United Order and distribution of wealth

[Moksha]

...Here are some statistics...

I see the Heritage Foundation forgot to mention that 2/3 of the poor take their vacations on the Riviera. Also they forgot to point out that 43% of the poor have more than one luxury SUV parked in the multi-car garages on their estates.

[bytor2112]

Do you support tax relief for the poor and a little more tax responsibility for the uber rich?...to alleviate the stress on the middle class? (I do)

The poor don't pay any income tax. See below.

This latest IRS data is shown in Table 1. It shows that the top 1% of income earners now

pay 40% of federal income taxes, while earning 22% of income. The top 5% pay 60% of income

taxes while earning 37% of income. The bottom 50% of income earners pay only 3% of federal

income taxes.Table 1

Internal Revenue Service data, 2006

Share of federal Share of Total

Income taxes Adjusted Gross Income

Top 1% 40% 22%

Top 5% 60% 37%

Top 10% 71% 47%

Top 25% 86% 68%

You have more confidence in those most capable to give than I do. Throughout history, the wealthy has not been a source of charity, but rather tyrany and oppression. Generally this social class is not a class of Christlike characteristics.

We have seen this in action in the past 8 years with the tax break for the wealthy. I have seen the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I didn't see these people "freely donating" to the needy. Seeing what "non-government people of power" have done in the stock market and housing market...I suspect the charity thing would be just as screwed up as the government has it right now, only it would happen a lot faster.

Funky...the "government people of power" got us into this mess...And the Democrats are right in the thick of it. Lenders were forced to loan money to people with little or no credit and without the ability to repay...under Clinton and the Republicans tried to reform in 2004 and were blocked by Democrats. Also, conservatives give much more to charities than liberals. Tax breaks for the wealthy is non-sense....it is a fact that lowering taxes increases tax revenues to the government and allows small business owners (the so-called wealthy) to expand. Again.....the poor do not pay any income tax.....and revenues to the government are increased when you lower taxes.....if the wealthy pay the lions share of taxes.....and they do, then there is more money available for government spending. Simple economics.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

__________________

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight determined in 2004 that Fannie Mae's management engaged in a pervasive misapplication of its accounting rules. In 1998, Fannie deferred $200 million of estimated expenses to create the illusion of profit to justify enormous bonuses to management. The regulators cited Fannie's management for smoothing out swings in its earnings, presumably to deceive investors into believing Fannie was a low-risk company. Regulators also condemned "a culture and environment that made these problems possible." Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a bosom buddy of Obama's whose dirty hands were all over this scandal, was forced to return millions of dollars for his "alleged" responsibility for the improper accounting practices.

Both Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury Secretary John Snow called for tougher oversight of Fannie and Freddie as early as 2004 because the magnitude of Fannie's operations coupled with their serious financial difficulties could put the nation's financial system at risk.

Republican members of Congress pushed for remedial action based on those warnings, but the very Democrats pointing their fingers today at President Bush, Republicans and capitalism openly, vehemently, and nastily opposed their noble efforts.

[a-train]

Just wanna make sure I understand you correctly...you would like to see welfare be a purely donation-type system? (I don't)

I would completely do away with ALL federal social welfare programs. They are NOT designed to benefit the poor and they DON'T. They only benefit the most wealthy.

Do you support tax relief for the poor and a little more tax responsibility for the uber rich?...to alleviate the stress on the middle class? (I do)

MAJOR TAX RELIEF. If we are talking about federal income tax, I support a complete repeal of the 16th Amendment. The whole income tax is one great mess that is simply another means by which the most wealthy and connected confiscate more wealth from the masses. It is completely unnecessary and our great Union expanded and rose to a mighty world power for 136 years without it.

Social Security is only a tax on the poorest Americans. It is only levied on the first $106,800 of income. So, a man making $1 million, a man making $10 million, a man making $100 million, and a man making $106,800 will all pay the same dollar figure in 2009 for social security taxes. Every American making less than 106,800 will pay 12.4% of their taxable income to social security, right down to every last single mom making minimum wage at Taco Bell. So while she pays 12.5%, the man making $10 million pays .00125% (yes, about 1/10th of 1 percent). While he makes about 625 times more than her, he only pays about 6 times more social security.

That is only the beginning of inequality dealing with social security. In short, I would abolish it. Medicare and medicaid would also both be done away. Health care costs in this country would almost collapse. Affordability would suddenly seem miraculous.

What has been perpetrated is that the greed of the unwealthy has been used to create a system that actually perpetuates the inequality. It is the wealthy that is pushing all of this. They hire a politician to go out on stage and tell the people that he is going to give them money out of the pockets of the super rich and the masses sign off on it while the whole complicated mess actually takes from the poor and gives to the rich. That is the simple cold truth of the matter.

You have more confidence in those most capable to give than I do. Throughout history, the wealthy has not been a source of charity, but rather tyrany and oppression. Generally this social class is not a class of Christlike characteristics.

You misunderstand me. The super wealthy are not going to give a penny to the poor and that is exactly why I support a 100% repeal of the income tax, social security, medicare, medicaid, and all federal direct income taxes. These schemes rob the poor and give to the rich.

We have seen this in action in the past 8 years with the tax break for the wealthy. I have seen the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I didn't see these people "freely donating" to the needy. Seeing what "non-government people of power" have done in the stock market and housing market...I suspect the charity thing would be just as screwed up as the government has it right now, only it would happen a lot faster.

Bush is an actor on a stage. With the lights up high and the props in place, he fights valiantly against foes. When the curtain closes, the make-up comes off and he and the other actors go out and have a drink and enjoy the profits from their show.

The mega-wealthy are trying to break the backs of the liberty loving people and convince everyone that socialism is necessary. Bush was used to make the masses pray for socialism and it is working. People everywhere are thinking the same thing you just said. They want our government to tax those wealthy people. And the legislation to that end is coming. And with that in place, it will not seem so bad when they give us another round of tax hikes, that's all this really is.

I think independent charities are a fantanstic option for people and I am so glad that they are out there. What a lot of people don't realize is they receive money from their state and federal government in the form of subsodies and grants every year. Without government contributions, many of them would go belly-up.

Unfortunately these independent charities are always one of the first things to go when the economy weakens. I have seen a dozen charities forced to close their doors in just the past two months...where are the people to swoop in to "freely give" right now? They're holding onto their money tighter than ever to maintain their quality of life. Then the government's assistance is inevitable and because we live in such an unChristlike world, the governemtn has to even increase their help (for example, the extension of unemployment benefits, opening more homeless shelters, etc).

This is all part of the inflation/deflation scam. The Federal Reserve builds bubbles until they burst. Then the people cry for intervention, sometimes we get the intervention whether we want it or not (nationalization of banking and the bailout for example). It is a hoax.

Where did the government get all that money for the recent bailout? Did they tax the rich? They simply create more money out of thin air. Where does the value come from? It comes from the value already held in dollars in circulation. Thus, prices go way higher. Everything you buy over the next several years will have that tax included in the price. It is the inflation tax. The mega wealthy only pay a tiny portion because this is a tax on the dollar itself, not dollar denominated assets per se. The cash poor asset wealthy mega-rich don't really even pay it. Meanwhile, they directly benefit from it.

Thus, the mega wealthy push for these socialist programs and tax schemes by funding slick politicians who cry about how evil and nasty those mean old rich people are and how they are going to tax them and help the poor. It is a scam.

They cry about a shelter that will close without taking money from everyone. Perhaps we wouldn't even need it if we didn't take everyone's money and give it to the rich.

This country raised the standard of living for millions of people who came from all over the world for centuries before there was any federal social welfare programs. Today it continues to do so in spite of those programs, not because of them.

-a-train

[funkymonkey]

Interesting perspective, A-Train. Thanks.

[austro-libertarian]

Explain to me why if the church is so anti a government welfare system that in a country where we have a decent one - when we go to branch president/Bishop for help first thing they do is suggest we look at the welfare system in place? Surely if it is such a problem the church would take the stance that as LDS we do not use the government welfare and place the strain instead on the Church.

. . . which of course the Church has done. Here is the Lord's Welfare Plan:

“The Lord has established a way to care for the poor and needy and help them regain their self-reliance. When Church members are doing all they can to provide for themselves but still cannot meet their basic needs, they first should turn to their [extended] families for help. When this is not sufficient, the Church stands ready to help. . . .

“When people give, they should do so freely and with a spirit of love, recognizing that Heavenly Father is the source of all blessings and that those blessings should be used to serve others. . . .

“Providing in the Lord’s way humbles the giver, exalts the receiver, and sanctifies both (see D&C 104:15–18). Both become more able to give as Christ gives” (Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 2: Priesthood and Auxiliary Leaders [1998], 256).

These blessings do not come from the Government Plan. If this isn't plain enough, I'm not sure what else to say . . .

If you really want to learn what the Church teaches about the Lord's welfare plan, here you go!

When the Welfare Plan was established, here is what Pres. Grant had to say:

"Our primary purpose was to set up, in so far as it might be possible, a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished, and independence, industry, thrift and self respect be once more established amongst our people. The aim of the Church is to help people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership" (Heber J. Grant, in Conference Report, Oct. 1936, 3).

And President Hinckley:

"We must take care of the poor. Said the Lord, 'The poor ye have with you always.' (See Mark 14:7; John 12:8.) There have always been poor and I guess there always will be poor until the Millennium. We must take care of them and we must have the facilities to do so. But we must be very careful not to over-institutionalize that care. We must not shift the burden that we ought to carry in our own hearts of spreading kindness and love and help to others, to the institution, which at best, is impersonal" (Gordon B. Hinckley, Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley [1997], 459).

"I have wept as I have seen the poverty and the suffering of the people in this part of the earth [Philippines]. My heart reaches out to them. I do not know what the solution is, except the gospel of Jesus Christ. I think it is the only thing that will help them and bless their lives." (Gordon B. Hinckley, "Messages of Inspiration from President Hinckley," Church News, Nov. 2, 1996, 2).

I hope this helps.

[austro-libertarian]

I maintain that The Government is a poor man's worst enemy. If the moral and Gospel arguments aren't enough (who knew?) against Government Welfare we can look at the economic arguments (a la a-train) to show just two of the many ways the poor become poorer by The Government.

Minimum Wage: The minimum wage does not guarantee work. In fact, all it does is make it illegal to work at a wage lower than what The Government Planners arbitrarily create. While higher wages are better than lower wages, lower wages are better than no wages. Therefore people with lower skills cannot find work at a higher wage.

The Federal Reserve: The Federal Reserve is what primarily caused the housing crisis (and not greed). If the government can print money out of thin air, what happens to the value of everyone's money? Obviously, it goes down. And most likely prices will rise. And when the government prints money not everyone receives it equally. Who does that money go to? The most politically connected, those with the most money (think Bank Bailout here). The poor people get the money last, after prices have risen. They are the worst off by this Counterfeiting Machine. It should be abolished. Greenspan and Bernanke should apologize in shame and resign.

The Federal Reserve also makes it very easy for the US to go to war. If Govt had to tax people to fund the $3 trillion a year Iraq war (about $10,000 a year for every US citizen), the people would vote no on that one--or a revolution would occur. And maybe it will eventually.

[Elgama]

. . . which of course the Church has done. Here is the Lord's Welfare Plan:

These blessings do not come from the Government Plan. If this isn't plain enough, I'm not sure what else to say . . .

If you really want to learn what the Church teaches about the Lord's welfare plan, [

That however is not how the Bishops and Branch Presidents in the UK are taught to administer the welfare fund - the church is the port of call AFTER the government and family. This comes from the general handbook of instrictions. So as a result most in the UK do not need to have regular recourse to the Lord's welfare plan.

If our First Presidency was so anti government welfare surely as LDS we should be looking after our own BEFORE the government.

-Charley

[austro-libertarian]

That however is not how the Bishops and Branch Presidents in the UK are taught to administer the welfare fund - the church is the port of call AFTER the government and family. This comes from the general handbook of instrictions. So as a result most in the UK do not need to have regular recourse to the Lord's welfare plan.

If our First Presidency was so anti government welfare surely as LDS we should be looking after our own BEFORE the government.

-Charley

My experience in the UK and working with the ward and the welfare committee shows me that is not true. The Lord's plan doesn't change according to country. Our stake president's job in the UK was working for the welfare department of the Church.

Just to keep in mind, this is not a UK vs USA thing (I live in Australia btw), liberal vs conservative, poor vs wealthy, or any other modern-day collective grouping which Satan uses to cause contention. The Lord doesn't deal with aggregates or classes; he is no respecter of persons. It is the individual who matters.

[Moksha]

The poor don't pay any income tax. See below.

I did find this for the marginal tax rate (single filing):

10% on income between $0 and $8,025

15% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550; plus $802.50

For Utah

"Single" and "Married Filing Separate" Returns

If state taxable income is:

The tax is:$0 to $1,000 2.3 percent of state taxable income

$1,001 to $2,000 $23, plus 3.3 percent of amount over $1,000

$2,001 to $3,000 $56, plus 4.2 percent of amount over $2,000

$3,001 to $4,000 $98, plus 5.2 percent of amount over $3,000

$4,001 to $5,500 $150, plus 6.0 percent of amount over $4,000

Over $5,500 $240, plus 6.98 percent of amount over $5,500

[john doe]

I did find this for the marginal tax rate (single filing):

10% on income between $0 and $8,025

15% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550; plus $802.50

For Utah

"Single" and "Married Filing Separate" Returns

If state taxable income is:

The tax is:$0 to $1,000 2.3 percent of state taxable income

$1,001 to $2,000 $23, plus 3.3 percent of amount over $1,000

$2,001 to $3,000 $56, plus 4.2 percent of amount over $2,000

$3,001 to $4,000 $98, plus 5.2 percent of amount over $3,000

$4,001 to $5,500 $150, plus 6.0 percent of amount over $4,000

Over $5,500 $240, plus 6.98 percent of amount over $5,500

It's important to note that those tax rates are after deductions. Married people with a couple kids, giving 10% to charities and making house payments pay very little taxes,if any, on even $50,000 income. I can tell you my effective federal tax rate a couple years ago was about 1.5%, and my gross income was somewhat higher than 50k.