Or, at the very least, tax them.
I don’t imagine everyone who reads this blog shares my politics, which skew left (very left, and for that, I am heartily sorry but I can back up my political choices with scripture).
(I have always liked James 1:27, because it clears away all the muddle of hot-button issues such as marriage equality and the like. If you’re keeping your eye on the theological ball, you can certainly argue these things, but if you do you’re taking valuable energy away from the important stuff, the stuff that Jesus talked about, like taking care of the disadvantaged.)
As for you heathens who disagree, I will pray for you, but I like Pres. Obama’s idea of ending tax breaks for the top two percent of America’s wage-eargers, while leaving alone families who earn less $250,000. He presented this in his speech before Congress last night and it caught in my net.
Of course, this is easy for me to embrace as my family earns surpringly less than $250,000 a year. But if you want to take the long view, my Sunday school lessons taught me that riches on earth spell danger for your prospects after death. So if the government wants to step in and ease rich families’ burden a little, rock on.
As I said, I bet not all Dating Jesus blog readers agree. Oddly, this is an issue in a class war where the disadvantaged too often make the arguments for the advantaged, leaving them to count their money, I guess. (Joe Bageant addreses this far better than I ever could.) So let the arguments begin.
Getty Images
Can we start with Sam Zell?