Pope Francis calls unfettered capitalism 'tyranny' in manifesto for papacy

[metis]

Business owners also pay a special state business tax. Therefore, Michigan has some of the highest business tax in the country.

The high taxes kill businesses, kill jobs, and kill incomes. It creats lots of poor people. And of course then the looters can do them all favors by making them dependent on them, then on their own work.

Those taxes were significantly lowered by a total of $1.7 billion by the Snyder administration, and we've seen little growth here to speak of. Secondly, taxes in and of themselves do not kill jobs as the money doesn't disappear into thin air. Thirdly, taxes do not kill income, unless you're referring to a somewhat larger chunk being taking out, which typically is a very small amount, plus one needs to remember that this money does provide benefits and also compounds (multiplier effect) through the economy at different levels.

Fourthly, the "looters" were put there by the people and are not some sort of boogeymen who snuck into office. After all, elections do have consequences. Also, the idea that we have all these people sitting at home waiting for their handouts is mostly bogus as most states, including Michigan, which limits the time one can collect welfare, plus demands that they check out jobs and submit that to the authorities. I believe that the national figure of those who are on welfare for more than one year is roughly 1.5%, if my memory is correct, but I'm not certain of the scope of that calculation.

But I gotta a deal for you: the most inefficient tax money spent is with defense contracting with its monsterous cost overruns, and the most efficient tax use is for programs like SNAP and unemployment compensation since these monies tend to get spent quickly, thoroughly, and mostly locally. So, on this basis, I would assume that any real fiscal conservative would be more interested in reducing defense spending (we pay more than all other countries combined) than on programs like u.e., SNAP, and welfare. Right?

 

[BSM1]

Yes, it's nice to finally see a Catholic authority who appears to have read and understood the gospels, and actually wants to put the philosophy of Christ into practice.

Could you give us a synopsis of what you think the philosophy of Christ may be?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm more concerned about the rise in unfettered exorcisms...
Rise of the exorcists in Catholic Church - Telegraph

 

[Alceste]

Could you give us a synopsis of what you think the philosophy of Christ may be?

IMO, most Christians should just snip out the sermon on the mount and chuck the rest of the Bible into the recycling bin. They'd be far less confused about their purpose and their martyr's philosophy.

 

[CMike]

Those taxes were significantly lowered by a total of $1.7 billion by the Snyder administration, and we've seen little growth here to speak of.

That's because Michigan taxes are still way too high. There is even a seperate Michigan State Tax for businesses. I know because I have paid it.

Secondly, taxes in and of themselves do not kill jobs as the money doesn't disappear into thin air.

Actually it does. The moneyis mainly wasted. Michigan state employees have very powerful unions.

Businesses in Michigan have operated on razor thin margins. The high taxes can easily cause them to fold. And many businesses in Michigan have folded because they couldn't pay their expenses. One of the biggest expenses is taxes.

Thirdly, taxes do not kill income, unless you're referring to a somewhat larger chunk being taking out, which typically is a very small amount, plus one needs to remember that this money does provide benefits and also compounds (multiplier effect) through the economy at different levels.

Obviously it does kill income.

If you are a business and you make $100,000 in revenue per year. If you are paying $30,000 in taxes, you have less money to operate.

If your expenses are $90,000 (without taxes), then with taxes you are operating at a loss.

Fourthly, the "looters" were put there by the people and are not some sort of boogeymen who snuck into office. After all, elections do have consequences. Also, the idea that we have all these people sitting at home waiting for their handouts is mostly bogus as most states, including Michigan, which limits the time one can collect welfare, plus demands that they check out jobs and submit that to the authorities. I believe that the national figure of those who are on welfare for more than one year is roughly 1.5%, if my memory is correct, but I'm not certain of the scope of that calculation.

It's based on paying off favors. The more groups of people you promise looted taxpayers' money, the more group that will vote for you.

But I gotta a deal for you: the most inefficient tax money spent is with defense contracting with its monsterous cost overruns, and the most efficient tax use is for programs like SNAP and unemployment compensation since these monies tend to get spent quickly, thoroughly, and mostly locally. So, on this basis, I would assume that any real fiscal conservative would be more interested in reducing defense spending (we pay more than all other countries combined) than on programs like u.e., SNAP, and welfare. Right?

The only area that Obama has been able to gut has been defense. Everything has else has gone way up. We have had the largest defecits in American history.

The best way to help the American people is to signficantly decrease taxes, allow businesses to keep more of their own money, let them grown, and that will allow more people to get employed and perhaps even increased salaries.

 

[BSM1]

IMO, most Christians should just snip out the sermon on the mount and chuck the rest of the Bible into the recycling bin. They'd be far less confused about their purpose and their martyr's philosophy.

Actually I agree with you (but you didn't really answer my question).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you are a business and you make $100,000 in revenue per year. If you are paying $30,000 in taxes, you have less money to operate.

If your expenses are $90,000 (without taxes), then with taxes you are operating at a loss.

I wasn't aware that Michigan had a 300% tax rate on businesses. :sarcastic

 

[Revoltingest]

I wasn't aware that Michigan had a 300% tax rate on businesses. :sarcastic

It is not typically that high, but it theoretically has been even higher than that for businesses making a very small profit relative to gross revenue. This is because the old Single Business Tax did not allow deduction of some normal operating expenses, eg, payroll. Businesses on the edge needed to avoid hiring in-house labor because they have to pay tax on that cost. And then we also have other taxes such as real property (eg, buildings) & personal property (eg, tools, computers).

 

[CMike]

I wasn't aware that Michigan had a 300% tax rate on businesses. :sarcastic

That would be about 33% of revenue.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That would be about 33% of revenue.

Tax rate is usually given in terms of net revenue... i.e. gross revenue minus the expenses incurred to generate that revenue. Your scenario had a net revenue of $10,000 ($100,000 - $90,000) and a tax payment of $30,000. $30,000 divided by $10,000 is 300%.

 

[metis]

That's because Michigan taxes are still way too high. There is even a seperate Michigan State Tax for businesses. I know because I have paid it.

Of course there's a state tax because all businesses benefit from state expenditures, especially education and roads.

OK, since you didn't like my last deal, let me make you another offer. You do not have pay any state business tax whatsoever, but for every employee that you have, you must pay half of their entire education from kindergarten on through college (half because also the employee benefits from this education as well, obviously). Also, you must pay for a portion of the road construction and upkeep that your business (I assume you are an business owner) uses besides just what the average driver pays.

So you don't get hit with the latter at all one time, we'll let you cover that with higher gasoline taxes with the increase being provided by the state. Now, how's that for a deal?

Actually it does. The moneyis mainly wasted. Michigan state employees have very powerful unions.

Unions have become less powerful, plus civic unions have had to settle for less because of budget constraints.

Secondly, how do you explain the fact that Sweden and Finland, both of which have significantly higher taxes than us, also of which has fewer resources than us, have a higher standard of living than us? Again, as with many self-proclaimed "conservatives", they simply do not understand that tax money simply doesn't dissolve into thin air.

Businesses in Michigan have operated on razor thin margins. The high taxes can easily cause them to fold. And many businesses in Michigan have folded because they couldn't pay their expenses. One of the biggest expenses is taxes.

Small businesses always have problems in every state no matter what the tax rate may be, so many states and localities, including Michigan, often give some tax relief to start-up businesses. After a while, they should be able to compete on their own, and if they can't, I'd propose that it's probably not the taxes that's the problem. Anyhow, why should they be given a free-ride at what would be the expense of others?

It's based on paying off favors. The more groups of people you promise looted taxpayers' money, the more group that will vote for you.

I won't argue with that as I do believe how we vote on this and many items should be changed through a constitutional amendment. So much of this pork gets passed on through riders on other bills.

The only area that Obama has been able to gut has been defense. Everything has else has gone way up. We have had the largest defecits in American history.

Defense has not been "gutted", as the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of Staff have acknowledged. Again, let me repeat, we pay more for defense than all other nations combined.

Secondly, the deficit is coming down, and we had no choice to bail out the large banks unless we were willing to watch our economic system collapse, and that's not likely an exaggeration. I honestly don't think most Americans have a clue to how close we came to an economic meltdown.

And if Obama had not bailed out G.M. and Chrysler, what do you think your house and business would be worth now in this area? Hey, I got change for a $5.

The best way to help the American people is to signficantly decrease taxes, allow businesses to keep more of their own money, let them grown, and that will allow more people to get employed and perhaps even increased salaries.

I hate to say this, but that is about as mean-spirited as one can get, imo. What you are doing is to sharply cut services and basic help needed by so many, especially the poor and lower middle class. Charity alone has not been ever able to handle the problem, and charities are having an even harder time trying to keep up with demand, and some charitable food pantries have been running low. No matter how much business may grow, there never will be enough increased employment to cover all those who are out of work or who work in very low paying jobs minus benefits.

According to halacha, it is our responsibility as Jews, including through governmental bodies, to help the poor and those in need, and that simply cannot and will not be done by continuing to cut taxes. Yes, I do believe that our entire tax code at both the national and state levels need to be reviewed and revised, and just one proposal would be to have a federal corporate tax rate at a fixed 10% and supplement that with a VAT, which is a formula the Swedes have successfully used to get out of their doldrums.

 

[CMike]

Of course there's a state tax because all businesses benefit from state expenditures, especially education and roads.

]
That's not what I said. What I said is that Michigan is one of the few states that has a separate state business tax. Therefore, together with the regular taxes, businesses in Michigan pay a lot of money in taxes.

OK, since you didn't like my last deal, let me make you another offer. You do not have pay any state business tax whatsoever, but for every employee that you have, you must pay half of their entire education from kindergarten on through college (half because also the employee benefits from this education as well, obviously). Also, you must pay for a portion of the road construction and upkeep that your business (I assume you are an business owner) uses besides just what the average driver pays.

And why do I have the great privledge of paying for someone's entire education? Are they my children?

Also, I didn't say there shouldn't be any taxes. What I am saying is that taxes are exhorbitant. The state is looting the money from people who have earned their money.

So you don't get hit with the latter at all one time, we'll let you cover that with higher gasoline taxes with the increase being provided by the state. Now, how's that for a deal?

That's very kind of you. However, it's not your place to let me keep my own money unless you are a robber.

You should have to justify every penny you take from me. I should not have to justify keeping more of my own money.

Unions have become less powerful, plus civic unions have had to settle for less because of budget constraints.

Unions are extremely powerful in Michigan. Teachers are paid perhaps the highest in the country.

Secondly, how do you explain the fact that Sweden and Finland, both of which have significantly higher taxes than us, also of which has fewer resources than us, have a higher standard of living than us? Again, as with many self-proclaimed "conservatives", they simply do not understand that tax money simply doesn't dissolve into thin air.

Hire standard based on what?

Small businesses always have problems in every state no matter what the tax rate may be, so many states and localities, including Michigan, often give some tax relief to start-up businesses. After a while, they should be able to compete on their own, and if they can't, I'd propose that it's probably not the taxes that's the problem. Anyhow, why should they be given a free-ride at what would be the expense of others?

Businesses could compete better in Michigan if the governments didn't loot their money. Taxes are probably number two or three in expenses for most businesses.

Defense has not been "gutted", as the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of Staff have acknowledged. Again, let me repeat, we pay more for defense than all other nations combined.

Gutting the military | New York Post

Team Obama has already slashed the Pentagon by some $850 billion over 10 years, including canceling some 50 major weapons programs, so this is nothing less than double trouble for our troops — and our national security

Secondly, the deficit is coming down, and we had no choice to bail out the large banks unless we were willing to watch our economic system collapse, and that's not likely an exaggeration. I honestly don't think most Americans have a clue to how close we came to an economic meltdown.

Whatever your smoking has got to be illegal.

National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush - CBS News

National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush

CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.


The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.

The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.

And if Obama had not bailed out G.M. and Chrysler, what do you think your house and business would be worth now in this area? Hey, I got change for a $5.

It was Pres. Bush that did it. Also the government got the money back.





I [/quote] hate to say this, but that is about as mean-spirited as one can get, imo. What you are doing is to sharply cut services and basic help needed by so many, especially the poor and lower middle class. Charity alone has not been ever able to handle the problem, and charities are having an even harder time trying to keep up with demand, and some charitable food pantries have been running low. No matter how much business may grow, there never will be enough increased employment to cover all those who are out of work or who work in very low paying jobs minus benefits. [/quote]

Actually what is mean spirited is high tax rates and regulations that shut down businesses and put tens of thousands out of work.

[/quote] According to halacha, it is our responsibility as Jews, including through governmental bodies, to help the poor and those in need, and that simply cannot and will not be done by continuing to cut taxes. Yes, I do believe that our entire tax code at both the national and state levels need to be reviewed and revised, and just one proposal would be to have a federal corporate tax rate at a fixed 10% and supplement that with a VAT, which is a formula the Swedes have successfully used to get out of their doldrums. [/quote]

Whose halacha? There is nothing in judaism that says anything about high taxes for government.

The responsibilities to help the poor is toward individuals.

I encourage people to help the poor. However, by the government creating many more poor it keeps people who would have money from helping the poor.

 

[Revoltingest]

Tax rate is usually given in terms of net revenue... i.e. gross revenue minus the expenses incurred to generate that revenue. Your scenario had a net revenue of $10,000 ($100,000 - $90,000) and a tax payment of $30,000. $30,000 divided by $10,000 is 300%.

Note though, that the IRS & states don't define gross & net revenue the same as an accountant or a business would in many cases, with different treatment of labor, financed debt, depreciation/amortization rates, capital gains, reductions in basis, involuntary conversions, tenant build-outs, etc. One must be careful to avoid rates which can exceed 100% of net income.

 

[metis]

]

And why do I have the great privledge of paying for someone's entire education? Are they my children?

Fortunately, most other Americans realize that a good education "lifts all boats" and are willing to pay for our children's education that benefits society as a whole.

However, it's not your place to let me keep my own money unless you are a robber... You should have to justify every penny you take from me. I should not have to justify keeping more of my own money.

In a democracy, we actually vote on what the tax rates should be by electing our representatives. "Robbers" are doing things that are illegal, but taxing ourselves, and at which rate, is actually a legal process that democracies do.

Unions are extremely powerful in Michigan. Teachers are paid perhaps the highest in the country.

Not the highest, but one of the highest. Also, union strength has been diminishing in Michigan as well, which should be of great concern for anyone who worries about our future. Also, unions are essentially "democracy in action" since they operate on a democratic model, whereas non-union shops operate on a dictatorial or monarchical or oligarchical model. Unions provide a check on a totalitarian approach, and give "the grunts", who often do the brunt of work, a voice. It's one of the reasons why the Marxists and NAZI's made unions illegal.

Team Obama has already slashed the Pentagon by some $850 billion over 10 years, including canceling some 50 major weapons programs, so this is nothing less than double trouble for our troops — and our national security

And what you continue to ignore is that this was OK'd by the Pentagon and Joint chiefs, and some of this was because Congress wanted weapons systems that we simply didn't need according to both. Many members of Congress wanted to pass it to favor jobs in their districts/states.

Where you are being inconsistent is that you say you oppose all this waste by the "looters", but then you are actually favoring spending money in the least efficient area that includes programs not wanted by the military.

Whatever your smoking has got to be illegal.

I'll let this stand on its own without further comment.

National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush - CBS News

National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush

CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.

The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.

Apparently the news arrives very slowly over at your side of town:

The deficit is falling as rapidly as it has in decades. Consider the figures for this year alone: Last week the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that, through the first 11 months of fiscal 2013, the budget deficit was down 35 percent from the comparable period of 2012. That’s a pretty steep decline. -- Obama: Deficits falling at fastest rate since WWII. Is that true? - CSMonitor.com

It was Pres. Bush that did it. Also the government got the money back.

Bush only kept G.M. and Chrysler afloat for a short period of time until the new administration had a chance to decide what to do with them. Bush himself said that he would not make that decision to either bail out of let them go into liquidation.

Secondly, all federal money has not been paid back, nor will it ever likely be fully paid back. However, the loss definitely beat the alternative, imo.

Thirdly, why are you so willing to give business a federal helping hand but not the poor and lower middle-income families?

Actually what is mean spirited is high tax rates and regulations that shut down businesses and put tens of thousands out of work.

Tell that to the countries that have higher tax rates but are actually doing very well. You simply seem to operate under the mindset that tax monies disappear into thin air, which any economist will tell you is preposterous. Often these businesses get breaks that the average Joe Schmoe simply cannot get because they don't have the lobbying power behind them.

However, maybe an area we both can agree on is that there should not be situations like we're seeing whereas small businesses can't compete that well because they can't get the tax breaks "the big boys" get. If you own your own business, do you pay $0 in federal taxes plus get federal monies like Exxon/Mobil did last year? like G.E.? Several years ago, the top 50 companies paid no federal taxes, but you know doggone well that the smaller businesses didn't get such a break.

Whose halacha? There is nothing in judaism that says anything about high taxes for government.

The responsibilities to help the poor is toward individuals.

I encourage people to help the poor. However, by the government creating many more poor it keeps people who would have money from helping the poor.

I'm going to cover this on a separate post because of the length that it's going to take me.

 

[CMike]

We are commanded to work. It says 6 days you shall work and on the 7th day you shall rest.

We are commanded to work.

Below is a very interesting lecture. It's long but it's really good.

Judaism believes in free enterprise. It should be done morally and with ethics.

Listen 20 minutes into it. Also 33 minutes into it is good too.

What Does Judaism Say About Money? - Audio Classes

 

[metis]

]
Whose halacha? There is nothing in judaism that says anything about high taxes for government.

The responsibilities to help the poor is toward individuals.

I encourage people to help the poor. However, by the government creating many more poor it keeps people who would have money from helping the poor.

First of all, unless it's just a point of clarification, this will be my last post on this with you since we're simply not likely to agree and just spinning our wheels will get us nowhere. With that, let me respond to the above.

Here's some citations from Torah and where they are found:

Not to reap the entire field (Lev. 19:9; Lev. 23:22).

To leave the unreaped corner of the field or orchard for the poor (Lev. 19:9).

Not to gather gleanings (the ears that have fallen to the ground while reaping) (Lev. 19:9).

To leave the gleanings for the poor (Lev. 19:9).

Not to gather ol'loth (the imperfect clusters) of the vineyard (Lev. 19:10).

To leave ol'loth (the imperfect clusters) of the vineyard for the poor (Lev. 19:10; Deut. 24:21).

Not to gather the peret (grapes) that have fallen to the ground (Lev. 19:10).

To leave peret (the single grapes) of the vineyard for the poor (Lev. 19:10).

Not to return to take a forgotten sheaf (Deut. 24:19) This applies to all fruit trees (Deut. 24:20).

To leave the forgotten sheaves for the poor (Deut. 24:19-20).

Not to refrain from maintaining a poor man and giving him what he needs (Deut. 15:7)... See Tzedakah: Charity.

To give charity according to one's means (Deut. 15:11)... See Tzedakah: Charity. -- Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

Please note that it's only the last two items that deal with charity and all the others deal with taxation to help the poor and needy. Even when we did not sovereign in eretz Israel, such as when the Romans dominated us, we still enforced the above through both the Temple leadership and the Great Sanhedrin, which operated as our quasi-government.

Your position is the antithesis of the above. And you certainly wouldn't like it in that "socialist" country called "Israel" whereas universal health care is provided even with all of the monetary constraints due to astronomically high defense costs. I was going through the lowest income area of Tel Aviv back in 1991, and made a comment to a friend of mine that I wish we had "slums" like this back in the States.

Israel still collects the taxes prescribed in Torah, but they now handle it through regular taxation since the majority of the population is far more urban than it used to be during biblical times.

So, it appears that you have chosen a "conservative" approach over a "Torah" approach. Our ancestors felt that the needy must be taken care of and that government was at least partially responsible to do that. This does not translate out to government doing all or denying that individual initiative also is expected. Therefore, we simply do not agree.

Shalom, and take care.

 

[CMike]

You have to stop using Obama numbers if you want the truth.

Having Added Record $5.9T to Debt, Obama Claims He

Having Added Record $5.9T to Debt, Obama Claims He’s Cut Deficit $2.5T


February 19, 2013 - 1:09 PM
By Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama claimed today that since he has been president both parties have worked together to cut the federal deficit by $2.5 trillion—despite the fact that the national debt has increased $5.9 trillion during Obama’s presidency, which is more than it increased under all presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton combined.

“Over the last few years both parties have worked together to reduce our deficits by more than $2.5 trillion,” Obama said in a speech at the White House in which he called on Congress to avoid modest automatic cuts in anticipated spending that are set to begin on March 1.


“More than two thirds of that was through some pretty tough spending cuts,” Obama said. “The rest of it was through raising taxes, tax rates, on the wealthiest one percent of Americans. And together, when you take the spending cuts and the increased tax rates on the top one percent, it puts us more than half way to the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists say we need to stabilize our finances.”

In August 2011, Obama and House Speaker John Boehner cut a deal to give Obama an additional $2.4 trillion in borrowing authority, which Obama had entirely used up by Dec. 31. 2012. The legislation that Obama and Boehner agreed to back in 2011 also said that starting two years later, in fiscal 2013, Congress and the president would begin cutting about $1.2 trillion from the anticipated spending that the government would do in the following ten years.

Automatic across-the-board cuts in anticipated federal spending—split between defense and domestic spending--were supposed to begin on Jan. 1, if, by that date, Congress and the president had not agreed to an alternative package of equivalent cuts.

Instead, Obama and Congress made the so-called “fiscal cliff” deal, which increased federal taxes, but postponed the automatic cuts in anticipated spending until March 1, and reduced them from about $109 billion for this year to $85 billion.
When Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, the federal government’s debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08. As of the close of business on Feb. 14, 2013, the federal government’s debt was $16,540,800,290,147.46. Thus, since Obama has been president, the federal debt has increased $5,913,923,241,234.38. That is more than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton.

The federal debt was last below $5.913 trillion on Feb. 1, 2002, when George W. Bush was president.

Federal spending and federal deficits have both increased sharply under President Obama. In fiscal 2008, the last full fiscal year before Obama took office, the federal government spent $2.9716 trillion. In fiscal 2012, the federal government spent $3.538 trillion.

In fiscal 2008, the federal deficit was $454.8 billion. In fiscal 2012, it was $1.2967 trillion. By this measure, President Obama did not reduce federal deficits by $2.5 trillion. He increased the annual deficit by $841.9 billion.




- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/hav...ims-he-s-cut-deficit-25t#sthash.Sj9gisXO.dpuf

 

[CMike]

First of all, unless it's just a point of clarification, this will be my last post on this with you since we're simply not likely to agree and just spinning our wheels will get us nowhere. With that, let me respond to the above.

Here's some citations from Torah and where they are found:

Not to reap the entire field (Lev. 19:9; Lev. 23:22).

To leave the unreaped corner of the field or orchard for the poor (Lev. 19:9).

Not to gather gleanings (the ears that have fallen to the ground while reaping) (Lev. 19:9).

To leave the gleanings for the poor (Lev. 19:9).

Not to gather ol'loth (the imperfect clusters) of the vineyard (Lev. 19:10).

To leave ol'loth (the imperfect clusters) of the vineyard for the poor (Lev. 19:10; Deut. 24:21).

Not to gather the peret (grapes) that have fallen to the ground (Lev. 19:10).

To leave peret (the single grapes) of the vineyard for the poor (Lev. 19:10).

Not to return to take a forgotten sheaf (Deut. 24:19) This applies to all fruit trees (Deut. 24:20).

To leave the forgotten sheaves for the poor (Deut. 24:19-20).

Not to refrain from maintaining a poor man and giving him what he needs (Deut. 15:7)... See Tzedakah: Charity.

To give charity according to one's means (Deut. 15:11)... See Tzedakah: Charity. -- Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

Please note that it's only the last two items that deal with charity and all the others deal with taxation to help the poor and needy. Even when we did not sovereign in eretz Israel, such as when the Romans dominated us, we still enforced the above through both the Temple leadership and the Great Sanhedrin, which operated as our quasi-government.

Your position is the antithesis of the above. And you certainly wouldn't like it in that "socialist" country called "Israel" whereas universal health care is provided even with all of the monetary constraints due to astronomically high defense costs. I was going through the lowest income area of Tel Aviv back in 1991, and made a comment to a friend of mine that I wish we had "slums" like this back in the States.

Israel still collects the taxes prescribed in Torah, but they now handle it through regular taxation since the majority of the population is far more urban than it used to be during biblical times.

So, it appears that you have chosen a "conservative" approach over a "Torah" approach. Our ancestors felt that the needy must be taken care of and that government was at least partially responsible to do that. This does not translate out to government doing all or denying that individual initiative also is expected. Therefore, we simply do not agree.

Shalom, and take care.

Once again, NONE of it says anything about taxation.

Yanno...the more money the government loots, the less people have to give to charity.

I would like to see please proof that the Sanhedrin or any other jewish government entity enforced this?

You are adding in quite a bit that is not there.

 

[metis]

This next post is not addressed to CMike but is back on the OP for all.

I have used the terminology "self-proclaimed conservatives" as if I had a problem with it-- and all too often I do.

Back sometime in 1960's, Barry Goldwater ("Conscience of a Conservative") lamented that all too many who call themselves "conservatives" are just people acting selfishly to try and avoid paying taxes, not acknowledging that true conservatism isn't about that at all. As a matter of fact, conservatism may actually call for higher taxes at times.

Back in the 1980's, Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Winner in Economics("Free to Choose"-- which I read twice, btw.), stated in his book that if federal taxes are reduced, state and local taxes may have to be increased at times. Unfortunately, President Reagan never got that memo, apparently, so both Friedman and David Stockman, another conservative, left in anger after about two years.

True conservatism, as we use the term in terms of the political/economic structure, involves more of a switch from a concentration of power at the top (fed) to having more power at the bottom (states, local, and the individual). IOW, it's more of a states' rights issue than a tax issue, although there certainly are implications with taxation, of course.

So, this is why I cringe when I see some people post about being "conservative" and yet they're main approach is just to lower taxes. I'll use Goldwater's term for that: "greed".

[a point of clarification: the word "conservative" in the political/economic sphere sometimes has other characteristics that are involved, so the issue of "states' rights" is not the only item, and what else it could mean depends on the context.]

 

[CMike]

This next post is not addressed to CMike but is back on the OP for all.

I have used the terminology "self-proclaimed conservatives" as if I had a problem with it-- and all too often I do.

Back sometime in 1960's, Barry Goldwater ("Conscience of a Conservative") lamented that all too many who call themselves "conservatives" are just people acting selfishly to try and avoid paying taxes, not acknowledging that true conservatism isn't about that at all. As a matter of fact, conservatism may actually call for higher taxes at times.

Back in the 1980's, Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Winner in Economics("Free to Choose"-- which I read twice, btw.), stated in his book that if federal taxes are reduced, state and local taxes may have to be increased at times. Unfortunately, President Reagan never got that memo, apparently, so both Friedman and David Stockman, another conservative, left in anger after about two years.

True conservatism, as we use the term in terms of the political/economic structure, involves more of a switch from a concentration of power at the top (fed) to having more power at the bottom (states, local, and the individual). IOW, it's more of a states' rights issue than a tax issue, although there certainly are implications with taxation, of course.

So, this is why I cringe when I see some people post about being "conservative" and yet they're main approach is just to lower taxes. I'll use Goldwater's term for that: "greed".

[a point of clarification: the word "conservative" in the political/economic sphere sometimes has other characteristics that are involved, so the issue of "states' rights" is not the only item, and what else it could mean depends on the context.]

People keeping more of the money that they earned is hardly greed. Greed is the politicians looting money so they can pay off groups that keep them in power. I call that theft.

Once again, I think the poor should helped. Pres. Bush gave far more to charity than Obama, despite Obama being a multi millionaire.

The politician theft of the people makes people less able to help the poor. It succeeds in creating more poor.

Also under Reagan when tax rates were lowered, the amount of revenue that the govenment collected nearly doubled.

Read that again.

Lower tax rates leads to prosperity which leads to the government collecting more money.