Clearly greed is not limited to Wall Street. Forget for the moment that Joe’s personal story is not true. Let’s take his predicament at face value.

Joe says he won’t buy this incredibly profitable small plumbing company because of potential tax increases. Let’s say the asking price for this company is around 2 million dollars, based on a quarter million in net profits, resulting in a nice 12.5% annual return on his investment. Since the credit markets are frozen, we will assume that Joe somehow has the two million to pay cash for the company. Joe’s not doing too badly himself.

But if he buys the company, grows it, and starts to clear over $250,000 in profits that go totally to him, he could have to pay 3 cents more in taxes on every additional dollar of profit. Now Joe could reduce his profits by hiring more employees, add health care, buy new equipment, expand a building, any number of things that would help the economy. But that’s of no concern to Joe, he just doesn’t want to lose 3 cents per dollar over the $250k he already has in his pocket. Three cents that the country will need to pay off debt, or rebuild the roads his trucks drive on. And therefore, poor Joe won’t buy the company.

Joe’s story makes a great case for what’s wrong with the trickle down, supply side mentality that he and his pals McCain and Gramm continue to support. Joe’s logic is a case of pure greed at the lowest levels.

Scott the Preacher: thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. And I agree that we should definitely be asking “What’s best for everyone?” and not just “What’s best for me?” However, I have no doubt that what’s best for everyone will not be coming out of Washington, no matter who’s in office. Given that the current economic struggles which you identify are largely a result of Washington’s bankrupt approach to finances, the answer surely cannot be to give Washington MORE of our money and MORE authority over our lives. Please tell me: who do you think knows what’s best for you, your family, and your community? Politicians in Washington or you, your family, and your community? If the latter, then why should we allow Washington to “spread the wealth around” by taking your money? Surely you could do a better job of that yourself!

Steve Holt,

Your comments are so accurate and truthful. It is very good thing to see.

Pastor Scott,

Your original post is both well written and thought provoking – but it’s also brave. If the Democratic party has a theme of Hope, the Republican party has settled on a theme of Anger.

The pundits on right wing radio are angry, the pundits on right wing TV are angry, the pundits on the right wing web are angry, the attendees at GOP rallies are angry – even the GOP nominee for President is filed with rage. He’s so mad he can barely suppress it. At the debates, every time he had to listen to the other side, his anger showed with his twisted smile or his glaring eyes.

In the face of this rage, you dared to question one of their core principles – their moral justification of Greed. Brave indeed. The GOP defend Greed with economic theory. Even now, standing in the ruins of our economy, the fruits of Greed laid bare for all to see, they defend it – and as many of these posts show, defend it with a fiery, righteous rage. Hopefully, underneath their angry, automatic defensiveness, you have provoked some thought.

To directly address the defenders of Greed: I find fault with their battle cries of “Redistribution!” and “Socialism!” They pretend that taxes exist solely to keep children from starving, or sick mothers from dying. Yes, some taxes are spent to help the less fortunate, but their primary function is to pay for the framework that maintains Civilization. From our military to the roads, from the electrical grid to the police – taxes pay for our civilization. And what a civilization it is - under our system a person can become fabulously wealthy. Is it really so bad to ask those who have benefited the most from this wonderful civilization to help pay for some of it?

The greedy talk of taking from the rich and giving to the poor – stealing from the productive to give to the lazy. I wonder if these people root for the Sheriff of Nottingham when they watch Robin Hood – aka the greedy Socialist who corrupted civilization by feeding the starving peasants who were shirking their rightful taxes (which, of course, are only paid by the poor). Our tax system is slowly turning into something reminiscent of that story – the rich have received repeated tax cuts, while the poor and middle class are increasingly carrying the burden of paying for our civilization. But, this system doesn’t work well – it’s hard to have the poor and middle class pay for everything - so we have gone into debt just to keep the lights of civilization on. The time is rapidly coming when we will not be able to borrow - we will have to start paying our way. Unfortunately, the burden of paying our colossal debt (while keeping basic services) will probably fall to the ones with the most money – after all, it’s difficult to get water from a stone (or taxes from the unemployed).

The defenders of Greed claim that taxing the wealthy will crush the economy – but here too, I believe they are wrong. An economy is build on spending. If no one is buying anything, the economy crashes. Over the past decade or so, the real income of the poor and middle class has actually decreased. At the same time, the cost of basic goods have increased (gas, food, housing, etc). To compensate for their falling income, and increasing expenses, the poor and middle class have taken a page from the government – they borrowed. Going into debt to keep food on the table and a roof over their head worked for a while, but now the credit market has collapsed. The banks are barely lending to each other, much less a man with a job that may be outsourced at any moment. The result? Consumer spending (and the economy) have flat lined. Giving the rich another tax cut will not restart consumer spending – but giving the poor and middle class a tax cut will.

Increasing the money in the pocket of the main street workers will allow them to keep spending – and thereby keep the economy moving. Of course, this is a short term fix. In the long term, we need to focus on creating jobs here in America – good paying jobs. We can do this by giving companies that create jobs here a tax break – and increasing the taxes on companies that outsource. We can encourage our military to buy from American sources, not French ones. We can make sure that goods imported into our country are taxed at the same rate as goods sent out of our country – instead of forcing the American worker to compete with government subsidized sweat shops in foreign lands.

All of these policies are aimed at one thing, increasing the income of the poor and the middle class. Because if the majority of our nation have money to spend, we can be assured that our economy will move along briskly. After all, you can’t sell things if no one has the money to buy them.

So where does this leave the rich who may have to pay a slightly higher tax rate? Rich. It may take them longer to get there, but if they work hard enough, get lucky enough, and keep at it, they too can become a billionaire. That’s the beauty of America – you Can make it – and you can make it without climbing on the backs of your fellow Americans.

It is nice hearing from someone with an eternal perspective of life and things in relationship to this world.

Welcome Pastor Lohse.

I’m really unsure where the 40% of people are who don’t pay any taxes. Do we have that many people laboring for under $6,000 or whatever the standard personal exemption is per year? For shame.

I’ve *always* paid taxes. I paid taxes when I was 5 years old and bought 30 cents worth of gum balls. Everyone who goes to the grocery store, who buys a tank of gas, or a suit of clothes, who is in the economy at all pays taxes. People using food stamps pay taxes on their groceries. “Tax refunds” are what we get back as an overage of what the government has collected in error.

While we need money as an exchange medium, and I think people should benefit from the fruits of their labor, I agree with Anonoman that our current system isn’t just reasonable capitalism, but is based on greed. Did medical expenses increase at astronomical rates when hospitals were non-profits, and doctors had paying customers, but would also work for in-kind trades? The whole “health care crisis” is predicated as much on greed acting on people in their time of need as it is legitimate R&D and care costs. One need go no further than the fact that a Medicare senior can get a procedure for a vastly reduced rate than a 35 year old with no medical insurance paying out of pocket.

The whole mortgage fiasco which started this panic (and yes, it is a panic) isn’t based on the proper functioning of a financial system, with due profits paid, but on something which used to be illegal– usury or inordinate profit taken for money lending. At least in my church, the sermon this Sunday is going to be the “render to Caesar” sermon… which is a close second, in my book, to the one where the moneylenders got thrown out of the temple. Isn’t the moneylender parable one which has sharp relevance today? “Neither a borrower nor a lender, be.”

No one here, and none of the candidates, are advocating a moneyless society, or a communist utopia. However, one of the sayings out of the 60s I still live by: When the last tree has fallen, when the last river is spoiled, when the last bird dies, only then will people realize they cannot eat money.

“The love of money is the root of all evil.” Not money. So why do all these people love it so much?

Teresa, if the love of money is the root of all evil, those that have it can buy the kind of evil they like best. And, *If money causes evil, why Take it from the rich and give it to the poor, and make them evil?.

Does that make common sense?

HS, You and I have gone through this before, Anyone who has studied the Bible should know which direction your God was travelling. I’ll some choices you have. South, East, North, West, South West, South East, North East, North West. There are more directions, like Up and Down, Any9ne who has even read the Bible should know that.

At least you didn’t tell me God has always been here. LOL,

Now, which direction was he travelling? Ask Pastor Scott to Tell you, he can’t. If one is to pontiificate, they should know what that are pontificating about!

Where is John Galt?

proff– the correct quote is “Who is John Galt?” not Where.

McCain is no Midas Mulligan, nor is Obama Mr. Thompson or Wesley Mouch. Joe the Plumber might make a good Jim Taggart, though.
Sincerely, Dagny Taggart

johnh,

God is omnipresent (everywhere).

Well, there is no way to prove that God exists to you that would convince you and many others. We only have the evidence of His existence rather than proof. The evidence gives us confidence that God exists and is the sort of being that the Bible describes.

In spiritual terms the word “direction” refers spiritual direction and is a way to cooperate with God’s mission. The word “direction” does not mean that I give you directions or orders. Instead it means that you and I join together in looking for the direction (or mission) that God is birthing in you and around you.

Now johnh, would you care to explain to us and point out to us in the Bible that you claim is there and that anyone who read it should know and frankly, that I too have missed concerning this direction thing you are talking about that God was traveling?

By the way, since you claim to be such great friends of Sarah and Todd Palin who proclaim to be devout Christians, what have they explained to you about God and Christ and their existence?

Also from your study of the Bible, do you remember what God’s inspired words describe as a FOOL?