Impending Minimum Wage hike causing restaurants to close

[Paprika]

If Sam is NOT intending Jubilee to be presented as a basis for today's version of redistribution, why is it in this thread?

<----

[Adrift]

I was trying to figure out what you meant by "on drugs", but I remember now I mentioned chewing peyote. Yeah, I'll apologize for that

Awesome, that's all I was trying to get at bro. The rest is a bit irrelevant to what I was asking. I know you don't believe that Jubilee should be presented as a basis for wealth redistribution today (pretty sure Sam said that as well, but whatever). I just wanted to establish that we all agree that Sam isn't a nut or a radical to suggest that the Bible may actually really refer to some sort of wealth redistribution in general.

Now, tangential to the point I initially addressed you about, the reason I imagine Sam brought Jubilee up at all, if he does not intend to present it as a basis for today's version of redistribution, was to simply point out that wealth redistribution in general is not anti-biblical, and may in fact have some biblical justification. Whether or not he's right that it ought to be applied today in any form is, obviously, debatable.

[Jesse]

That's a fine take on the ol' Robin Hood tale. Do go on.

Robin hood was a thief. Which is sociopathy. What is your point?

I find it interesting how you launch into character assassination which is easily proven false upon reading the target's posts.

I find it interesting how you don't know what character assassination is.

[Mountain Man]

What if the law already existed before you were born?

If you are involuntarily placed into a situation that you can not escape from then it is forced.

But this is all much ado about nothing because Jubilee only applied to voluntary contracts.

[Jesse]

Again, Sam may be totally wrong about his views on how these verses should apply to Christians in the here and now, but regardless, he's not some sort of weirdo or fanatic for having suggested that the Bible does refer to redistribution of wealth. Its a view that many highly esteemed Bible scholars agree the Bible does promote in one way or the other. And even if we think they're all wrong, Sam didn't make this up, so we can't really fault him for coming to the view that he has about the Bible if he's reading the experts on the subject.

Whether the Bible talks of redistribution of wealth in other passages is a different debate. We are specifically talking about Jubilee here. There is NO redistribution of wealth in the Jubilee.

[Mountain Man]

Your willingness to naively believe the propaganda of the rich is breathtaking. They've got you well indoctrinated. Some rich guy writes an opinion piece about how he'd love to be taxed less and gives some bogus reasons and you believe every word.

Yet again, they talk only about income without including capital gains.

Maryland's losses were the result of the 2008 financial crisis. The rate of rich people leaving the state didn't change either before or after the introduction of their new tax.

The notion that rich people regularly move to avoid taxes has been the subject of multiple studies, and it has been proven a myth.

These parody accounts are hilarious. Just say the dumbest thing you can think of, and it's a perfect parody of a liberal moron.



Even if we assumed that millionaires are only reporting 50% of their actual income and doubled the take from a 100% confiscation, that would still only be a drop in the ocean of US spending. Raising taxes is not the answer.

As for your New York Times article, I've got some bad news for you...

Source: Forbes

when other factors are held constant, higher taxes do indeed reduce the level of economic activity and hence migrationhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrode...is-not-a-myth/

© Copyright Original Source

[Starlight]

As for your New York Times article, I've got some bad news for you...

Aaaand with that you're back to quoting propaganda from Forbes, the magazine for the rich. They've got you well and truly brainwashed. I guess that's not hard, given you apparently don't have much brain to wash.

[Adrift]

Whether the Bible talks of redistribution of wealth in other passages is a different debate. We are specifically talking about Jubilee here. There is NO redistribution of wealth in the Jubilee.

Actually, I believe Paprika first brought up the general concept of wealth redistribution in the Bible, and mentioned Jubilee only as one example. This was in post #468

That's a false dichotomy. Scripture also advocated giving by force, eg the Jubilee laws. Because this is lilpix I suppose I have to spell out that this doesn't imply that all forced giving is good, but it surely means that not all forced giving is bad.

But anyways, the Sabbath Year seems to be intrinsically tied to the Jubilee, again, re-citing D.G. Dunn's commentary,

Source: Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, James D. G. Dunn, John William Rogerson, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Nov 19, 2003

The Jubilee (25:8-13)

The jubilee, like the sabbath year, is an old tradition; the original meaning of "jubilee" (Heb. yobel) is lost. But it is not possible to recover the original way in which it was observed. Ancient rulers made occasional decrees remitting debts and taxes, releasing slaves, and providing for the return of people to their land (Weinfeld 1995; see Jer 34:8). But the regularly recurring Jubilee is either a new idea or has a different background, possibly in Israel's tribal society, where it may have been connected with the redistribution of communal land (Weinfeld 1995: 177-78). The essence of the jubilee here is that people are to return to their original landholdings, being released from slavery if necessary (25:10, 28, 33, 41, and 54).

Is the jubilee the forty-ninth (25:8) or the fiftieth year (vv. 10 and 11)? The simplest explanation is that it is the seventh sabbath year, that is, the forty-ninth, and that fiftieth is inclusive reckoning (as when Jesus is said to have risen "on the third day"). But see Milgrom 2001: 2250.

© Copyright Original Source

[Jesse]

Actually, I believe Paprika first brought up the general concept of wealth redistribution in the Bible, and mentioned Jubilee only as one example. This was in post #468



But anyways, the Sabbath Year seems to be intrinsically tied to the Jubilee, again, re-citing D.G. Dunn's commentary,

Source: Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, James D. G. Dunn, John William Rogerson, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Nov 19, 2003

The Jubilee (25:8-13)

The jubilee, like the sabbath year, is an old tradition; the original meaning of "jubilee" (Heb. yobel) is lost. But it is not possible to recover the original way in which it was observed. Ancient rulers made occasional decrees remitting debts and taxes, releasing slaves, and providing for the return of people to their land (Weinfeld 1995; see Jer 34:8). But the regularly recurring Jubilee is either a new idea or has a different background, possibly in Israel's tribal society, where it may have been connected with the redistribution of communal land (Weinfeld 1995: 177-78). The essence of the jubilee here is that people are to return to their original landholdings, being released from slavery if necessary (25:10, 28, 33, 41, and 54).

Is the jubilee the forty-ninth (25:8) or the fiftieth year (vv. 10 and 11)? The simplest explanation is that it is the seventh sabbath year, that is, the forty-ninth, and that fiftieth is inclusive reckoning (as when Jesus is said to have risen "on the third day"). But see Milgrom 2001: 2250.

© Copyright Original Source

The Jubilee was observed at the end of the sabbatical year. Throughout the year, laws were to be followed (Lev 25:1-7, Deut 15:1-11, Ex 23:10-11). Again, this makes it clear what the provisions were for the Jubilee specifically. This is what we were debating Sam on. Whether we have an intrinsic tie to the rest of the year is irrelevant. Beyond all of this, we have no historical proof that the Jubilee year was even followed. So I guess most of this is conjecture really.

[Mountain Man]

Aaaand with that you're back to quoting propaganda from Forbes, the magazine for the rich. They've got you well and truly brainwashed. I guess that's not hard, given you apparently don't have much brain to wash.

You're killing me. This is too funny. Now you're satirizing clueless liberals who think the genetic fallacy is a valid argument.

[lilpixieofterror]

Your willingness to naively believe the propaganda of the rich is breathtaking. They've got you well indoctrinated. Some rich guy writes an opinion piece about how he'd love to be taxed less and gives some bogus reasons and you believe every word.

Than you shouldn't have any problem refuting it. Besides, it isn't as though people you agree with are not rich too.

Yet again, they talk only about income without including capital gains.

That's nice, so who are you to decided who gets too much money?

Maryland's losses were the result of the 2008 financial crisis. The rate of rich people leaving the state didn't change either before or after the introduction of their new tax.

*Sticks fingers in ears* and screams, "LALALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

And thus any evidence that destroys your delusions is just ignored and hand waved away.

The notion that rich people regularly move to avoid taxes has been the subject of multiple studies, and it has been proven a myth.

Interesting that you link to opinion pieces, but keep ignoring facts against your case. If the rich do not leave states, with high taxes. Perhaps you can explain why Toyota moved its US National headquarters from California to Texas and why California keeps losing business to Texas. There's several articles out there, such as this one, or this one, and this one that say other wise. If it such a 'myth' as you claim. Why is California losing so many jobs to the state of Texas?

[lilpixieofterror]

You, lilpix, Jesse and others provide all the proof I need. I just point it out and the case is made.

Than you shouldn't have a problem refuting the article that Jesse linked to or are you just too dumb to refute it and really hoping nobody else calls you on it? Never ever admit you're wrong, eh Papster?

[lilpixieofterror]

Aaaand with that you're back to quoting propaganda from Forbes, the magazine for the rich. They've got you well and truly brainwashed. I guess that's not hard, given you apparently don't have much brain to wash.

Propaganda (Starlight definition): "HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!"

And thus, Starlight continues to be a rare example of a parody of himself.

[Jesse]

The notion that rich people regularly move to avoid taxes has been the subject of multiple studies, and it has been proven a myth.

You might want to re-read my post here. You really have to stop ignoring proof just because you disagree with it.

[lilpixieofterror]

You might want to re-read my post here. You really have to stop ignoring proof just because you disagree with it.

His mind is already made up, stop confusing him with the facts.