Income Inequality?

[Spartacus]

Not only is it unjust, it sets the owner up for a HUGE lawsuit.

What makes it unjust?

[Sparko]

The people who have money and property can do whatever they want with it-- how the heck is that NOT economic might makes right?

Everyone has the right to do what they want with their own property. How is that wrong? What would be unjust is other people telling YOU how to spend your salary.

Let's try an experiment... I demand you send me 50% of your monthly income so I can expand theologyweb and pay our moderators who are purely working on a volunteer basis. I think that is just. They do a lot of work around here and get paid nothing at all. So since you have income and they don't, you need to give me 50% of your income to distribute it to them.

I am betting you won't do it because you don't want to give half of your money away or have someone like me tell you how to spend your money. But hey, I could be wrong. Here is the paypal page: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...ologywebdonate

You mean exegesis, or, more likely, eisegesis. Try googling big words before you use them.

You expect a pirate to know how to spell? I meant eisegesis. Reading INTO the text.

If you didn't work you didn't eat, but you also had the opportunity to work to get enough food.

and that sounds like a fair deal to me and not socialism.

Abraham was before the Mosaic Law, and Solomon's wealth was one of the signs of his corruption.

I know Abraham was before the Mosaic law, but are you saying that God changed his mind about wealth accumulation? And Solomon was not the only rich king in the land under Mosaic law, or the only rich person.

And since you are nitpicking on my spelling, I am guessing that is a diversionary tactic to avoid admitting you are wrong again.

[Sam]

Here's a working paper to keep track of:

Source: In The Papers: Inequality, Youth Unemployment And Retirement Incentives. Ben Cassleman. FiveThirtyEight.com. 2014.10.27

The debate over inequality often focuses on income, or how much money people earn. But perhaps even more important is wealth, or how much money people have. A person’s income can vary significantly from one year to the next, but wealth tends to be more durable, not just from year to year but from generation to generation. In this paper, the authors construct a new time series on wealth from Federal Reserve, Internal Revenue Service and other data. They find that wealth inequality, like income inequality, has increased significantly in recent decades. In 1978, the richest 0.1 percent of households held about 7 percent of all household wealth; in 2012, they controlled 22 percent. (The top 0.1 percent in 2012 comprised about 160,000 families with net assets above $20 million.) But wealth inequality still isn’t as high as it was in 1929, when the top 0.1 percent had 25 percent of all wealth. Overall, the authors find that the bottom 90 percent haven’t seen any increase in wealth since the mid-1980s after adjusting for inflation.

© Copyright Original Source

The folks arguing that income inequality is fine because a "business owner" and shareholders should be allowed to profit however much he wants, dismissive of any responsibility to share increasing wealth with employees, ought to remember that we're not in the 50's or 60's any more and we're not principally talking about the guy who runs a repair shop or a even a regional chain of fast food restaurants. We're talking about an increasingly fractional percent of Americans, mostly in the financial sector, sucking up an increasingly disproportionate amount of wealth. We often compare today's wealth inequality to the Gilded Age but, in truth, it's decidedly worse: at the turn of the 20th century, ~30% of America's wealth was held by the top 2%. In 2007, more than 30% of America's wealth was held by the top 1%. The authors cited above state that we are only three percentage points away from the inequality that existed immediately prior to the Great Depression, when the top 0.1% held 25% of America's wealth.

Defending the great inequalities of the Gilded Age and the Roaring 20's while denying laborers even the real increases in wages and wealth during those times is remarkable in its audacity.

[Cow Poke]

The folks arguing that income inequality is fine...

I can only speak for me, but this a total misrepresentation of my position -- I didn't say it was "fine" - I'm saying it's reality.

[Spartacus]

Everyone has the right to do what they want with their own property. How is that wrong? What would be unjust is other people telling YOU how to spend your salary.

Let's try an experiment... I demand you send me 50% of your monthly income so I can expand theologyweb and pay our moderators who are purely working on a volunteer basis. I think that is just. They do a lot of work around here and get paid nothing at all. So since you have income and they don't, you need to give me 50% of your income to distribute it to them.

I am betting you won't do it because you don't want to give half of your money away or have someone like me tell you how to spend your money. But hey, I could be wrong. Here is the paypal page: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...ologywebdonate

This line of argument would be far more effective if I actually had income.

You expect a pirate to know how to spell? I meant eisegesis. Reading INTO the text.

I expect a person who wants to convince me that they know how to properly interpret Scripture to know at least a few of the relevant terms and ideas.

and that sounds like a fair deal to me and not socialism.

Sure it's a fair deal, but it's not a deal that's available to everyone in the US.

I know Abraham was before the Mosaic law, but are you saying that God changed his mind about wealth accumulation? And Solomon was not the only rich king in the land under Mosaic law, or the only rich person.

So because Abraham was rich, later generations could ignore those elements of the Law that were supposed to limit their ability to accumulate wealth at the expense of the poor? Is that what you're arguing?

Or are you arguing that the end of the Law that came through Christ was God changing His mind, too? Do you think that God changing his mind is a bad thing? A good thing? You're not being particularly coherent.

And since you are nitpicking on my spelling, I am guessing that is a diversionary tactic to avoid admitting you are wrong again.

And how exactly do you think I interpret accusations of socialism?

[Bill the Cat]

Matthew 26:11New American Standard Bible (NASB)

11 For you always have the poor with you...

[Sparko]

This line of argument would be far more effective if I actually had income.

So get a job. Surely you can flip a burger for $15/hour, right?

I think that is your problem right there. You don't have a job and so you want someone to support you and think that other people somehow owe you a living. They don't.

And if you did have income I am fairly sure you would not give 50% of it to theologyweb to support it and the moderators working here because you would not want us telling you how to spend YOUR money.

I expect a person who wants to convince me that they know how to properly interpret Scripture to know at least a few of the relevant terms and ideas.

I do. You don't.

Sure it's a fair deal, but it's not a deal that's available to everyone in the US.

Really? I would take any job to earn enough to eat. Or start a business selling stuff on craig's list. Or picking up cans for cash. I see "help wanted" signs everywhere. There are jobs out there if you are not too proud to take them.

But we were talking about Mosaic law, not the USA. How is working for food anything but fair? It sure isn't what you have been arguing. You want people to get paid no matter what they do or how hard they work. You think the employer exists to support the employee and that somehow the employees get to decide how a business should be run and how the owner should spend his money instead of the other way around. You are just proposing a tyranny of the masses. If owners can not decide how to spend their own money and property, then they will stop owning businesses and then there will be no jobs and the workers can demand nothing from nothing all day long and still have nothing.

So because Abraham was rich, later generations could ignore those elements of the Law that were supposed to limit their ability to accumulate wealth at the expense of the poor? Is that what you're arguing?

Or are you arguing that the end of the Law that came through Christ was God changing His mind, too? Do you think that God changing his mind is a bad thing? A good thing? You're not being particularly coherent.



And how exactly do you think I interpret accusations of socialism?

You were arguing Mosaic law and now you are claiming that Jesus changed how people should spend their money? If anything, Jesus eliminated the tithe by fulfilling the law. You give what you want. You help who you want. Nobody forces you to do anything. Jesus gave advice and taught us to care for our neighbors, but he never legislated it. You can't legislate charity because when you take from me to give to someone else, it becomes stealing.

[Cow Poke]

Defending the great inequalities of the Gilded Age and the Roaring 20's

Who's doing that, Sam? That may be your cockeyed conclusion, but who's actually doing that?

while denying laborers even the real increases in wages and wealth during those times is remarkable in its audacity.

What a steaming pile of horsie poo. Because I object to a mandatory increase in wages simply because somebody "has a job", you conclude I'm against laborers having increases in wages? Yeah, that's why I'm actually investing my Tuesday and Thursday nights into a class of low wage laborers (several of whom do not yet have jobs) teaching them how to better themselves, and exposing them to community leaders who can actually help them move up to better paying jobs where they EARN their increase... And what do YOU do, Sam? You sit there pulling up facts and figures and charts and graphs.... Yeah, go ahead and pitch a hissy again about whatever it is you were whining about "credentialism"

While I'm actually DOING something about the problem in the way I believe actually ADDRESS the problem, you spew forth bloviations and goofy false accusations.

For the record... I am ALL FOR laborers EARNING increases, and I'm actively engaged - albeit only 15 or so at a time - in helping them GET There!

[Darth Executor]

So get a job. Surely you can flip a burger for $15/hour, right?

I think that is your problem right there. You don't have a job and so you want someone to support you and think that other people somehow owe you a living. They don't.

Pretty sure he just lives off his parents.

[Cow Poke]

Pretty sure he just lives off his parents.

But he CAN grill steaks!!!!

[Sparko]

Pretty sure he just lives off his parents.

Well they can owe him a living then. They are the reason he is here on Earth.

I moved out of my parents house when I was 18 and paid my way through school with any job I could get. Had a room mate to help with the costs. I worked at KFC, a burger joint, a TV repair shop, a car radio installation place, a burglar alarm company and a manufacturing company all to pay my way through school.

[Spartacus]

Matthew 26:11New American Standard Bible (NASB)

11 For you always have the poor with you...

Which is a reference to Deuteronomy 15:11, part of an exhortation to Israel to never neglect the law or the poor. Jesus' rebuke to Judas isn't a "meh, I screwed up when I made the world and there aren't actually enough resources to go around, so don't worry too much about the poor" but a "Judas, you've been embezzling from our coin purse for your own enrichment, and NOW you want to start caring for the poor?"

Raise your hand if you've ever taken an academic course in Scriptural interpretation.

[Spartacus]

So get a job. Surely you can flip a burger for $15/hour, right?

I think that is your problem right there. You don't have a job and so you want someone to support you and think that other people somehow owe you a living. They don't.

I wouldn't mind that at all, but the job market isn't exactly very friendly right now.

And if you did have income I am fairly sure you would not give 50% of it to theologyweb to support it and the moderators working here because you would not want us telling you how to spend YOUR money.

I can think of a few dozen causes more deserving of my money than TWeb

Really? I would take any job to earn enough to eat. Or start a business selling stuff on craig's list. Or picking up cans for cash. I see "help wanted" signs everywhere. There are jobs out there if you are not too proud to take them.

That makes one of us.

But we were talking about Mosaic law, not the USA. How is working for food anything but fair? It sure isn't what you have been arguing. You want people to get paid no matter what they do or how hard they work. You think the employer exists to support the employee and that somehow the employees get to decide how a business should be run and how the owner should spend his money instead of the other way around. You are just proposing a tyranny of the masses. If owners can not decide how to spend their own money and property, then they will stop owning businesses and then there will be no jobs and the workers can demand nothing from nothing all day long and still have nothing.

you don't know what I think and you don't care.

You were arguing Mosaic law and now you are claiming that Jesus changed how people should spend their money? If anything, Jesus eliminated the tithe by fulfilling the law. You give what you want. You help who you want. Nobody forces you to do anything. Jesus gave advice and taught us to care for our neighbors, but he never legislated it. You can't legislate charity because when you take from me to give to someone else, it becomes stealing.

[Sparko]

I wouldn't mind that at all, but the job market isn't exactly very friendly right now.

You mean you are not willing to flip burgers. Or do whatever you can to earn money. You want it handed to you free.

I can think of a few dozen causes more deserving of my money than TWeb

And there you go! You want to decide what to do with your own money rather than me deciding for you. Congratulations, you have admitted I was right all along. Welcome to the Republican side.

That makes one of us.

If you are not willing to work, then you shall not eat. Isn't that what the bible tells you?

you don't know what I think and you don't care.

Avoiding the debate again I see. I shall repeat it:

But we were talking about Mosaic law, not the USA. How is working for food anything but fair? It sure isn't what you have been arguing. You want people to get paid no matter what they do or how hard they work. You think the employer exists to support the employee and that somehow the employees get to decide how a business should be run and how the owner should spend his money instead of the other way around. You are just proposing a tyranny of the masses. If owners can not decide how to spend their own money and property, then they will stop owning businesses and then there will be no jobs and the workers can demand nothing from nothing all day long and still have nothing.

I love how when you know you are wrong, rather than admit it, you avoid it.

You were arguing Mosaic law and now you are claiming that Jesus changed how people should spend their money? If anything, Jesus eliminated the tithe by fulfilling the law. You give what you want. You help who you want. Nobody forces you to do anything. Jesus gave advice and taught us to care for our neighbors, but he never legislated it. You can't legislate charity because when you take from me to give to someone else, it becomes stealing.

[Bill the Cat]

Which is a reference to Deuteronomy 15:11, part of an exhortation to Israel to never neglect the law or the poor.

It is an acknowledgement by Jesus that there will always be poor.

Jesus' rebuke to Judas isn't a "meh, I screwed up when I made the world and there aren't actually enough resources to go around, so don't worry too much about the poor" but a "Judas, you've been embezzling from our coin purse for your own enrichment, and NOW you want to start caring for the poor?"

I'm sorry, but no. This comment was made to ALL of the Disciples, not Judas specifically. Jesus was telling His disciples that no matter how much they could get for the perfume, there would still be poor people. No amount of money would eliminate the needs of everyone.

Raise your hand if you've ever taken an academic course in Scriptural interpretation.