Monday October 27, 2008
Free Spurgeon
This month's free download for ChristianAudio is All of Grace by C.H. Spurgeon. It is yours for the taking.
Visualizing Uncle Sam's Debt
Mint.com tries to make sense of it. "Below are the top seven foreign lenders, visualized as credit cards, while the image at the top shows the total of foreign lending. All numbers have been brought down to the U.S. median household scale. Just imagine your household with these balances and you will have a better perspective on just how large these debts really are."
Schuller vs. Schuller
"Crystal Cathedral founder Reverend Robert H. Schuller has removed his son as preacher on the church's weekly "Hour of Power" syndicated TV broadcast. Schuller said in a statement read to some 450 congregants Saturday by church president Jim Coleman that he and his son, Robert A. Schuller, 'have different ideas as to the direction and the vision for this ministry.'"
Bar Stool Economics
Some lessons on economics courtesy of Douglas Wilson.
Three Ways to Spoil the Gospel
Andy Naselli quotes Graham Cole who shares three ways that we can spoil the gospel.
This month's free download for ChristianAudio is All of Grace by C.H. Spurgeon. It is yours for the taking.
Visualizing Uncle Sam's Debt
Mint.com tries to make sense of it. "Below are the top seven foreign lenders, visualized as credit cards, while the image at the top shows the total of foreign lending. All numbers have been brought down to the U.S. median household scale. Just imagine your household with these balances and you will have a better perspective on just how large these debts really are."
Schuller vs. Schuller
"Crystal Cathedral founder Reverend Robert H. Schuller has removed his son as preacher on the church's weekly "Hour of Power" syndicated TV broadcast. Schuller said in a statement read to some 450 congregants Saturday by church president Jim Coleman that he and his son, Robert A. Schuller, 'have different ideas as to the direction and the vision for this ministry.'"
Bar Stool Economics
Some lessons on economics courtesy of Douglas Wilson.
Three Ways to Spoil the Gospel
Andy Naselli quotes Graham Cole who shares three ways that we can spoil the gospel.
Comments (8) »
1. Todd
October 27, 2008
12:22 PM
More in-depth Schuller story here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-schuller27-2008oct27,0,6032775.story
Schuller built his worldwide ministry over a half century on the psychology of positive thinking and appealing to people turned off by the formality of traditional faiths. In contrast, his son’s sermons have been full of direct references to the Bible.
“I was called to start a mission, not a church,” Schuller told his audience Sunday. “There is a difference… . You don’t try to preach … what is sin and what isn’t sin. A mission is a place where you ask nonbelievers to come and find faith and hope and feel love. We’re a mission first, a church second.”
2. Al Beisser
October 27, 2008
4:39 PM
Here’s a little more on the Doug Wilson post:
A lot could be added to this story. For instance, imagine the bartender was actually elected by the ten men, and retained the authority to raise or cut the price of beer.
The first six guys would constitute a majority, and could easily remove the bartender from power if they don’t like him for some reason… so he definitely wants to keep them happy.
On the other hand, the rich guy can easily slip the bartender some extra cash in exchange for certain perks, like getting served Samuel Adams instead of Milwaukee’s Best.
What kind of tensions would this create? The politician (we can no longer call him a bartender) now has to speak with a forked tongue; make promises to the majority while scratching the back of the rich guy, etc. etc.
The poor guys are angry that the rich guy gets to drink Sam Adams, and demand some for themselves…
The rich guy threatens to leave if he doesn’t get his benefits, or a break (tax cut) in the exorbitant price he’s paying for beer…
When rich guy gets more beer and a better price, the poor guys cry foul and vote a new bartender into power…
The new bartender gives the poor guys Sam Adams, which increases the cost of the beer to $150 per week overall, which the rich guys are asked to pay for, but lo and behold, even the rich guys don’t have enough money to pay for all that Sam Adams, so the bartender has to BORROW money from overseas to keep a full fledged barroom brawl from breaking out…
And so the wheels of taxing, spending, class warfare, and corruption keep turning … I wonder how it will eventually turn out?
3. J.P.H.
October 27, 2008
9:58 PM
The bar analogy ignores some essential aspects of “real life” in its effort to paint the poor as greedy freeloaders who won’t pay their fair share.
Here’s my version:
Ten brothers and sisters live in the same village. Since the countryside is rife with bandits, they have decided to pay a sheriff to watch over their village. The sheriff charges $100/year for this service. Food an lodging in this village run about $15/year for a single person.
One of the sisters has several small children she must care for, and no husband, so she cannot work. Not wanting her to starve, the other siblings pitch in $15/month to rent her a room in a filthy motel and waive her share of the sheriff’s fee.
Three of the brothers were never very bright, and were alternately neglected or abused by their parents. They work long hours, but earn between $20 and $30 per month each. Consequently, the other siblings waive their share of the sheriff’s fee.
The fifth sibling earns about $40/month, and pays $1 towards the sheriff’s fee.
The sixth sibling earns about $50/month and pays $3 towards the sheriff’s fee.
The seventh sibling earns about $65/month and pays $7 toward the fee.
The eighth earns about $80/month and pays $12 towards the fee.
The ninth earns about $130/month and pays $18 towards the fee.
The tenth earns around $250/month and pays $59 towards the fee. Some months he earns much, much more. He lives in a fine house, can afford the best doctors, and his children have every advantage.
The bandits start to thin out, so the sheriff reduces his fee by $5. He suggests that the fifth sibling pay $0 instead of $1, the sixth pay $2 instead of $3, the seven pay $5 instead of $7, the eighth pay $9 instead of $12, the ninth pay $14 instead of $18, and the tenth pay $65 instead of $59.
The ninth and tenth siblings then raise cain about this suggestion, because it results in them either no receiving as much of a discount, or in the case of the tenth sibling, having to pay an increased share. Nevermind that this extra share would have an almost imperceptible impact on the tenth sibling’s actual standard of living; by gosh, he’s determined to make sure siblings one through four start chipping in, even if it’s only pennies.
4. Al Beisser
October 28, 2008
3:53 PM
JPH:
In highly socialized countries, the tax burden is sometimes in excess of 50% of gross domestic product. In the example above, your ten folks earn somewhere near $700 per month. In a ‘spread the wealth around’ system, the sheriff would require around $300 per month. Of course, he would do much more than be the Sheriff and keep the peace; he would also subsidize everything from medical care to childcare. Who will pay all that? I guess you have to borrow the money… You certainly can’t take it all from the wealthy folks, they can’t afford it. Plus, they provide all the jobs and spend the bulk of the money that keeps the economy humming…. You can’t put them out of business with oppressive taxation.
I think God had it right in the OT when He required all people to pay a tenth, no matter what their status or income. It’s fair.
5. J.P.H.
October 28, 2008
10:55 PM
I’m not ignorant of the situation in socialized western countries. I suspect that if most people (Americans, at least) were aware of their total tax rate, when payroll, employer payroll match, property and sales taxes are taken into account, and the true amount they pay for health care (i.e. including employer match), that they might not view the difference between their total tax burden and the tax burden of those in western European countries as being so vast.
It strikes me as somewhat heartless to insist that someone with so much less than me, who can barely pay the bills,let alone save for the future, to pay an equal (percentage) share when it costs me so little (in real terms) to cover it for him.
As a side note, I’m very much in favor of the FairTax (fairtax.org). Though, hard-core flat tax proponents, of which you seem to be one, will object to the “pre-bate” component.
6. Al Beisser
October 29, 2008
10:26 AM
JPH,
I don’t know if I would call myself a ‘hard-core’ flat tax guy. I think either a flat tax or a national sales tax would be more just than any sort of progressive tax system — especially ones that are constantly manipulated in a way that penalizes one group and rewards others, which breeds so much corruption. I also think certain deductions would still be OK, like a fixed amount per dependent. This would apply to everyone, though, not just ‘poor’ people.
In either a flat tax system, or national sales tax, there would be much more disposable income for individuals and businesses. This is ALWAYS good for the economy, because people can spend more, invest more, and save more. Of course, in any tax system the spending of money will raise government revenue, but in either of these ‘fair’ systems, I think the amount of money flowing around would be higher and more sustainable.
On a different point, I believe there are very few truly poor people in the US (or most western nations) compared to the extreme poverty found in much of the world. The opportunity here (the US) is so incredible that almost anyone can make good living by the world’s standards. My dad immigrated from Germany in 1955 with no money, only a small crate of personal items, and no ability to speak English. He worked hard, didn’t over spend, ALWAYS saved (still does), and easily carved out a life for himself in this land of opportunity.
As for those that are truly down on their luck, orphans, disabled, or handicapped in other ways, I agree that those who are able should take care of them, but NOT through the government. I think the Church in general, and individual Christians in particulare, are responsible for helping those in need — not the government. Talk about a radical notion. Sadly, most church attenders want nothing to do with dirtying their hands with such matters.
Will God’s people ever really take this responsibility? It doesn’t seem likely (although God could make it happen). Frankly, it’s easier to pay Big Brother taxes and let him take care of all the mess while we sit in our padded pews. It’s sad but true. Shameful, actually. More often than not, the “church” in America is a weak, bloated, self-serving, pathetic excuse for the Body of Christ. I guess in many cases, I’d have to include myself as well… I could definitely do better most all the time.
Ezekiel 16:49-50 (read in context of God’s coming judgment on Israel) gives us a lot to think about: “Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; yet neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abominations before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.” God’s people in America have plenty of pride, food, and idleness. We worship this god of mammon, and the downward spiral we are in morally, economically, and spiritually is, I think, God’s judgment.
Just my $0.02.
7. J.P.H.
October 29, 2008
11:26 PM
The beauty of the FairTax is that it simplifies taxation, drastically reducing both personal and corporate compliance costs, while still remaining progressive, since it refunds the expected tax burden of someone at the poverty line to every taxpayer. If you’re at the poverty line and your spending is in line with the models, then you pay no tax. If you’re below the poverty line then you actually make money. It’s also revenue neutral, so implementing it doesn’t imply the removal of existing benefit programs for the poor.
8. Al Beisser
October 30, 2008
1:51 PM
I really like the FairTax idea… maybe better than a flat tax. The consumer is always the one who pays for everything in the end, because all costs ultimately get passed along to the cash register. I really like that the FairTax would make American companies much more competitive, and give a great incentive for companies to locate in America. The only thing I worry about is an inclination to barter or buy used to evade taxes, but that stuff happens already…
As far as the prebate goes, I don’t know what I think about that… I know we currently have employees living together to avoid a high household income, meaning they qualify for various entitlement benefits they wouldn’t otherwise qualify for. I guess you can’t legislate or regulate morality, and really, in the end, that’s our problem. Covetousness, dishonestly, greed, laziness, etc. at every level..
God help us.
Post Your Comment Here »