When a community finds itself strapped for chash, they tend to demand that the wealthiest members of it cover the expenses, usually through taxes directed specifically to them. Is this ethical, just, responsible? Is it the responsibility of those with more money than the rest to bail the others out? Is this related to the Robin Hood methaphor? I would appreciate views in favor and against these postures. Thanks! =0)
206465
That's not completely fair, I believe in a fair taxation system with no tax breaks for the rich.
438726
I agree in an obscure way. I believe that it is a sin to put our own needs first instead of doing what Jesus says to do and that is to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we all did that there would be no poverty, but Jesus knows everything; thus He knows that man will love ourselves most....which causes some to be rich and more to be poor.
82078
You're either referring to "intendance", having to do with the care, handling or management of funds, or you mean "inheritance".  None the less, this individual showed immense selfishness, simply using "God" as a scape goat in order to "justify" his own actions.  All you can do at this point, is move on and take care of business.  When we lose a loved one, it's unfortunate that there are those in the family who reflect such thoughtlessness.  Very sorry to have read of the sad and frustrating time you are going through.  I would definetly avoid enabling that particular individual by giving him ANY money out of your share.  So don't use any energy towards "should we?" or "shouldn't we?".  You can certainly be there for each other without enabling anyone.  Take care, okay?  You will be fine.  Again, I'm very sorry for your loss.\nPS. PLEASE,...DON'T make your brother's failure to pay taxes ANY of YOUR concern!  It sounds as though he is "making his own bed".  You lay in YOUR own bed and let HIM lay in HIS own bed.  You're gonna have all the hair pulled out of your head by the time it's all said and done!  You don't wanna do that?!  We CANNOT make ourselves responsible for anyone elses actions.  I know you love your brother, but please remain separate from pickles that he gets himself in to.
606913
Religious laws? Like when people decide that oil companies are too 'greedy' and need to be taxed more. Or when people decide that rich people are too 'greedy' and need to be taxed more? Or when people decide that they will use the power of government to take money out of your pocket and give it to somebody else as a matter of 'charity' or 'compassion'? Those type of Marxist morality laws? Yes, they are evil indeed.
568751
if you see someone stealing from another person you wouldn't ask this question. You are simply asking it because the government is such a financial titan that such "appropriation" won,t harm it. Still it is stealing. Do what is right and talk to you superiors about it immediately. GL
671100
Being ethical has nothing to do with religion.  Is it ethical to strap a bomb to yourself and run into a crowd?  Religion is inspiring people to do just that!  The welfare system is there to help our fellow man in a time of need regardless of religion or creed.
348769
The common conception is that stingy people are that way because they have no money - because they have to be.  Some of the cheapest people you'll ever meet are rich folks though so in reality it can go either way.  At first it doesn't seem to make sense that a rich person would be stingy but then you have to figure there's a reason they are rich in the first place.  They probably didn't get there by being casual about money.
30131
The responsibility falls first on their family or heirs.  If there are none, or none can be found, then it their debts are taken out of their estate.  Cars, house, clothing, houshold, anything can can be sold at auction to pay the bills. \n\nMost people with no money (street people and bums) have no bills.  However, there have been people who have died that were thought to be paupers, and actually had thousands or even millions of dollars in the bank.  The collectors can get you one way or the other.
611723
agree with you. It's something I think about quite a lot. Where I come from to work is kind of a privledge and a pain in the ass at the same time, but taxes do take a sizeable chunk out of anyone's income. People on a benefit admittedly do not receive a large income, but it's a pain in the ass when they say that they should be on one because "boo hoo" they are a single parent or whatever. And when the people who are working and basically, apart from all the rest of it, paying for them through their taxes, quite possibly have things which they could choose to say "boo hoo" about also. Anyway - that is just regarding your basic everyday run of the mill single parent family, which honestly probably does need quite a lot of help. If someone is together with someone else and passing themselves off as single so they can claim more benefits, then that is shitty yes. If they have plenty of money coming from someone else I don't think they should be chasing welfare stamps as a lifestyle option.
663054
I agree with the concept of your complaint. However, there are many celebs that do donate a decent amount of money (it is a tax benefit to do so, so of course they do!). Many even have their own foundations. \n\nHowever, you are correct in that they tell us to conserve, use less, donate, etc etc and then jet around in private jets, Hummers, air condition 12,000 square foot homes, have yachts and fleets of cars, and the sordid list goes on. That is what I find to be even worse. Conservation is fine for the peons, but certainly not for the demi-god celebs!
600474
While some look at it as a conflict, others believe it to be free speech.  I personally believe in the later.  The "libertarian" view is the best to me.  No laws, no limits, but mandated reporting.  Lets just see where the money comes from.  The best law I think they could impose is mandatory 24 hour reporting.  Meaning within 24 hours of money hitting a campaign account it has to be listed on a web site - sourced completely.  At least this way we see who is trying to buy who.
498561
I see the answer in the question, If you are rich,then you are keeping it all to yourself, laying up treasure on earth.If you gave the money to feed the hungry, house the homeless,pay doctors for the ill, then you would no longer be rich,in the earthly sense.
266966
There is only one way to avoid this issue: why are religions tax exempt? If they were not tax exempt, then the government could stay out of it.\n\nOrganizations that earn money and own property should be considered businesses. There should not be favorable treatment given to people who want to spend their spare time praying versus those who want to spend their spare time bowling. To each his own.\n\nJesus said it himself: Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
353516
And celebrities!  I hate it when rich celebrities try to guilt people into donating money.  I don't see many of them giving enough to cut into their exotic lifestyles, but they try to guilt the hard-working, laborer to part with enough money to actually cut into their means to provide a little side amusement for their family.
92239
People's personal blights, ie poverty or education, or not the responsibility of goverment. It is that person's choice where they are in life. In modern american society it seems that everyone wants to blame someone for the way they ended up, or make an excuse for why someone else is doing better than them. \n\nIt is a fact that some people will do nothing more than what is ABSOLUTELY nessacary for survival on that particular day. Some people will do more, and some will do everything they can to get better off than others. \n\nTo directly answer the poverty % quest... It all comes down to what the person doing the survey wants the number to be. A person living in per-say Montana with a small farm grwing there own food not really having a need for money is in poverty. But if you ask them they may say they are doing fine as all of their needs are met. A multi-millionaire that has no job (doesn't need it duh) and has no investment income (poor economic move) is considered in poverty by IRS standards. So it all comes down to what poverty number do you want to have?\n\nOn a side note, I fix up houses as a business. With the way the tax code is structured I can write off almost all of my income to business expenses. IRS paper work I made $9300 last year for a family of 3 (sole income earner). My actually net from the business for the year was $102,000+(not rubbing it in). I have been contacted multi times for Gov't assistance because we are POOR. LOL
125474
I ask you this: Why should you get paid for something that you had nothing to do with?  Why should I end up having to pay more taxes because of something that I had nothing to do with.  You were not enslaved, so what makes you think you are entitled to anything?
326236
I have no scripture to back up the thought behind having a dinner to raise money for your church's youth group. I had a pastor once who preached that the problem Jesus had was that the merchant's were basically stealing money from people. It has nothing to do with present day fundraising. I have never seen any of the churches around here sell anything without it being for a fundraiser, which was for everything from youth group, to raising money for a family burned out of their home. Either way, I think God would be pleased that someone cares enough to try and help other out, as long as we aren't taking the money to pocket for ourselves.