We're fucked

[Xavier_Onassis]

Do you think that that particular money would exist if someone had not made it?

OF COURSE!

If say, McDonald's took half of the executive's salaries and paid that money to the flipping the burgers and frying the fires, would that money still exist? OF COURSE it would.

If Roger Smith's obscene and unwarrented huge raises were divided among the people making engines and assembling Buicks, woud that money still exist? Of course.

Rich CEO's do not invent money.

[Plane]

<<The only tax that is tiered is the income tax and that is setup that way so congress can sell favors.>>

That's the first time I've heard THAT argument.  In Canada, the income tax began as the Income War Tax Act during WWI and was meant to be temporary, to end when the war was over.  Its obvious purpose was to raise funds for the war.  I don't know if the original tax was graduated, but it was certainly graduated (progressive or tiered) by the 1920s.  Even the flat-tax advocates I've heard argue on the basis of fairness and simplification, not on nefarious influence-peddling.   Where do you get this from?

It is notorious here , our income tax is loaded with loopholes such that the extremely wealthy pay little tax but keep many accountants busy .

<<So the progressive tax is corrupt because those who legislate it are corrupted by the power that comes with setting those rates.>>

I tell you frankly, that's the craziest argument I've ever heard on the subject.  The unfairness of a flat tax rate is so obvious that it outshines any other solution but a graduated income tax.  The principle is as old as the Biblical parable of the widow's mite and that principle must have been ancient wisdom by the time that Jesus articulated it in the parable.

You don't read Jesus much do you ? The Widow was poor and Jesus praised her for giving in greater purportion than the wealthy gave. The poor in the USA , if they work, might give more in purportion than some very wealthy provided you count the sales taxes that are more avoidable for the wealthy and FICA which is entirely avoidable for the very wealthy. It gets even worse if the Poor guy is a home or farm owner because when he sells his property (or dies)he is subject to the laws for taxing the rich temporarily.But without the rich guys ability to use accountants and specialised Lawyers.

[sirs]

I tried explaining this to Tee as well.  It was like debating an asteroid, monolithic and WAY out there     

[Michael Tee]

You don't read Jesus much do you ? The Widow was poor and Jesus praised her for giving in greater purportion than the wealthy gave. The poor in the USA , if they work, might give more in purportion than some very wealthy provided you count the sales taxes that are more avoidable for the wealthy and FICA which is entirely avoidable for the very wealthy. It gets even worse if the Poor guy is a home or farm owner because when he sells his property (or dies)he is subject to the laws for taxing the rich temporarily.But without the rich guys ability to use accountants and specialised Lawyers.

======================================================================

You still don't get it.  The widow gave a paltry sum.  It was insignificant when compared with the donations of the rich.  It was ONLY when taken as a percentage of her net worth that it became meritorious in comparison with the percentage of net worth donated by the rich.

Why was it meritorious?  Obviously because it represented the greater sacrifice.

Was it FAIR?  Jesus didn't say that the widow's mite was fair to the widow.  That would be absurd.  The widow shouldn't have to sacrifice MORE than the rich. 

The widow's mite parable provides a way to measure love, not fairness.  But in making his point, Jesus implicitly assumes what we all know, that the measure of sacrifice (not of love or of fairness) is the cost to the donor.  The effect that the sacrifice has on the donor.

The measure of the tax sacrifice, therefore, in terms of FAIRNESS, should be not the net sum of the donation, but the COST to the donor of making it.  Fairness demands that all sacrifice equally.  If the tax rate were set at 50% for example, many paying the tax would not be able to live, while the rich could continue on as before.

Therefore, in principle, a flat tax is unfair, unless it is set so low that nobody, not even the poorest, is unable to meet basic standards of living after paying it.  This is patently absurd.  The only fair way to raise the taxes needed is to graduate the rates and make the rich pay more.

[Plane]

You don't read Jesus much do you ? The Widow was poor and Jesus praised her for giving in greater purportion than the wealthy gave. The poor in the USA , if they work, might give more in purportion than some very wealthy provided you count the sales taxes that are more avoidable for the wealthy and FICA which is entirely avoidable for the very wealthy. It gets even worse if the Poor guy is a home or farm owner because when he sells his property (or dies)he is subject to the laws for taxing the rich temporarily.But without the rich guys ability to use accountants and specialised Lawyers.

======================================================================

You still don't get it.  The widow gave a paltry sum.  It was insignificant when compared with the donations of the rich.  It was ONLY when taken as a percentage of her net worth that it became meritorious in comparison with the percentage of net worth donated by the rich.

Why was it meritorious?  Obviously because it represented the greater sacrifice.

Was it FAIR?  Jesus didn't say that the widow's mite was fair to the widow.  That would be absurd.  The widow shouldn't have to sacrifice MORE than the rich. 

The widow's mite parable provides a way to measure love, not fairness.  But in making his point, Jesus implicitly assumes what we all know, that the measure of sacrifice (not of love or of fairness) is the cost to the donor.  The effect that the sacrifice has on the donor.

The measure of the tax sacrifice, therefore, in terms of FAIRNESS, should be not the net sum of the donation, but the COST to the donor of making it.  Fairness demands that all sacrifice equally.  If the tax rate were set at 50% for example, many paying the tax would not be able to live, while the rich could continue on as before.

Therefore, in principle, a flat tax is unfair, unless it is set so low that nobody, not even the poorest, is unable to meet basic standards of living after paying it.  This is patently absurd.  The only fair way to raise the taxes needed is to graduate the rates and make the rich pay more.

None of this giveing was forced , all of it was meritorious , but the Widow gave humbly and gave all she could have , so you have part of this right , Jesus found virtue in the love that this womans giveing represented , but you make a tremendous leap to apply Jesus's approval to the tax collector who would have taken the money .

[sirs]

And you still don't get it, Tee.  It was the Widow's CHOICE to sacrafice more.  Not some advocation that a 3rd party make "the rich" sacrafice at the same levels.  Christianity has always been about inidividual choice and free will, and what's in their heart, and never about a 3rd party's (in this case, a zealous anti-christian's) perceptions of "fairness"

[Plane]

Do you think that that particular money would exist if someone had not made it?

OF COURSE!

If say, McDonald's took half of the executive's salaries and paid that money to the flipping the burgers and frying the fires, would that money still exist? OF COURSE it would.

If Roger Smith's obscene and unwarrented huge raises were divided among the people making engines and assembling Buicks, woud that money still exist? Of course.

Rich CEO's do not invent money.

CEO's could be hired for less , but board members of large companys seem to like to hire stars , which is a lot like hireing baseball stars ,they put themselves on auction and go where they are offered the best pay. Also like baseball stars if they prove to have great talent they can improve the fortune of the team.

Burger flippers are also had at auction , but an adequite burger flipper isn't hard to find so they make less money, giveing one more money doesn't necessacerily get you better burger flipping, but some restrants (Waffle house does this ) train masters of the grill and pay them a premium , they become the stock from which they choose managers.

At any rate if no noe flipps the burgers no money is made that way and that particular earning never comes into existance , the CEO's share is earned if he does his organisation of the company well and if he does it so well that they outcompete , then he is indeed worthy of the value of the improvement he causes , for a Ray Crock or a Warren Buffet this can be tremendous, but if they were not present would McDonalds have earned so much? or would Berkshire Hathaway even exist at all?

I don't know if Roger Smith's pay was justified by his work , but he did better than DeLorien who existed to show how bad an executive position could get run. I wondeer if the Board might have found someone better than Roger Smith , if they did what would they offer him in pay?

[Michael Tee]

None of this giveing was forced , all of it was meritorious , but the Widow gave humbly and gave all she could have , so you have part of this right , Jesus found virtue in the love that this womans giveing represented , but you make a tremendous leap to apply Jesus's approval to the tax collector who would have taken the money .
============================================

You're still missing the point.  Jesus wouldn't make ANY comment on the tax collector, because Jesus was commenting on the measure of the widow's love.  There's no love involved in tax collecting, so naturally Jesus wouldn't have had anything to say about him.

I think the main point of confusion here is that I'm arguing from an assumption on which the parable was based, I'm not arguing from the main point of the parable.

The assumption was that the measure of the sacrifice is the impact it has on the donor.  That's valid for all sacrifices, whether they be love-offerings, as the widow's was, or forced offerings, like the income tax.

Once you grant that the sacrifice demanded must be FAIR, that all must bear the burden equally, all the rest of my argument follows.  A guy earning 20K and paying 50% sacrifices much more than a guy earning a million and paying 50% - - one guy loses his home and is out on the street, the other guy still has a pretty good life and can still afford a very nice home.

[Plane]

Do you think that that particular money would exist if someone had not made it?

OF COURSE!

If say, McDonald's took half of the executive's salaries and paid that money to the flipping the burgers and frying the fires, would that money still exist? OF COURSE it would.

If Roger Smith's obscene and unwarrented huge raises were divided among the people making engines and assembling Buicks, woud that money still exist? Of course.

Rich CEO's do not invent money.

I only barely understand how you job is done , yet I have confidence that what you do creates value.

If what you do earns you payment in exact purportion to the value it creates , congradulations that would be perfect fairness.

But it certainly would not be fair if it were up to me to determine what your payment should be , if I had to hire you the only way I could possibly decide how much would be to compare what you demanded with what another teacher might demand , it would certainly behoove me to learn the things that are signs of quality in teachers elese I may hire the cheaper teacher who might not have the ability to create the value of even that pay while not hireing the more capable teacher who might create greater value than the pay he demands.

[Plane]

None of this giveing was forced , all of it was meritorious , but the Widow gave humbly and gave all she could have , so you have part of this right , Jesus found virtue in the love that this womans giveing represented , but you make a tremendous leap to apply Jesus's approval to the tax collector who would have taken the money .
============================================

You're still missing the point.  Jesus wouldn't make ANY comment on the tax collector, because Jesus was commenting on the measure of the widow's love.  There's no love involved in tax collecting, so naturally Jesus wouldn't have had anything to say about him.

I think the main point of confusion here is that I'm arguing from an assumption on which the parable was based, I'm not arguing from the main point of the parable.

The assumption was that the measure of the sacrifice is the impact it has on the donor.  That's valid for all sacrifices, whether they be love-offerings, as the widow's was, or forced offerings, like the income tax.

Once you grant that the sacrifice demanded must be FAIR, that all must bear the burden equally, all the rest of my argument follows.  A guy earning 20K and paying 50% sacrifices much more than a guy earning a million and paying 50% - - one guy loses his home and is out on the street, the other guy still has a pretty good life and can still afford a very nice home.

I see the validity then in this more narrow definition , such s you are not claiming the approval of Jesus by misquoteing him.

But 50%!

Government isn't worth that much to anyone.

If the Kingdom of God can be run on 10% why does a government of Human beings require so much more?

[sirs]

Once you grant that the sacrifice demanded must be FAIR, that all must bear the burden equally, all the rest of my argument follows.  

Apples / Oranges.  1 doesn't lead to the other.  You're perverting A to fit your B.  Choice does NOT equal nor even lead to demand, especially when you're referring to sacrafice, which is largely applied to acts of free will.  Simple as that

[hnumpah]

If the Kingdom of God can be run on 10% why does a government of Human beings require so much more?

Waste and greed.

[Plane]

If the Kingdom of God can be run on 10% why does a government of Human beings require so much more?

Waste and greed.

Yea , selah...

There probly is an objective and real value of government , I suppose to be a good bit less than what we are paying for it, but how can I get an objective measurement for what it is actually is worth?

[Michael Tee]

But 50%!

Government isn't worth that much to anyone.

If the Kingdom of God can be run on 10% why does a government of Human beings require so much more?

=================================================

That was a hypothetical example, plane.  It works with 20% and it works with 35%.  The point is, at some ridiculously low level (1/2 %) the tax won't hurt anyone and at some ridiculously high level (90%) it'll hurt all but the ultra-rich, but somewhere in between are rates that will hit the guy at the lower end of the income spectrum and impact his life while having a much lesser impact on the life of a guy $40K higher on the income scale.

[richpo64]

>>And you still don't get it, Tee.  It was the Widow's CHOICE to sacrafice more.<<

Which is why Jesus told the story. She gave MORE that she could afford because she WANTED to. So if the lefties want to give more than is asked from them by the government they certainly are free to do so. The problem is, not only to they force OTHER people to give at the point of a sword, but they also refuse to give like the woman in the story themselves. Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Obama, don't give to charity, they TAKE it from others who are already giving to their church or charities.

But really, why are we even discussing Jesus and Christianity with a Godless Communist?