Pope Francis Takes On Capitalism And Inequality

[Vance]

The problem with that argument is that yes as citizens we have agreed to be taxed. If all men were angels no government would be necessary, if all men were devils no government would be possible.

Did we? I didn't ever agree to being taxed.

[Vance]

Joseph Smith taught,

D&C 121:36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but WHEN WE UNDERTAKE to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or TO EXERCISE CONTROL OR DOMINION OR COMPULSION UPON THE SOULS OF THE CHILDEREN OF MEN, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

[pmccombs1]

In a historicial context was a usury only for loans on money? Or did it inculde more than that? I really don't know so it's an honest question.

 

Usury, per se, is particular to the money economy. However, it is related to the idea of the "unearned increment of wealth" that Simmel talks about. The unearned increment makes wealth more powerful in the hands of the wealthy than in the hands of the poor, because wealth itself has come to be regarded as a "moral merit." Suppose a poor man and a rich man both call upon the merchant for goods. Each has 10 dollars to spend. Who do you think is more likely to receive the better quality service and highest value for the money spent? It tends to be the wealthy. This is a kind of "usurious interest on wealth... that its possessor gains without being obliged to give anything in return." 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 The problem is that much if not most of the expense of healthcare comes from bad health habits.

That and getting old. My Grandpa who was quite healthy and lived to 87. How ever he got prostate cancer and needed a hip replacement. He also died of gallbladder cancer. His medical bills at the end of his life were quite high. End of life care is really what costs the most. Skilled nursing facilities and cancer treatmens hip replacements cost a heck of a lot more than most other care.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Usury, per se, is particular to the money economy. However, it is related to the idea of the "unearned increment of wealth" that Simmel talks about. The unearned increment makes wealth more powerful in the hands of the wealthy than in the hands of the poor, because wealth itself has come to be regarded as a "moral merit." Suppose a poor man and a rich man both call upon the merchant for goods. Each has 10 dollars to spend. Who do you think is more likely to receive the better quality service and highest value for the money spent? It tends to be the wealthy. This is a kind of "usurious interest on wealth... that its possessor gains without being obliged to give anything in return." 

Interesting. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. Do you suppose that education might have something to do with why the wealthy guy might get a better deal than the poor guy?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 where everyone is responsible for their own health care.

This is were I stand. I also think there is reason for charities.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You mean like the opposite of what Christ taught in the Good Samaritan parable.

Serious question. Were in that parable do we learn that the government is meant to provider "charity" in any form. It could be health insurance, or it could be wellfare. If anything what we can learn is that it is an individual effort on our parts to watch after our brothern.

[Ahab]

It is hard to carry on a conversation with you be cause so much of what you "know" just isn't so.

NOWHERE did ANY of the prophet teach that it was good to use the force of government to extort "charity" from the individual.

Here is a clue, if you are FORCED to pay it, THEN it is NOT CHARITY.

The Apostle Paul taught,

I Tim 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

And the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. taught,

D&C 42:42 Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer.

So I am going to call CFR on your claims about what Jacob and King Benjamin said.

Edited to add,

Paul also taught,

2 Thess 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.

12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

Okay, so it's not charity, but at least it's one way to get help for people who don't get enough help from the charity of others.

 

I am one of the 99% who needs some of what the 1% have on this planet.  It's not as if God has said that only the 1% should have all they have as if they can have all they want without any regard for the other 99% on this planet.

 

So if they won't share what they have, charitably, the 99% should do what?  Just let them have it?  Why?   It's not theirs as if God  has given it only to them and not the rest of us on this planet.  They're greedy, self-centered, inconsiderate children who should be sharing what they have taken from all of the rest of us living here.  And it's really pathetic that so many people want to be exactly like them if they can be.

[Stone holm]

I misunderstood your statement about Medicare for everyone. I thought that meant you would be in favor of it for the young and the wealthy too. With regards to your next response, I am not pushing another agenda or against the Good Samaritan because I ask questions. I don't necessarily mind forfeiting the liberty to have an unhealthy lifestyle if it would allow me the privilege of less expensive health care premiums. I realize you are accustomed to people attacking your ideas. Please. I am not necessarily against them yet. I am trying to see how it would work according to what seems just. It seems unjust to me for those with healthy lifestyles to be forced to pay the health costs of those who abuse their bodies. But I am open to an explanation of why what seems just to me may be overlooked.

 

I am not in favor of a nanny State, how would this work?  Just like it works for those eligible for medicare now.  The age group which is really struggling right now is the 50 to 65 year olds who have often lost their jobs and are scraping buy on low paying jobs, or paying off the loans they took out to finance their children's education, etc. etc.  We make an effort to take care of the completely destitute and the really old -- but the common working Joe or the guy who is struggling to maintain a middle-class standard of living -- well they kind of get lost in the struggle.

[Vance]

Shall we look at what the prophets have said about taxes?

Mosiah 2:14 And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and THAT YOU SHOULD NOT BE LADEN WITH TAXES, AND THAT THERE SHOULD NOTHING COME UPON YOU WHICH WAS GRIEVIOUS TO BE —and of all these things which I have spoken, ye yourselves are witnesses this day.

Mosiah 6:7 And king Mosiah did cause his people that they should till the earth. AND HE ALSO, HIMSELF, DID TILL THE EARTH, THAT THEREBY HE MIGHT NOT BECOME BURDENSOME TO HIS PEOPLE, that he might do according to that which his father had done in all things. And there was no contention among all his people for the space of three years.

Mosiah 11:3 And he laid a tax of one fifth part of all they possessed, a fifth part of their gold and of their silver, and a fifth part of their ziff, and of their copper, and of their brass and their iron; and a fifth part of their fatlings; and also a fifth part of all their grain.

. . .

6 Yea, and thus they were supported in their laziness, and in their idolatry, and in their whoredoms, by the taxes which king Noah had put upon his people; thus did the people labor exceedingly to support iniquity.

And the was ONLY a 20% tax.

Ether 10:5 And it came to pass that Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines, and did lay that upon men’s shoulders which was grievous to be borne; yea, HE DID TAX THEM WITH HEAVY TAXES; and with the taxes he did build many spacious buildings.

6 And he did erect him an exceedingly beautiful throne; and he did build many prisons, and whoso would not be subject unto taxes he did cast into prison; and whoso was not able to pay taxes he did cast into prison; and he did cause that they should labor continually for their support; and whoso refused to labor he did cause to be put to death.

Mosiah 7:15 For behold, we are in bondage to the Lamanites, and are taxed with a tax which is grievous to be borne. And now, behold, our brethren will deliver us out of our bondage, or out of the hands of the Lamanites, and we will be their slaves; for it is better that we be slaves to the Nephites than to pay tribute to the king of the Lamanites.

It is a pattern that the wicked want to impose heavy (20% or greater) taxes.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Vance

[Stone holm]

Serious question. Were in that parable do we learn that the government is meant to provider "charity" in any form. It could be health insurance, or it could be wellfare. If anything what we can learn is that it is an individual effort on our parts to watch after our brothern.

 

In many of these parables which reflect badly on the Jewish establishment, we need to remember for all practical purposes the Jewish establishment was the government in those days for the Jewish community.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It is hard to carry on a conversation with you be cause so much of what you "know" just isn't so.

NOWHERE did ANY of the prophet teach that it was good to use the force of government to extort "charity" from the individual.

Here is a clue, if you are FORCED to pay it, THEN it is NOT CHARITY.

 

So here is the real side conversation that should take place. Is a government program charity.

[pmccombs1]

It seems idyllic. Pictures of Bilbo's Shire happily come to mind.

 

Could you explain for me, if not others the meaning of "not a question of supply and demand, but of subsidiarity"? I know I have been seeing the word here before but put aside in my mind. I am sure I could benefit from a definition of subsidiarity. It doesn't call for subsidies? Maybe it calls for subsidies? But from a source that has been forgotten? Families? Communities? Not the central government? Anyway...help me out here if you can mccombs. 

 

Subsidiarity is simply the idea that things ought to be done where they make the most sense. It means first things are put first, in the proper order. In distributist economics, it requires that the areas of production and consumption are as nearly coterminous as they can reasonably be. If I am a carpenter who makes chairs and tables, and my family and neighbors need chairs and tables, then they are my customers even if I could make a better profit elsewhere. In other words, goods are good primarily because they fill human needs, not because we can use them to get gain. Houses are for living in, not "flipping;" apples are for eating, not for establishing monopolies on orchards, etc. 

 

If I can do something for myself, like grow a garden, or dress a wound, or build a house, or whatever it is, then why rely on the government or the corporation to do those things for me? That's subsidiarity. 

 

I presented at a conference in Philadelphia once. When I arrived, I immediately set about putting up my display. I was soon stopped by a conference official and told that setup was the legal responsibility of the carpenters union. I couldn't do it. Carpenters union? Shouldn't they be making useful things instead of meddling with my conference displays, which I can handle on my own? That is a violation of subsidiarity. So the opposite of subsidiarity is the popular idea that you have to be eminently qualified before you are allowed to do things like raise your own children, care for your own health, etc. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Okay, so it's not charity, but at least it's one way to get help for people who don't get enough help from the charity of others.

 

I am one of the 99% who needs some of what the 1% have on this planet.  It's not as if God has said that only the 1% should have all they have as if they can have all they want without any regard for the other 99% on this planet.

 

The issue here Ahab, is that alot of what the 1% has they donate and do a lot of good with it. I am so sick and tired of people thinking that because you are rich you are evil and selfish. There is some of that but there is also a lot of thing that rich people do for others. And if you do indeed need help you don't need to go to the government for it lots of charities exsist to help people out that are less fortunate esp in the US.

[Stone holm]

So here is the real side conversation that should take place. Is a government program charity.

 

Not exactly, it is more like community cohesion and cooperation, in a society such as ours with the wealth this nation has, trying to defeat programs intended to make life easier and more dignified is, however, a display of lack of charity.

[thesometimesaint]

This is were I stand. I also think there is reason for charities.

 

Charities as valuable as they are, and they are valuable. Don't come anywhere close to filling the need.

 

Charities, like food banks, depend on government: http://www.cafoodbanks.org/About_Food_Bank_Funding.html

 

Hospitals depend on government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disproportionate_share_hospital

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

I presented at a conference in Philadelphia once. When I arrived, I immediately set about putting up my display. I was soon stopped by a conference official and told that setup was the legal responsibility of the carpenters union. I couldn't do it. Carpenters union? Shouldn't they be making useful things instead of meddling with my conference displays, which I can handle on my own?

cough (too much government) cough.

[Ahab]

So here is the real side conversation that should take place. Is a government program charity.

Thank you for hitting the naiil on the head.  And now that I've thought about it a little bit more, I would say yes, it is, usually.

 

Charity is when you are concerned for the welfare of others, and when government (people in government) take from the rich to give more to the poor they are doing so because they want to help the poor people have more than they have.  And it's not as if they're trying to take everything from the rich, as if the rich wouldn't be rich anymore.  They're just trying to help the poor to be a little better off than they would be without what they are taking from the rich.  And yet all you hear from the rich is balk balk balk about how they are having something taken away from them, without any regard for the state of the poor.  It's really pathetic. How much longer are we going to go on living this way on this planet?

[Stone holm]

Subsidiarity is simply the idea that things ought to be done where they make the most sense. It means first things are put first, in the proper order. In distributist economics, it requires that the areas of production and consumption are as nearly coterminous as they can reasonably be. If I am a carpenter who makes chairs and tables, and my family and neighbors need chairs and tables, then they are my customers even if I could make a better profit elsewhere. In other words, goods are good primarily because they fill human needs, not because we can use them to get gain. Houses are for living in, not "flipping;" apples are for eating, not for establishing monopolies on orchards, etc. 

 

If I can do something for myself, like grow a garden, or dress a wound, or build a house, or whatever it is, then why rely on the government or the corporation to do those things for me? That's subsidiarity. 

 

I presented at a conference in Philadelphia once. When I arrived, I immediately set about putting up my display. I was soon stopped by a conference official and told that setup was the legal responsibility of the carpenters union. I couldn't do it. Carpenters union? Shouldn't they be making useful things instead of meddling with my conference displays, which I can handle on my own? That is a violation of subsidiarity. So the opposite of subsidiarity is the popular idea that you have to be eminently qualified before you are allowed to do things like raise your own children, care for your own health, etc. 

 

Interesting your reference to unions.  Had a conversation with my wife over lunch, we were discussing a paper I was working on for local economic development...I mentioned that as I worked on it, I had an epiphany that in our town if you really wanted to get some cash flowing in the community, probably the best thing one could do would be to go out and organize the workers in the nursing homes and those working for the various non-profit rehabilitation service organizations in this Town.  The LNA's get paid below the poverty level.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Charities as valuable as they are, and they are valuable. Don't come anywhere close to filling the need.

 

Charities, like food banks, depend on government: http://www.cafoodbanks.org/About_Food_Bank_Funding.html

 

Hospitals depend on government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disproportionate_share_hospital

We the LDS doesnt saint. So if we don't then why not them? I think it is a mentality. I asked a question earlier to Stone Holm IS  a government program charity?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not exactly, it is more like community cohesion and cooperation, in a society such as ours with the wealth this nation has, trying to defeat programs intended to make life easier and more dignified is, however, a display of lack of charity.

So government progams for you is a form of charity.

 

The other argument that i really don't want to get in is the fraud and waste that goes on in these programs. That is really what people like me have a problem with. If the program was acutally set up to do what it claims or is there some other purpose for the program? I also would argue that the vast majority of programs really don't make life easier. But again I am not going to get into this now.

[Ahab]

The issue here Ahab, is that alot of what the 1% has they donate and do a lot of good with it. I am so sick and tired of people thinking that because you are rich you are evil and selfish. There is some of that but there is also a lot of thing that rich people do for others. And if you do indeed need help you don't need to go to the government for it lots of charities exsist to help people out that are less fortunate esp in the US.

Yes, and it's really amazing how the 1% does so much, relatively, to help others who are poor, isn't it.  But it's still not enough help.  What we should have on this planet is an equal distribution of all goods and services, or as close to that as possible, so that there are no rich or poor among us.  We should all be what we call "middle" class.  And yet the rich have so much more than the poor will ever have in this state of the world.  And it should not be this way.  It just isn't right.

[thesometimesaint]

The issue here Ahab, is that alot of what the 1% has they donate and do a lot of good with it. I am so sick and tired of people thinking that because you are rich you are evil and selfish. There is some of that but there is also a lot of thing that rich people do for others. And if you do indeed need help you don't need to go to the government for it lots of charities exsist to help people out that are less fortunate esp in the US.

 

Of course there are plenty of good rich people. But also there are too many that are not. Charities as valuable as they are just can't meet the need.

[thesometimesaint]

cough (too much government) cough.

 

Cough(worker unions are not governments) cough cough.

[Ahab]

Of course there are plenty of good rich people. But also there are too many that are not. Charities as valuable as they are just can't meet the need.

A good rich person is one who lives a "middle" class lifestyle while giving everything in excess of that to other people.