Impending Minimum Wage hike causing restaurants to close

[Starlight]

You might want to re-read my post here.

What is called a tax-inversion for companies is a well-known phenomena. It doesn't tend to involve much on-the-ground, but on the accounting books the company changes its location for tax purposes, most recently Ireland is the destination of choice. It's a bit different to operations being physically moved to a different location, or to rich people physically moving to a different location.

[lilpixieofterror]

What is called a tax-inversion for companies is a well-known phenomena. It doesn't tend to involve much on-the-ground, but on the accounting books the company changes its location for tax purposes, most recently Ireland is the destination of choice. It's a bit different to operations being physically moved to a different location, or to rich people physically moving to a different location.

Well, looks like lightbright is just ignoring me and hoping I go away. When you can't refute what others say, ignore them and hope everything they say disappears into a puff of smoke. Perhaps lightbright could explain how California lost 30,000 jobs and Texas gained 31,000 if the rich were not jumping ship and running out on them.

[Mountain Man]

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

He's just staying in character as part of his liberal parody. It's hilarious, because nobody could be that genuinely stupid.

[Jesse]

What is called a tax-inversion for companies is a well-known phenomena. It doesn't tend to involve much on-the-ground, but on the accounting books the company changes its location for tax purposes, most recently Ireland is the destination of choice. It's a bit different to operations being physically moved to a different location, or to rich people physically moving to a different location.

And yet this was already addressed by me. You only want to talk about "tax sheltering" which is only one option. Yet you completely ignore those companies that have moved because of higher taxes. What is your plan for them? Would you like governments to try and stop them from relocating so they can't get a lower tax rate somewhere else?

[Cow Poke]

What is called a tax-inversion for companies is a well-known phenomena. It doesn't tend to involve much on-the-ground, but on the accounting books the company changes its location for tax purposes, most recently Ireland is the destination of choice. It's a bit different to operations being physically moved to a different location, or to rich people physically moving to a different location.

The net effect is that revenue is lost because the entity feels that the cost of doing business in the US offsets any perception of evading taxes. If you charged me $5 to park in your lot, but Jesse only charged me $3 for equivalent space, I'd be silly to pay you the $5.

[Paprika]

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?

Context, little one. The 'case' in that post referred to the reason why conservatives oppose the redistribution understanding of Jubilee.

[Paprika]

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.

Try again, Jesse. Who brought up Jubilee? I did.

Why did I bring it up? Because lilpix said the following

Why do you suppose the Bible advocates cheerful giving vs taking from one, by force, and giving to another?

Hence whether redistribution of wealth in advocated in other passages is relevant, and your attempt to avoid discussion about it is transparent.

[Paprika]

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

Observe how the Deut 15 passage obliterates all their excuses, hence they refuse to discuss it (and will probably have to be dragged screaming and kicking), claiming it is off-topic.

[Paprika]

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

Excellent.

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

Yes. It applied to voluntary contracts where land was sold yet it mandates the land to be given back.

[Jesse]

Try again, Jesse. Who brought up Jubilee? I did.

Why did I bring it up? Because lilpix said the following

Hence whether redistribution of wealth in advocated in other passages is relevant, and your attempt to avoid discussion about it is transparent.

It really doesn't matter to me who brought it up. You and Sam are both wrong on Jubilee regardless. I guess I should congratulate you for being wrong first then. No one here has avoided this discussion. We have pointed out where you are wrong and you are doing your best to ignore it.

Observe how the Deut 15 passage obliterates all their excuses, hence they refuse to discuss it (and will probably have to be dragged screaming and kicking), claiming it is off-topic.

Would you like to tell us where in Deut. 15 it talks about wealth redistribution?

[Paprika]

No one here has avoided this discussion.

As I was saying, you and the rest have been avoiding the discussion about Deut 15. Only now do you give in.

We have pointed out where you are wrong and you are doing your best to ignore it.

Which is why I'm still in conversation with MM about it

Would you like to tell us where in Deut. 15 it talks about wealth redistribution?

Adrift already has (which you're avoiding), but if I must I will:

“If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, ‘The seventh year, the year of release is near,’ and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord against you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

It is mandated that giving to the poor be done through loans which will unlikely to be repaid and must be cancelled in the seventh year.

[Jesse]

It is mandated that giving to the poor be done through loans which will unlikely to be repaid and must be cancelled in the seventh year.

So, you think a philanthropic loan (one that was only given to other Israelites by the way) is wealth redistribution? You think this was so scary that it was being avoided huh?

Again, considering that we have no evidence that Jubilee was even observed, what does this have to do with anything? I think maybe we should all chip in to "redistribute" a few history books to you and Sam.

[Sam]

I don't really understand why you're so against Sam about whether or not Jubilee was a form of redistribution. I mean, I can understand that you don't agree with him about redistribution in America, but Sam didn't invent the idea that Jubilee in Ancient Israel was a form of redistribution. This is a view that some of the world's leading Bible scholars have proposed. So for instance, from someone as highly esteemed as D.G. Dunn, we get this:

The Year of Jubilee

“You shall count seven weeks of years, seven times seven years, so that the time of the seven weeks of years shall give you forty-nine years. Then you shall sound the loud trumpet on the tenth day of the seventh month. On the Day of Atonement you shall sound the trumpet throughout all your land. And you shall consecrate the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you, when each of you shall return to his property and each of you shall return to his clan. That fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you; in it you shall neither sow nor reap what grows of itself nor gather the grapes from the undressed vines. For it is a jubilee. It shall be holy to you. You may eat the produce of the field.

“In this year of jubilee each of you shall return to his property."

(Leviticus 25:8-13 ESV)

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

And from one of the most influential OT scholars of our time, Old Testament scholar Walter Breuggemann (talking about the Sabbatical Year in Deuteronomy 15) we get,

The Sabbatical Year

“At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release. And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release what he has lent to his neighbor. He shall not exact it of his neighbor, his brother, because the LORD's release has been proclaimed. Of a foreigner you may exact it, but whatever of yours is with your brother your hand shall release. But there will be no poor among you; for the LORD will bless you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance to possess—if only you will strictly obey the voice of the LORD your God, being careful to do all this commandment that I command you today. For the LORD your God will bless you, as he promised you, and you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow, and you shall rule over many nations, but they shall not rule over you.

“If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, ‘The seventh year, the year of release is near,’ and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the LORD against you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

“If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the LORD your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.

(Deuteronomy 15:1-15 ESV)

Source: Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries: Deuteronomy, Walter Brueggemann, Abingdon Press, Sep 1, 2011

The provision of verse 12 that parallels verse 1 is followed in verses 13-14 by a passionate appeal. The bond servant is now "free." The act of emancipation from debt is not enough, for an Israelite creditor owes an Israelite debtor more than debt cancellation. Debt cancellation by itself would send the poor person back on the street without any resources. Economic realism would dictate that such a person has no chance of economic survival or success if he or she begins "empty-handed," that is, without resources. The act of debt cancellation is followed by an imperative to give the poor person enough wherewithal from one's own wealth in order to give economic viability to the poor (v. 14). From the blessings of flock, field, and the vineyard they have received from YHWH, the wealthy are to give enough to help the poor to start over.

The imperative cannot be mistaken. This is redistribution of wealth in an act of reparations, a transfer of wealth from those who have amassed it to those who have none. The tradition knows unambiguously that a person without economic resources is not a full, functioning member of the community and will not enjoy the dignity and security to which such a companion is entitled. The teaching is willing to override conventional "commonsense" economics in the interest of creating and sustaining a viable social fabric in which all members have the means to participate effectively. The economy must yield to the viability of the community.

© Copyright Original Source

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.

Thank you, Adrift — just wanted to pop back in and say I appreciate this and the subsequent posts.

For the record, I don't view Israelite law as justification for modern law. The issue of Jubilee and associated laws first came up because the argument was made that it is immoral to "force" someone to give up wealth or property in order to redistribute it to another person who "hasn't earned it." Such mandates, enforced through the State, were taken as intrinsically immoral.

Jubilee and associated laws contradict this position, at least insofar as one is willing to believe that such a system was created by God (or at least with God's approval). So while Jubilee or Sabbath year laws do not serve as justification for modern-day redistribution, they rebut one of the more common criticisms of redistributive policies — namely that such redistribution from the "makers" to the "takers" is inherently immoral.

Hope that clarifies the context a bit.

—Sam

[Sam]

Source: Harbin

7. Slavery was not involved. Given these data, it becomes clear that the individuals who “sold the land” were not slaves in any sense of the word. This would explain why the text specifically says that they were not to be considered slaves (Lev 25:35–46, especially v. 39), and as will be shown below, how they seemed to have a much different status.

With this background, we note that Lev 25:8–55 presents the year of Jubilee as a “consecrated year” following the seven Sabbath year cycle noted in verse 8. It began by the blowing of the ram’s horn throughout the land on the Day of Atonement at the beginning of that “fiftieth year” to show that it was consecrated.

While the land was to rest as in a normal Sabbath year, the focus of Jubilee was related to the land which had been given as an inheritance. Specifically, in that year all agricultural land which had been given as part of the national inheritance was to revert to the family to which it had been given at the time of the conquest. A second element of that year amplifies the issue of individuals in debt (Lev 25:35–46). While this is commonly viewed as a manumission of “slaves,” that term is not used here. What is more, there is nothing in this passage that suggests any remission of debt in the year of Jubilee.

© Copyright Original Source

So you read this and decided to ignore it? Or you didn't read it at all?

The author makes a distinction between debt-slavery and chattel-slavery and then defines "slavery" such that only chattel-slavery can be considered "slavery." This is, I think, a clear sleight-of-hand. Anyone familiar with the "company store" model of labor understands that even wage-laborers can be properly considered slave labor and, as Adrift has noted, this type of "sustenance labor" existed in ancient Israel. Whether the author wants to call it "slavery" or "indentured servitude" is, I think, irrelevant: the point remains that the laborer was to be freed whether or not the debt was paid off. And the forgiveness of a debt is necessarily redistributive.

And it bears pointing out that Jubilee incorporates Sabbath-year laws: it's inappropriate to say that Jubilee doesn't deal in remission of debt when every single Jubilee year coincides with such remission. Sabbath years and Jubilee are both temporally and conceptually intertwined.

[Jesse]

The author makes a distinction between debt-slavery and chattel-slavery and then defines "slavery" such that only chattel-slavery can be considered "slavery." This is, I think, a clear sleight-of-hand. Anyone familiar with the "company store" model of labor understands that even wage-laborers can be properly considered slave labor and, as Adrift has noted, this type of "sustenance labor" existed in ancient Israel. Whether the author wants to call it "slavery" or "indentured servitude" is, I think, irrelevant: the point remains that the laborer was to be freed whether or not the debt was paid off. And the forgiveness of a debt is necessarily redistributive.

And it bears pointing out that Jubilee incorporates Sabbath-year laws: it's inappropriate to say that Jubilee doesn't deal in remission of debt when every single Jubilee year coincides with such remission. Sabbath years and Jubilee are both temporally and conceptually intertwined.

He is using the distinction correctly. For Lev 25:44–46 is speaking of only chattel slaves. They had no pardon under Jubilee. As he says, the debt slaves were not slaves at all. Israelites could not become chattel slaves. Lev 25:35–46 makes it clear that those who were debt slaves were not considered actual slaves. And they were the ones who "sold land". This distinction is important because it invalidates your case. Which I can see why you don't want to acknowledge it.

I am still wondering why any of this matters when Jubilee doesn't seem to have been observed to begin with.