‘It Is Utterly Impossible to Be Rich without Committing Injustice'

[Deeje]

So yeah, I do what I can, when I can. I'm not going to tell anybody else that THEY aren't doing enough, or in the correct way. That's definitely a 'he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone' sort of thing.

Imagine what a difference we could make if everyone did what they could.....?

'Let him who has the most wealth cast the biggest donation....'

 

[Revoltingest]

Tossing coins in a polluted river and
watching the rustics dive for them is
so droll. I could give you a handful
so you could join in the fun!

I'm too cheap to toss coins.
I toss knock-outs from electrical boxes.
From a distance, they look like a quarter with anexoria.

What we're seeing from too many lefties when they talk of
disparity is not that the lower levels have too little....it's that
the uppers have too much. It would be better to raise the
lowest, even if the wealthy still have more than Purex wants
them too.

 

[Vouthon]

@adrian009 Many thanks for your excellent contribution to the thread!

I think your considerations set out the right personal ethical attitudes that need changing and how this might be translated from theory into concrete policy and legislative initiatives. Undoubtedly, it begins with non-coercive appeals to conscience and moral formation.

The Baha'i scriptural precepts that you present on issues like economic justice are indeed very close to Catholic Social Doctrine. I particularly welcome Abdu'l-Baha's statement that, "A financier with colossal wealth should not exist whilst near him is a poor man in dire necessity", which I think applies to the rentier capitalists Penguin first raised. Also, the fact that "there must be special laws made, dealing with these extremes of riches and of want" is obviously key.

Improving the additional rate band of tax within a more efficiently progressive taxation system targeting the rentiers - as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been pushing for in the United States - is one necessary reform that would contribute towards a more equitable disparity which avoids colossal extremities. As I noted earlier, we also need tighter regulations on mergers, further clamp downs on anti-competitive practices and rules on financial misbehaviour, environment and labour markets. Also a more worker-led economy with multi-level collective bargaining along the model of the Nordic countries, which presently have the lowest disparity in income inequality and the happiest populaces in the world:


Nordic model - Wikipedia

The Nordic model comprises the economic and social policies as well as typical cultural practices common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden).[1] This includes a comprehensive welfare state and multi-level collective bargaining,[2] with a high percentage of the workforce unionised and a large percentage of the population employed by the public sector (roughly 30% of the work force).[3] The Nordic model began to gain attention after World War II.[4][5]

The three Scandinavian countries are monarchies, while Finland and Iceland have been republics since the 20th century. Currently, the Nordic countries are described as being highly democratic and all have a unicameral form of governance and use proportional representation in their electoral systems. Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries,[6] they all have some common traits. These include support for a universalist welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labour and employers negotiate wages and labour market policy mediated by the government;[7] and a commitment to private ownership (with some caveats) within a mixed economy.[8]​

But as the negative effects of man-made global warming become ever more serious - coastal flooding from rising sea temperatures, crop failures, heatwaves, drought, mass migration to cooler climes from more south-easterly locations to northwestern regions like Europe and North America - and automation and AI in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution renders entire skill-sets no longer necessary leading to increasing unemployment, we may have to consider more 'systemic' adjustments, including things like a universal basic income and other more radical measures for income redistribution, if we don't want society to literally breakdown.

I think the Baha'i Writings might allude to the necessity for some-such more radical economic change too (along the lines St. John Chrysostom advanced in the fourth century CE and Pope Pius XI in 1931). Sen McGlinn translated a letter from Abdu’l-Baha to Mrs Parsons, dated October 4, 1912, a few years back:


Abdu’l-Baha’s ‘socialism’

The first characteristic of Abdu’l-Baha’s ‘socialism’ is that it is a civil matter, not a religious one. Second, it is by implication a democratic socialism, although the method for the formation of the village Board is not specified. However in his Resaleh-ye Madaniyyeh Abdu’l-Baha says

In the present writer’s view it would be preferable if the selection of the nonpermanent members of provincial councils should be dependent on the consent or choice of the people. For the chosen members will, as a result, be conscientious in questions of justice and equity, lest their reputations should suffer and they fall into disfavour with the public.

(My translation: Marzieh Gail mistranslates a key term, see The Secret of Divine Civilization, 24)

Third, it is a social welfare system, not a communist system. He describes a free economy, with progressive taxation used to reduce the extremes of wealth and poverty, at least to the extent of guaranteeing the minimum requirements of existence to the poor, care for the disabled and orphans, and public funding for education and public health.​

If I may ask, do the Baha'i Writings anywhere address the concept of "universal basic income", in addition to merely social 'welfare'? This is a hot topic today:


Basic income - Wikipedia

Basic income, also called universal basic income (UBI), citizen's income, citizen's basic income in the United Kingdom, basic income guarantee in the United States and Canada, or basic living stipend or guaranteed annual income or universal demogrant, is a governmental public program for a periodic payment delivered to all on an individual basis without means test or work requirement.[2] The incomes would be:

• Unconditional: A basic income would vary with age, but with no other conditions. Everyone of the same age would receive the same basic income, whatever their gender, employment status, family structure, contribution to society, housing costs, or anything else.
• Automatic: Someone's basic income would be automatically paid weekly or monthly into a bank account or similar.
• Non-withdrawable: Basic incomes would not be means-tested. Whether someone's earnings increase, decrease, or stay the same, their basic income will not change.
• Individual: Basic incomes would be paid on an individual basis and not on the basis of a couple or household.
• As a right: Every legal resident would receive a basic income, subject to a minimum period of legal residency and continuing residency for most of the year.[3]

Basic income can be implemented nationally, regionally or locally. An unconditional income that is sufficient to meet a person's basic needs (at or above the poverty line) is sometimes called a full basic income while if it is less than that amount, it is sometimes called partial. A welfare system with some characteristics similar to those of a basic income is a negative income tax in which the government stipend is gradually reduced with higher labour income. Some welfare systems are sometimes regarded as steps on the way to a basic income, but because they have conditionalities attached they are not basic incomes. If they raise household incomes to specified minima they are called guaranteed minimum income systems. For example, Bolsa Família in Brazil is restricted to poor families and the children are obligated to attend school.[4]

Several political discussions are related to the basic income debate. Examples include the debates regarding robotization, artificial intelligence (AI), and the future of work. A key issue in these debates is whether robotisation and AI will significantly reduce the number of available jobs. Basic income often comes up as a proposal in these discussions.​

 

[Audie]

I'm too cheap to toss coins.
I toss knock-outs from electrical boxes.
From a distance, they look like a quarter with anexoria.

I said I would give you real coins.

Do you prefer polluted river,
or salt water too deep for them to dive?

 

[Revoltingest]

I said I would give you real coins.

Do you prefer polluted river,
or salt water too deep for them to dive?

I'll keep the coins.
And polluted rivers have the advantage of being closer.
The C&O Canal near DC would be perfect.

 

[Audie]

I'll keep the coins.
And polluted rivers have the advantage of being closer.
The C&O Canal near DC would be perfect.

I asked our maid how much her brother makes at his
job in Mindanao.

Comes to 240 USD per month.

Less than 3 dollars a day for each family member.

I wonder if those complaining about "the rich" know they
ARE the rich?

 

[Revoltingest]

I asked our maid how much her brother makes at his
job in Mindanao.

Comes to 240 USD per month.

Less than 3 dollars a day for each family member.

I wonder if those complaining about "the rich" know they
ARE the rich?

Envy is the operative perspective.

 

[dianaiad]

Imagine what a difference we could make if everyone did what they could.....?

'Let him who has the most wealth cast the biggest donation....'

This is true.

Now if only I didn't run into so many people who think "Let him who has the most wealth cast the biggest donation, and I get to decide who, what and when, and by the way, some of that donating had better come my way...and ain't I special because I SAY that people (mostly other people) should contribute more?"

Which is what I mostly see.

Frankly, I'm a lot more impressed with the guy who just goes out and does stuff, and doesn't spend a whole lot of time talking about it.

 

[Audie]

Envy is the operative perspective.

Careful i got a bullytroll ding fot that kinda comnent

 

[Deeje]

Now if only I didn't run into so many people who think "Let him who has the most wealth cast the biggest donation, and I get to decide who, what and when, and by the way, some of that donating had better come my way...and ain't I special because I SAY that people (mostly other people) should contribute more?"

I think the obligation is there for Christians, whether one recognizes it or not.....the who, what, when and how is a matter between them and God.

2 Corinthians 9:6-7.....
"But as to this, whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 Let each one do just as he has resolved in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."

There it is.....

Frankly, I'm a lot more impressed with the guy who just goes out and does stuff, and doesn't spend a whole lot of time talking about it.

So is God, I'm sure.....

 

[Revoltingest]

Careful i got a bullytroll ding fot that kinda comnent

The dinghammer comes down when least expected.
But when I suspect I'm courting it, the thing is nowhere to be seen.
Go figure.

 

[Audie]

The dinghammer comes down when least expected.
But when I suspect I'm courting it, the thing is nowhere to be seen.
Go figure.

The price of livin' in edge city.

 

[Dawnofhope]

If I may ask, do the Baha'i Writings anywhere address the concept of "universal basic income", in addition to merely social 'welfare'? This is a hot topic today:

As I understand it, this is part of the elimination of the extremes of wealth and poverty. So although the Baha’i writings don’t specify what that universal basic income should be, it appears to be one measure to ensure amongst others to eliminate extreme poverty. Further to ‘Abdu’l-Bahás address given in Paris 1912;

We see amongst us men who are overburdened with riches on the one hand, and on the other those unfortunate ones who starve with nothing; those who possess several stately palaces, and those who have not where to lay their head. Some we find with numerous courses of costly and dainty food; whilst others can scarce find sufficient crusts to keep them alive. Whilst some are clothed in velvets, furs and fine linen, others have insufficient, poor and thin garments with which to protect them from the cold.

This condition of affairs is wrong, and must be remedied. Now the remedy must be carefully undertaken. It cannot be done by bringing to pass absolute equality between men ….

Certainly, some being enormously rich and others lamentably poor, an organization is necessary to control and improve this state of affairs. It is important to limit riches, as it is also of importance to limit poverty. Either extreme is not good. To be seated in the mean is most desirable. If it be right for a capitalist to possess a large fortune, it is equally just that his workman should have a sufficient means of existence ….

There must be special laws made, dealing with these extremes of riches and of want. The members of the Government should consider the laws of God when they are framing plans for the ruling of the people. The general rights of mankind must be guarded and preserved. – Paris Talks, p. 153.

How Baha’is Would Eliminate the Extremes of Wealth and Poverty

The Baha’i Writings promote principles of consultation and elected assemblies to govern the affairs of humanity. It will be these elected bodies that determine the specific details in the future as they have the potential to do today. Perhaps we all need to consider the question that if it is within our grasp to change the laws today to establish a universal basic income, what prevents it? Clearly some countries have made excellent progress as you highlight with the Scandinavian countries while others lag behind. New Zealand where I live is probably more closely aligned to those more advanced countries. However rapidly increasing property prices are contributing to increasing disparities of wealth and poverty. Even those on a median income are crippled by debt if they want to own their own home or restricted in how much they can save by expensive rentals. So its important to consider many factors both in regards personal morals and National/International laws that determine prosperity and individual levels of wealth or poverty.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

In his Homily on 1 Timothy 12:3–4,71 the early church father St. John Chrysostom (died 407 CE) made the bold statement that "it is utterly impossible to be rich without committing injustice" (οὐκ ἔστιν οὐκ ἔστι μὴ ἀδικοῦντα πλουτεῖν) and moreover said that wealth is tantamount to theft, for ‘its origin must have come from an injustice against someone’, an ἀδικία (Timothy 1, 3, v.3, v. 8; 6, v.10; John Chrysostom in Schaff, 1886, Vol. 13, p.447). He then posed a rhetorical question: ‘Is this not an evil, that you alone should have the Lord’s property, that you alone should enjoy what is common?’, finally concluding: "Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs" (Hom. in Lazaro 2,5).

Arguably, if you earned $5,000 a day every day, beginning in 1492 when Columbus discovered America, you would probably still have less money than Jeff Bezos. The richest 26 people in the world have as much wealth as the 50% most economically disadvantaged of the global population - all 3.5 billion of the planet's poorest. Jeff Bezos has personal income equivalent to the GDP of a number of sovereign countries, such as New Zealand.

Surely an economic system that enables such gross income disparities to not only exist but widen with every passing year, often to the detriment of the environment to boot, is an inherently 'unjust' one?

The counter-argument, from libertarian free-marketeers, is that the financially well-endowed are specially-talented wealth creators. Jeff Bezos created a service that billions of human beings wanted and so he reaps the dividends.

But the question of acquiring wealth and the question of keeping it are distinct. 'To be rich' is not just about acquisition but retention. Whereas Jeff Bezos has a net worth of $130 billion, George Soros has "only" $8 billion because he has donated more than $32 billion to philanthropic causes.

It’s one thing to claim you ascended the ranks of the 0.01% through talent, thrift and graft. It’s quite another to justify using that wealth for one's own private luxury, with plush houses and greco-roman sculptures of oneself rather than giving aid to people living hand-to-mouth in an effort to pay their exorbitant rents or dying without medical coverage from untreated malaria.

Is there a “maximum moral income” beyond which it’s inexcusable not to give away your superfluous money?

Interestingly, this was the content of the sermon given this morning at my local church.

It is indeed an important subject the world needs to address and I see minimum basic requirements must be met for all people and the extremes of wealth need to be limited.

This of course will require a major mindset change in a materialistic industrial world. I see the change of mindset is inevitable.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What are you doing for the half of the world that lives on ten dollars a day?

Waiting for the Bernie who will never come?

Sometimes change happens from the grassroots, which in turn becomes lasting change. There are many working towards empowering the poor to find and maintain a viable income.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If I may ask, do the Baha'i Writings anywhere address the concept of "universal basic income", in addition to merely social 'welfare'? This is a hot topic today:

I think the time is approaching with this issue, I see a mindset change is needed before these issues can be addressed.

Abdul'Baha has offered this;

"The first revenue is the tithe. For example, if the income of a farmer is five hundred dollars and his necessary expenses are five hundred dollars, no tithes will be collected from him. Another's expenses being five hundred and his income one thousand dollars, one tenth will be taken from him, for he hath more than his needs; if he giveth one tenth his livelihood will not be disturbed."

And so on in an increasing ratio according to the difference between the income and necessary expenditure, for man will have everything that he needs for his welfare and a large surplus besides. On the other hand, a person, owing to illness, poor crops and through no fault of his own, may be unable to earn a sufficient income to meet his necessary expenses for the year, then what he lacks for the necessary maintenance of himself and family will be supplied by the general storehouse. After certain amounts have been set aside for each of these seven expenditures, then any surplus will be transferred to the general treasury of the nation for general expenses.

The result of this (system) will be that each individual member of the body politic will live most comfortably and happily under obligation to no one. Nevertheless, there will be preservation of degree because in the world of humanity there must needs be degrees. The body politic may well be likened to an army. In this army there must be a general, there must be a sergeant, there must be a marshal, there must be the infantry; but all must enjoy the greatest comfort and welfare."

"Likewise, a city is in need of a mayor, judge, merchants, bankers, tradesmen and farmers. Undoubtedly these degrees should be preserved, otherwise the public order will be disturbed."

A lot of guidance has been given in the Baha'i writings for us to consider this matter as the future unfolds.

Regards Tony

 

[Vouthon]

@Sunstone In furtherance of my last post:

Today, America’s top 1% makes its income primarily from capital, not labour:

The great contemporary economist Thomas Piketty has noted:


America’s new wealthy have so little to offer society

Thomas Piketty paints a dystopian picture of the consequences of this accumulation of wealth in his new book. Piketty describes an underlying property of capitalist economies—if return on capital assets exceeds growth of the economy, wealth will flow into investment in assets, land, companies and financial assets and away from entrepreneurial innovation.

Innovation requires distribution of income to the workers who produce products and services, empowering them to consume such goods and services in a virtuous circle measured by consumption driven growth. In contrast, the pool of passive capital asset investment will grow as earnings accumulate instead of being used for consumption. For Piketty, this is the usual configuration of a capitalist economy, rather than the idyllic days of 1945-1979 during which equality increased and the financial well-being and security of the “typical American family” marched relentlessly forward.

Piketty writes, “In terms of total amounts involved, inheritance has thus nearly regained the importance it had for nineteenth century cohorts.”

He notes, however, that this truth has yet to reach popular culture, where “recent American TV series feature heroes and heroines laden with degrees and high-level skills.”

Piketty concludes that we may soon reach a point in which social rent-seeking àl la marrying wealthy will be a far more effective path to prosperity than entrepreneurship. This is how capitalism dies—not with a revolution—but rather vitiated by rentiers, increasingly myopic and addicted like a junkie to the high of wealth accumulation.

These conditions are closely related to the massive growth of an overtly rent-seeking financial sector. Rather than investing in the “real economy,” financiers make money through increasingly obfuscated and complex financial “innovations.”

Economic inequality perpetuates itself through political inequality, which breeds cronyism. Supreme Court decisions like McCutcheon and Citizen’s United enhance the power of the super wealthy to use the political system to extract rents. Larry Bartels, Martin Gilens, Dorian Warren, Jacob Hacker, Paul Pierson, and Kay Lehman Schlozman have found that the rise in economic inequality has coincided with a rise in political inequality. The wealthy are using the political system to bolster their wealth, and while both parties are certainly complicit, in few eras has the political system been so nakedly captured by big money.

A growing portion of today’s moneyed elite is neither virtuous nor meritorious, it is parasitic. Second, government must create an economy that rewards work, not property. The Lockean ideal quickly becomes farce when one family owns more wealth than the poorest 40 million Americans.
​

As I wrote to Penguin earlier, St. Chrysostom made this very distinction between income acquired from 'labor' and income acquired from 'rent' 2,000 years ago.

Rentier capitalism, then and now, matches perfectly Chrysostom's description of the superfluous wealth of the rich constituting, in effect, an act of "theft" upon the lower classes and most especially the poor. Indeed, he actually said something akin to this in that very same homily from my OP:


CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 12 on First Timothy (Chrysostom)

"But do you not see the lucky men", says one, "who with little labor acquire the good things of life?" What good things? Money, houses, so many acres of land, trains of servants, heaps of gold and silver? Can you call these good things, and not hide your head for shame?...​

Tell me, then, why are you rich? From whom did you receive it, and from whom he who transmitted it to you? "From my father and grandfather". But can you, ascending through many generations, show the acquisition just? It cannot be. The root and origin of its must have been injustice.

Why? Because God in the beginning made not one man rich, and another poor. Nor did He afterwards take and show to one treasures of gold, and deny to the other the right of searching for it: but He left the earth free to all alike. Why then, if it is common, have you so many acres of land, while your neighbour has not a portion of it?

"It was transmitted to me by my father." And by whom to him? By his forefathers. But you must go back to the original owner. Jacob had wealth, but it was earned as the hire of his labors.

But I will not urge this argument too closely. Let your riches be justly gained, and without rapine. For you are not responsible for the covetous acts of your father. Your wealth may be derived from rapine; but you were not the plunderer. Or granting that he did not obtain it by robbery. What then? Is the wealth therefore good? By no means. At the same time it is not bad, he says, if its possessor be not covetous; it is not bad, if it be distributed to the poor, otherwise it is bad, it is ensnaring.

But if he does not evil, though he does no good, it is not bad, he argues. True. But is not this an evil, that you alone should have the Lord's property, that you alone should enjoy what is common? If then our possessions belong to one common Lord, they belong also to our fellow-servants. The possessions of one Lord are all common. We all share them equally....

Mark the wise dispensation of God. That He might put mankind to shame, He has made certain things common, as the sun, air, earth, and water, the heaven, the sea, the light, the stars; whose benefits are dispensed equally to all as brethren. We are all formed with the same eyes, the same body, the same soul, the same structure in all respects, all things from the earth, all men from one man, and all in the same habitation. But when one attempts to possess himself of anything, to make it his own, then contention is introduced, as if nature herself were indignant, that when God brings us together in every way, we are eager to divide and separate ourselves by appropriating things, and by using those cold words "mine and yours". Then there is contention and uneasiness. But where this is not, no strife or contention is bred. This state therefore is rather our inheritance, and more agreeable to nature...

But as I said, how can he, who is rich, be a good man? When he distributes his riches, he is good, so that he is good when he has ceased to have it, when he gives it to others; but while he keeps it himself, he is not good.

(Schaff, 1886, 13, p.447)​

St. John Chrysostom is here addressing Roman-era "rentiers" - including both inherited wealth and other rental income, which isn't derived from any real increase in value but rather unproductive assets.

Note the crucial line: "Jacob had wealth, but it was earned as the hire of his labors". St. Chrysostom concluded that the only possible legitimate source of wealth lies in the exercise of our labour power. In the context of Roman economics (in an agrarian and patrician slave economy, built around a system of patronage and clientelism, with all the differences that entails from a contemporary free-market economy), this is analogous to modern rental income / unearned income leeching off society vs income derived from labor, just like the economist Piketty discusses.

In the UK:


Wealthiest 10% cash in as average family income falls

The “unearned income” of the most well-off people in Britain more than doubled while millions endured austerity and stagnant wages, an Observer analysis of government data reveals.

Income from property, interest, dividends and other investment income – sometimes called unearned income, as most of it does not come directly from work – rose by more than 40% between 2010-11 and 2015-16, the most recent year for which HMRC figures are available.

However, the gains were massively concentrated among the top 10% of Britons, whose unearned income doubled from an average of £19,000 each to more than £38,000 – well above the average household income of around £25,000 in 2015-16.​

Reacting to the figures, Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell said: “An economic model that rewards wealth creators less than wealth extractors is not sustainable economically or morally.”

Liam Kennedy, research officer at the thinktank Class, said: “These figures go to show how our economy rewards those with wealth and not those who work. The UK suffers from extreme levels of wealth inequality and we need a much more progressive tax system that reflects this.

“Aligning capital gains tax with taxes on income would be a good place to start, but we need to also think about replacing inheritance tax with a lifetime gifts tax to prevent unjust, intergenerational transfers of privilege and wealth.”

​

I personally feel that St. John Chrysostom was far more prescient and perceptive concerning the unjust political-economic order of his own fourth century Roman world and by extension our own too (given that they are increasingly similar, obvious differences i.e. slavery, aside), than you give him credit for.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Innovation requires distribution of income to the workers who produce products and services, empowering them to consume such goods and services in a virtuous circle measured by consumption driven growth. In contrast, the pool of passive capital asset investment will grow as earnings accumulate instead of being used for consumption. For Piketty, this is the usual configuration of a capitalist economy, rather than the idyllic days of 1945-1979 during which equality increased and the financial well-being and security of the “typical American family” marched relentlessly forward.

This reminded me of this advice, to which I support;

"For instance, the owners of properties, mines and factories should share their incomes with their employees and give a fairly certain percentage of their products to their workingmen in order that the employees may receive, beside their wages, some of the general income of the factory so that the employee may strive with his soul in the work.....No more trusts will remain in the future. The question of the trusts will be wiped away entirely. Also, every factory that has ten thousand shares will give two thousand shares of these ten thousand to its employees and will write the shares in their names, so that they may have them, and the rest will belong to the capitalists. Then at the end of the month or year whatever they may earn after the expenses and wages are paid, according to the number of shares, should be divided among both...."

Thanks for the OP, it is an important subject for all people to consider, no matter what Faith, or no Faith. Regards Tony

 

[Shaul]

Envy of the wealthy is the source of many sins.

 

[Vouthon]

I think the time is approaching with this issue, I see a mindset change is needed before these issues can be addressed.

Abdul'Baha has offered this;

"And so on in an increasing ratio according to the difference between the income and necessary expenditure, for man will have everything that he needs for his welfare and a large surplus besides. On the other hand, a person, owing to illness, poor crops and through no fault of his own, may be unable to earn a sufficient income to meet his necessary expenses for the year, then what he lacks for the necessary maintenance of himself and family will be supplied by the general storehouse."

Very nicely phrased by Abdu'l-Baha

The Preaching of Peter, a fragmentary text from early in the second century CE that was referenced by a number of Early Church Fathers as an authentic tradition of the Apostle Peter's teachings, premises the duties of the rich, with regards to their superfluous wealth, in God’s equal endowment of all mankind in a similar manner to Abdu'l-Baha in your quotation and the ones @adrian009 has kindly provided:


The Preaching of Peter

"God hath given all things unto all, of his own creatures. Understand then, ye rich, that ye ought to minister, for ye have received more than ye yourselves need. Learn that others lack the things ye have in superfluity. Be ashamed to keep things that belong to others. Imitate the equality of God, and no man will be poor."​

(From St. John of Damascus, Sacred Parallels, A. 12, Rhodes James, 1924, 18-19)

​

I think this is very close in spirit to an earlier quotation of Abdu'l-Baha given by Adrian:

"The government of the countries should conform to the Divine Law which gives equal justice to all. This is the only way in which the deplorable superfluity of great wealth and miserable, demoralizing, degrading poverty can be abolished. Not until this is done will the Law of God be obeyed."

– Abdu’l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 152.

​

In terms of our respective social teachings, the Catholic and Baha'i Faiths evidently share a lot in common.