has 9 kids, vs. an 18 year old single male just starting out making minimum wage, say $15K, they should both pay the same tax rate.  At 5% the successful Catholic father would pay $15,000, and the poor single male would pay $750.  I don't see why the poor kid should be taxed at a higher rate.

edit: Actually I oppose any income tax, though not necessarily along moral arguments: defining income is arbitrary, which means lobbyists, which means corruption.  Second, an income tax is only possible with a Gestapo State apparatus.  This will always be abused.  The fact that Lois Lerner persecuted the Tea Party movement is of no surprise.  Third is the economic burden cause by compliance costs.  In the US this is estimated at over $200 Billion.

[james03]

No, he doesn't. Moreover, as you haven't been able to name all the magisterial documents touching on tax from Leo XII through Pius XII, you're not in a position to tell anyone what the Church does or does not teach on the matter.

I have not come across any Church documents that discuss income tax, let alone a graduated income tax.  If you know of any, send me a link, I'd like to review them.