Tax-exempt/tax-deductible status for the poor and homeless...

Prequel arguments: Q- Fair enough... Never claimed to be a lawyer, after all... Bible reference: "--yes, and we do not owe poor people anything." Perhaps "owe" was the wrong word for me to use... however, it is mandatory for any believer to look after the welfare of the poor, as best they can; and, in the past, God did destroy entire civilizations for a lack of charitable compassion. One example is found in Ezekiel 16:49... some of Sodom's sins are listed as, "... pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness... neither did she strengthen the hands of the poor and needy." "--and we still do, through the church. key word "church". it is not the governments place to administer charity." Were this a few decades ago, I might wholeheartedly agree with you. However, the fact remains that laws have been passed for the government to control the administration of charity. In our Constitution, amendments are allowed for the purpose of ratifying and clarifying those laws. In states, counties, and individual cities, laws are likewise passed for the purpose of regulating more general laws that might otherwise be abused. Why not flip it around, and use a legal loophole to regulate the abuse of legalism? ------------------------------------------ I think I get where you're coming from on this, now... however, I must still disagree on some level. The fact that suffering can bring about some greater meaning or benefit does not negate it's evil. As a matter of expediency, were suffering abolished, it would enrich the quality of life; after all, if good can come from suffering, and suffering limits the quality of the benevolence it produces, it stands to reason that suffering dilutes meaning (where meaning is related to beneficiality). Further, if such meaning can be achieved without suffering, it stands to reason that meaning without suffering is more expedient. This is the argument of the Christian faith, and other forms of monotheism and "universal" religions (religions that extend beyond demographics of any kind): that suffering, rather than being an aide to meaning, is a hindrance thereto; and, the goal of the adherent thereof is to abolish as much suffering as he can, as the Almighty allows. While suffering can bring meaning and purpose to life, it is only necessary as long as the suffering persists; and, in my perspective, it is expedient to abolish suffering, and focus the purpose on an attempt at greater happiness. ------------------------------------------- This argument reminds me of the argument made by Abraham Maslow, in his heirarchy of needs. However, the question would then be whether or not the quality of life was enhanced by the need, or the fulfillment thereby. I watched the video, and it is a very convincing arugment; however, I rather hold the position that it is not self-gratification that causes us to seek an abolition of suffering... rather, I hold the position that it is the selfless desire of one for the benefit of others, that causes such a quest. While we may feel some gratification from the accomplishment of a goal, it is my contention that such gratification is only peripheral; and a result of our satisfaction in knowing that others are no longer suffering. There is, as I'm sure you're aware, a noticeable difference between the actual suffering which I'm covering herein, and the desire for greater happiness: one is the deliberate cultivation of something, while the other is a loss of it. God does use hardships to bring us closer; however, we need to get closer to Him for a reason. In the story of Job, Satan - the antagonist, - was attempting to cause suffering, to turn a man against God. God proved that a man will remain faithful, even in spite of suffering; and, as a result, his goal became to alleviate Job's suffering, by reimbursing him twice what he lost. --------------------------------------------- ~~~~~~~~~points~~~~~~~~~~~~ I~Indeed, ironic; however, I'm not sure that "contradictory" would be the right term... both philosophies, and the Christian faith, seek to alleviate suffering on some level... From the very beginning, however, it was the Maker's plan that we enjoy life, rather than suffer. God is not willing that any of us perish, but that all of us come to repentance. Furthermore, God provides a way to escape the suffering that leads to suffering. II~ 1. The tax-deductions would encourage people to donate directly to those who need the resources most. With those resources they could get housing, food, clothing, and everything else they need. Thus, these tax-deductions would encourage greater and more effective charity; not to mention the influx of capital into the market. 2. You and I will probably have to differ on the idea of total hereditary depravity. It is my contention that the Bible supports the position that mankind becomes sinful, because of the effects of sin on the environment and pressure from people in one's life; rather than because of inheriting sin or sinfulness. We could cover this later. III~ I'm talking specifically about income tax; not sales tax. Sales tax is far less burdensome. 1. Monitoring it would alleviate suffering from abuses of the system. This monitoring would be a joint effort, between the government and the people; as our government was meant to operate in the first place. 2. Exactly my point. Suffering is an exception to the rule, which causes us to change in response. Therefore, rather than being crucial to meaning, suffering is sometimes indifferent, and often antithetical. IV~ With the passing of this bill, it would no longer be legal to prevent people who are homeless or poor from soliciting funds, like a charity. V~ Tax-exempt status goes hand-in-hand with tax-deductible status. Many wealthy individuals give to charity, for tax-deductions. Hence, giving poor and homeless people tax-exemption would give the rich more opportunities for tax-deduction. VI~ One point of this bill, however, is to give the people greater control over their own funds, allowing for a transition of power back to the people in a way the government really can't afford to deny. VII~ The problem is, if suffering were a truly natural part of life, there would be no desire to alleviate it. The very nature of suffering is to upset a delicate balance. Sin itself is one of the causes of some forms of suffering, but sin is not natural. VIII~ I literally didn't have one red cent to my name. I may not have lived in a war-zone, but I have gotten water from the ground, and done things I don't want to mention here (not illegal). IX~ Correction: we don't lessen the income of the entire government. We cut waste out of the equation. It's wasteful to give millionaires an additional government salary. ------------------------------- 1. Less tax-money, means less money for pork spending and politicians. Less money for pork spending and politicians, means an end to government waste... not an end to necessary programs. 2. I agree that I plan to use the government, using this method. However, like suffering, authoritarian tools can be used for beneficial purposes, as well. As to the statement, "The poor you will have with you always", this is a fact, which cannot be denied. However, the number of the poor is entirely up to us. It is my contention that the only thing stopping us from lessening that number is the conspiracy between big government, and big business... especially in the charitable sectors. Questions ------------------ 1. I don't know exactly how much; however, considering last years budget, the number of people on the street, and the current cost of living: probably billions, if not more. 2. The tax breaks encourage people to give directly to people who need it. 5.I wish I could, but there isn't enough space. I'll certainly try my best. 5.5. Exactly my point: using the government to change the government can work. 6. I'm sorry to hear you had to endure that kind of thing