quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
When it comes to things like this I think many create a false dichotomy by making it look like if you choose one you automatically ignore the other. There is no such thing as the "social" gospel or the "prosperity" gospel or whatever. There is only one gospel and that is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

---

quote:

---

The social gospel sees with a very clear eye that people are living in terrible housing conditions; that their children have little or no educational future; that the aged and disabled are being brushed aside by the enterprise culture. It relates all these and similar issues to God’s loving concern for every part of our lives, and then bases a mission strategy on the need for the church to do something practical and positive about such social evils…Social gospel people tend to be involved with community and maybe political compaigns (sic), and usually come from a liberal or middle-of-the-road theological background…The spiritual gospel attitude sees with an equally clear eye that people are living without Christ; that they have little or no experience of the joy of knowing God in this life, and nothing to look forward to in the future. It relates this to the love of God and the saving death of Christ, and then bases a mission strategy on the need for the church to reach out and tell people of Jesus and his gift of eternal life…Spiritual gospel people tend to be very involved with congregational and maybe even evangelistic campaigns, and usually come from an Evangelical or Anglo-Catholic background...The Jesus gospel [OTOH] holds together and actually puts into practice the social and the spiritual gospel. It represents the full depth and breadth of God’s love, without missing anything out. It confronts sin and offers salvation in two overlapping zones, the corporate zone and the individual zone...The Jesus gospel brings judgement for the victimisers and compassion and healing for the victims, into this corporate zone…[and] brings judgement against all evil, but it also offers forgiveness and salvation to all evil-doers who are prepared to change their ways and believe

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
state as fact that no one chooses to leech on the state is not only naive but untrue: to base government policy on such naivety is unaffordable

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:

There is also an unwillingness to recognise that for every 100 (or whatever) people in poverty desperate to get out of it and willing to do everything in their power so to do, there are people who fail entirely to see that there has to be a real, as well as implied, social contract between those who fund 'the system' and those who at one time or another benefit from it. To imply or state as fact that no one chooses to leech on the state is not only naive but untrue: to base government policy on such naivety is unaffordable,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
There is also an unwillingness to recognise that for every 100 (or whatever) people in poverty desperate to get out of it and willing to do everything in their power so to do, there are people who fail entirely to see that there has to be a real, as well as implied, social contract between those who fund 'the system' and those who at one time or another benefit from it. To imply or state as fact that no one chooses to leech on the state is not only naive but untrue: to base government policy on such naivety is unaffordable, not only in economic terms but also in relation to the implicit trust that taxpayers need to have towards the state institutions that spend their money.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

The government is neither capable nor suitable to address all of these problems. That's where the church needs to step in. By loving and helping people as Jesus did, we can help them become productive members of society by freeing them of the evils and ailments that plague their lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

The government is neither capable nor suitable to address all of these problems. That's where the church needs to step in. By loving and helping people as Jesus did, we can help them become productive members of society by freeing them of the evils and ailments that plague their lives.

---

There are plenty of non- faith charities which do just this, and do it without the ulterior motive of gaining converts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
<snip> By loving and helping people as Jesus did, we can help them become productive members of society by freeing them of the evils and ailments that plague their lives.

---

• on the ASD spectrum with severe depression and self-medication with alcohol;
• disabled by cancer with children with disabilities;
• disabled with multiple conditions - diabetes, bi-polar, knees awaiting transplants, sleep apnoea - claiming benefits as is their full-time carer (both these have worked in the past and are volunteering);
• a couple where the husband is recovering from cancer, they have young children, an older disabled child and poor English skills.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
seekingsiter, how do you envisage that churches are able to free people of the "evils and ailments" of their lives?

The people I can think of who would probably get castigated as leeches are:

• on the ASD spectrum with severe depression and self-medication with alcohol;
• disabled by cancer with children with disabilities;
• disabled with multiple conditions - diabetes, bi-polar, knees awaiting transplants, sleep apnoea - claiming benefits as is their full-time carer (both these have worked in the past and are volunteering);
• a couple where the husband is recovering from cancer, they have young children, an older disabled child and poor English skills.

Are we expecting churches to manage miracles of healing? Or can we trust in medical progress? You know those hospitals and other organisations paid for by the State?

What on earth is the church going to do to support people such as these, even if all or any of them were Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
There's a matter of priorities. Do the rights of the exploited taxpayers over-ride the right of a safety net for those who fall victim to the system. (Remember, without the pool of unemployed, and without the flexible working contracts, the system would never make the tax payers half as rich!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

The government is neither capable nor suitable to address all of these problems. That's where the church needs to step in. By loving and helping people as Jesus did, we can help them become productive members of society by freeing them of the evils and ailments that plague their lives.

---

There are plenty of non- faith charities which do just this, and do it without the ulterior motive of gaining converts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Indeed - and William Booth addressed it all in 1890 with his book, 'In Darkest England, and the way out.'

The mission statement of the Salvation Army in the UK is to "Save Souls, Grow Saints and Serve Suffering Humanity."

the vision statement is that "As disciples of Jesus Christ, we will be a Spirit-filled, radical growing movement with a burning desire to lead people into a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, actively serve the community, and fight for social justice."

The worldwide Salvation Army, active in 126 countries, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian Church.
Its message is based on the Bible.
Its ministry is motivated by the love of God.
Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in his name without discrimination.

You see, you can be conservative, evangelical and preach the social gospel alongside individual salvation. I really fail to see either the dichotomy or the reason for this being seen as a new thing.

Maybe it's because we've just gotten on with it without writing too many academic papers about it all!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

The government is neither capable nor suitable to address all of these problems. That's where the church needs to step in. By loving and helping people as Jesus did, we can help them become productive members of society by freeing them of the evils and ailments that plague their lives.

---

There are plenty of non- faith charities which do just this, and do it without the ulterior motive of gaining converts.

---

Why is trying to expose people to Jesus' salvation an 'ulterior motive'? You make it sound as if this is a negative; I view it as overwhelmingly positive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hairy Biker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:

There is also an unwillingness to recognise that for every 100 (or whatever) people in poverty desperate to get out of it and willing to do everything in their power so to do, there are people who fail entirely to see that there has to be a real, as well as implied, social contract between those who fund 'the system' and those who at one time or another benefit from it. To imply or state as fact that no one chooses to leech on the state is not only naive but untrue: to base government policy on such naivety is unaffordable,

---

I think there is also an unwillingness to accept just how few leeches there are. You quote 100 (or whatever) who wish to leave poverty, but conveniently gloss over any suggestion of just how many leeches there might be among them. I'm sure there are those who subsidise their benefits with criminal activities. I'm not so convinced that anyone can afford to choose to raise a family on state benefits alone. By implying that it's a large proportion, you and the current UK government, put the welfare of the honest victims at risk in a vain search for saving a few quid by denying the dishonest ones their ill-gotten prize.

There's a matter of priorities. Do the rights of the exploited taxpayers over-ride the right of a safety net for those who fall victim to the system. (Remember, without the pool of unemployed, and without the flexible working contracts, the system would never make the tax payers half as rich!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Because lots of people don't want to convert and they are perfectly entitled to not want that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

The government is neither capable nor suitable to address all of these problems. That's where the church needs to step in. By loving and helping people as Jesus did, we can help them become productive members of society by freeing them of the evils and ailments that plague their lives.

---

There are plenty of non- faith charities which do just this, and do it without the ulterior motive of gaining converts.

---

Why is trying to expose people to Jesus' salvation an 'ulterior motive'? You make it sound as if this is a negative; I view it as overwhelmingly positive.

---

Because lots of people don't want to convert and they are perfectly entitled to not want that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think that the extreme right wing of the Republican Party has a lot to do with it - I'm surprised at you claiming that the SA is 'the most conservative' in theology, doctrine and ethics. There are many more conservative groups! The far right of the Republican Party are happy to starve children in the name of Jesus.

I'm also saddened but not surprised by the anti-intellectualism in your post, as if writing academic papers is somehow not what real Christians do. In this post and in the one about the SA documentary, I do see a lot of unhelpful and un-Christian reverse snobbery around the SA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
We still despise the poor to an unbelievable extent. I don't think we have faintest idea how bad we are. How unjust, how unfair, how inequitable, how selfish, how judgemental, how blind, naked ... poor we are. How unrighteous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think that the extreme right wing of the Republican Party has a lot to do with it - I'm surprised at you claiming that the SA is 'the most conservative' in theology, doctrine and ethics. There are many more conservative groups! The far right of the Republican Party are happy to starve children in the name of Jesus.

I'm also saddened but not surprised by the anti-intellectualism in your post, as if writing academic papers is somehow not what real Christians do. In this post and in the one about the SA documentary, I do see a lot of unhelpful and un-Christian reverse snobbery around the SA.

---

I wasn't aware that the Republican Party was a church. The Salvation Army has not changed its doctrines in 150 years and we are passionately conservative.

The not writing academic papers was nothing to do with anti-intellectualism - we are not anti-intellectual in the slightest. My comment about not writing academic documents was a comment on the fact that people seem to see the social Gospel as a new thing in the church, not compatible in the evangelical movement - I was suggesting that people don't know that we have been combining the two because, not having written much but doing it quietly instead, people don't know too much of our work and especially our theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
We still despise the poor to an unbelievable extent. I don't think we have faintest idea how bad we are. How unjust, how unfair, how inequitable, how selfish, how judgemental, how blind, naked ... poor we are. How unrighteous.

---

I don't recognise The Salvation Army in that statement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think conservative evangelicalism absolutely despises the poor, and is a natural ancestor of the idea of the 'deserving poor'.

---

Agree. This whole "prosperity to those who are True (TM) in their practice" is poison and misses the point of the social gospel. And it places fault where there mostly is none at all. And it does not help. Still, it attracts millions in places like Brazil

What do we (and by "we" I mean all those who are non-conservative evangelicals) have to set against it?

As an RC I really hope Pope Francis can get his message (uncomfortable to many as it may be, I admit to struggling myself) through. Loud and clear. At the risk of losing popularity brownie-points.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Absolutely astonishing! I can't believe what I'm reading. What the hell do you think we do?
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Offer temporary respite from the symptoms of poverty, whilst supporting the systems that keep people in poverty.
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I don't think that's entirely fair, Jade. It's a criticism that probably all churches of all theologies ought to think about. We are small scale organisations, which is good, but it does mean that we have a small scale, sometimes sticking-plaster small, response to big problems. We don't do well at challenging the social order.

But the Salvation Army does tend to be in it for the long haul. They don't have the odd good works project and then get bored, as many churches do. Getting involved in the lives of people in need is part of their DNA. Having an exciting and deep theological wing, much less so.

What I think we need is more prophetic action and speech from the churches.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
In fairness, I am as frustrated with my own home turf of liberal/affirming Anglo-Catholicism, perhaps even more because Anglo-Catholicism has such a strong history of social activism (that hardly anyone knows about, by the way) and left-wing Christian thought. Unfortunately, Dead Horses have taken up so much time and energy that it has been sidelined - and I am definitely critical of Dead Horses debates stopping Anglo-Catholicism from moving forward and being a real force for good and the Gospel within UK Christianity. We are far too inward-looking as a movement.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Offer temporary respite from the symptoms of poverty, whilst supporting the systems that keep people in poverty.

---

quote:

---

I was hungry
And you formed a humanities group
to discuss my hunger

---

quote:

---

But I am still hungry
and lonely
and cold

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Offer temporary respite from the symptoms of poverty, whilst supporting the systems that keep people in poverty.

---

Indeed Mudfrog

Vote Labor and post political screeds on the internet. What more does Our Lord require of us than that? And,if Our Lord does, all will be forgiven anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think conservative evangelicalism absolutely despises the poor, and is a natural ancestor of the idea of the 'deserving poor'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I read yesterday a prayer* that started:

quote:

---

I was hungry
And you formed a humanities group
to discuss my hunger

---

it ends

quote:

---

But I am still hungry
and lonely
and cold

---

It is not aimed at the well intention activist Evangelical who would have met, fed and clothed them while perhaps not questioning why they were so.

Jengie

*From "Wisdom is Calling" which is edited by Geoffrey Duncan and the prayer is written by "Crosspoints, Sri Lanka" pg 58

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The Republican Party often operates as if it is a church, and most of their politicians are explicitly 'Christian'. Tying conservatism to Christianity by them has done immense damage to the idea of compassionate conservative Christianity, it's not very difficult to understand that. The SA not changing its doctrines in 150 years does not mean there are not more conservative Christians in existence. Tea Party Christians are undoubtedly more conservative in most ways than the SA. That's not a bad thing for the SA!

Evangelicalism also doesn't automatically mean conservative and it's unfair to conflate the two - many liberal/open evangelicals exist and they are still evangelicals.

I personally don't think the social gospel is a new thing at all, and Nonconformists, Anglo-Catholics and RCs have done incredible work for it. I do, however, feel that political conservatism is incompatible with the social gospel or any other idea in the Gospel, because capitalism is incompatible in the same way. I am inclined to think that theological conservatism is usually incompatible with it too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I have never said that feeding and clothing people is not needed - both are definitely needed. Being without food and shelter makes a person temporarily cold and hungry, governmental systems keep them permanently so. Both the temporary and permanent needs are important and both need addressing. I would certainly not suggest setting up a 'humanities group'(not sure what that is sorry) and just discuss things. The well-intentioned evangelical, without questioning why the poor are poor, guarantees that the cycle continues. It's surely worth stopping that from happening.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think conservative evangelicalism absolutely despises the poor, and is a natural ancestor of the idea of the 'deserving poor'.

---

What is your evidence for this? Other than not liking conservative evangelicalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The Republican Party often operates as if it is a church, and most of their politicians are explicitly 'Christian'. Tying conservatism to Christianity by them has done immense damage to the idea of compassionate conservative Christianity, it's not very difficult to understand that. The SA not changing its doctrines in 150 years does not mean there are not more conservative Christians in existence. Tea Party Christians are undoubtedly more conservative in most ways than the SA. That's not a bad thing for the SA!

Evangelicalism also doesn't automatically mean conservative and it's unfair to conflate the two - many liberal/open evangelicals exist and they are still evangelicals.

I personally don't think the social gospel is a new thing at all, and Nonconformists, Anglo-Catholics and RCs have done incredible work for it. I do, however, feel that political conservatism is incompatible with the social gospel or any other idea in the Gospel, because capitalism is incompatible in the same way. I am inclined to think that theological conservatism is usually incompatible with it too.

---

Actually I think you and I are using the word 'conservative' in different way. you are talking 'conservative politics', I am talking conservative doctrine and ethics.'

In this country (UK) you can be a conservative evangelical and a socialist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I have never said that feeding and clothing people is not needed - both are definitely needed. Being without food and shelter makes a person temporarily cold and hungry, governmental systems keep them permanently so. Both the temporary and permanent needs are important and both need addressing. I would certainly not suggest setting up a 'humanities group'(not sure what that is sorry) and just discuss things. The well-intentioned evangelical, without questioning why the poor are poor, guarantees that the cycle continues. It's surely worth stopping that from happening.

---

And what makes you think that TSA is not doing stuff to try and stop the cycle? What part of 'fight for social justice' do you not understand?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Offer temporary respite from the symptoms of poverty, whilst supporting the systems that keep people in poverty.

---

Indeed Mudfrog

Vote Labor and post political screeds on the internet. What more does Our Lord require of us than that? And,if Our Lord does, all will be forgiven anyway.

---

I am not under the impression that any modern political party is capable of totally overhauling our current economic systems, and neither do I believe that simply 'posting political screeds on the internet' is real social gospel action. I am fully aware that Our Lord requires much more than that and I think it is incredibly rude to suggest otherwise, it has absolutely no basis in anything I have said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The Republican Party often operates as if it is a church, and most of their politicians are explicitly 'Christian'. Tying conservatism to Christianity by them has done immense damage to the idea of compassionate conservative Christianity, it's not very difficult to understand that. The SA not changing its doctrines in 150 years does not mean there are not more conservative Christians in existence. Tea Party Christians are undoubtedly more conservative in most ways than the SA. That's not a bad thing for the SA!

Evangelicalism also doesn't automatically mean conservative and it's unfair to conflate the two - many liberal/open evangelicals exist and they are still evangelicals.

I personally don't think the social gospel is a new thing at all, and Nonconformists, Anglo-Catholics and RCs have done incredible work for it. I do, however, feel that political conservatism is incompatible with the social gospel or any other idea in the Gospel, because capitalism is incompatible in the same way. I am inclined to think that theological conservatism is usually incompatible with it too.

---

Actually I think you and I are using the word 'conservative' in different way. you are talking 'conservative politics', I am talking conservative doctrine and ethics.'

In this country (UK) you can be a conservative evangelical and a socialist.

---

No, I am talking about both. And since socialism is primarily about equality, I have a hard time accepting that a conservative evangelical would actually truly embrace socialism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Offer temporary respite from the symptoms of poverty, whilst supporting the systems that keep people in poverty.

---

Indeed Mudfrog

Vote Labor and post political screeds on the internet. What more does Our Lord require of us than that? And,if Our Lord does, all will be forgiven anyway.

---

I am not under the impression that any modern political party is capable of totally overhauling our current economic systems, and neither do I believe that simply 'posting political screeds on the internet' is real social gospel action. I am fully aware that Our Lord requires much more than that and I think it is incredibly rude to suggest otherwise, it has absolutely no basis in anything I have said.

---

In my experience, people who use that sort of rhetoric usually do nothing more radical than vote for a left wing political party and post screeds on the internet. Some will have a little fun with an occasional protest. Mudfrog is actually doing something. You are speaking in the abstract.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I have never said that feeding and clothing people is not needed - both are definitely needed. Being without food and shelter makes a person temporarily cold and hungry, governmental systems keep them permanently so. Both the temporary and permanent needs are important and both need addressing. I would certainly not suggest setting up a 'humanities group'(not sure what that is sorry) and just discuss things. The well-intentioned evangelical, without questioning why the poor are poor, guarantees that the cycle continues. It's surely worth stopping that from happening.

---

And what makes you think that TSA is not doing stuff to try and stop the cycle? What part of 'fight for social justice' do you not understand?

---

Are you campaigning against the bedroom tax, for the reinstatement of the Social Fund, for getting rid of ATOS, for building more social housing, for the Robin Hood Tax, for companies like Vodafone to pay their full tax bill? I am in contact with a lot of Christian social action organisations such as Church Action on Poverty and others who campaign on such issues. Resounding silence from TSA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The Republican Party often operates as if it is a church, and most of their politicians are explicitly 'Christian'. Tying conservatism to Christianity by them has done immense damage to the idea of compassionate conservative Christianity, it's not very difficult to understand that. The SA not changing its doctrines in 150 years does not mean there are not more conservative Christians in existence. Tea Party Christians are undoubtedly more conservative in most ways than the SA. That's not a bad thing for the SA!

Evangelicalism also doesn't automatically mean conservative and it's unfair to conflate the two - many liberal/open evangelicals exist and they are still evangelicals.

I personally don't think the social gospel is a new thing at all, and Nonconformists, Anglo-Catholics and RCs have done incredible work for it. I do, however, feel that political conservatism is incompatible with the social gospel or any other idea in the Gospel, because capitalism is incompatible in the same way. I am inclined to think that theological conservatism is usually incompatible with it too.

---

Actually I think you and I are using the word 'conservative' in different way. you are talking 'conservative politics', I am talking conservative doctrine and ethics.'

In this country (UK) you can be a conservative evangelical and a socialist.

---

No, I am talking about both. And since socialism is primarily about equality, I have a hard time accepting that a conservative evangelical would actually truly embrace socialism.

---

Then I suggest you look a little closer at UK culture and widen your horizons and your definitions a bit - and try to be a little less offensive about evangelicals.

I wouldn't want anyone to accuse you of being one of those Americans who doesn't understand anything that lies outside the good ol' US of A.

---

Uh, Mudfrog, take a look at the 'location' bit under my posts. I am from the UK and have lived here all my life, and have first-hand experience of UK evangelicalism I also know enough to distinguish between liberal and conservative evangelicalism.

Surely I have posted on SoF long enough for you to realise I'm not American? Knowing something about the US doesn't make a person American...
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Offer temporary respite from the symptoms of poverty, whilst supporting the systems that keep people in poverty.

---

Indeed Mudfrog

Vote Labor and post political screeds on the internet. What more does Our Lord require of us than that? And,if Our Lord does, all will be forgiven anyway.

---

I am not under the impression that any modern political party is capable of totally overhauling our current economic systems, and neither do I believe that simply 'posting political screeds on the internet' is real social gospel action. I am fully aware that Our Lord requires much more than that and I think it is incredibly rude to suggest otherwise, it has absolutely no basis in anything I have said.

---

In my experience, people who use that sort of rhetoric usually do nothing more radical than vote for a left wing political party and post screeds on the internet. Some will have a little fun with an occasional protest. Mudfrog is actually doing something. You are speaking in the abstract.

---

You have no idea what social action I do IRL. Suffice to say, I do actually do stuff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Uh, Mudfrog, take a look at the 'location' bit under my posts. I am from the UK and have lived here all my life, and have first-hand experience of UK evangelicalism I also know enough to distinguish between liberal and conservative evangelicalism.

Surely I have posted on SoF long enough for you to realise I'm not American? Knowing something about the US doesn't make a person American...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I have never said that feeding and clothing people is not needed - both are definitely needed. Being without food and shelter makes a person temporarily cold and hungry, governmental systems keep them permanently so. Both the temporary and permanent needs are important and both need addressing. I would certainly not suggest setting up a 'humanities group'(not sure what that is sorry) and just discuss things. The well-intentioned evangelical, without questioning why the poor are poor, guarantees that the cycle continues. It's surely worth stopping that from happening.

---

And what makes you think that TSA is not doing stuff to try and stop the cycle? What part of 'fight for social justice' do you not understand?

---

Are you campaigning against the bedroom tax, for the reinstatement of the Social Fund, for getting rid of ATOS, for building more social housing, for the Robin Hood Tax, for companies like Vodafone to pay their full tax bill? I am in contact with a lot of Christian social action organisations such as Church Action on Poverty and others who campaign on such issues. Resounding silence from TSA.

---

The 'silence' as you call it may come from 2 places:

Firstly we are not one of the 'fashionable' charities (probably because we are also a fully-fledged church) and so the media don't tend to come to us for a quote.

Secondly, we don't often join in with big well-publicised campaigns because sometimes there might be a party political bias or affiliation and we cannot, as a church, be seen to align ourselves in such a way.

We do make representations to Parliament and will have talks with ministers and others. Our voice is listened to by the government even if it's not splashed across the Daily Mirror.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Uh, Mudfrog, take a look at the 'location' bit under my posts. I am from the UK and have lived here all my life, and have first-hand experience of UK evangelicalism I also know enough to distinguish between liberal and conservative evangelicalism.

Surely I have posted on SoF long enough for you to realise I'm not American? Knowing something about the US doesn't make a person American...

---

My apologies; I wonder therefore why the US is relevant in this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's because we are not only a church we are also a charity and I think the charity commission might have something to say.

We were quite involved as a church in the make poverty history stuff.

Anyway, why would we want to make big public protests when we can walk right into parliament and talk to ministers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
The problem with this critique is that it seems to lead to a 'if you don't sign up to this crackpot loony left scheme you're not a real Christian'-type argument. As well as being bonkers, it strikes me as rather ungenerous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
The problem with this critique is that it seems to lead to a 'if you don't sign up to this crackpot loony left scheme you're not a real Christian'-type argument. As well as being bonkers, it strikes me as rather ungenerous.

---

It depends on the campaign. If it's something as patently in keeping with Christianity as the Robin Hood Tax, then I would doubt the person/group's understanding of Christianity, but there are campaigns which are of less fundamental importance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's not really a surprise that the US, descended from a broadly conservative evangelical band of people from burgeoning capitalist Netherlands and England (the Low Countries were the home of early banking and capitalist democracy in the late 1500s) is now so full of conservative evangelicals that hate the poor - though the US is quite a strange country in that respect.

---

Well yes, though one could then point to social democratic ideas embodied in all those countries from which those people originally came. The US also has rugged individualism as a strong foundational myth - and one could just as well blame that (largely secular) myth, as one could blame the Puritans and the protestant work ethic.

It's about as coherent as an effort to pin corruption and nepotism in South America down to the Catholic veneration of Mary and the Saints.

.. and no, as much as I might or might not support the Robin Hood Tax, I don't think it comes with an implicit 'Thus sayeth the lord' before it.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Well, you obviously don't understand Christianity. When Our Lady sang the Magnificat, she was clearly referring to the fact her son would inspire left wingers to work towards a tax on financial transactions 2000 years in the future. It's so clear.

For the record, I'm not opposed to the Robin Hood Tax but Anglican't is likely right about it's efficacy.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
The problem with this critique is that it seems to lead to a 'if you don't sign up to this crackpot loony left scheme you're not a real Christian'-type argument. As well as being bonkers, it strikes me as rather ungenerous.

---

It depends on the campaign. If it's something as patently in keeping with Christianity as the Robin Hood Tax, then I would doubt the person/group's understanding of Christianity, but there are campaigns which are of less fundamental importance.

---

How is it 'patently' Christian? Seems to me that the problem with this proposed tax is that it's impossible to introduce unanimously (which is the only way it can be introduced without ill effect). In which case it seems an odd thing to spend time campaigning on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Well, you obviously don't understand Christianity. When Our Lady sang the Magnificat, she was clearly referring to the fact her son would inspire left wingers to work towards a tax on financial transactions 2000 years in the future. It's so clear.

For the record, I'm not opposed to the Robin Hood Tax but Anglican't is likely right about it's efficacy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Well, you obviously don't understand Christianity. When Our Lady sang the Magnificat, she was clearly referring to the fact her son would inspire left wingers to work towards a tax on financial transactions 2000 years in the future. It's so clear.

For the record, I'm not opposed to the Robin Hood Tax but Anglican't is likely right about it's efficacy.

---

Still waiting for that apology for assuming I do no practical social action work myself...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]No, I am talking about both. And since socialism is primarily about equality, I have a hard time accepting that a conservative evangelical would actually truly embrace socialism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The work of the Salvation Army is peerless. God bless them.

But there is no comparison with the elevation of America at its lowest since the Civil War, blessed were the poor indeed.

And Tony Benn was no secular saint. He was a Christian. A saint period. A true prophet. If his love of the poor made him despise the powerful, he'll be forgiven.

All very naïve of me I'm sure.

Didn't Jesus' brother have something to say about a gospel of words alone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Radical equality is at the heart of Reformed Christianity, which is the historical origin of evangelicalism. It is completely compatible with socialism, of at least the genuine Calvinist sort is. Couldn't speak for these wishy-washy Arminians.

And speaking as a socialist, this idiotic bank transaction tax is liberal nonsense. If you want to do good through tax, tax property, not transactions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'd much rather we got rid of usury instead.

---

With you on that. It is one of the giant evils on which our society is built, yet is largely ignored as a moral issue. Our fore-mothers and fathers would have been aghast.

Jade, I too fail to see the link between conservative evangelicalism and non-social justice-ism that is so apparent to you. I know plenty of conservative evangelicals who care and work passionately about social justice. Perhaps one bad experience is colouring your objectivity here?

And Martin, as is often the case these days,
 

---

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I read yesterday a prayer* that started:

quote:

---

I was hungry
And you formed a humanities group
to discuss my hunger

---

it ends

quote:

---

But I am still hungry
and lonely
and cold

---

It is not aimed at the well intention activist Evangelical who would have met, fed and clothed them while perhaps not questioning why they were so.

Jengie

*From "Wisdom is Calling" which is edited by Geoffrey Duncan and the prayer is written by "Crosspoints, Sri Lanka" pg 58

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Economic gospel says that ... property rights are more important than human rights

---

quote:

---

Thou shalt not steal

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Erm, the distribution of wealth amongst the Apostles for a start?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Jade, I too fail to see the link between conservative evangelicalism and non-social justice-ism that is so apparent to you. I know plenty of conservative evangelicals who care and work passionately about social justice. Perhaps one bad experience is colouring your objectivity here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
YMMV depending on your own political lens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
If it's something as patently in keeping with Christianity as the Robin Hood Tax

---

How is it 'patently' Christian?

---

Erm, the distribution of wealth amongst the Apostles for a start?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Well, you obviously don't understand Christianity. When Our Lady sang the Magnificat, she was clearly referring to the fact her son would inspire left wingers to work towards a tax on financial transactions 2000 years in the future. It's so clear.

For the record, I'm not opposed to the Robin Hood Tax but Anglican't is likely right about it's efficacy.

---

Still waiting for that apology for assuming I do no practical social action work myself...

---

Keep waiting

---

So are you calling me a liar? You assumed I do no practical social action work myself. I do - I do work that's not particularly different to the kind of thing the SA do. So I don't get why you still think I don't do anything...?
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
YMMV depending on your own political lens.

---

Well, my own political leanings are much, much closer to Jade's than yours, but I don't see the correlation that she does on this issue.

Scripture is full of stuff about social justice though, so I understand and agree with her frustration that the Christian Right (especially in America) can appear to minimise those things at times. However, Socialism != Christian Social Justice, and Evangelicalism != Political Conservatism. Though there can, of course, be crossover of both.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I just think that's oversimplifying things, Jade. In practice, opinion on dead horses issues does not directly correlate with activity on social justice issues, because there are plenty of other factors involved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[snipped for clarity]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
If it's something as patently in keeping with Christianity as the Robin Hood Tax

---

How is it 'patently' Christian?

---

Erm, the distribution of wealth amongst the Apostles for a start?

---

The freely-chosen distribution of wealth among the apostles is one thing, taking wealth from those who are neither apostles nor willing to give it up is quite another. "Everything held in common" is great if everyone agrees to it, but less so if many do not.

Jesus often encouraged rich people to give up their wealth to provide for the poor. Not once did he encourage his disciples to forcibly take wealth from the rich without their consent. That is the difference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Now, of course that has its flaws too but it seems to me that it has about the same number of legs to run on as JC's above...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The Christian way isn't compulsion, but transformation. The solution isn't to force the rich to give to the poor (as Socialism does), nor is it to allow the rich to stay rich and the poor to stay poor (as Conservatism does), but to transform the hearts of the rich to share with the poor of their own volition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And worse we think that there is something wrong with the poor, that they are spiritually, morally worse off than we are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

So, if the above is true, what does 'Godly government' look like? (Huge question, I know.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

The Christian way isn't compulsion, but transformation. The solution isn't to force the rich to give to the poor (as Socialism does), nor is it to allow the rich to stay rich and the poor to stay poor (as Conservatism does), but to transform the hearts of the rich to share with the poor of their own volition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
That's your mistake right there. Someone told you socialism was about forcing the rich to give to the poor and you believed them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hairy Biker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Economic gospel says that ... property rights are more important than human rights

---

Commandment number 8

quote:

---

Thou shalt not steal

---

Exodus 20:15

Property rights are at the heart of Judeo-Christian beliefs

---

quote:

---

NIV, Matt 22: 38-40
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[a] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Economic gospel allows people to justify pretty much anything in defence of profit and property.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
That's your mistake right there. Someone told you socialism was about forcing the rich to give to the poor and you believed them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
That's your mistake right there. Someone told you socialism was about forcing the rich to give to the poor and you believed them.

---

At the very least, it means that part of my income is going towards funding what the government of the day thinks is important, rather than what I think is important.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
That's your mistake right there. Someone told you socialism was about forcing the rich to give to the poor and you believed them.

---

 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
That's your mistake right there. Someone told you socialism was about forcing the rich to give to the poor and you believed them.

---

Are you having a laugh, ken? Every single Socialist economic policy I've heard put forward on this board has ultimately been propped up by "tax the rich". People have called for a 90% top rate of income tax. People have called for property taxes that would only be paid by those in expensive properties. Are you seriously trying to tell me these things aren't about taking more from the rich to fund programmes for the poor? I mean, why call a proposal the "Robin Hood Tax" if not to evoke echoes of "rob the rich and give to the poor"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I suppose an appeal to enlightened self interest is of no use whatsoever?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There aren't many socialists who advocate taxes of over 100%, which is what happens when JSA, housing benefit, council tax subsidy, cheap gas and electricity tariffs, free school meals and the additional benefits for children are withdrawn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I suppose an appeal to enlightened self interest is of no use whatsoever?

---

Picketty is very interesting because he can't be easily dismissed. Of course, the defense has now moved from 'growth will sort out inequality' to 'inequality never mattered anyway'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
That's your mistake right there. Someone told you socialism was about forcing the rich to give to the poor and you believed them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Well, I wish you would all figure out a definition of Socialist. If only Socialists are truly Christian, then we have to know what Socialism is before we can know how to define Christianity. JC tells us we can't be Christian if we oppose the Robin Hood Tax. Ken tells us the Robin Hood Tax isn't true Socialism. Damn, I sure wish one of the ecumenical councils would have put something about taxes in one of the creeds instead of wasting time with all that nonsense about the Trinity and what not.

---

Surely the People's Popular Front of Judea should be consulted over any definitions, but do we exclude those splitters from the Judean People's Popular Front?
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
That's your mistake right there. Someone told you socialism was about forcing the rich to give to the poor and you believed them.

---

Indeed, it's more like tax and spend. We'll tax the rich and give the money to people with less by giving them an unworked-for wage and higher benefits so they don't need to work in the first place - all courtesy of the people who have studied hard to get where they are, do a vital job within the economy and give 50% of what they earn in taxes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
That's your mistake right there. Someone told you socialism was about forcing the rich to give to the poor and you believed them.

---

Indeed, it's more like tax and spend. We'll tax the rich and give the money to people with less by giving them an unworked-for wage and higher benefits so they don't need to work in the first place - all courtesy of the people who have studied hard to get where they are, do a vital job within the economy and give 50% of what they earn in taxes.

---

So tell me again why, as a society, we subsidise big business's labour costs so they can pay their executives more?

If you actually want work to pay, the first thing you do is raise the minimum wage. That'd both increase the tax take and the decrease in-work benefits.

---

quote:

---

“As inequalities widen, the social fabric of our societies is both stretched and strained,” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon proclaimed in February on the World Day of Social Justice. Without taking a position on the post-2015 agenda, he added, “There is nothing inevitable about inequality.”

A little inequality promotes growth by encouraging people to work hard and advance themselves, but the world has an embarrassment of riches on that score. The poor are demotivated while energetic entrepreneurs are becoming complacent rentiers who live off their wealth, Piketty says. “Money tends to reproduce itself,” he writes. “The past devours the future.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Ah, let's see:

Raise the minimum wage = higher employment costs for the private sector.

Increase the tax take = the poorer people pay more tax and the government gets an increase.

Decrease in-work benefits = so as your wage goes up, your tax credits go down, your tax bill goes up, leaving you with the same income at the end of the week, or even less.

Employer loses.
Employee loses.
Government wins because it has more tax to spend

Yes, that's socialism - tax and spend.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Indeed, it's more like tax and spend. We'll tax the rich and give the money to people with less by giving them an unworked-for wage and higher benefits so they don't need to work in the first place - all courtesy of the people who have studied hard to get where they are, do a vital job within the economy and give 50% of what they earn in taxes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There aren't many socialists who advocate taxes of over 100%, which is what happens when JSA, housing benefit, council tax subsidy, cheap gas and electricity tariffs, free school meals and the additional benefits for children are withdrawn.

---

There is a difference between taking something from someone and ceasing to give something to someone.

---

quote:

---

Consider two scenarios: (a) Every week my brother buys a chocolate bar, but then I take it off him and eat it myself. (b) I have been giving my brother a chocolate bar every week, but now I have decided I would rather keep it for myself. Are the two scenarios morally identical?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Indeed, it's more like tax and spend. We'll tax the rich and give the money to people with less by giving them an unworked-for wage and higher benefits so they don't need to work in the first place - all courtesy of the people who have studied hard to get where they are, do a vital job within the economy and give 50% of what they earn in taxes.

---

You realise that excluding pensions, the majority of benefits go to people who are in work? i.e they wouldn't be able to live on the wages that they are currently paid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Currently, we're paying taxes straight into the pockets of big companies, who then distribute it up, not down. I'd like to see an end to that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Currently, we're paying taxes straight into the pockets of big companies, who then distribute it up, not down. I'd like to see an end to that.

---

And I would like to see you back up your statement with some numbers please.

According to here the UK tax revenue for 2012/13 was £550.6 billion.

How much of that £550.6 billion ended up in the hands of big companies? Will you provide sources so we can validate your claim?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Consider two scenarios: (a) Every week my brother buys a chocolate bar, but then I take it off him and eat it myself. (b) I have been giving my brother a chocolate bar every week, but now I have decided I would rather keep it for myself. Are the two scenarios morally identical?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Currently, we're paying taxes straight into the pockets of big companies, who then distribute it up, not down. I'd like to see an end to that.

---

And I would like to see you back up your statement with some numbers please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
And I would like to see you back up your statement with some numbers please.

According to here the UK tax revenue for 2012/13 was £550.6 billion.

How much of that £550.6 billion ended up in the hands of big companies? Will you provide sources so we can validate your claim?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In-work benefits to low income claimants in 2011-2012 was roughly £41 billion. Source (pdf, page 21).

That's £10bn more than we spend on defence, and £13bn less than education, to give some kind of yardstick.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Currently, we're paying taxes straight into the pockets of big companies, who then distribute it up, not down. I'd like to see an end to that.

So - in-work benefits are a stupid idea. Whoever thought of that should be taken out and shot, whatever political stripe they are. End them immediately.

In their place, you raise the minimum wage. Companies pay people to work for them, not the other way around. The money, which goes to the worker, is spent more-or-less locally.

Employer actually pays for the cost of labour.
Employee gains a wage that enables them to pay their way in society.
Government stops subsidising below-poverty wages.

That's not exactly socialism, but it's closer. Of course, you'll come out with all sorts of reasons why this isn't possible, except it is. It just takes the political will to do it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

I just don't believe it's possible for everyone to be financially equal and everyone to have a high standard of living.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I just don't believe it's possible for everyone to be financially equal and everyone to have a high standard of living.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Are you willing, if it comes to it, to be one of the people in poverty Marvin? Because that's what you're requiring some poor bastard to do. Why not you?

---

quote:

---

And that's assuming you're right about the effect of paying better wages. This link would imply that you are not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that if we want prosperity - even the relative prosperity of the middle classes - then the trade-off is a certain amount of poverty in our society... I just don't believe it's possible for everyone to be financially equal and everyone to have a high standard of living.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Are you willing, if it comes to it, to be one of the people in poverty Marvin? Because that's what you're requiring some poor bastard to do. Why not you?

---

I'm willing to have that option, yes. So long as everyone is given the opportunity to get an education and so acquire marketable skills that they can use to move themselves up the ladder, I think it's fair.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Are you willing, if it comes to it, to be one of the people in poverty Marvin? Because that's what you're requiring some poor bastard to do. Why not you?

---

I'm willing to have that option, yes. So long as everyone is given the opportunity to get an education and so acquire marketable skills that they can use to move themselves up the ladder, I think it's fair.

---

What I find grossly unfair (other people have already touched on it) is the way that in-work benefits taper as income rises. Someone does well, gets more qualifications, takes on more responsibilities, and has absolutely zero reward for their effort.

In-work benefits are a Kafkaesque disincentive to try. And they're bloody expensive to boot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
(Just to put the other side of the coin...) Would you extend the same principle to changes in income tax rates?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
(Just to put the other side of the coin...) Would you extend the same principle to changes in income tax rates?

---

No one is arguing for a 100% top rate of income tax afaict - which is what would need to happen for your comparison to actually work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, but the higher you raise marginal tax rates, the greater that effect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, but the higher you raise marginal tax rates, the greater that effect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Well, I wish you would all figure out a definition of Socialist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:


Are you seriously trying to tell me these things aren't about taking more from the rich to fund programmes for the poor?

---

quote:

---

I mean, why call a proposal the "Robin Hood Tax" if not to evoke echoes of "rob the rich and give to the poor"?

---

quote:

---

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Granted that the 40% tax band should probably be moved upward, in line with the increase in the 0% personal allowance

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Granted that the 40% tax band should probably be moved upward, in line with the increase in the 0% personal allowance

---

Given that the threshold for paying 40% is calculuated on earnings above the 0% allowance, it effectively has been. To illustrate, if the 40% threshold was at £40k and the 0% threshold was at £9k, the 40% tax would be paid on all earnings above £49k. If the 0% mark is then moved to £10k, the 40% mark automatically moves to £50k.

That's my understanding of it, anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I believe you're right but the HM Revenue and Customs website (and, I think, some other official-looking stuff I've seen) is massively unclear about this. Bafflingly unclear...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I believe you're right but the HM Revenue and Customs website (and, I think, some other official-looking stuff I've seen) is massively unclear about this. Bafflingly unclear...

---

Probably deliberately so, given that any uncertainty about how it applies would lead to people paying more tax than they have to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
How about

quote:

---

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

---

?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Granted that the 40% tax band should probably be moved upward, in line with the increase in the 0% personal allowance

---

Given that the threshold for paying 40% is calculuated on earnings above the 0% allowance, it effectively has been. To illustrate, if the 40% threshold was at £40k and the 0% threshold was at £9k, the 40% tax would be paid on all earnings above £49k. If the 0% mark is then moved to £10k, the 40% mark automatically moves to £50k.

That's my understanding of it, anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, but the higher you raise marginal tax rates, the greater that effect.

---

Yes, except that the marginal tax rate for someone with in work benefits can actually be 100% - we aren't talking about a reduced incentive, we are actually talking about *zero* incentive.

So colour me a little sceptical about your line of argument, it seems - in context - to be a very large red herring.

---

Yes, I know - but the higher you raise the tax rate, the more that incentive tends towards zero. I'm thinking of a time within my lifetime when the top rate was 83%.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, but the higher you raise marginal tax rates, the greater that effect.

---

Yes, except that the marginal tax rate for someone with in work benefits can actually be 100% - we aren't talking about a reduced incentive, we are actually talking about *zero* incentive.

So colour me a little sceptical about your line of argument, it seems - in context - to be a very large red herring.

---

Yes, I know - but the higher you raise the tax rate, the more that incentive tends towards zero. I'm thinking of a time within my lifetime when the top rate was 83%.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What I find grossly unfair (other people have already touched on it) is the way that in-work benefits taper as income rises. Someone does well, gets more qualifications, takes on more responsibilities, and has absolutely zero reward for their effort.

In-work benefits are a Kafkaesque disincentive to try. And they're bloody expensive to boot.

---

(Just to put the other side of the coin...) Would you extend the same principle to changes in income tax rates?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What I find grossly unfair (other people have already touched on it) is the way that in-work benefits taper as income rises. Someone does well, gets more qualifications, takes on more responsibilities, and has absolutely zero reward for their effort.

In-work benefits are a Kafkaesque disincentive to try. And they're bloody expensive to boot.

---

(Just to put the other side of the coin...) Would you extend the same principle to changes in income tax rates?

---

No, and there are sound economic reasons for the difference. Lower-income people will spend their additional money locally on goods and services, boosting the economy. Higher-income people spend their additional money on different things. So, for example, a cruise to the Bahamas or a weekend in New York doesn't stimulate the local economy in the same way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Well, I wish you would all figure out a definition of Socialist.

---

Your wish is my command.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, I know - but the higher you raise the tax rate, the more that incentive tends towards zero. I'm thinking of a time within my lifetime when the top rate was 83%.

---

Well, it isn't 83% now, is it? It's effectively 100% of some lower income people now. I think I know where my priorities lie.

Furthermore as I said already, this is only relevant if people are talking about massively raising existing income taxes for higher rate taxpayers (which they were not in this thread).

[ 16. April 2014, 14:50: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Yes, I know. And my priorities lie likewise at the lower end. I just floated the concept as a point of principle as being mildly (perhaps very mildly) germane to the debate about whether to raise the top rate of tax again and, indeed, where to raise it.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, I know. And my priorities lie likewise at the lower end. I just floated the concept as a point of principle as being mildly (perhaps very mildly) germane to the debate about whether to raise the top rate of tax again and, indeed, where to raise it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Well, I wish you would all figure out a definition of Socialist.

---

Your wish is my command.

---

Yay

By that very vague definition even I can be a Socialist because I'm partial to Distributism, Communitarianism, and even Anarchism. I guess I'm a Christian after all.

As I see it, spreading the means of production among the masses puts faith in people to live their own lives without being oppressed by either government or corporations. Social democracy places all it's faith in the government. Deep down, Social Democrats believe Capitalist criticisms of the poor. They just advocate a more compassionate/paternalistic response.
 

---

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As I see it, spreading the means of production among the masses...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As I see it, spreading the means of production among the masses...

---

Just what the hell is this mythical "means of production"?

I mean, I write documents for a living on a PC. That's my means of production, and to be frank it's cheap enough that anybody can produce those documents. There is no "means" to produce what I do beyond a cheap PC, linux and OpenOffice.

Of course the skill and experience to produce them is another thing, and that is why I'm being paid what I'm being paid. Not because I can switch a laptop on and fire up Office.

There is no such thing as "the means of production" to distribute amongst the workers anymore! We have progressed way beyond that nonesense and socialist dogma really needs to get into the 21st Century.

Or do socialists only see work in terms of steam hammers and tractor production quotas?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The means of production is wealth. It ALL came from the poor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The Sais nobility were poor before 1066?

---

No. They were wealthy but The Bastard took their wealth and passed it on to his cronies.

(oddly, my ancestors were Friends of The Bastard!)
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
They shouldn't have had any wealth.
 

---

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
I think it was clergy who headed up the effort to eliminate child labour. Rather evil of them.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
A thousand years before that Saxon feudal pyramid a bunch of Jews managed to hold all things in common.

The leaders of the church for the first half of that millennium agreed that wealth is theft.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The means of production is wealth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The means of production is wealth.

---

So if we abolish wealth, we remove the means of production. Great idea.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:



Just what the hell is this mythical "means of production"?

I mean, I write documents for a living on a PC. That's my means of production, and to be frank it's cheap enough that anybody can produce those documents. There is no "means" to produce what I do beyond a cheap PC, linux and OpenOffice.

Of course the skill and experience to produce them is another thing, and that is why I'm being paid what I'm being paid. Not because I can switch a laptop on and fire up

---

So you have your laptop on a desert island with no contact with the outside world. What good do those documents do you?

That's an easy question. Slightly less easy is what do you need to add to that mix to get the docs to someone who will pay for them? That is the system of production you are involved in, the infrastructure needed for your means of production if we can mix the 19th and 20th century terms. And who else takes a cut from what you get paid, and why and how? And why do those people pay for them? For their artistic merit? Where do they get the money to pay for them? Probably another hugely complex set of systems (which is good because complex systems are more stable) Who made your laptop? What did they get paid for it? Who got most of the money you paid for it


And there is a lot of it. There are a lot of these systems and chains of work or trade. Some of it is special to what you do, other parts are infrastructure common to our whole civilisation - its all interconnected.

Try listing everyone and everything that is needed to get your job done and get you paid for it. Its a worthwhile excercise. There will be more than you expected. Even if you leave out the massive common property and public services that keep the city going.

And we built it all ourselves. Human beings. Some of us built it with software and word processors, some of it with steam hammers. Why were you knocking old-fashioned industrial and construction work? Can you function without sewers and power-stations and roads and fresh water?

Who builds and manages it all?

Who supposedly owns it and makes profit out of it

They aren't the same people are they?

Why not?

BTW those are not rhetorical questions. They are more like homework. If you can't answer them, or don't see why they are relevant, then you have no basis for your flipping off those old economists who talked about things like "means of production" and "share of capital" because you don't really know what they meant by it.

Anyway, all that is the reason the very wonderful real Clause Four wants to "return to the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry..." Which is as good a potted definition of socialist hopes as any.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The means of production is wealth.

---

So if we abolish wealth, we remove the means of production. Great idea.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
And we built it all ourselves. Human beings. Some of us built it with software and word processors, some of it with steam hammers. Why were you knocking old-fashioned industrial and construction work? Can you function without sewers and power-stations and roads and fresh water?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The means of production is wealth.

---

So if we abolish wealth, we remove the means of production. Great idea.

---

Think there's an error in your parsing of that sentence, Marvin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The means of production is wealth.

---

So if we abolish wealth, we remove the means of production. Great idea.

---

Think there's an error in your parsing of that sentence, Marvin.

---

Do you? If nobody is wealthy, then who is going to put forward the money to build the factory/mill/office/etc. in the first place?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If nobody is wealthy, then who is going to put forward the money to build the factory/mill/office/etc. in the first place?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If the resources necessary to build and equip the factory/mill/office etc, is put in by those who will work in it, rather than by disinterested parties only interested in a financial return, there will be no disconnection between the owners and workers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If the resources necessary to build and equip the factory/mill/office etc, is put in by those who will work in it, rather than by disinterested parties only interested in a financial return, there will be no disconnection between the owners and workers.

---

Where will the potential workers get the resources to put into building and equipping the factory/mill/office, etc.?

Also, what if someone who has put his resources into an enterprise decides he'd rather work somewhere else?

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Where do you think they'll get the resources? From the same place that everyone else gets their resources, except that they'll be the ones making the decisions about where and how much of those resources they need.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Where do you think they'll get the resources? From the same place that everyone else gets their resources, except that they'll be the ones making the decisions about where and how much of those resources they need.

---

But if no-one has sufficient wealth to put into building a factory, how is that factory going to be built? Are people going to just spontaneously decide they want to work together and then pool their resources in order to build a factory that might provide them with employment in a few years? Or maybe all the builders will put their resources into the process so that they can pay themselves to build it and then donate it to the factory workers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Where do you think they'll get the resources? From the same place that everyone else gets their resources, except that they'll be the ones making the decisions about where and how much of those resources they need.

---

But if no-one has sufficient wealth to put into building a factory, how is that factory going to be built? Are people going to just spontaneously decide they want to work together and then pool their resources in order to build a factory that might provide them with employment in a few years? Or maybe all the builders will put their resources into the process so that they can pay themselves to build it and then donate it to the factory workers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Where do you think they'll get the resources? From the same place that everyone else gets their resources, except that they'll be the ones making the decisions about where and how much of those resources they need.

---

But if no-one has sufficient wealth to put into building a factory, how is that factory going to be built? Are people going to just spontaneously decide they want to work together and then pool their resources in order to build a factory that might provide them with employment in a few years? Or maybe all the builders will put their resources into the process so that they can pay themselves to build it and then donate it to the factory workers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If nobody is wealthy, then who is going to put forward the money to build the factory/mill/office/etc. in the first place?

---

The government, of course. Silly Marvin. Because governments clearly have a far superior record to the private sector when it comes to planning and carrying out business / industry development...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Did Page and Brin decide they were going to start a billion-dollar business employing tens of thousands of people, wonder where all the capital was going to come from to build a office block big enough to house all those people, decide it was too difficult and go to work for IBM instead?

No. They started in a garage. So, to summarise: yes, workers will "just spontaneously decide they want to work together and then pool their resources in order to build a factory that might provide them with employment in a few years." Any problems with that?

How come I (the pie-in-the-sky socialist) know more about how capitalism works than you do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Most of us who are buying homes do not have the wealth to do so (typical price of a home in the UK now: £253,000). We cobble together a deposit, often with a few thousand here and there from parents and other relations, then go to the bank to borrow the rest. The house is used a collateral for the loan and the loan is repaid out of income.

---

quote:

---

My suggestion is the same, only on an industrial, or more likely, a post-industrial scale. Once there are enough of these enterprises they can use their profits to support other similar schemes. Let's hope they don't demutualise like most building societies did back in the "dash for cash" of the 1980's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The means of production is wealth.

---

So if we abolish wealth, we remove the means of production. Great idea.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The form of socialism being advocated on this thread appears to be saying that, if Page and Brin have success and profit working out of their garage then an equal share of that profit needs to go to the people who built the garage in the first place. And of course, all the people who build the roads and utilities and computers and phone lines and so on need an equal share, because P&B couldn't have done it without them either. And if, even with all those equal shares going out, P&B manage to keep enough for themselves that they can actually afford to spend some of it on a new office and employees (which is pretty darn unlikely when you think about it), well all those employees and everyone who built that office need an equal share as well.

The Page and Brin model works precisely because the people who actually have the vision to come up with the idea have the right to keep a decent wedge of the profits for themselves. Force them to share it out between everyone else and they'll never make enough profit to reinvest in becoming a major employer in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It does now. Two http//s reduced to one.

B62, Purg Host

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Page and Brin model works precisely because they weren't shafted by bankers and rentiers in the first place. They retained control of their means of production, and far from being forced to share their capital with their employees, they did it willingly. Fortunes were made.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm thinking of people like Cadbury, Austin, Ford and Gates - people who have poured their own resources and abilities into the initial setup and are now reaping the benefits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So what, are you saying it's OK for the people who actually create a company to profit from it and become fantastically rich, including through the work of others who get paid considerably less than them, just so long as they're not bankers or rentiers (a word I had to look up - that's my new learning for today!)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Most of us who are buying homes do not have the wealth to do so (typical price of a home in the UK now: £253,000). We cobble together a deposit, often with a few thousand here and there from parents and other relations, then go to the bank to borrow the rest. The house is used a collateral for the loan and the loan is repaid out of income.

---

I was assuming that "the banks have all the money and loan it to others" wasn't a popular solution within socialism.

quote:

---

My suggestion is the same, only on an industrial, or more likely, a post-industrial scale. Once there are enough of these enterprises they can use their profits to support other similar schemes. Let's hope they don't demutualise like most building societies did back in the "dash for cash" of the 1980's.

---

So once businesses become successful, they should use their profits to support their competitors?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin pc Not and Ship's Biohazard:
Again, you so RIGHT, oh Teacher of Israel:

---

Glad you recognize that.

Now, I seem to remember somewhere you made a big deal about Jesus not requiring everybody to part with their belongings only the rich young ruler. Arguing that on one thread and then saying that a collection of out of context quotes from a few church fathers about individual giving justifies state distribution of wealth defies any definition of consistency. If you want to take Jesus, the early church, and the fathers seriously, you, Martin, should find a community that has all in common and then add your assets to the mix. Of course, it is easier to post rants on the internet about following Jesus by calling for the government to take other people's assets and redistribute them.

Some of us have taken up very easy crosses to bear on this Good Friday.

[ 18. April 2014, 16:12: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
BA, you seem to have a very busy time of it. What with being Father Confessor to, first, Jade Constable, and now to Martin. What's that? You're not? Then perhaps it might be prudent to refrain from passing comment about their personal paths of discipleship.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Why?

They seem to have plenty to say about the spiritual practices of the wealthy.

Somebody said something about judging not lest you be judged. The next part of that goes for by that same measure you will be judged. I assume that if they judge others they'll have no problem being judged for the same thing.
 

---

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Where do you think they'll get the resources? From the same place that everyone else gets their resources, except that they'll be the ones making the decisions about where and how much of those resources they need.

---

But if no-one has sufficient wealth to put into building a factory, how is that factory going to be built? Are people going to just spontaneously decide they want to work together and then pool their resources in order to build a factory that might provide them with employment in a few years? Or maybe all the builders will put their resources into the process so that they can pay themselves to build it and then donate it to the factory workers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
However, if you then claim that the rich do with their possessions is your business, then once again we have hypocrisy.

Stop bringing Christianity into it and I don't care what you think about taxes.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Personally, I was a lefty before I was a Christian and I suspect I'll carry on being one if I lose my faith. This is because, faith aside, it is obviously better for rich people to lose some of their wealth than for poor people to be destitute. Hope that helps.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Those who benefit from poverty should pay for poverty. It really is as simple as that!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Those who benefit from poverty should pay for poverty. It really is as simple as that!

---

Oh it's hardly that simple. One person told me that I couldn't be a Christian if I didn't support the Robin Hood Tax. Another left winger told me that the Robin Hood Tax was a crazy idea. Now, if I accept that pure and undefiled Christianity is this, that we stick it to the rich on behalf of the poor; then, what political position must I hold regarding the Robin Hood Tax in order to be a faithful Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Just wondering where 'thou shalt not covet your neighbour's ass (or bank balance)' and 'thou shalt not steal' fit in with the idea that those who have worked hard to earn and save and now have a lot of money, should have it taken away from them in order to give it to those who want more money but aren't working.

Should we not rather be encouraging philanthropy rather than punitive taxes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Just wondering where 'thou shalt not covet your neighbour's ass (or bank balance)' and 'thou shalt not steal' fit in with the idea that those who have worked hard to earn and save and now have a lot of money, should have it taken away from them in order to give it to those who want more money but aren't working.

Should we not rather be encouraging philanthropy rather than punitive taxes?

---

Mudfrog, just a small question: do you actually believe that poor people don't work as hard, if not harder, than rich people?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No no no! That's not what I'm saying.
What I'm asking is whether higher taxes on the rich - many of whom have worked hard for that money - might actually be stealing from them out of envy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Mudfrog, just a small question: do you actually believe that poor people don't work as hard, if not harder, than rich people?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What I'm asking is whether higher taxes on the rich - many of whom have worked hard for that money - might actually be stealing from them out of envy.

---

quote:

---

If the wealth of the wealthy is drained too much job losses will occur and investment will go to countries where the tax burden is lower.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Mudfrog, just a small question: do you actually believe that poor people don't work as hard, if not harder, than rich people?

---

Part of it depends on what is meant by "hard" - there are two definitions that could apply to work. The first is the amount of effort being put in to the job, in which case there's no doubt that "hard work" applies to all rungs of the job ladder. But the second definition is about how difficult or complex the job itself is, and that does vary.

I can do data analysis really well. Could I run a major multinational corporation? Hell no. That doesn't mean I'm not working as hard as the CEOs, but it does mean my job is easier than theirs - which means they're doing harder work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
I think arguing about 'the rich' and 'the poor' is falling into a trap. There are plenty of people who are relatively wealthy because they work hard, but who at the same time ensure they use their wealth to the benefit of others less fortunate. In other words, not all the rich are selfish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Just wondering where 'thou shalt not covet your neighbour's ass (or bank balance)' and 'thou shalt not steal' fit in with the idea that those who have worked hard to earn and save and now have a lot of money, should have it taken away from them in order to give it to those who want more money but aren't working.

Should we not rather be encouraging philanthropy rather than punitive taxes?

---

Poor people work hard and their income is taxed, either directly via income tax or indirectly via VAT (and the universal nature of VAT means that even the very poorest must pay it). At least tax those who can afford it.

Also it's not a case of 'those who want more money but aren't working', it's a case of enabling people to survive. A disabled people on disability benefits doesn't want more money from those poor oppressed rich people because they're selfish and just want it for the sake of it, they need it because they're currently having to choose between heating and eating and the stress is making their illness worse. But clearly, people's right to live doesn't matter if they can't work, because economic contribution trumps humanity
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 

quote:

---

originally posted by
Jade Constable: For socialism to be implemented by governments, it does require an actual socialist government and laws - I'm not sure why that is so hard to process. A number of communities doesn't equal laws and government - even if every single Christian lived in a socialist community, there would be many people living in a capitalist system outside of that.

---

Sounds like you want another Constantine impose your own version of Christendom upon the heathen capitalists. I'm opposed to theocracy and dominionism on both the right and the left. You know separation of church and state and all that. Don't tell me lefties only have a problem with conservatives try to impose their religious values on everybody.

Christians are free to help anybody they please. Christian charity is voluntary. Calling on the government to redistribute others wealth while holding on to your own is simply hypocrisy.

quote:

---

originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, socialist community living is just not possible for everyone - it is possible for people to live according to the principles of the Apostles in Acts without turning it into 1st Century Palestine cosplay. Economic equality can exist outside of that. That's not wriggling out of Jesus' words by the way - just an acknowledging a need to follow them in our own lives, which means adapting them for 21st Century Westerners.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Jade Constable:
There is also a big leap from judging the spiritual practices of the wealthy by quoting Scripture against them, and calling people liars because you don't want to believe that they do actually put their money where their mouths are. Why, again, is it OK to suggest that I don't really do social action work when I do? Some of us actually do things because we believe in them - imagine that.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Hairy Biker:
You speak as though the rich have some right to their wealth, and the poor some right to their poverty. I think Jesus implies that this is not the case, however much the world expects us to accept it as fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Also, why do you claim for yourself the right to follow Jesus in your own life as a 21st Century Westerner but not allow a person with more than you to do the same?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:


If you want to talk about a 'Biblical' model of tax...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Just wondering where 'thou shalt not covet your neighbour's ass (or bank balance)' and 'thou shalt not steal' fit in with the idea that those who have worked hard to earn and save and now have a lot of money, should have it taken away from them in order to give it to those who want more money but aren't working.

Should we not rather be encouraging philanthropy rather than punitive taxes?

---

Poor people work hard and their income is taxed, either directly via income tax or indirectly via VAT (and the universal nature of VAT means that even the very poorest must pay it). At least tax those who can afford it.

Also it's not a case of 'those who want more money but aren't working', it's a case of enabling people to survive. A disabled people on disability benefits doesn't want more money from those poor oppressed rich people because they're selfish and just want it for the sake of it, they need it because they're currently having to choose between heating and eating and the stress is making their illness worse. But clearly, people's right to live doesn't matter if they can't work, because economic contribution trumps humanity

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:


My objection to the SA is that they do not address the causes of poverty. Obviously they do lots of good social action (well, unless you're gay) but that doesn't mean they're somehow immune from criticism. Neither does the fact that I do less than the SA (because you know, I'm one person not an organisation) mean that my contribution doesn't count. It does count.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Also, why do you claim for yourself the right to follow Jesus in your own life as a 21st Century Westerner but not allow a person with more than you to do the same?

---

It appears to be the old chestnut of "the Good and Proper amount of wealth for anyone to have just happens to be exactly the amount I have right now".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:


My objection to the SA is that they do not address the causes of poverty. Obviously they do lots of good social action (well, unless you're gay) but that doesn't mean they're somehow immune from criticism. Neither does the fact that I do less than the SA (because you know, I'm one person not an organisation) mean that my contribution doesn't count. It does count.

---

Here we go a-bloody-gain! What is the reason for your prejudice against The Salvation Army?? While some people are marching ste streets protesting about cuts we;'re actually serving the people who need us. We cannot do everything! You moan, we'll feed.

And are you accusing us of only helping straight people? If you are, I want your evidence and named examples here in the UK (seeing that you're so fond of reminding me that's where you live!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Just wondering where 'thou shalt not covet your neighbour's ass (or bank balance)' and 'thou shalt not steal' fit in with the idea that those who have worked hard to earn and save and now have a lot of money, should have it taken away from them in order to give it to those who want more money but aren't working.

Should we not rather be encouraging philanthropy rather than punitive taxes?

---

Poor people work hard and their income is taxed, either directly via income tax or indirectly via VAT (and the universal nature of VAT means that even the very poorest must pay it). At least tax those who can afford it.

Also it's not a case of 'those who want more money but aren't working', it's a case of enabling people to survive. A disabled people on disability benefits doesn't want more money from those poor oppressed rich people because they're selfish and just want it for the sake of it, they need it because they're currently having to choose between heating and eating and the stress is making their illness worse. But clearly, people's right to live doesn't matter if they can't work, because economic contribution trumps humanity

---

Let's not forget that VAT is not charged on food or children's clothing - which is the what the greatest part of a family's budget is spent on. The people that VAT really hits are those who buy luxury goods.

I think the mantra of 'heating v eating' actually describes a myth.

Studies have not shown that people die of cold in the winter due to not heating their houses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I wasn't aware that being part of the SA meant you couldn't read.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by Hairy Biker:
You speak as though the rich have some right to their wealth, and the poor some right to their poverty. I think Jesus implies that this is not the case, however much the world expects us to accept it as fact.

---

The difference is Jesus was concerned with what we do with our own wealth. You seem more concerned with what others do with theirs. That is a big difference. Don't get me wrong. A case can be made to justify various forms of socialism. My only problem is when people start calling it Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I suppose old people never get pneumonia....

---

quote:

---

In April 2002, GROS published an Occasional Paper entitled ‘The Raised Incidence of
Winter Deaths’. As well as reviewing the various definitions used to assess the extent of
increased winter mortality, this paper showed that additional winter deaths were
particularly associated with respiratory and circulatory diseases and that few deaths were
caused by hypothermia. It also demonstrated that, though not all increased winter mortality
is related to influenza, there was a clear link between the number of additional deaths and
the level of influenza activity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I don't think that 'being cold' gives you influenza.

---

quote:

---

Actually, no. I don't think there is a right and proper level of wealth, I think there is a right and proper level of sharing that wealth. I have no issue with people having more wealth than others - I have an issue with some having lots and others having none and are therefore unable to survive. Yes, people should be encouraged to give out of personal compassion - but what happens when people don't do that? What happens when there is no voluntary support for people?

---

quote:

---

How about tackling the government on things like the bedroom tax rather than turning a blind eye to your Tory mates so you stay in business? The SA's opinion being made publicly known would do a lot to help, but apparently the SA are not actually interested in eradicating poverty, just treating it.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Hairy Biker:
No again. Jesus was not concerned with what we do with anyone's wealth. He was concerned with how we treat one another. I think he used the word "love". How does a rich/poor divide in any society speak of a love between neighbours?

---

quote:

---

I'm talking about philanthropy.
People giving because they want to, rather than the state doing it all.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Jade Constable:
That's the crux of it - that being able to hang on to money is more important than people not dying. That seems inherently un-Christian.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by MartinPC and Not Ship's Biohazard:
Why do you hate the poor?

---

When did you stop beating your wife?
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
BA - I promise you that I do all I can with all my resources. Again, I live in community. Others may be hypocrites there, I am not.

Also, wanting there to be a bare minimum of care for the public is not wanting to impose a theocracy, because this is also (IMO) part of being a civilised society even in secular terms, it's just that they coincide with Christianity. The fact is that not everyone who should give voluntarily will do so, and there will be a shortfall. Putting people before money means some kind of taxation.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
And yet you say you can't do as much as the Salvation Army because you are an individual instead of an organization. The Salvation Army is nothing more than a denomination like any other Christian denomination. A church with more members could do even more than the Salvation Army. What are denominations but the cooperative work of local churches including those living in intentional community?

Arguing a civilized society should provide a certain level of care is one thing. Arguing that all good Christians will agree with you about the level of care and how is provided is another. The first is the purpose of politics in a democratic society. The second waters down Christianity by making it about politics instead of the sanctification of all regardless of wealth.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
And yet you say you can't do as much as the Salvation Army because you are an individual instead of an organization. The Salvation Army is nothing more than a denomination like any other Christian denomination. A church with more members could do even more than the Salvation Army. What are denominations but the cooperative work of local churches including those living in intentional community?

Arguing a civilized society should provide a certain level of care is one thing. Arguing that all good Christians will agree with you about the level of care and how is provided is another. The first is the purpose of politics in a democratic society. The second waters down Christianity by making it about politics instead of the sanctification of all regardless of wealth.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0