I do think wealthy business owners should care about their employees, rather than exploiting them –and do the best they can to “spread the wealth around” and provide benefits according to the company’s ability to provide. If they don’t provide benefits, the people then want unionization and/or federal welfare programs. Unions don’t get a foot-hold in businesses where the workers feel appreciated and compensated fairly. But once the union gets in, it is never satisfied –as greedy as any business owner.

In fact, I say, give businesses plenty of tax incentives to hire and expand, provide benefits and take risk –rather than sending those companies out of country by excessive regulation and taxation–and gov’t hostility.

Greed at either end is a problem. Or as the Bible says, “The love of money is the root of evil.”

But Jesus also gave some examples of good stewardship and investment and doing what the boss tells you–along with his teachings on generosity and compassion.

http://townhall.com/columnists/AndrewTallman/2008/10/31/do_the_rich_owe_us?page=full&comments=true

To paraphrase others, ‘economic justice’ is just a code word for socialism/marxism. It purports that equality of OUTCOME should be the criteria for all things, rather than the foundation upon with this country was built: the equality of OPPORTUNITY.

Read what Ashley wrote above…your life is what you make of it and if you’ve managed (through luck, hard work or accident of birth) to become wealthy, why do you think someone else is somehow entitled that any of that – or that government should confiscate it in order to give it to someone else?

While you’re so concerned about who has wealth, you might also want to look into who pays for all the things government already does? The top 50% of taxpayers cover 97% of the costs. That means that the bottom 50% of taxpayers (those making under about $32,000 AGI http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6) aren’t paying their ‘fair share.’

Also, those ‘with’ the money are the ones creating and providing the JOBS. Please show me how many poor people hired others.

And yes, I think that anyone who wants to work hard enough can easily get into the top 10% of income earners…especially when you consider that you’d only have to make about $109,000 per year to be in that group.

Do you believe that all of that concentrated wealth has been earned without stealing from the rest of us?

Do you believe that all of that concentrated income is really a return to hard work, or might you consider the possibility that it is largely a return to various kinds of monopoly power and wealth?

I read somewhere that 19% of us think we’re in the top 1%. Are you really part of the top 10%? Do you realistically think that you or any of your children will ever be part of the top 10% (defined either by income or by wealth)? Do you think it is in your children’s genuine best interests to defend the privileges we give to our best off people?

See lvtfan.typepad.com for more about how we might dismantle the poverty machine, and move toward economic justice.

I don’t like how Obama speaks about “the rich” when he talks about Geo. Bush’s tax cuts for the most wealthy americans. Did the most wealthy really get bigger tax cuts on some kind of graduated scale? That’s what he suggests. I wasn’t aware if he did that; perhaps you know.

He feeds that sentiment that could provoke masses to revolt in time of economic crisis–the idea that the rich are evil and undeserving of the fruits of their labor –that the poor are ENTITLED and deserving to receive those fruits of another man’s labor because they have needs.

We already have social programs for the needy –and we already have the rich taking care of everyone else. What we need now is economic growth –so we should give the wealth-makers every incentive to keep business in the US, so they can hire more, spend more, give more –and pay more taxes. We also need more children for many reasons, including the tax base of the future.

I wanted to pass on this story, I tried emailing without any luck….seems quite similar to what Tom Noe is serving time for…can we get any traction with it?????

Here’s the third punch: Obama accepted a bribe as a state senator when he arranged a grant for Yesse Yehudah so he could take a $10,000 cut
Posted by hillbuzz under Uncategorized

NOTE: The article below is from last year. It’s a story that was never picked up by the media (since when have they ever picked up anything about Obama?) and the Clinton campaign did not know what to do with this — people we’ve spoken to said that, in retrospect, they realize what a mistake this was because what Obama did here is actually a prosecutable crime. We were told, specifically, that the bribe Obama took as a state senator is the thing David Axelrod has lived in terror of this whole campaign — he has been praying this does not get out.
One reason this never came back to bite Obama is that the article below is overly long — and the part about the bribe is buried in the middle — it’s no coincidence this story appeared in the LA Times. The article’s author, Dan Morain, tried to bring this bribe up in the primaries, but never had any support in the media to go anywhere with it.
One of the greatest advantages Obama has is that he’s surrounded by so many crooked deals, kooks, loons, and criminals that it’s hard for the public to understand most of what’s going on. Here in Chicago, Team Hillary kept trying to bring up Obama’s connections to Tony Rezko and the land deal for Obama’s Mansion — but people couldn’t understand what the Rezko dealings were all about. They still don’t understand it. And they won’t read a long article like the one below about the rest of Obama’s dirty dealings.
In short, Obama had massive campaign debt coming off of his failed bid to challenge Bobby Rush for a seat in Congress. Smarting from that loss, Obama needed money, so he turned to Yesse Yehudah. What’s so strange about this is that Yehudah is a Republican — so why would he raise money for Obama? What the article below does not say is that, magically, 10 people who work for Yehudah and have never given money to any elected official before – AND WHO COULD NOT AFFORD TO MAKE $1,000 donations – all made $1,000 donations to Obama simultaneously. As if someone else made the donations for all of them, in their names, with money that came from somewhere else.
The quid pro quo on this is simple: Obama took a $10,000 bribe from Yehudah for using his position in the state senate to throw a $75,000 grant to Yehudah’s nonprofit organization. People here in Chicago say this was obvious politics in Illinois: where Obama agreed to get Yehudah a grant, but Obama’s fee for this transaction was $10,000 to pay off his campaign debt.
Yehudah’s nonproft later came under investigation, and Obama panicked: he dumped $5,000 of the bribe money he took over to Yehudah as fast as he could after that.
Read the story below from Dan Morain. We know this one is tough because it’s not easy for most people to understand Illinois politics — but what Obama did here with this grant is illegal, and it’s the kind of things politicians in Illinois go to jail for all the time — including our last governor George Ryan, and most likely our current governor Rod Blagojevich too.
Bribes like this are what people mean when they refer to “dirty Chicago politics

THAT’s the distinction.

Tax levies that are voted upon are the same thing – it is a tyranny of the majority which was never intended by our founders. (You seem to be good at researching, so I hope you’ll look it up – and I mean that sincerely.)

When the majority can vote to take something away from everyone, that’s tyranny and not the nation our founders wanted us to have.

So if you want to pay more in taxes, please do so. But there are some of us who’d prefer to spend our money as WE choose – not how the government chooses. Americans are the most generous people on the earth. If government didn’t take so much of my income, I’d have a lot more to spend helping projects I believe in. And so would every other American.

Also, remember, that every time the government taxes to give to some charitable function, it takes it’s cut off the top, leaving less for that particular charitable function. You’d be better off giving directly to stem-cell research if that’s your preference, than you would to let government take your tax dollars, take their share off the top and then distribute the balance to such research.

In the end, it’s not about what you want to do – it’s about letting other Americans have the same choice. Just because you’d choose to let government tax you more, don’t force the rest of us to make the same decision. While you might find it easier to go this route, there are many others who would prefer not to have a middleman.

As you know, during the lifetime of Jesus the government of Rome collected taxes, but did not use them for the benefit of the poor. The Romans could hardly be called kind masters. It would have been very easy for Jesus to curry favor with the Jews who did not wish to pay taxes to such an oppressive regime. Yet Jesus said they should pay their taxes, even though they disagreed with the recipient and what that government would do with them. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s . . .”

As far as paying taxes is concerned, I have voted to have my taxes raised every time the school district in which I live has placed a levy on the ballot, even though I do not have any children who will benefit from it. I cannot tell you what that has amounted to, as I do not begrudge the extra charges as I consider it a civic duty to do right by our children (our country’s children). I have also voted for candidates who would raise my taxes. Yup, I voted for Mondale. So your assumption about me (you did decry the fact that I made an assumption about you) that I only think rich people should be paying more taxes “—sort of like you” just plain happens to be false. As far as giving extra to our government, I do hold back on itemizing some deductions, as I do not want to shortchange on my statutory obligations. As far as making payments beyond, I prefer to make charitable contributions as I have a greater chance of giving to causes and organizations that spend their money more to my likes. (I don’t really like the fact that I have helped support the invasion of a country that clearly was not an immediate threat to us, or support the things we have done at Gitmo.) For example, when I found out how much the heads of Save the Children and the head of the American Red Cross made, and compared that with what the head of the Salvation Army in the US made, it was clear that my money would no longer go to the very well compensated former two, and was better spent on the latter. (Save the Children responded a number of times by telling me how many children would die without my continued support—talk about no lack of shame when its head, probably 15-20 years ago now, was making over $300,000. When Eliz. Dole was head of the American Red Cross, she was making $500,000 a year. Shameful, in my view.)

I have not seen what the Obamas have contributed to charities, but I did see what Joe Biden and his wife contributed, and while I like them, I was really shocked at how little they have given. They do not get a pass from me on that one. But both families are supporting a tax plan that will take more from themselves, as both make over $250,000 a year. So they are practicing what they preach. I can’t see how you missed that. As far as attacking you personally, since we do not know each other, there is really not much of a personal element to it. I am attacking wealthy Americans (and if you make over $250,000 a year, you are wealthy in my book) who complain about a small increase in the percentage of tax that they will be paying. Don’t you love this country enough to do that? Look what it has given you?

You say you only want to pay for expenses incurred with “functions specified in the Constitution”. I do not see cancer research specified in the Constitution. Are you opposed to funding the NIH? I don’t see anything about solar power in the Constitution. Are you suggesting that trying to develop alternative energy sources so we can be free of dependency on oil from countries that don’t much like us should not get government funding? FDIC is not in the Constitution. You want to go back to the days when we had raids on banks? And you know I could go on and on.

The point about Holmes was that he demonstrated his patriotism with more than his mouth. I expect that if JFK were able to address the Republican National Convention this year, he would have been booed if he said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” My multimillionaire cousins never cease to complain about their taxes. So very rich, yet so ungrateful. When on vacation they stay in $500 a night hotel rooms. But that is not complained about because that proves to them that they are elites.

Now we have a huge national debt. How do we pay for it? There are reasons that suggest that it is only fair for the wealthy to pay a higher percentage than those who have little. Our military, for example, helps keep other governments from coming in and stealing from us, though I admit the days of Viking raids are long gone, but Americans have assets in less stable parts of the world. Just as the person with a very expensive house has to pay more to insure it than one with a shack, so too it is fair for those who have vast wealth to pay more to “insure” it than one who has little. So if you are making more than $250,000 a year, you should be paying a higher rate. How else are we going to pay off our debt? What is your plan?

We all know the tax code contains many provisions that wealthy people can take advantage of that those without wealth cannot. This point was driven home to me most powerfully in 1976, when I was in graduate school. It was the year Ronald Reagan made his first run for the Republican nomination. As a result his taxes for 1975 were published in the press. He and Nancy had an income of over $120,000. My income that year was about $7,500. Guess what? I paid more federal taxes than they did, and I paid more Minnesota state taxes than they paid in California taxes. (They also listed the amount of sales taxes they paid—it seemed like a lot to me, so they probably beat me in that area. On $7,500 one does not buy much more than food and university expenses.) Reagan was campaigning for a larger military. I said to myself, he wants to build more ships to protect his wealth, but seems to want me to pay for them. Does that push your fairness button?

Parents having kids they cannot afford. A hard issue, especially as I think humans have over-populated the planet. How do we tackle this tricky problem? A major component appears to be fostering the education of women. (The better educated the girls are in the poor countries, the lower their birth rates become.) But bringing it back here, there will always be the couple that has a child with major medical issues. Should they be destroyed by that? Or should we as a society say we will share in that burden? Would you prefer that they have to depend on charity? Or would you say that they should not be able to have children unless they have a job that provides enough insurance to pay for all those expenses an unexpectedly challenged child can have? And what about schooling for special needs kids? If you don’t have any special needs kids, would you say it is not fair for you to be taxed to pay for special ed?

You wrote “Jesus never said to his followers: ‘give your money to the government so they can take care of the poor.’” Do you think Jesus would be against the government responding to emergencies caused by natural disasters, believing it should all be done by private donations? Do you think Jesus would be against governmental intervention in Africa to stop the spread of malaria by giving the poor tents and netting to keep the mosquitoes away? The Jesus who speaks to me speaks not only of individual responsibility, but of collective responsibility. So many of our homeless are people with mental diseases, especially schizophrenics and drug addicts. So many are Viet Nam war vets. Our government sent them over there, shouldn’t our government help take care of them? I have yet to find anything in the Constitution that says what government is to do with people who are mentally ill, people who have been damaged by war, people who have become addicted to drugs. I guess it has to do with whether or not you believe government should play a role, or if people should be left to beg and hope there is enough charity in the land so that individuals will rise up and help them out. I think the down and out should not have to wonder.

As a retired person with less than $50,000 a year in income, I will get a tax cut if Obama’s plan is enacted. But that is not why I’ll vote for him. I would vote for him even if he told me my tax burden would go up by 10%. Our country is in a very bad way these days, much of it due to “W” and the tax policies of the Republicans. I am ready to sacrifice for the sake of my country. I just wish more Republicans were, especially the ones who are so well off. Yes Sarah Palin, it is patriotic to pay taxes. You should do so gladly for the privilege of living in this country.

I see the government more in the role of the money changers than God — even though many in government service see themselves as godlike.

Maggie is right about the Earned Income Tax Credit. In 1990 while my wife and I were struggling financially, we both paid payroll taxes. Because of our income level, we got back not only what we had paid, but approximately $1,000 more. The EITC is essentially a guaranteed minimum income to the working poor.

Now that it’s here, a response is appropriate and relevant. Someone needs to address it because its errors are so conspicously bad.

First of all, you cite Luke 12:48 without asking yourself what is it about which can only be known by going back and looking at v. 41-48.

“From everyone who has been given much, much will be required,and from the one who has been entrusted with much, even more will be asked.”

This has absolutely nothing to do with politics or economics. It’s talking about one’s responsibility as an employee who will be held to a higher standard based on the instructions and duties an employer has left with the worker he put in charge while he was away.

v. 42: Wise manager of a household of servants

v. 43: faithfulness in doing the work that he was hired to do

v. 44: the manager will put that servant in charge over the manager’s possessions

v. 45: just because the manager is away doesn’t mean the employee isn’t supposed to do his job.

v. 46: the worker’s boss is coming back when the worker least expects: question: will the boss return to see if the work has been done as he instructed?

v. 47: the employee had been given instructions, but failed to follow them so will be punished severely

v. 48: lack of knowledge about the the specific instructions is no excuse, the consequences will not be as severe, yet he is supposed to use good judgement regarding his job.

Conclusion: to whom much instruction was given to the employeee, much will be required. He will be held to a higher standard in following those instructions than the employee who is ignorant of the his job.