Contributors

Thursday, December 13, 2012


54 comments:

Anonymous said...

I applaud what he's doing. It's true charity. In other words, he is doing it voluntarily, reaching into his own pocket and using his own resources (and what is given voluntarily) to help those in need.

His actions are exactly what Jesus meant when He gave His example to explain "Love your neighbor as yourself."

And no, Mr. Shaich is not demanding a government program or higher taxes to make it happen.

The original article

Mark Ward said...

I've often said the same thing as he is saying here. There won't be any need for government programs if everyone did as he was doing. Charity would be far more robust than it is today. As of right now, however, that's not the case so we do need those programs. I do think, though, that wealthy people are going to start to heed his message and things are going to get better.

Anonymous said...

There won't be any need for government programs if everyone did as he was doing. … As of right now, however, that's not the case so we do need those programs.

In other words, most people aren't being charitable (enough), so they must be forced to be "charitable".

Anonymous said...

Here's another quote for you:

This operates then as a tax for the maintenance of the poor. A very good thing, you will say. But I ask, Why a partial tax? Why laid on us Farmers only? If it be a good thing, pray, Messrs. the Public, take your share of it, by indemnifying us a little out of your public treasury. In doing a good thing there is both honour and pleasure; you are welcome to your part of both.

For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.

Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, 1776

Mark Ward said...

so they must be forced to be "charitable".

Here we go again with the "forcing"...Fuck you, dad!! I'm going to make my own rules and do things my own way!!! (even though you put a roof over my head (protect private property, provide defense and police, keep my water and air clean) and provide me a warm home in which to live (stomp...stomp...stomp...(down the hallway))

SLAM!!!!

Anonymous said...

Just like over at TSM.

Who is right about the meaning of "force"? Marxaphasia? Or the dictionary?

Well, Marxy is. Of course! Duh! [/sarc]

What happens if someone refuses to pay taxes to support your "charity"?

Juris Imprudent said...

Here we go again with the "forcing"

OK, so let us say that rich person A refuses to be as charitable as you wish him to be - what is your answer: do you simply ignore that he won't go along? Do you shun him like the Amish (assuming you have a coherent enough community to go along with the shunning)? What the hell do you do? You worried about free-riders with unions because if they weren't forced to pay dues might not (which is true, they might not). So what is your solution absent force?

Mark Ward said...

Who's forcing you to stay here, Noni? You can leave anytime. Who's forcing you to accept current tax policy and take away your vote and lobbying ability? We don't live in a dictatorship. If you don't like it, get to work:)

Anonymous said...

Who's forcing you to stay here, Noni?

This country was formed on the basis of freedom. Who the hell are you to demand that those who want to be free have to leave it? That you have the unmitigated gall to even suggest such a thing should be a clue about how far you bastards have driven this country from its founding principles. There are already plenty of countries doing exactly what you want. Why don't YOU go THERE?!?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So for the people who have no place to escape to (which is everyone) what happens when they refuse to pay taxes?

Mark Ward said...

This country was formed on the basis of freedom.

You mean that part in the Constitution that says that Congress has the power to tax and spend money on the credit of the United States?

how far you bastards have driven this country from its founding principles.

Founders like George Washington and Alexander Hamilton who founded a National Bank even though it's not in the Constitution at all? How about when the same two men enacted a tax on excess wheat and corn to pay for the war? Are they bastards as well?

I guess I'm wondering if you think that Washington and Hamilton (author of the Federalist Papers) unjustly forced people to pay taxes.

Juris Imprudent said...

So M, I don't rate? What is your solution to someone that doesn't go along with the 'program'?

...to pay for the war?

Ah, war - the health of the state. How exactly did Washington and Hamilton enact this tax?

What happened to Al Capone when he defrauded the govt of income tax?

Anonymous said...

Here we go… another rabbit trail… I'm not going there.

What happens to someone who refuses to pay taxes?

Anonymous said...

Who's forcing you to accept current tax policy and take away your vote and lobbying ability? We don't live in a dictatorship. If you don't like it, get to work:)

Do you think that a 50.1% majority legitimizes something simply due to that majority?

Mark Ward said...

What happens to someone who tries to take private property, kills someone, or commits treason? Why no gripe about force here?

Noni, you're really into avoiding inconvenient truths these days about the people you revere, aren't you?

Anonymous said...

What happens to someone…

Are enforcement actions for those activities the same as enforcement actions for refusal to pay taxes?

What happens to someone who refuses to pay taxes?

Anonymous said...

SLAM!!!!

Your head hitting the desk from short circuit?

protect private property, provide defense and police, keep my water and air clean

Valid and useful functions of government AND not contested by anyone. Now that you went and argued against strawmen of non-contested functions of government, how about addressing the rest of what government has taken over which is consuming most of the budget these days? Your 'slam' was nothing but a nod to the right's arguments. Your still missing the point.....again.

Mark Ward said...

Are enforcement actions for those activities the same as enforcement actions for refusal to pay taxes?

Yes, so why the complaints about force with taxes and not with this stuff?

Further, tax policy is not as set in stone as they other stuff is. You can work hard to change how taxes are paid and how much of them are paid. You can't change the other ones.

Valid and useful functions of government AND not contested by anyone.

So are taxes. Grow up and deal with it.

Anonymous said...

Yes, so why the complaints about force with taxes and not with this stuff?

I just want to be clear here. So you admit that force is used if someone refuses to pay taxes; up to and including shooting them if they resist arrest?

Mark Ward said...

You're not looking at this in a qualitative way, noni. There are different degrees of force. If someone doesn't pay their taxes, men with guns don't come to their house and shoot them. They get a fine. Then they get another fine. They might request and extension and then get another fine. This could got on for a long time without force being applied. That's where you are being dishonest.

Now, if someone commits murder or attempts to steal something or squat on private land, force is likely to applied at a much faster rate. What I'm saying here is that I reject the "men with guns" scenario as it plays into this irrational hatred of the US government. And it's also quite hypocritical in dodging the main problem here: you don't like to pay taxes. So Darth Vader and the evil Empire are coming to take you away.

You and I can change tax policy. We can't change the policies on murder, theft, or private property laws as easily. So, now that I think about it, I was wrong above. It's not the same type of force and it's not as simple as a yes or no question...which would be nice for you so you can win...something.

Now that I've given you my explanation, it's your turn. Why do you not complain about force related to these other things? They are legitimate functions of government...taxes included. Are you saying that you disagree with Washington and Hamilton?

Anonymous said...

This could got on for a long time without force being applied. That's where you are being dishonest.

No, this is precisely where YOU are being dishonest. "A long time" is not "never" even though you try to pretend (dishonestly) that it is. You were shown the law. IRS agents have the authority to shoot and KILL someone if they resist to that point.

Let me make this simple: Is "a long time" the exact same thing as "never"?

Mark Ward said...

This is an equal exchange, Noni, so let's see how well you do. My answer to your question is No.

Now, you answer one of my questions. Why do you not complain about force related to the other laws but you do complain about taxes, which is law according to the Constitution?

Anonymous said...

Well,


You, Mark, can use force to defend your self or others.

You can use force to protect your property.

We delegate the authority to use that force to the government in our stead.

But you can't get together with 3 of your neighbors and collectively decide that your fifth neighbor has too much stuff and then use force to take it from him.

Yet you try to show that said force is equivalent.

Anonymous said...

My answer to your question is No.

Therefore, even though shooting someone for failing to pay taxes is the very last of a very long list of other options—such as simply taking money from your bank account and/or paycheck—deadly force to collect taxes IS a valid option. You cannot honestly say that force is not usable to collect taxes.

As for the answer to your question, guardduck beat me to it. I'll just follow that up with a final question:

Do you honestly think it is okay to threaten to shoot someone (ultimately) if they refuse to engage in the level of charity YOU think they should be doing?

God is not willing to go that far:

The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
— 2 Corinthians 9:6–7

Mark Ward said...

deadly force to collect taxes IS a valid option.

Well, at least you are backing off a bit from the men with guns coming to your house. Deadly force is an option in many crimes so why are taxes so special? Because you don't like them.

This is the central problem here, guys. You don't agree with the fact (put in law by our founding fathers) that taxes are Constitutionally valid and the law of the land. GD, the founding fathers set it up so people can be taxed. Do either of you agree with that or not?

Anonymous said...

Mark,

Law is force.

At the end of enforcement for every law is a guy with a gun. Otherwise it would have no teeth.

The problem isn't that we disagree with taxes per se.

Rather, it's that we disagree with your nonchalant attitude towards adding an ever increasing list of items or reasons that force can be used upon a nominally free people.

If you can't recognize that in the end law is force, then you have no restraining moral leash to adding laws for a multitude of minor items.

Mark Ward said...

an ever increasing list of items or reasons that force can be used upon a nominally free people.

And I'm saying that ever increasing list can be changed so the force of which you speak is not as threatening as it is with, say, murder or theft. Do you or do you not have the power to change tax law?

Anonymous said...

Do three of your neighbors have the power to vote to take your stuff?

Mark Ward said...

What's preventing you from convincing them otherwise? Or dedicating yourself through effort and hard work to find four neighbors that think otherwise?

Anonymous said...

So a democratic dictatorship is your preferred method of governance?

Anonymous said...

Do three of your neighbors have the power to vote to take your stuff?

Mark, this is exactly the question you need to answer, because it is what you are arguing for!

First of all, you accept this case as a legitimate option because if there are enough votes, that somehow makes it okay with you. Our contention is that this is never a legitimate option. Period.

But not only are you "amoral" for even allowing such an option to be on the table, you consistently argue that your neighbors should vote to take your stuff!

That's exactly what slavery did. The slave did the work, and the slave's "owner" got to take the results of his work. Now you claim you don't "own" other human beings, but you still claim the "right" to take the results of their work. (Wealth from "the rich", and services from doctors without paying market rates.)

How are we supposed to see this as anything other than evil?

Mark Ward said...

The problem with the question is that it's a very simple one. It implies that they have power and you have none.

But this all boils down to proving my central point about the Right. You act like 14 year old boys who only want to follow certain rules. The ones that you don't like get framed as "evil."

Anonymous said...

Since when is simple a bad thing? You just don't like it because it exposes your ideology for what it is. (See also: Occam's Razor)

This is also simple:

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.”
— Exodus 20:17

So you think being able to vote to take your neighbors' stuff is not evil? Wanting to take your neighbor's stuff is the definition of Covet:

1. to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others.

2. to wish for, especially eagerly.


So what does it mean when you go beyond mere wanting?

Mark Ward said...

So you think being able to vote to take your neighbors' stuff is not evil?

How long have you been beating your wife?

Anonymous said...

Not that kind of question. The "non-guilty" answer is: "We should not even be able to vote to take your neighbor's stuff." But you have already argued that it's okay to take your neighbor's stuff if you get 50%+1 of the vote. So it's more of a rhetorical question.

You clearly don't think it's evil as long as that's how the votes. (Because that's the argument you keep making.) But you also don't want to admit it outright, because you know you'll get slammed hard for it.

It's your argument, Marxy. Claim it or change it.

Mark Ward said...

Not that kind of question

Of course it is. It's a very simple minded, gotcha, weasel question. Even your ideology allows for people to vote to take your neighbor's stuff. I'm happy to have a conversation as long as it is an adult one. This question, like so many more of yours, is not.

Juris Imprudent said...

I'm happy to have a conversation as long as it is an adult one.

Good ol' M - being childish and dishonest when it suits him.

Anonymous said...

Of course it is. It's a very simple minded, gotcha, weasel question.

Apparently Markadelphia is unable to conceive of a non-guilty answer to that question, even after I explained exactly what that answer is. Talk about being buried in the bubble!

Even your ideology allows for people to vote to take your neighbor's stuff.

Here's a distinction which is lost on you: Paying for services rendered vs. taking it for yourself.

A professional soldier, policeman, etc., needs to be paid for his time. He provides a service. It is just that those who receive the benefit of that service pay for it. In fact, it is unjust to refuse to pay for that service.

"Spreading the wealth around" is not a service. It is taking from Person A to give to Person B merely because Person B wants it and thinks they should have it (that coveting thing).

Mark Ward said...

"Spreading the wealth around" is not a service.

But you support this, Noni, with your vote. You cast your ballot for rent seeking by supporting lower taxes for the wealthy. Money is redistributed upward and the top percentile benefits. Worse, they convince you that it's really the poor that are trying to take their money, not the "job creators" and you fall for it...hook, line and sinker.

Anonymous said...

Lower taxes? When the top 5% pays more than 40%* of the Federal government's total revenue?

Where do they get their money? By having it forcibly taken from people without providing a good or service in return?

(* Sorry, I don't remember the exact percentage off the top of my head.)

Juris Imprudent said...

But you support this, Noni, with your vote.

That may be the stupidest argument you have put forth yet M.

Dishonest and childish, to the max.

Juris Imprudent said...

NMN, the top 20% of income earners pay 95% of the total income tax collected (as of 2009). Even with the bargain basement tax rates of Bush (and Obama). That just isn't enough to pay for both war and progressive wet dreams.

Mark Ward said...

When the top 5% pays more than 40%* of the Federal government's total revenue?

Funny that you are looking at this as a collective rate as opposed to singular rates. Of course, that helps you "win your argument.":) I'm talking about how the wealthy of this country pay an effective rate of around 14 percent or , in the case of 4,000 millionaires that are part of the 47 percent, no tax at all.

My point is, Noni, that you are essentially believing a line of rent seeking garbage. These people don't want the system changed because it benefits them. So they put out propaganda about "redistribution" when the reality is that they are the ones doing it. They are the ones benefiting from the system and if you are truly the free market guy that you say you are, then you should be for eliminating all subsidies and loopholes as they also distort markets.

Juris Imprudent said...

My point is, Noni, that you are essentially believing a line of rent seeking garbage.

That's pure bullshit M. You are the one that wants more govt - the same govt that is used for rent-seeking - in an insane attempt to eliminate rent-seeking. That is like throwing gasoline on a fire to put out the fire.

Anonymous said...

I'm talking about how the wealthy of this country pay an effective rate of around 14 percent

Why do they pay that rate?

Mark Ward said...

Because they rewrote tax law to redistribute money to benefit themselves. They use the government as a tool and a means to an end. That's why it cracks me up when you think the government is some sort of all powerful monolith. They aren't running the show, Noni.

Although, the president is trying to change that along with many other Democrats but your hatred of the left has blinded you to the fact that they are trying to have a government that is for the people again and not just the top earners. Nah, it can't be that they would actually be trying to make things right, could it? They MUST be up to something!!

Anonymous said...

Because they rewrote tax law to redistribute money to benefit themselves.

That's not a fact, it's an opinion. I'm asking you to for the facts.

What law/rule do they use to pay only 14% on income compared to the (frequently claimed) 28% paid by the average middle class person?

Juris Imprudent said...

Because they rewrote tax law to redistribute money to benefit themselves

Really? Give an example how they used taxes to take from the poor to give to themselves.

Nah, it can't be that they would actually be trying to make things right, could it?

Oh aren't we so fortunate to have the all-knowing progressives to tell us all what is right. And you have the chutzpah to talk about the arrogance of conservatives.

Mark Ward said...

I'm asking you to for the facts.

Read any of my posts on Stiglitz or, better yet, read his book that has 100 pages of sources with plenty of facts.

To answer your second question, the Bush Tax Cuts.

Juris Imprudent said...

You can't give an example - can you? How can that not tell you something? You can't even cite a source from Stiglitz's book in support of a single argument (which shouldn't be that difficult assuming Stiglitz footnoted his arguments).

Anonymous said...

You're dodging, Mark.

To answer your second question, the Bush Tax Cuts.

A) This is not an accurate answer.

B) What change did the "Bush Tax Cuts" make to the rates paid by "The Rich" and the middle class?

Mark Ward said...

The Cap gains rates were lowered so the wealthy could actually claim most of their income under this umbrella.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/03/news/economy/income_inequality/index.htm

These are facts, Noni, and now the onus is on you to refute them.

Juris Imprudent said...

The Cap gains rates were lowered so the wealthy could actually claim most of their income under this umbrella.

First, cap gains only applies to capital gains - you can't apply regular income, interest or dividends to that tax rate. You don't get to choose how to report income.

Simple question M - when you tax something, do you get more or less of it - as a general rule.

Second - so what if that reduced the tax they pay, that doesn't shift income to them. It simply reduces the taxes they pay.

Hard question - how do the rich shift income to themselves at the expense of the working and poor. [Hint: the answer isn't because Stiglitz says so.]

Mark Ward said...

But if most of your income comes from cap gains, then getting taxed at a lower rate would allow you to increase your wealth dramatically.

Address the facts in the article, juris. Then I'll answer your questions.

Juris Imprudent said...

Oh I was under no delusion that you would answer my questions - not even the easy one. I put them up mostly as rhetorical devices so that any casual reader will see that you won't engage in any kind of dialogue; you are really only into diatribes.

And lowering taxes is not increasing income, it is just keeping more of what you did earn - and that certainly doesn't shift income from low to high earners. Not on any planet.