click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Bar Stool Economics
by C Michael PattonOctober 28th, 2008
146 Comments
This is saying the same thing I said a few weeks ago about a demotivated work force. Punish the rich and you may not get your beer at all.
Source Unknown (if you wrote it, claim it).
Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.’ Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’
‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too.
It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I got’ ‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’
‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Similar Posts:
- When is Civil Disobedience the Right Thing to Do?
- Belated Twelve Days of Calvinism
- Culture11
- Is Obama the Antichrist?
- It comes in pints? I'm gettin' one . . .
Loading ...
146 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
I do not know who wrote this, but I must say one thing.
I have a 30 year career in finance, including a stint as the CFO of a NYSE traded company. I am a CPA.
This is the clearest explanation of our tax system I have ever seen!
OK, I said three or four things, but I still hold to it.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think I read this in a column by William F Buckley once.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/10/bar-stool-economics/ [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
I’m going to steal this.
Like or Dislike:
0
Yeah, I saw this one over on Contend Earnestly on the 22nd. No attribution there either.
Like or Dislike:
0
Just after we get a thoughtful post on faith and commitment we get this?
It ain’t beer guys. It is clean water, safe food, safe neighborhoods, health care, etc… In your story. the first guy’s kid died from a infectious disease, the next two had their mother’s killed in robberies and that rich guy never made his fortune because 6 of the other nine never received enough of an education to become decent workers.
You can argue about degrees of progressiveness in the tax system but this kind of simplistic, Rush Limbaugh thinking does one any good.
Like or Dislike:
0
Scott
“You can argue about degrees of progressiveness in the tax system but this kind of simplistic, Rush Limbaugh thinking does one any good”
I couldn’t agree more with you my friend.
Actually I think this is the seconf time this week that Michael has potsed an unharacteristicaly and skewds right-leaning slant on events. He even confessed as much in his earlier post regarding those terrible and demonic youth of today!
Why, in Michael’s thread was every word dedicated to maintaining the fairness and justice for the rich, but hardle anything uttered about fairness and justice for the poor. Hardly a balanced pierce was it?
I also had a sense Michael, as I was listening tou your comments that I was almost hearing the voice of one of the workers who came early to the vineyard yet at the end of the day got paid
exactly the same as the guy who just turned up for the last hour.
Yes you could come back to me and say that that passage is about salvation ie I have been a Christian and worked served you all my life but this guy has led a debauched life but has had deathbed conversion and crept into heaven alongside me. But the point is, it would appear that the God of justice and fairnes s mauy have a different take on justice and fairness than we do.
I have to confess that I do love election time. the same old hot potatoes generally rear their head and most of them have very m uch a self-immersed, self preservation slant to them. I actually quite enjoy it but I have to be careful of the more mischievous side of me can easily take over!
It sounds as though you need to stock the fridge with beer before next Tuesday Michael, you may be in need of it by the looks of this thread! (Although I am still one of the dew insisting that aNoBAMA VICTORY Iis by no means a certaintly. Anyhoe, if Palin and m
McCain win (.. a terrible mental image just flashed up then!) you can always use the beer to cheer your success. If Obama wins it will come in useful for a drowning of sorrows night!
Like or Dislike:
0
“You can argue about degrees of progressiveness in the tax system but this kind of simplistic, Rush Limbaugh thinking does one any good”
I couldn’t agree more with you my friend.
Actually I think this is the second time this week that Michael has posted an unharacteristicaly overly skewed right-leaning slant on events. He even confessed as much in his earlier post regarding those terrible and demonic youth of today!
Why, in Michael’s thread was every word dedicated to maintaining the fairness and justice for the rich, but hardly anything uttered about fairness and justice for the poor. Hardly a balanced piece was it?
I also had a sense Michael, as I was listening to your comments that I was almost hearing the voice of one of the workers who came early to the vineyard yet at the end of the day got paid
exactly the same as the guy who just turned up for the last hour.
Yes you could come back to me and say that that passage is about salvation ie I have been a Christian and served you all my life but this guy has led a debauched life but has undergone a highly convenient deathbed conversion and crept into heaven alongside me. But the point is, it would appear that the God of justice and fairness mauy have a different take on justice and fairness than we do. He may deven deem things fair that we think are unfair. (“My ways are not your ways” etc).
I have to confess that I do love election time. The same old hot potatoes generally rear their head yet againand most of them have very much a self-immersed, self preservation slant to them. I actually quite enjoy it, but I have to be careful that the more mischievous side of me doesn’t quickly take over!
It sounds as though you need to stock the fridge with beer before next Tuesday Michael, you may be in need of it by the looks of this thread! (Although I am still one of the few people insisting that an Obama victory is a foregone conclusion. After the Florida debacle of eight years ago, quirt frankly nothing would surprise me.
Anyhow, if your wildest dreams come true an Palin and McCain win (a terrible mental image just flashed up then….but I’m all right!!) you can always use the beer to cheer your success. If Obama wins it will come in more than useful for a drowning of sorrows session!
Like or Dislike:
0
Sorry Scott, despite what Michael Moore might say about health care in Cuba, the safest water, food, neighborhoods, and best health care are only found in countries with a free market that allows individuals to create and keep wealth. I work for a man who is very wealthy, and I’m very pleased to make him that way. If he wasn’t motivated to make money I wouldn’t have a job. There is no way to sustain an economy that doesn’t involve a system that plays to our “selfish” desire to increase our wealth. Sadly in this country we have let socialism creep in and now our water, food, and neighborhoods are less safe. If we were to allow the free market to reign in health care we might even see the return of doctors making house calls!
Like or Dislike:
0
Since I am a teacher I tell my kids a similar story involving grades. The A students are never all that thrilled at the prospect of the F and D students riding on their coat-tails to the “middle-class”. I also live in one of the most welfare dependant areas of the US (per capita). Politically it is of some small relief that most folks here cling to “religion and guns”.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
Very good. I’m going to copy it too!
Someone recently remarked that it doesn’t matter if you give the poor a hand out, the money will soon return into the hands of those who can manage it.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Aren’t you leaving out the tax breaks the rich are able to take? or is this scenario after tax breaks?
Like or Dislike:
0
In a email with this in it it was attributed to
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
Like or Dislike:
0
“Just after we get a thoughtful post on faith and commitment we get this?
You can argue about degrees of progressiveness in the tax system but this kind of simplistic, Rush Limbaugh thinking does one any good.”
Scott
I couldn’t agree more…well said!
Am I the only one who was struck by the fact that this article was thoroughly imbalanced and impartial?
It was interesting that line upon line was written about a fair breaK for the rich but nothing on a fair break for all, least of all the poor.
I have to say Michael that I find your theoogical postings to be fabulously intelligent, articulate, cogent and deeply thought provoking, I just don’t know what happens to you when you wade into the political/economic arena. The intlligence and balance just simply goes walkabouts! This is the second time in as many days tis has happened!
When I was listening to your comments I could hear the complaining, (some may argue whining) voice of one of the workers in the vineyard complaining because he had worked all day and only been paid the same wage as the guy who worked for just an hour! Soetimes God’s standards of fairness and nmustice are not the same as ours. And Jesus certainly didn’t turn round and say to him”Why, of course, you are so right.
I guess we can excuse it because it is election time so it wouldn’tt be the same if we didn’t have the same old hot potatoes rearing their ugly head, normally all based around self interest and a grasping mentality rather than a giving generous mindset, but if yoiu could please ratchet up the quality of the comment to ensure that it gives a more balanced and fair perspective when dealing with economic and political issues it would be greatly appeciated.
That is not to say you can’t put your own political lant on it, of course you can, but a fair assessment of all the arguments would be valuable so that people can make up their own minds on these issues.
Like or Dislike:
0
britphil,
Let’s look at this from the perspective of something Jesus would condemn: theft. When the government uses force to take away money from one group who earned it and give it to another group who didn’t we euphemistically call that “redistribution”. If I were to take your money by force and give it to someone else we would call it theft. What’s the difference? That’s why redistribution of wealth a.k.a. socialism rubs most Christians the wrong way. I doesn’t matter how needy someone is. They don’t have a right to someone else’s money. Charity (voluntary redistribution of wealth) is the appropriate Christian response.
Jesus rebuked the all day worker in the vineyard who complained about not getting paid more than the one hour worker because the all day worker had no right to more of his boss’ money than what he agreed to work for.
Like or Dislike:
0
“That’s why redistribution of wealth a.k.a. socialism rubs most Christians the wro
ng way.
Del..let’s get this right shall we? Redistribution f wealth or socilaism rubs most AMERICAN cHRISTIANS UP THE WRONG WAY.
tHE WORLD IS FUL;L OF cHRITAINS WHO ARE NOT aMERICAN AND WHO THERFORE DO NOT SHARE YOUR VIEW.
P;ease state the argument correctly and widden your vision a bit?
And as for socialism not being the answer I take it you were a firm advocate of no interventionary action act all being taken to erescue the A,mericaN ECONONMY RTECENTLY, sURELY TYOUR ATTIUITUDE WOULD ENABLEUS TO HAVE WVAed goodbye to the American ecoinnomy as it slid down the pan but you have been stra\ngely silent and subdued on this issue. I evn guess it will be acvoided in any reply It normally is vbecause it makes capitalists squitm a bit
“It doesn’t matter how needy someone is.” I cannot believe this staemenrt has fallen from tghe lips of a Christian. That is not what Jesusa taUGHT IN THE pARABLE OF THE gOOD sAMRITAN. tHE GOSPEL WRITINGS ARE CHI K FULL OF EXAMPLES WHERE IT DID MARTTER TO jESYUS JUST HOW NEEDY PEOPE WEREM EVEN IT IT CLEARLY DOES NOT MTEER AN IOTA TO YOU.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sorry for the previous message. The edits are playing up today and I did not use to use all those caputals, apart from the phrase “AMERICAN” Christians which was used deliberately for emphasis.
“That’s why redistribution of wealth a.k.a. socialism rubs most Christians the wrong way.
Del..let’s get this right shall we? Redistribution of wealth or socilaism rubs most AMERICAN Christians up the wrong way. You show an alarming lack ignorance of the the belief systems of many, if not all,
non-American Christians. Scandinavian Christians for example would take almost the completely opposite stance on the issue! Non-American Christianity is alive and well Del!
Please state the argument correctly and widen your vision a touch!
And as for socialism not being the answer I take it you were a firm advocate of no interventionary action whatsoeverv being taken to rescue the ailing American economy recently. I take it you advocated waving goodbye to the American economy as it merrily slid down the pan recently.
You have been strangely silent and evasive on this issue. I even guess it will be avoided in any reply. It has so far when it has been raised because it makes rampant capitalists squirm a bit
“It doesn’t matter how needy someone is.” I cannot believe this statement has fallen from the lips of a Christian.! That is not what Jesus taught in the Parable of the Good Samritan! Needy people did and still do matter to Jesus if they don’t matter an iota to yourself.
Like or Dislike:
0
“It doesn’t matter how needy someone is.”
Michael
Can I just cross reference if I may with the “Nominal Christians” post. The reason there are so many nominal Christiansis because they look at so many evangelcial Christians who proudly declare that it does not matter how needy someone is..,..and then they read the gospels!
Why should they want to commit themselves more deeply to this type of Christianity?
It is what probably caused Mahatma Gandhi to proclaim,”the person of Jesus Christ I love and adore…it’s just the Christians I can’t stand!
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Britphil,
Let’s take this point by point:
Britphil: “Redistribution f wealth or socilaism rubs most AMERICAN cHRISTIANS UP THE WRONG WAY. tHE WORLD IS FUL;L OF cHRITAINS WHO ARE NOT aMERICAN AND WHO THERFORE DO NOT SHARE YOUR VIEW.”
Del: Being in the minority doesn’t make my view wrong.
Britphil: “And as for socialism not being the answer I take it you were a firm advocate of no interventionary action act all being taken to erescue the A,mericaN ECONONMY RTECENTLY,”
Del: No intervention would have been necessary if the government hadn’t been in the business of playing favorites, i.e. the powerful (politicians) giving money to their cronies (the rich). There is such a thing as socialism for the rich. You’re witnessing it in the bailout.
Britphil: “sURELY TYOUR ATTIUITUDE WOULD ENABLEUS TO HAVE WVAed goodbye to the American ecoinnomy as it slid down the pan but you have been stra\ngely silent and subdued on this issue. I evn guess it will be acvoided in any reply It normally is vbecause it makes capitalists squitm a bit.”
Del: The current economy is built on paper riches. It needs to be allowed to crash and burn. Going forth the economy needs to be built on sound money. It won’t be though. It will be built on the fiat dollar like it is now.
Britphil: “That is not what Jesusa taUGHT IN THE pARABLE OF THE gOOD sAMRITAN.”
Del: The Good Samaritan performed an act of charity (voluntary redistribution of wealth). No government forced him to give his money away.
Britphil: “tHE GOSPEL WRITINGS ARE CHI K FULL OF EXAMPLES WHERE IT DID MARTTER TO jESYUS JUST HOW NEEDY PEOPE WEREM EVEN IT IT CLEARLY DOES NOT MTEER AN IOTA TO YOU.”
Del: Whether the needy matter to me doesn’t change that socialism is theft.
Like or Dislike:
0
Del
Thank you for your answer. You are one of the firts people to have actually had the courage to reply re the recent American economic crisis.
“Being in the minority doesn’t make my view wrong.”
No you are absolutely right, it doesn’t but by logical inference it doesn’t make you right either. And us non-Amercian Christoains are equally as entitled to our opinions as anyone else.
“the powerful (politicians) giving money to their cronies (the rich). There is such a thing as socialism for the rich. You’re witnessing it in the bailout.”
Oh come on Del. Does the name Hallibuton mean anything to you. Governements of all colours, not least capitalist Republicans have pandereing and rewarding their cronies since time began! Why does it suddenly become so conveneiently wrong all of a sudden. So we mustswallow uncritically the view that only the socialist rich are evil, and the capitalist rich are as morally pure as the driven snow? Please give me a bit of a break.
I do agree with you. The rich who beneriffted on the backs of the poor from the mortgage crisis should have been left to suffer. I have no probnlem with that. But I guess they will not be all voting Demcorat come next Tuesday.
It needs to be allowed to crash and burn.
If you push me, and up until now nobody else has, I would have been an advocate of seeing the American and other world economies totally crash and burn. Thos poor, needy stockbrokers across the worldwith their heads in their hands really made my heart bleed! It would have been a severe and much needed wake up call, spiritually, moraly, politicallty and economically for the entire Western world, not least for Western Christianity in general which needs it far more than most!
Ramoant catialsm which rapes the poor of their resources for a quick nuck is equally as much theft as casocialism. Do you not agree, Why is it I guess there are mitigating circumstances., There usually are!
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Britphil,
Britphil: “Oh come on Del. Does the name Hallibuton mean anything to you. Governements of all colours, not least capitalist Republicans have pandereing and rewarding their cronies since time began! Why does it suddenly become so conveneiently wrong all of a sudden.”
We may actually agree on something! I don’t differentiate between government powerful being republican or democrat, socialist or capitalist. If they use power (they all do) and redistribute stolen (taxed) wealth to others, rich or poor, then I’m against it.
Michael, look what you’ve started. Let’s get back to religion. It’s less controversial.
Like or Dislike:
0
Del
Thank you for your helpful and irenic comments.
I think I have now got clear in my own mind what I would like to sy.
All I would argue for is a more balanced and broader perspective than just the tax issue. There are faier trade issues ie giving third world producers a just price fo their product aND NOT JUST THE CHEAPEST WTO maximise profit which is also theft. Some arue that property is theft bit I do not advocates uch. It is not just tax wwhich is theft. It is rthe same plea I hAve made regarding issues re LEGISLATION HICH PRporotects the whol of life from before the cradle to the grave.
What Christianity needs is a broad perspective, not a narrow blinkered one which focusedsa and majors one or two issues at the expensae of others.
One final plea…please do not rush tot he assumption that if you are not a capitalist ypo must be a card carrying out and out socialst. There are varying degrees on both sides and some of us do argue for a synnergy/middle gtound approach, though it normally falls on deaf ears!
..and Michael..it will not surprise you to learn that I would like more of these debates. W
Like or Dislike:
0
Oh not again I hear you cry! Can this man not send a message and edit it before hitting the send button!?
Del
Thank you for your helpful and irenic comments.
I think I have now got clear in my own mind what I would like to sy.
All I would argue for is a more balanced and broader perspective than just the tax issue. There are fair trade issues ie giving third world producers a just price for their product and not just to maximise profit which is also theft. Some arue that property itself is theft, wghich I do not advocate seeing as I own my own house!. It is not just tax alone which is theft.
It is the same plea I have made regarding issues re legislation to prtoect the whole of lfe, from before the cradle to the grave.
What Christianity needs is a broader perspective I feel , not a narrow blinkered one which advocates focusing and majoring one or two issues at the expense of all the others.
One final plea…please do not rush to t he assumption that if you are not a capitalist yo must be a card carrying, out and out socialst. That is simply untru e.There are varying degrees on both sides and some of us do argue for a synnergy/middle ground approach, though it normally falls on deaf ears!
..and Michael..it will not surprise you to learn that I would like more of these debates. Given my earlier comment I would just prefer it if they were a slightly less one-sided, unless of course that is your intent, to stir up a healthy debate!
Like or Dislike:
0
Good discussion, Britphil. Religious discussion can wait!
Here’s a good way to work out property, ownership and thus fairness in our minds. It begins with my “self”.
I own myself: I don’t own anyone else (slavery). No group of people can own me (communism).
I own any material object I possess: I can find things not possessed by another. Someone can gift me something they possess (and so she no longer possesses it). I cannot take from someone else something I don’t own (theft). Nor can I ask someone to take something from another and give it to me (government). I can trade something I possess with someone else (a free market). Notice that all the ‘good’ actions are voluntary. The ‘bad’ actions require the use of force. This is all founded on the gospel, love your neighbor, do unto others, and it’s negative corallary, do not do to others that which you wouldn’t want done to you. There is no mention that government must make us do good things. Loving others can’t be forced.
Like or Dislike:
0
Of course this is true! But it doesn’t detract at all from the truth of what Patton posted: that tax cuts can’t be judged based on who gets the largest amount of money.
Frankly, I’m seriously concerned by the fact that the American tax debate is entirely dominated by discussion of absolute amounts of money; people talk about a “1 trillion dollar tax cut”, when what’s actually being changed is a tax rate. The actual revenue change is unknown in a dynamic economy; if the tax rate cut keeps a business or two afloat, the revenues from that company and its workers will be greater, not lesser.
The correct way to talk about taxation changes is tax policy, not “costs”. Taxation should have a broad base, be reasonably simple to comply with, hard to avoid, cheaply and consistently enforced, and stable across time; without those attributes it’s hard to make long-term business decisions, and even personal decisions like how to save for retirement.
Patton’s argument doesn’t really address this problem; he addresses a related problem, that people oppose tax cuts because they allow the rich to keep more money than they allow the poor to keep. But as Patton proved, this is an inevitable consequence of a progressive taxation system, and paying attention to that argument means that tax rates can never be reduced at all (which could not possibly be universally valid!). As I suggest above, counting the absolute amount of money a tax change will cost or save is not an effective way to establish tax policy.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
Any economic system run by human beings will inevitably allow normal human greed and malice to manifest itself.
Those in a position to abuse their power will do so. It does not matter whether the system is pure capitalist, pure socialist, or a mix of the two. The error of socialism however is that it ties those who can abuse economic power to those who can abuse political power. Granted, pseudo-capitalist systems (like America’s) where the economic powers can pull the political strings is equally dangerous.
It is the error of the secularists to believe that putting a man in a new suit will make him a new man. The Christian way has always been to change the man, then worry about his suit.
Like or Dislike:
0
Del, I thought your comments summed things up well. It is simply not the government’s job to distribute weath. Even if, somehow, one can justify such a method of government as an acceptable moral option, it is not pragmatic toward advancement.
I liken the economic plans of socialism and redistribution as economic anti-depressants. Sure, it will stablize certian aspects, but the consequenses level any type of stimulous and motivation. Yes, there is always risk in freedom, but the cost of its alternative is too high.
Like or Dislike:
0
“The error of socialism however is that it ties those who can abuse economic power to those who can abuse political power.”
Good word.
Like or Dislike:
0
It really is a matter of stewardship and the sovreignty of God.
You can ask any CPA. a family making $25,000.00 can and often does live better than one which makes $65,000.00.
Why pay Wal Mart prices for the same items at others stores for considerably less?
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Where to start? The false logic of this post (I’m glad you didn’t write this, Michael) is overwhelming. I assume these guys represent percentages of the population, with the primary point being that 10% pays 59% of the taxes in this country. According to Nationmaster.com, the top 30% (guys 10, 9,
pay 65.1%. So, that throws the whole illustration way off.
Plus, the idea that the richest will take their money and go elsewhere is absurd. Where? A progressive tax system is one that takes care of the weakest members of society. That is both our privilege and responsibility. Tax dollars pave streets in poor neighborhoods as well as rich. Tax dollars build hospitals for poor patients as well as the rich. Travel to a developing country like Mexico or China as I have and you will see the results of a system that does not care for all its citizens. It is incumbent on those of us who have a comfortable living to see that all our citizens are cared for.
Now if this sounds like a socialist idea, or even a communist idea, remember the words of Jesus — “Inasmuch as you did it unto one of the least of these you did it unto me.” Plus, to those who did not care for the least of these, Jesus indicates he never knew them. So, let’s drop the classist economics and recognize that Kingdom economics compels us to care for, in a variety of ways, those who need help most. Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0
Chuck,
I agree. Taking care of the poor IS a moral responsibility. However, if the government takes from me to help the poor I’m no long a free moral agent. Christian charity must come voluntarily from the heart.
American streets are paved in this country because there is an abundance of wealth for the government to glom onto, not because we have a good government. Countries like Mexico and China are in worse shape because their governments are even more parasitical than ours.
No classism here. Only a free and open market will create enough wealth for us to voluntarily and from the heart, care for the poor. Again, Jesus admonishes us to care for the poor. Let’s do it! But not with other people’s money.
Like or Dislike:
0
That doesn’t mean that the tax issue should be ignored!
Price isn’t decided by the purchaser; it’s set by the market. “Fair trade prices” or “just prices” necessarily involve limiting the number of people who are permitted to sell, so that supply can be artificially restricted. Usually the method used to allow that is that the “fair trade” cartel charges farmers a substantial fee to register them, plus imposes standards that most can’t meet. The lucky winners then get to sell to the people who are convinced that “fair trade” is a good thing, and the losers get to sell to anyone else (unless one or both government declares that non-fair-traders aren’t allowed to work).
Being ignorant of economics can’t make you merciful. It only means that your best attempts at mercy will amount to cruelty.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
Chuck,
I think the point is that the rich (individuals as well as corporations) make jobs/careers possible for the rest of us. The tax issue is a slap at Obama’s illogic (no logic?).
Want to make $70.00 per hr; $500 per hr? Halliburton or Ford or whoever can make it possible – nay rather, a reality.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Every time a (Western European) socialist tells a capitalist that he’s just being greedy because he doesn’t buy into wealth redistribution, a true Commie/Anarchist can simply walk up to the socialist, tap him on the shoulder, and tell him that he hasn’t taken that principle far enough.
Really. Where does it end?
Like or Dislike:
0
Ok. I didn’t read all of the comments (wow!), but I think someone already said that they were surprised to find such a simplistic and clearly right-leaning post on this blog. I would agree.
It leaves out the fact that those on the middle and lowest economic levels can’t afford even basic “luxuries” like health care. Or that they often work hard and stressful jobs that bring success and extravagant lifestyles for the wealthiest 1 or 2–who live in luxury rather than sharing the success equally with those who bring them the luxury. Also, in reality the 10 men wouldn’t even be sitting at the bar together. The wealthiest 1 or 2 would have their own place of service. And instead of beer we would be talking about means of survival for some.
It also leaves out the reality that in the current US tax/spend system, corporate welfare is 3 times as much as the amount spent on low-income welfare: $167 billion to $51.7 billion. And for those “four” who pay and do nothing, they are limited to a 5 year period that this can happen and a limit on how much they can receive–not to mention that they are required (unless for health reasons) to work or do job training for a minimum of 30 hours a week. In contrast there are no limits in corporate welfare in time or money for those in the top tier.
Given the figures above, each American pays an average of $400 a year for low-income welfare, but spends $1400 a year on corporate welfare.
We already “spread the wealth”. I for one am not for spreading the wealth in such a way that gives more money to people who do very little actual work and already make millions and billions when some people can’t afford to live and eat, often working hard for on $6.75-$20 hour.
The other issue is that someone mentioned if Jesus would see taking money from the rich and giving to the poor as “stealing”. Whoever said that has not paid much attention to the Scriptures. What about the tithe that went to the poor who had no inheritance? Or where the mother of Jesus says God has “lifted up the needy, but sent the rich away poor”. Or if that’s too controversial, what about “God desires equality, this is the meaning of the Scripture ‘he who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.’” Part of the expectation of the Messianic age (of the world to come) was and is that there will be material and social equality. Why would Christians want to experience that forever but not desire to join in it today?
Like or Dislike:
0
You know, I think its funny how we will jump on the bandwagon against wealth redistribution and even classifying contributing assistance to society’s indigent and disabled folks as stealing. But let the financial markets find itself in need of some government assistance, and we’re singing another tune. Contributing to the needs of society’s most vulnerable and neediest is just as costly as contributing to keep financial markets alive and just as practical. In fact, the U.S. Department of HUD only shelled out a mere $1.4 billion last year on homeless programs compared to… how much is going to cost to bail out Wall Street?
Don’t get me wrong, I believe in the engines of capitalism as much as anyone here and will defend the need to keep its economic engines running. But facilitating the release of capital is nothing if we are not simultaneously willing to facilitate production into society of folks who may need a little hand up in doing so.
Like or Dislike:
0
Lisa, I don’t think any one is in favor of neglecting those who are in need and providing assistance to the degree that the government can sustain and still promote some true version of capitalism. The issue of wealth redistribution has much deeper effects on the psyche of the nation and the workforce that drives it. It is a fine line. As I have said before, the primary job of the government is to protect the wagon, not drive it. Wealth redistribution puts the government in the driver’s seat.
Big picture, however, is that wealth redistribution among the rich cannot even claim any type of moral superiority, even if that was a better way to go. What I mean by this is that the poorest American is much wealthier than the richest in some countries. Or better, our lower class is better off than other’s upper class. If we truly want to distribute our wealth, why do it here? Why not take the taxes and give them to others who are really in need. Truly, there are not too many in America who can claim to be among the poor that we will always have with us. That is why people are swimming oceans to get here.
The government just needs to stay out of our business as often as possible. That is the key. Yes, they can and will step in from time to time, but we cannot make the exception the rule. Once we accept that we have moved to socialism. If that is where everyone wants to end up, this is fine. It is a democracy. But people need to be educated in these things so that they don’t follow in the senseless passions of the masses just because gas is so high or because we lost a few trillion dollars in the stock market. I just don’t think people understand how good we really have it.
Like or Dislike:
0
“The government just needs to stay out of our business as often as possible. ”
This is a wonderful theory, but I tend to think it’s applied inconsistently by many people. If you truly believed that, then you wouldn’t have much to say when people wanted the right to abortions, or to marry someone of the same sex. Those people have just as much right to government non-intervention as rich people.
Now, you can say this is a moral issue and therefore separate from the economic issue, and it is. But under my set of beliefs, it’s MORE immoral to deny homosexuals the right to see their life partners in the hospital as it is to tax certain people a little more in order to have the money to secure the future of our country.
As for abortion, a true believer in government non-intervention would let those who don’t believe abortion should be illegal (something like 40-50% of the country, according to a poll I saw a while back) have the right to get abortions.
I suppose from my point of view, this looks like a case of “keep the government off me, but look out for your atheist butt”.
And, you know, to me, the moral thing to do is to PAY my taxes happily and without complaint, knowing that the money I give up is going toward the common good. It benefits everyone to have good education, good infrastructure, and a good social safety net that doesn’t depend on the whim of people who may or may not care to give money at that time. I’m happy to give my share in order to ensure that everyone’s kids have access to medical care, not just the ones in my city that I could personally contribute to.
Like or Dislike:
0
Mary B
We haven’t corresponded before but I think you are a bit of a new P&P star in the making!
“This is a wonderful theory, but I tend to think it’s applied inconsistently by many people. If you truly believed that, then you wouldn’t have much to say when people wanted the right to abortions, or to marry someone of the same sex. Those people have just as much right to government non-intervention as rich people.”
Absolutely. This argument that is being put forward is so ill thought through and loaded wuith inconsistencies which have highlighted really well.
Yep..funny how government intevention becomes attractive when it suits our tastes or serves our purposes. It is so ironic that those who rage against “bleeding heart liberlas” are thare completely blind tio the fact that they are the most liberall people of all, a label which would horrifty many of them if they thought it was going to be attached to themselves.
“And, you know, to me, the moral thing to do is to PAY my taxes happily and without complaint, knowing that the money I give up is going toward the common good. It benefits everyone to have good education, good infrastructure, and a good social safety net that doesn’t depend on the whim of people who may or may not care to give money at that time. I’m happy to give my share in order to ensure that everyone’s kids have access to medical care, not just the ones in my city that I could personally contribute to.
Can I just reach across the Atlantic Mary and give you a huge warm embrace flor this last comment
Micahel you have rebuked us onm many on accasion with hte following remark. Can you please just deal with it! God requires you to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and I for one would be happy to [ay a more tax if it meant a better infrastructuire, health system, etc for society as a whole. Can you not think a bit more communally ratherthan just merely indivdualistically?
But people need to be educated in these things so that they don’t follow in the senseless passions of the masses just because gas is so high or because we lost a few trillion dollars in the stock market. I just don’t think people understand how good we really have it.
I’m sorry Michael, but you can be a touch patronising at times “the senseless opassions of the masses” sounds like the musings iof a academic who is looking down from afar at the great unwashed! Each of the opinions of those “senseless masses” (I take it you know them all well) is equallt as valid as yours and they are entitled to express it, especially at the ballot box next week. I live in an urban working class setting, and Im I can assure you that the lessons they have learned in the “school of life” are probably worth far more than what is taught in any univwersity or seminary. I would even go far as to state that many of these senseless people would give most if not all of the students at any theological college/seminary a really good run for their money!
Onme other question I might ask if I may. Why is it that so many Republicans arwe acting and behacving as if the Sovereignty of God is going to dreastically diminsh overnight next Tuesd
For those who claim themselves to be card carrying Calvinists why has your God suddenly become so small resulting in all this negative, personal scaremongering against Obama. Are you not required to submit to his authority just as muc gh as you do to George W Bushes or Ronald Reagan, or is he goinvg to dish out some form of dispensation clause permitting non- submission due to mitigating c circumstances?
Like or Dislike:
0
Here is a properly edited version of my response to Mary/Michael!
Mary B
We haven’t corresponded before but I think you are a bit of a new P&P star in the making!
“This is a wonderful theory, but I tend to think it’s applied inconsistently by many people. If you truly believed that, then you wouldn’t have much to say when people wanted the right to abortions, or to marry someone of the same sex. Those people have just as much right to government non-intervention as rich people.”
Absolutely. This argument that is being put forward here is so ill thought through and loaded with inconsistencies which you have highlighted really well.
Yep..funny how government intevention becomes attractive when it suits our tastes or serves our purposes. It is so ironic that those who rage against “bleeding heart liberlas” are completely blind to the fact that they are the most raging liberal people of all. This would horrify many of them if they thought it was going to be attached to themselves.
“And, you know, to me, the moral thing to do is to PAY my taxes happily and without complaint, knowing that the money I give up is going toward the common good. It benefits everyone to have good education, good infrastructure, and a good social safety net that doesn’t depend on the whim of people who may or may not care to give money at that time. I’m happy to give my share in order to ensure that everyone’s kids have access to medical care, not just the ones in my city that I could personally contribute to.
Can I just reach across the and give you a huge warm transatlantic embrace flor this last comment Mary.
Michael you have quite justifiably, on many an occasion rebuked us with the simple and stark remark “deal with it!”. Can you please just deal with this situation! God requires you to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and I know this concept may seem like anathema, but I for for one would be happy to pay more tax if it meant a better infrastructure, health and education system, etc for society as a whole. Can you not think a bit more communally rather than just merely indivdualistically?
“But people need to be educated in these things so that they don’t follow in the senseless passions of the masses just because gas is so high or because we lost a few trillion dollars in the stock market. I just don’t think people understand how good we really have it.”
I’m sorry Michael, but you can be a touch patronising at times “the senseless opassions of the masses” sounds like the musings iof a academic who is looking down from afar at the great unwashed! Each of the opinions of those “senseless masses” (I know it is a mere turn of phrase, but I take it you know them all well) is equally as valid and important as yours and they are entitled to express it, especially at the ballot box next week.
I live in an urban working class setting, and I can assure you that the lessons they have learned in the “school of life” are probably worth far more than what is taught in any university or seminary. I would even go far as to state that many of these “senseless people” would give most if not all of the students at any theological college/seminary a really good run for their money and would probably run rings round many of them!
One other question I might ask if I may. Why is it that so many Republicans are acting and behaving all of a sudden in accordance with a new found “The Reducible Sovereignty of God” principle or doctrine. Is the sovereignty of God going to drastically diminish overnight next Tuesday?
For those who claim themselves to be card carrying Calvinists why has your God suddenly become so small resulting in all this negative, personal scaremongering against Obama. Are you not required to submit to his authority just as much as you have done for George W Bushs or Ronald Reagan, or is the Lord suddenly about to dish out some form of dispensation clause permitting non- submission due to mitigating circumstances?
Just wondering!?
Like or Dislike:
0
britphil,
“Just wondering!?”
Democracy is not monarchy and Obama is not a king or prince or anointed. Neither were the Bolsheviks or Communists either come to think of it.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Vladimir
I am completely perplexed as to where you got the idea that I was implying democracy was monarchy from, and neither do I think that Obama is a king, prince or anointed one of any sort whatsoever! You are making way too many assumptions here.
But the principle must surely be that if he is elected, God has permitted that to happen, whether you like it or not, and that ALL Amercians are called to come under the authority of the elected government. I don’t believe that the new President, whoever it may be, is anointed but they well be appointed which is a totally differentr concept. Also I well remeber the almost Messianic fervour and euphoria when Tony Blair was first elected here in the UK, yet he turned out to be a real disappointment in the end.
You also cleverly avoided providing a reply as to why many Americans, including yourself if you don;t mind me saying, are reacting with an attitude bording on panic and paranoia if you hold to the view that God is sovereign. Unless of course, you don’t!
Am I right in thinkg that you might have difficulty submitting to, or let’s put it another way, coming under the authority of an Obama-led administration? Just asking.
Like or Dislike:
0
All of you who lean toward socialism…you are trying to impose on people the things that God himself would not. He doesn’t require us to hand over our money for salvation. Sure, we tithe and give offerings out of obedience and love…in fact when we give, it should be “a get to attitude” not a “have to” attitude. It is by grace we have been saved through faith in Christ. Why is it that we have such little faith in our brothers and sisters in Christ to provide for those that need our help? God doesn’t. Think about what a faceless government’s help does for a needy individual. Do you think it inspires people to “pay it forward” or make changes in their life for the better? I don’t. It makes people become more dependent and feel entitled. There is no reason to work harder or make changes because they become comfortable. (on a side note, the rich are not an endless supply. As more people start feeling comfortable and think it not necessary to work harder, there are more people to provide for and eventually the “rich” will be tapped out. Less “rich” people will exist because there will be few who will want to work hard enough to attain it.) Now think about how we react when a person with a face helps us out in hardship. We are inspired, we want to return the favor, we are thankful, we work a little harder to get out of our ordeal. This is why non-government programs for those that are in need are a better way in helping people not to mention it gives us the opportunity to share Christ. I don’t know if any of you come from modest backgrounds. I do and many in my family still live modestly. So what I say is from my own experience. Regardless of how this election turns out….God is in control “for He removes kings and establishes kings. The result is part of His plan.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Am I right in thinkg that you might have difficulty submitting to, or let’s put it another way, coming under the authority of an Obama-led administration? Just asking.”
We will have to obey the government under Comrade “Che” Obama, but in America, we have the Constitutional right to criticize any government official. This Constitutional right is over and above the authority of the sitting President.
So, while I will not slander my leader (“You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people”), I will still criticize “Chairman Mao” Obama’s policies.
Like or Dislike:
0
Saint and Sinner.
Thank you Saint for being prepared to do what Valdimir either couldn’t or wouldn’t do and actually answer the question.
I am actually with you all the way on this one. Criticise way to your heart’s content my friend! I know I do, so long as you are prepared to obey his authority and so long I am prepared to submit to the authority of the elected leaders here in the UK. I somehow do not think that all American Christians share your willingness though!
Have no fear, I will be feeling exactly the same as you are in a couple of years time, as it is almost a dead certainty that a right wing Conservative (If I was going to go down the cheap Marxist/Che/route I could add Fascist, but I won’t!) government will be elected here at next election as sure as eggs are eggs!
I have to say though I do find all this “Che/Chairman Mao/Obama’s a Marxist”stuff way, way too simplistic.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Regardless of how this election turns out….God is in control “for He removes kings and establishes kings. The result is part of His plan.”
Hi Mom of four.
Whatever you do, don’t let Vladimir see this..
“Democracy is not monarchy and Obama is not a king or prince or anointed. ”
…he will have a complete duck egg! Despite not being a socialist you have attributed royal qualities to Obama that I would not ever dare to do!
And by the way, yes..I am from a very “ordinary” poor background in one of the poorer towns/urban communities of the UK, and no, neither me or my family have, thankfully, had to rely on state benefits, though I firmly believe that there many who, sadly, do.
Like or Dislike:
0
“So, while I will not slander my leader (”You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people”), I will still criticize “Chairman Mao” Obama’s policies.”
By the way Saint, could not calling Obama derogatively “Chairman Mao” constitute slander?
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, I am absolutely in favor minimal restrictions involving the free flow of capital. I think a healthy economy depends on it. So no, socialism is not the answer. But I do believe government intervention is necessary to regulate this flow. But I also believe we cannot sacrifice those at the lowest socio-economic stations in the process.
Nothing perturbs me more than comments like Mom of 4 made regarding people who receive government subsidies as unwilling or unmotivated to work. I think people that make these kinds of comments should go into a local homeless shelter to see the “face”. More often than not, it is the woman who had to flee from the guy who was beating the crap out of her, or the man than cannot kick his addiction and loses it all, or the family living on minimum wage (yes working!)and some life interruption forces homelessness. Some folks are really trying but need a hand in getting there. And while there are a tremendous flow of private dollars and inkind services, including churches, to provide much needed housing and assistance to these folks, it also takes the hand of government to ensure for a healthy society through assisting the poor to improve their station as well as facilitating the capital of the rich for a healthy economy.
Like or Dislike:
0
britphil,
“Thank you Saint for being prepared to do what Valdimir either couldn’t or wouldn’t do and actually answer the question.”
britphil, contrary to your belief/assumption, I have other things to do than sit at this computer and reply to your quips tit for tat.
Of course there is emotional outrage on my part at least that such a sort as Obama would even have the audacity to run, but even beyond this, the utter ignorance and wishful thinking of the naive populus who things this individual is a bona fide wizard whose political and economic ideas are the salvific gift of redemption for this country’s (even the world’s) avarousness and lack of intelligent foresight.
I guess, quite frankly, **most** have forgotten how to count and pinch pennies (kopecks)! Or maybe is it something like “Where your treasure is….”
AIG and the like need a food stamp card too! Our comrade Lehman has fallen – boo hoo! (tongue in cheek)
As far as the sovereignty of God is concerned, the anxiety/anticipation of the outcome of an event (whatever it might be) and those *humans* concerned therein does not exhibit a lack of belief or faith in the over arching and all pervasive dynamic activity of God in each and every individual’s life.
Nor does a vehement protest on the part of those who may not so choose to be contented if Obama should have been ordained by God from before the foundation of the world to be the next President of the USA evidence a dissatisfaction against God but rather and only one of disapproval of another bloody Mary, or James or Charles or Leonid or Joseph, et al.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Lisa
Thank you so much for your comment.
This is the kind of thing I was hoping would have been evidence in Michale’s original posting. A very articulate and compassionate standpoint and brilliantly argued.
Although I have not posted to say so, I too was disappointed at Momof4’s somewhat dismissive remarks.
I think people that make these kinds of comments should go into a local homeless shelter to see the “face”.
“And while there are a tremendous flow of private dollars and inkind services, including churches, to provide much needed housing and assistance to these folks, it also takes the hand of government to ensure for a healthy society through assisting the poor to improve their station as well as facilitating the capital of the rich for a healthy economy.”
Sister, all I know is that you are going to make a great Christian leader one day when your training is complete. and you will be an asset to the Christian church. Thank you for helping to restore a bit of balance and perspective to the discussion!
More Comments:
1 2 3 Next »