On the Issue of Income Inequality

I watched the State of the Union address last night. One news report describes the President’s agenda with this headline, “Obama Focuses on Income Inequality”.

And I saw this cartoon come across my Facebook newsfeed:

Then another “viral” cartoon came to mind:

I thought about my previous blog.

And then I began to think about Acts 4:32 - 35, scriptures which describe the generosity of believers in the early church and how they helped the large number of people who came to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Pentecost. The historical context: “The city was swollen with visitors. But this was no ordinary Pentecost, with many Jews becoming believers, and staying on for instruction in the faith. These new believers had to be looked after and tended to.” (ref)

Some say that this passage indicates socialism was established in the church BY Jesus AND that it should be our model for “Christian” governmental economic policy.

[Wait a minute… Jesus established “socialism” in the church? Let me just check the definition of socialism:

Socialism as defined by Dictionary.com:

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Socialism as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1. an economic system characterized by social ownership or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system.

2. : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3. : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

According to these definitions of socialism, I have a hard time even using Jesus’s name in the same sentence.]

Mmmm… I am wondering though: is it the GOVERNMENT’S responsibility (according to scripture) to MANDATE compulsory “redistribution of the wealth” to help the poor on a day-to-day, non-temporary, non-emergency basis? Does Acts 4:32-35 pertain to such governmental policy?

One commentary suggests:

“This practice had nothing to do with more recent forms of communism or socialism. And this was not a mandatory policy or something commanded of all believers for all times. In short, it was a temporary and voluntary reaction to a crisis, and it was nowhere commanded of Christians, and nowhere held up as some sort of biblical paradigm of economic practice.”

There is no mention in these scriptures to indicate any sort of government mandate.

In this next commentary excerpt, the role of government according to scripture is plainly described:

“…it is clear that governments cannot save anyone, or produce innate righteousness. But that is not the purpose or function of civil government. Civil government exists to keep a check on evil, to maintain justice, and to prevent societies from degenerating into moral anarchy.

It (civil government) was never intended to be a medium of evangelism or salvation. That is the job of the church. Thus governments cannot save or make a person righteous from the inside out. Instead it keeps evil in place, which in a fallen world is a tremendous social good. But it is the gospel which transforms individual hearts and lives.”

In times of hardship emergencies, such as hurricanes, tornados, wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc., it is evident that individuals, churches, government, charities and the private sector do their part to help those in need. And the same entities are involved in the day-to-day needs of the poor as well. So what is the problem? Why do we hear people insist that government mandated redistribution of wealth is necessary to solve economic problems, propose that it is what a "Christian" government would do and the fair thing to do? Is it the fair thing to do? Come on now… Who really believes this? Unfortunately, there ARE taxpayers who are hood-winked into thinking that “redistribution” would come their way (first cartoon) and that all their own economic problems would be solved. Sad.

Just sayin’.

On the Issue of Redistribution of Wealth

After reading some interesting statistics from a recent article (click here), I decided to find out if anyone really knows what would happen if the wealth of the U.S. were distributed evenly among all people. Did a Google search and found one link that particularly addressed my question (click here). Quite an interesting, extensive and an almost unbearably exhausting scenario to peruse, and definitely one for the expert economist to debate.

I am not an expert economist, but I am a retired teacher and find that the following analogy results in an outcome dictated by economic theories and tactics. I found this gem within “one of those” emails that everyone gets – the kind that I almost always delete without reading. I’m glad I read this one.

What if a teacher graded test papers, then averaged them together to give students a common grade? Everyone would get the same grade regardless of how much they had studied. Most likely, studious individuals would not be happy, especially if they had spent a lot of time preparing for the test. For the students who had not prepared, the averaged grade might be better than their actual grade. They most likely would love the grading system. Suppose this teacher assigned grades in this manner for every test and graded work throughout the term.

The students who normally prepare would most likely begin to resent carrying the load for those who do not. To them it would become obvious that no matter how hard they prepared, they would not receive the grade they deserved. Eventually they would prepare less and less, and eventually with each progressive assignment, the averaged grade for all to share would fall lower and lower until eventually… they all receive all failing grades. None of the students would meet expectations for passing the class. They all fail the class.

Mmmmmm... get the picture? Who really wants an economic system such as that? I’m thinking that people are fooled into believing that the government “has” its own money to distribute and are forgetting that taxpayers are the suppliers thereof.