Should the rich support the poor?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Feb 7, 2015
22,418
404
0
#1
Considering extra taxes on the rich, (a greater % than the rest of us pay) how do you stand on this issue?

Some hold that the Christian is not motivated by considerations of law, but by love instead. I think this is to place an unbiblical distinction between law and love, a distinction opposed by the Apostles. "Love," said Paul, "is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:10). "This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments," John wrote (1 John 5:3).

The standard of love is, Biblically, nothing other than the law of God. If we are disobedient to the law of God, it has to be said we do not love; conversely, if we do not love, we are breaking the law, which commands us to love.

If, in the name of "love for the poor," I transgress God's law by supporting legal plunder (excessive taxation) of my rich neighbor to fund a poverty program, am I really loving that neighbor, regardless of my profession of love? For isn't love always concerned to fulfill the law of God? Where that concern is absent, does "equal" love really exist? Is there love for that neighbor when I support his taxes being raised when he has not freely chosen to donate to that poverty program?

How say ye on such as this?
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
5,390
778
113
#2
Not being an American, the specific tax laws don't apply to me. That said, Canada has had a social welfare program for many decades, and in principle I agree with it. I think it is worthwhile to know that there is a safety net. However, when my taxes are raised to ensure that said safety net has wifi, a big-screen TV, and lots of free support for people who make repeated stupid decisions, I'm not so keen. However, I digress....

Socialism is theft. That's against God's Law. Love for one's neighbour (rich or poor) doesn't trump God's Law in other places, though we as fallen humans can't always see how to meld the specific laws harmoniously.

Love your neighbours... all of them. Resist the excessive taxation. Prager U has an interesting video on this subject. Loving the poor isn't done through taxation. It's done more directly... and more efficiently.
 

Desertsrose

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2016
2,803
186
63
#3
Considering extra taxes on the rich, (a greater % than the rest of us pay) how do you stand on this issue?Some hold that the Christian is not motivated by considerations of law, but by love instead. I think this is to place an unbiblical distinction between law and love, a distinction opposed by the Apostles. "Love," said Paul, "is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:10). "This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments," John wrote (1 John 5:3). The standard of love is, Biblically, nothing other than the law of God. If we are disobedient to the law of God, it has to be said we do not love; conversely, if we do not love, we are breaking the law, which commands us to love.If, in the name of "love for the poor," I transgress God's law by supporting legal plunder (excessive taxation) of my rich neighbor to fund a poverty program, am I really loving that neighbor, regardless of my profession of love? For isn't love always concerned to fulfill the law of God? Where that concern is absent, does "equal" love really exist? Is there love for that neighbor when I support his taxes being raised when he has not freely chosen to donate to that poverty program?How say ye on such as this?
Hi Willie,


Love is the fulfillment of God's Law, not the civil law. We obey civil law because we're told to in Roman to submit to the governing authorities because they are chosen servants of God.


The Jews, every third year tithe went to the Levites, the strangers, the widows and the orphans. Those who grew produce were to leave the corners of their field for them to glean from. So you could say that farmers paid more taxes than say the lower middle class person who might not have lots of land and lots of produce to give to the poor.


I don't see it as an issue even if I were rich. I would want to help out those who have less and are barely making it. So I wouldn't call it a transgression of God's law because God had the wealthy help out the poor more so than the person without produce.

 
Feb 7, 2015
22,418
404
0
#4


Hi Willie,


Love is the fulfillment of God's Law, not the civil law. We obey civil law because we're told to in Roman to submit to the governing authorities because they are chosen servants of God. This is not an "existing" law. This is one you are going to be voting on soon.


The Jews, every third year tithe went to the Levites, the strangers, the widows and the orphans. Those who grew produce were to leave the corners of their field for them to glean from. So you could say that farmers paid more taxes than say the lower middle class person who might not have lots of land and lots of produce to give to the poor. Actually, they weren't paying more, because they made no profit off that little corner to pay any taxes on. They didn't have a Property Tax.


I don't see it as an issue even if I were rich. I would want to help out those who have less and are barely making it. So I wouldn't call it a transgression of God's law because God had the wealthy help out the poor more so than the person without produce.Wasn't the required Temple Tithe the same for all people?

.........................
 
Last edited:

dcontroversal

Senior Member
Dec 12, 2013
30,294
1,208
113
#5
Jesus did say that you would always have the poor......I think everyone should pay the same tax rate regardless of what one makes......and those who are on food stamps, get welfare checks etc. should have to do some sort of work for the states they live in barring handicapped, sickness or age....

Just like the "WALL".....if one wants to immigrate here....you must give xx amount of years in some sort of service...either in the military or on building the wall, repairing roads etc.....

And...the military is already on the pay roll....why not use them and Army Engineers and the military to build and or guard the borders, repair the roads, bridges etc.....

Oh back to your OP....the rich should pay the same rate as all.....like say everyone pays 15% or 18% regardless of what one makes....
 
Aug 2, 2009
20,602
772
113
#6
I agree that there should be a flat tax rate...

But as it is now, the rich are actually taxed higher. If I remember correctly, individuals making over $400k owe 40% to the federal government...and that doesn't include state income tax.....

The "problem" is that many of these high earners, especially wealthy folks, don't make a salary. They live off of their investments. They might declare a small salary, but they mostly take out money from their investments which are expertly managed to keep them on the rise (ideally, anyway). So they only end up paying capital gains taxes of 17%.... and only if their investments rise in value. If their investment suffers losses, they don't owe any taxes on it, which is fair because they didn't make any money and the money was theirs to begin with.
 

Corbinscam

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2016
558
33
28
#7
Define rich and define poor.
I'm not in favor of hard working people supporting lazy people. And I don't think God is either...
 
Dec 9, 2011
10,070
380
83
60
#8
Define rich and define poor.
I'm not in favor of hard working people supporting lazy people. And I don't think God is either...
I would say,a person that has enough money that they could splurge whenever they wanted to and never have need,a person that's poor Is a person that needs a little help from their brother and sometimes the poor also need to be soothed emotionally.
 
D

Depleted

Guest
#9
This is not an "existing" law. This is one you are going to be voting on soon..
Wait! We're actually going to vote on a bill going through Congress? Cool! I never get a say on what passes in Congress!

I do not think the rich owe the poor. However, as a poor person, I wouldn't mind if rich people want to throw money at me.



Now, becoming more serious, (albeit I really wouldn't mind people giving me money just because), I do think this whole line of thought has always been bizarre. We do not need the government to take our money to give part of it back to poor people. If we want to help someone, help someone. Pretending it's our civic duty to only help through paying taxes is simply an excuse to do nothing. And, our government being who they are, they're very good at "nothing."

If you think Joe-down-the-street should pay to help Jim-up-the-street, then stop laying that at Joe's feet! Help Jim yourself. Because honestly, I've known all along it's a smoke screen to stop anyone noticing the guy between Joe and Jim isn't doing squat but whining about Joe or Jim.

Government's job is to pay heed to our Constitution, to defend us, and to keep up the infrastructure. We're supposed to be taking care of the rest. And had we actually done that, it would have cost us a lot less than we're paying the government to (not) do it, it would have worked better, and we might actually truly be known as "Christians do love others." Added bonus -- we wouldn't have ever had to look at highway and bridges to nowhere falling apart decades later, because no one ever needed to go nowhere.
 
D

Depleted

Guest
#10
Jesus did say that you would always have the poor......I think everyone should pay the same tax rate regardless of what one makes......and those who are on food stamps, get welfare checks etc. should have to do some sort of work for the states they live in barring handicapped, sickness or age....
How about mothers of young children who can't make enough money to live on and the cost of babysitting/nursery school? Should they be on Welfare too?

Because once you include that group? You have already named all the people who are on Welfare now -- them, plus, disabled. (BTW, old age isn't grounds for Welfare. It's usually grounds for SSI. Many old people can still work. And the young? Generally speaking they go on SS too, if needed.) It's been like that since Clinton was President. It's just that the right missed that.
 

Blain

Senior Member
Aug 28, 2012
14,547
396
83
#11
Well while the taxes on the rich are indeed higher they are not called the rich for nothing they still have far more than enough even after taxes and I cannot speak for other people who are rich only myself, not to say I am rich but if I were I have always had the mindset that the more I have the more I can give
 
Feb 7, 2015
22,418
404
0
#12
Well while the taxes on the rich are indeed higher they are not called the rich for nothing they still have far more than enough even after taxes and I cannot speak for other people who are rich only myself, not to say I am rich but if I were I have always had the mindset that the more I have the more I can give
I doubt you even realize it, but you typed the KEY words........ It should be your choice, NOT the mandate of a law requiring your money be confiscated.
 

NoNameMcgee

Senior Member
May 6, 2017
4,871
900
113
#13
Considering extra taxes on the rich, (a greater % than the rest of us pay) how do you stand on this issue?

Some hold that the Christian is not motivated by considerations of law, but by love instead. I think this is to place an unbiblical distinction between law and love, a distinction opposed by the Apostles. "Love," said Paul, "is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:10). "This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments," John wrote (1 John 5:3).

The standard of love is, Biblically, nothing other than the law of God. If we are disobedient to the law of God, it has to be said we do not love; conversely, if we do not love, we are breaking the law, which commands us to love.

If, in the name of "love for the poor," I transgress God's law by supporting legal plunder (excessive taxation) of my rich neighbor to fund a poverty program, am I really loving that neighbor, regardless of my profession of love? For isn't love always concerned to fulfill the law of God? Where that concern is absent, does "equal" love really exist? Is there love for that neighbor when I support his taxes being raised when he has not freely chosen to donate to that poverty program?

How say ye on such as this?
i dont know if the government programs are nearly as helpful as they could be

i think extra tax is a bad idea
(not rich)


if i had an income of 12 million a year (after original taxes)

and chose to donate 2 million a year to establishments already in place for charity

and 3 million to people i meet

the rest goes into a high cost of living
and businesses or investments

whos to say if i got taxed an extra 2 million a year

i could manage to donate the same amount

or that the money being taken is used as effectively to help others.....
 

Corbinscam

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2016
558
33
28
#14
I would say,a person that has enough money that they could splurge whenever they wanted to and never have need,a person that's poor Is a person that needs a little help from their brother and sometimes the poor also need to be soothed emotionally.
Define splurge :D Because by that definition I could easily be considered rich when I am far from it. I just work my butt off because I don't like the idea of my family suffering if for some reason I couldn't work. I work to get ahead. I work way above what I need to work to get ahead. When you start saying that so and so has too much and they should pay more you go down a very slippery slope that ends with people not giving a damn if they work because they're going to have the same no matter what. The thing is that really welfare has created people who are used to or have the idea that life should be handed to them. The idea that certain things are rights is in some ways good....and in some ways ways really bad. If you're an able bodied person but are content to sit on your butt and whine...no I, and my country, owe you nothing. Get a job. Or two or three.
Truly disabled people are entirely different and to me veterans and widows are the same. But some punk 25 year old who just doesn't want to hold down a job because he can sell ebt for drug money......no. Somewhere along the way we decided that adults could act like children.....it's incorrect. Part of being an adult and a decent human is working to pay your way no matter how tough it is. Help for a time is fine and I understand really not being able to find a job....but I'm not about to work 60 hours a week to be overly taxed and see nothing extra and enjoy nothing from it.

Somehow people believe that it's the publics business what the "rich" spend their money on. It isn't. It's their money. You're not owed it.
 

Corbinscam

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2016
558
33
28
#15
i dont know if the government programs are nearly as helpful as they could be

i think extra tax is a bad idea
(not rich)


if i had an income of 12 million a year (after original taxes)

and chose to donate 2 million a year to establishments already in place for charity

and 3 million to people i meet

the rest goes into a high cost of living
and businesses or investments

whos to say if i got taxed an extra 2 million a year

i could manage to donate the same amount

or that the money being taken is used as effectively to help others.....
In my opinion government financial programs are designed to create dependence.......not help a person get back on their feet.
I'm not against helping people get on their feet. I'm against creating further dependence. In other words...I agree with you :D
 

penknight

Senior Member
Jan 6, 2014
790
11
18
#16
Considering extra taxes on the rich, (a greater % than the rest of us pay) how do you stand on this issue?

Some hold that the Christian is not motivated by considerations of law, but by love instead. I think this is to place an unbiblical distinction between law and love, a distinction opposed by the Apostles. "Love," said Paul, "is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:10). "This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments," John wrote (1 John 5:3).

The standard of love is, Biblically, nothing other than the law of God. If we are disobedient to the law of God, it has to be said we do not love; conversely, if we do not love, we are breaking the law, which commands us to love.

If, in the name of "love for the poor," I transgress God's law by supporting legal plunder (excessive taxation) of my rich neighbor to fund a poverty program, am I really loving that neighbor, regardless of my profession of love? For isn't love always concerned to fulfill the law of God? Where that concern is absent, does "equal" love really exist? Is there love for that neighbor when I support his taxes being raised when he has not freely chosen to donate to that poverty program?

How say ye on such as this?
I agree with you.
 

penknight

Senior Member
Jan 6, 2014
790
11
18
#17
But only to the extent that the poor simply want to attain finer things.
(I tried to edit my previous post, but I started experiencing technical difficulties.
 
Dec 9, 2011
10,070
380
83
60
#18
Define splurge :D Because by that definition I could easily be considered rich when I am far from it. I just work my butt off because I don't like the idea of my family suffering if for some reason I couldn't work. I work to get ahead. I work way above what I need to work to get ahead. When you start saying that so and so has too much and they should pay more you go down a very slippery slope that ends with people not giving a damn if they work because they're going to have the same no matter what. The thing is that really welfare has created people who are used to or have the idea that life should be handed to them. The idea that certain things are rights is in some ways good....and in some ways ways really bad. If you're an able bodied person but are content to sit on your butt and whine...no I, and my country, owe you nothing. Get a job. Or two or three.
Truly disabled people are entirely different and to me veterans and widows are the same. But some punk 25 year old who just doesn't want to hold down a job because he can sell ebt for drug money......no. Somewhere along the way we decided that adults could act like children.....it's incorrect. Part of being an adult and a decent human is working to pay your way no matter how tough it is. Help for a time is fine and I understand really not being able to find a job....but I'm not about to work 60 hours a week to be overly taxed and see nothing extra and enjoy nothing from it.

Somehow people believe that it's the publics business what the "rich" spend their money on. It isn't. It's their money. You're not owed it.
No one ever said life Is fair.
 

Desertsrose

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2016
2,803
186
63
#19
​Hi Willie,

Actually, they weren't paying more, because they made no profit off that little corner to pay any taxes on. They didn't have a Property Tax.

Well they would be missing out on the sale of the produce they might have made if they were not commanded to leave the corners of the field for the stranger the widow and the orphan so they could take freely and not starve. In that way they paid more because they lost the sale of the produce they might have made. The tithe is only 10% so they lost 90% in income because they had to help out the poor.


Wasn't the required Temple Tithe the same for all people?


Not for the poor. If they make nothing they don’t pay the tithe. So that would include the stranger, the widow and the orphan. They paid 0% tithe.


Another thing to consider is that those who were able were suppose to lend to their brother in the Lord. And if the 7th year of debt forgiveness was close, he was to loan him the money, knowing he would never get the full amount back.


And there was also the Year of Jubilee where all debt was forgiven.


We are to help the poor, especially the wealthy who have abundant blessings from God. James told the rich to be rich in good works.


I also believe that God has so blessed America so that we can help the poor countries that are starving to death and have no water wells and die of thirst.


I don’t believe we should give hand outs to those who can work and refuse to. But we have people who can’t work because of disabilities, sickness and disease.


I don’t know what the rich are paying now, but the top 1% use to pay less tax percentage wise than anyone else. Maybe they’ve already corrected that, I don’t know.


But there will never be a flat tax here in America.


Those who work and struggle to make ends meet should be exempt from paying taxes. Why would we want to hinder them and cause the to struggle more than they already are.


And it sounds nice that we should willing help and not be forced. But man’s heart isn’t prone to doing that willingly. I think that’s why God commanded His chosen nation to help the poor.
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
21,995
385
83
#20
Support as in "fully" and the poor make no attempt to do anything to better/support themselves?

NO

Support as in offer assistance/helping hand up?

YES