Coffee* with Creamer on the Web - Latest Comments on What an Income Cap Really Means

bcreamer [Member] in response to: What an Income Cap Really Means

bcreamer [Member] — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 15:15:18 +0000

Regarding the claim from both Luther and Kelly that government does have a rightful claim to certain money, of course I agree. The argument and point of the post is that the government's rightful and certainly prudent claim to that money ceases where it goes beyond its (the government's) purpose for existence. Government does not create wealth---neither in the U.S. constitutional sense nor in the essential nature of centralized planning. Government, both in Romans 13 language and in terms of the constitution, maintains the structures in society which allow for the unhindered economic participation of the members of the society. Anything government does to "direct" the economy only hinders the free interaction of agents in that economy. (e.g., subsidizing natural-gas taxis through front-of-the-line advantages promotes monopolization by the large taxi companies as mom-and-pop cabbies are punished for not already having enough resources to make the non-economically motivated move to natural gas.)
And regarding the "centralized planning" problem, I recommend Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. But the basic point is that if we use non-economic power to force a certain thing on society because the economic forces won't get us there, then we contradict ourselves by saying it is worth (we want it) more than it is worth (we're willing to pay for it). Things are actually worth what we are willing to pay for them. There is nothing else money means in terms of purchasing power.
And none of the things we would say are "worth" something more than money can buy are things we want the government sticking its hand into. (Which is why, by the way, rights are negative---but I'll have to write a post on that issue another day.)
One more quick note: America's economic prosperity does not come by stripping the wealth of other nations. That economic picture is antique and misguided. Economies grow. The more economic benefit there is for other nations, the more there is for America as well. The economy is not a pie. And we are no longer mercantile in our economic understanding. Environmentalists and anti-capitalists would do well to figure out that Bill Gates' prosperity is due to the benefit his productivity gave to everyone who paid him for what he produced---again, a topic for another day.

Luther [Visitor] in response to: What an Income Cap Really Means

Luther [Visitor] — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:47:46 +0000

Hey, Brother Barry. It's good to see you online. I'll try to keep up more. I had a couple quick comments from this post.

"Unfortunately, since it is not the government's own productivity (read, 'hard work' or 'limited inheritance') which gave them the money they are about to spend,"

There are some arguments against this: the government's protection of our society is what makes John's wealth possible. Maybe God "gave them the money they are about to spend" (cf. Romans 13, Luke 20: 20-26). More literally: they are being productive in taxing, right? Is their hard work in taxing the money (to pay for everything they do to make the "production" of it possible) any less ethical than Joe's taking advantage of where he lives to accumulate so much money (from those around the world whose opportunities are taken away because of laws, sanctions, wars, neglect, etc., caused / contributed to by his government, his American competitors, his colleagues, his employees, and him)?

"and since they are centrally planning from ivory offices rather than responding to real market pressures, the government's use of John's 'excessive' money will actually squander a huge percentage of it."

I guess I need it delineated a little more: since the government's productivity didn't get them the money, and since they plan centrally rather than spending according to "market pressures," they are bound to squander a lot of the money?

"In summary: it is wrong to take it since it is his (the 7th of 10 commandments, for those who keep up with such things)"

THE 10 commandments? Adultery? If you're talking about stealing, is it appropriate for us to speak of the government "stealing" from its citizens? I can understand arguing that a corrupt government official is stealing for his own "good," but the government in general? (This isn't even requiring that we think of the government as "we the people," just as the organization that protects society.)

"it is unwise to take it since while it is in private hands it is most likely to increase prosperity in the society."

Some people are good/lucky/blessed with their money. Are the majority? Some people spend their money with the society in mind. Do the majority?

Jimmy Hammond [Visitor] in response to: What an Income Cap Really Means

Jimmy Hammond [Visitor] — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 05:16:29 +0000

Dear Mr Creamer:

Heard your broadcast Monday night for the first time while on a roadtrip through Texas. I enjoyed it as with the candor in your answers. Unlike that evenings spiel, I am the subject of this inquisition.

I have had an unusal life in that I spent a salient portion of my adolescence in a home for boys--a lot of them. i was sent there by my parents will. Apart from that massive issue of abandonment, there was a second incident that happened there and sent me into a greater tailspin that is too lengthy to pen, so I'll get to my biblical question:

With that latter issue in mind, I have had many struggles with certain sins all my life, but always felt that when I received the Lord at 14 in this boys home, I was saved for good. In fact,my entire impetus for doing this was on the ground of my chaplin's statement, "He will never leave you".

While reading scripture one evening many years back, in Hebrews 5 (and forgive me if I do not get the passage correct as I don't have my bible with me) as with 2 Peter 5, which I read later, they effectively state that (paraphrased) Once you receive Christ and fall back to your old ways, it is impossible to come to repentence . . . In Peter it refer to the dog returning its vomit . . .

I ask may pastor if it was possible to lose your salvation, and he said 'yes'. Needless to say, I have lost all hope in what I considered to be impossible. I rarely pray and rarely attend church anymore, and when I do there is no enjoyment at all--I have considered suicide many times because of hopelessness I am consumed by; if I am going to hell for eternity what is the since in prolonging it? I am stopped by the rememberance of what my father's did to me and my siblings, but am living in this void between smiles and tears.

RK Brumbelow [Visitor] in response to: What an Income Cap Really Means

RK Brumbelow [Visitor] — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 02:31:50 +0000

Dr. Creamer, You just said that taxation is wrong because it causes one to commit adultery.
"In summary: it is wrong to take it since it is his (the 7th of 10 commandments, for those who keep up with such things)"

Taxation is not wrong the Bible specifically allows governments to tax those whom they are over Matthew 17:24-27 though it does forbid over taxation with the example of Ex. 30:15