Pope redefines "charity" to include Marxism

In order to classify as tax-free organizations, religious organizations must not endorse any political positions.  Their sole purpose is "supposed" to be the charity, either financial or supportive. Yet the Pope has found a way around this.

The strategy of the Vatican is to redefine the meaning of the term "charity." They basically expand it to include "redistribution of wealth."  If you take from the rich and give it to the poor, what you are in essence doing is encouraging governments to increase charity for the poor.

Pope Francis, of Friday, May 9, 2014, called for governments to redistribute wealth to the poor in a new spirit of generosity to help curb the 'economy of exclusion' that is taking hold today.

In essence, the Pope is saying that the Vatican is a country, and it is, therefore, encouraging the United States to use its national influence to encourage other nations to redistribute wealth.  In other words, he is endorsing ne or another form of fascism --Marxism, Communism, socialism, progressivism or liberalism -- from the pulpit.

The pope said getting to the root cause of poverty "involves challenging all forms of injustices and resisting the economy of exclusion, the throwaway culture and the culture of death which nowadays sadly risk becoming passively accepted."

The truth is, the goal of all these 'isms is to make everyone equal, and the only way to make everyone equal is to make everyone poor. This is because, if you have no rich people, you have no jobs.  If you have no jobs you have no opportunity to become rich. If the incentive to become rich is taken away, people lose their creative ambitions.

This is why an Austrian governmental style, often called capitalism, or trickle down economics, is the best form of government.  It encourages individualism as opposed to statism, and provides an equal opportunity to succeed, but not equal results.  The truth is, taking from those who have and giving it to those who have not is not charity, it's stealing.

The ultimate goal of idealism is equal pay, poverty for all

Perhaps people don't think of this much, but the reason people go to work each day is to make money.  And if you want to make a lot of money, then you have to take risks.  Thus, the incentive for taking such risks is the opportunity to make a lot of money.

Another thing people don't think about often is that the rich are not static, meaning you don't have the same people in the top 1%, or the top 10%, of income earners.  In other words, every ten years you have a different list of top earners in this country.  The reason for this is due to the risk.

It is also important to understand is that these same people, the ones taking the risks, also benefit the rest of the country, as they both spend their money in the process of risking it to make even more money.  Plus they spend money on luxury items that keep the economy afloat.

In other words, there are advantages of rich people.

Yet then you have people in Washington who want to raise taxes on these people. Thomas Piketty, in his book that is now #1 on Amazon called "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," suggests an 80% income tax raise on anyone making over $500,000 in order to get rid of that income class.

This, by the way, is the ultimate goals out of the pocket book of progressivism 101: equal pay.  To get this they take from the rich and give to the poor, or take from the haves and give to the have nots, however you want to describe it.

It's income redistribution.  And it has been tried thousands of times in world history, and is being tried in many nations right now as I write this, and it has failed every time it has been tried.

Why does it fail? Because in order for an economy to flourish there has to be an incentive to take risks.  America has always been great because every person has, historically, had an equal opportunity to rise to a better place in life.

Yet them came along the progressive movement, or the liberal movement, or the socialist movement, the idealist movement, or the communist movement, and then this all changed for the worse.  All of these movements, whatever you want to call them, want to redistribute wealth in order to make everyone equal.

This is the ultimate Utopian goal.  The problem is, that while it sounds like a great goal, it is doomed to fail. It has always failed, and will always fail.  The reason is because you cannot have a booming economy if you don't have rich people willing to save and invest.  You just can't.

The thing is, anyone who studies history, anyone who studies economics 101, will know this.  It is for this reason that these types of people don't want privately run schools, because it's easier to control what kids are taught when you have the government running it all.

Who pays all the taxes?

I hear a lot of people saying the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes, and when they do this I usually show them the picture to the right.  It shows quite clearly that the rich pay more than their fair share.

This data was from the 2005 Internal Revenue Service Data. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%

Then thing to consider here is that most of the top 50% are not millionaires, but hard working people. Many of them are small business.  Most only make thousands of dollars.  Many are married couples who file jointly and make over $29,019.

Also, consider the following:

• The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) 
• The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%)
• The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%).
• The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). 
• The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). 
• The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). 
• The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! 
• The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). 
• The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%).
• The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%)
• The top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) 
• The top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.

So, those are statistics from ten years ago.  So, now you want an update.  Well, today the statistics are about the same in proportions of who pays what, although the rich continue to pay more and more.  

Here are the updated numbers:

• The bottom 50%, it's next to nothing that they pay.
• The share of all federal tax revenue paid by the 1% has doubled since the 1980s.
• The top 20% of income earners have gone from paying 65% of all federal taxes in 1980 to 90% in 2010. 
• The top 1% are paying 30% of all tax revenue. 
• The top 20% are paying 90% of all collected tax revenue; this includes couples with two kids making more than $150,000.

Last year, to prevent the Bush tax cuts from expiring, republicans agreed to increase taxes on the rich.  That means that starting in 2014, the rich should expect to pay even more.  So taxes just keep going up on the rich to pay for the entitlement programs for the 52% who don't pay taxes. 

Plus there have been 442 tax increases since Obama was elected, many of which will effect the people Obama considers is rich, which pretty much on anyone who makes over $150,000.

This is exactly the reason why I am for getting rid of the progressive tax, because as it stands, 52% of American do not pay any taxes, and therefore don't care that taxes keep going up.  Why would they care, if they don't pay any?  If they paid into the system, then perhaps then they'd care.