What if the following letter was read today in your Sacrament meeting?
I think in my ward in Southern California, it would not be a big deal. There may be one or two Fox News watching members that would quietly make a fuss, but overall I think most members in my ward would just take it in stride, and some would wonder what took them so long.
What about where you live? Would this be a problem in Utah? What about overseas in Spain, Italy or the UK?
Why do you think there has not been a letter like this?
Wheat & Tares 
I was driving through Orem, UT in August and saw a parade of folks about two blocks long. Some were in pioneer garb. I was thinking Pioneer day – but that was a week before. Then I read the signs:
“God gave us our Freedom” “No Masks in School” “Masks are Child Abuse” and such. Some folks in Provo called a town hall meeting to protest against masks in school.
Utah FB groups are full of very vitriolic anti-mask stuff.
Early on, the First Presidency issued a statement about COVID via email that said that specific “regulation/requirements” would be issued by the Area Presidencies. That seemed like a very clear delegation of authority to the Area level to make da rules. When the Utah Area Presidency sent a letter suggesting masks in church meetings as things began opening up, social media was full of “They are speaking as men. Unless I see a letter signed by the First Presidency saying I need to wear a mask I won’t do it.” So the official letter sign by the FP saying do what the AP says doesn’t count because it was a step away from the prophet?
So – I don’t think it would fly so well here.
We are doing almost all of it now, sans pro cleaning.
The science, over the years, does not favour masks. They have become a badge of compliance in and in some cases control.
In our Stake the mantra is obedience with exactness and you must march to that drumbeat. So, no matter who sends a directive, Area Authority, First Presidency, it will be obeyed. Not for me.
I cannot attend church under these conditions. Besides, for me the measures, placed here, in the U.K. by our government are draconian and do not follow the science.
Our ward met together for the first time today. We had our temperatures taken at the door. The limit was 37.5, but the girl in front of us tested 37.9 and got in. My family wore masks. Those handling the sacrament wore masks most of the time, and perhaps another 6 people.
I would have appreciated instruction from on high that masks be worn, as we also sang 3 hymns.
None of the bishopric wore masks.
Luckily we live in Queensland and have not had a new case for 4 weeks, although doing 8000 tests a day, and a total of 6 deaths.
I understand that for some people wearing a mask is very difficult for various reasons. They could, of course, wear shields.
Otherwise, If there is any possibility that wearing a mask might protect either myself or someone else then why on earth would I not put my own preferences aside and choose to take action that could protect someone . I’m not sure I need proof for the small inconvenience it poses to me.
Last year I recieved an unsolicited letter of apology in the mail from my local Catholic diocese. I am unsure why i was on their mailing list. Nevertheless in a 2 page letter they asked for forgiveness for the scandals and incidences which have occurred. It was truly apoligetic and in the Christian spirit.
Since then i have seen several LDS blogs wondering where is the letter that the 1st presidency never sent on the multitude of controversial and even noncontroversial topics.
This is another addition to the lost opportunity of unsent letters. It seems that the Q15 are frozen about decision making
about current topics; they just remain silent. They spend their pulpit time on their personal pet topics that are less relevant in todays world.
This is the opposite of true leadership in moments of crisis.
Frankly this is another area where there’s been little leadership. The church has missed opportunities to modernize missionary work, women and the priesthood, technology in routine meetings, and mask wearing. For the life of me I still can’t figure out why it took months to broadcast meetings and allow Sacrament in our own homes.
I went to church last week according to our split alphabet schedule. I live in Salt Lake. There were about 45 people there all wearing masks. The bishop announced that as of Oct 25 the whole ward would start meeting together. He was very bright and upbeat about it. I was thinking about the reports I had been hearing about the sharp rise of Covid cases in Utah. That trend continues to rise. One local hospital is at 104% of ICU bed occupancy. The governor has updated mask requirements, though without a mandate. I cannot understand why the church is relaxing rules while the virus is increasing locally. I do not plan to attend in person again until we see s decline in cases. It seems irresponsible to me. I know we are tired of sheltering, but a virus is not a respector of persons.
I’m in Utah County. I don’t know if a letter like this would have made much difference to the anti-maskers. These are some of the same people who think BYU is a liberal / socialist bastion. Just as the left can be rightfully accused of ignoring the church when it comes to social issues like gay marriage, the right ignores the church when it comes to social issues like immigration and masks. We are equal opportunity cafeteria Mormons, the left just tends to own that more readily.
Agree with Toad on a total lack of leadership and creativity in dealing with this, and agree that for heavens sake it’s time to spend some of that 100B on professional cleaners.
Our ward started going back every week for 1 hour sacrament meeting. In its defense, masks are required, no singing, social distancing (but they aren’t capping attendance so not sure how that’s going to work), and lots of rules and procedures for sacrament. It’s about as safe as you could make it. Personally I think our local leadership wouldn’t be going back but the area presidency is requiring it. Initially, though, my ward was very much “don’t come if you don’t feel comfortable, no pressure” but they’re now asking my deacon to come unless he’s sick.
I think it’s irresponsible. It’s strange to me that during a time when cases are at all-time highs in the area we are plowing ahead with in-person meetings? I think the decision to start back was made when cases were on the decline and they haven’t adapted to changing circumstances. I think there’s also some growing sense of threat to religious freedom (people citing that Bednar talk) which is absurd in Utah.
We won’t be going – our kids are back in school at least part-time and I view that as our most essential activity, so we are trying to minimize outside activities as much as possible so that we don’t contribute to any spread within schools. The last thing we want to do is get our kids’ teachers sick. A lot of people in our ward (not us) are sending their kids to a private school that doesn’t require masks, so I don’t really want to sit in a room with that group for an hour. I worry that with everyone going back to church in Utah County that will impact schools. And, sorry everyone, in-person school for young children is much more important than in-person sacrament meeting, especially when most people are able to do sacrament at home.
Such a letter would be nice, but as others have noted, likely not terribly effective. In my opinion, a lot of the resistance to masks is about fear; people are so afraid to acknowledge the reality of the virus and its deadly effects. The aggressive, sometimes violent responses by non-mask wearers to me reads as a response based on fear, rather than a championing of freedom/personal liberty. Ironically (and tragically), many of the true believers in the church that I’ve gotten to know and talk to (I don’t want to generalize) seem to be motivated by fear rather than faith; fear of liberal politics, fear of LGBTQ people, fear of the status quo being in any way upset, fear of the world going to hell, etc. And since the church itself often fuels that fear with its rhetoric, it makes perfect sense that some of its members would respond to mask-wearing mandates with fear and anger rather than with other emotions.
Great Post! If that letter were ever sent out , this would be my first thought–“Thank goodness, maybe they really do follow Christ.”
Geoff Aus writes “Luckily we live in Queensland and have not had a new case for 4 weeks, although doing 8000 tests a day, and a total of 6 deaths.”
As you’ve elaborated on this strategy in other posts, it seems like a kick the can strategy at best. From what science has taught me, we could put every person in a personal life pod for weeks or months at a time, but if one single, asymptomatic, immuno-compromised person has the disease, it will mutate and fester inside them that entire time, possibly becoming another strain entirely. Once we’re all released from our pods, the cycle will start again. So unless you plan on first eliminating the very people you’re trying to save (I don’t recommend it), you may have to repeat this strategy. I’m curious as to how many times Australia will repeat this strategy before concluding the “cure” was worse than the disease. Some of the most anti virus response videos I’ve seen have come out of Australia, so I’m also curious as to whether they’re as divided as we are here.
Our own Utah County ward resumed Church regularly last week. First half of alphabet last week, second half this week, with the option of joining via zoom each time. We will not be going for a couple of reasons. For one, the restrictions are enough in number that it pretty much removes the socialization of what in large part makes Church so enjoyable in the first place, so whether you’re there in person or at home makes almost no difference. Additionally, a small part of me does find many of the restrictions somewhat ridiculous, and would rather stay home than participate in them. Our Bishop didn’t even really want to resume meetings (he was a little coy on whether this was because of the virus itself or the reaction to the virus, but hinted the latter), but the council concluded it was necessary for those families that cannot regularly receive the Sacrament.
On the other hand, my brother-in-law is on the ward council in his Salt Lake County ward. His Bishop said thay all need to lead by example in returning to Church or they would probably be released from their callings. Regardless of how I feel about the virus, that didn’t feel like a proper strategy either.
I’m glad the Church hasn’t mandated, but I’ll comply if they do. I’d like to think I have enough faith to know that blessings will come from the act of obedience, if little benefit comes from the act itself. And where I’d have concerns in doing so, I’d like to think the Lord would provide a way to address those as well.
I’ve probably said my piece on this in other posts, but in gathering all the data I have and in weighing it out, it just seems like we’re going about this the wrong way. Many are blaming Utah county for recent rises, but I’ve generally seen proper mask wearing where it would remotely make sense to do so.
In comparing to other countries and many studies I’ve read of, I’m starting to feel our high cases are due less to bad leadership and more due to the idea that this is more of a 1st world disease, in the sense that it’s exacerbated by the lifestyle we live; lack of sunlight, obesity, diet, among other things. Fall will not help with this.
On a final note, I do find W&T’s somewhat repeated theme of wishing Church leaders would come right out and say it both ironic and a bit hypocritical. Authors have no problem differing with the Church on a number of issues, hint that others are “sheeple” for not doing the same, and do so without recognizing others have likely already done some critical thinking themselves even if in agreement with the Church. The implication is if the Church just comes out and says it, critical thinking can go by the wayside. It’s condescending rhetoric at best.
And as far as rhetoric goes, I’d also like to see that improve here and elsewhere. I don’t walk up to certain people and start out by saying “You want to watch more kids starve and get abducted for a virus you have a 99.6 chance of surviving, how selfish and crazy are you? Do you hate kids?” so It would be nice not to see others come right out and ask if I want people to die and don’t follow the Savior because I disagree with the way things have been handled.
@Eli The point IS to kick the can down the road until a vaccine is in place. In Australia and New Zealand they have found ways to minimize the impact of the virus until that day comes.
Legitimate concerns about long term health consequences of this virus–possibilities of lung scarring in otherwise healthy individuals, chronic fatigue syndrome, and other irreversible conditions with lifelong implications–should give us all pause. With a novel virus we really must err on the side of caution. Viruses can lie dormant within a body and later cause serious problems. Shingles and post polio syndrome are two examples of this phenomenon.
I’m not a virologist or epidemiologist, but I’m willing to respect their expertise, listen to the prevailing concerns they hold, and follow their lead on how to get ourselves out of this situation.
It is ironic that many who claim that want the economy to open and minimize economic damage at the same time seem the most resistant to simple efforts that will help to achieve these ends
That letter has zero chance of being written with the scientifically literate 1st presidency that we currently have. There is very little evidence that mask wearing is the panacea that many people have been lead to believe that it is. However, many let unreliable outlets cherry pick scientific studies or pronouncements that point a little in that direction. Dr. Nelson was trained in an era before much of the scientific community became corrupted and knows from long practice and research the benefits and limitations of mask wearing.
On the other hand, social distancing seems to have much stronger evidence of success in reducing the spread of Covid. Packing the church or temple to capacity with members is not the best outcome for everyone’s health in areas with high incidence of the virus.
I’m in a Spanish-speaking ward in Salt Lake County. If that were read there would be no issue. So go ahead and issue the Damn statement already, FP.
El oso comes on here and tells us the earth is flat. The US has suffered as much as it has from the pandemic so much because of conspiracists like you. Now go cry ad hominem to momma.
At least one ward (perhaps more) in Hawaii is not singing but only listening to the organist.
Madi writes “I’m not a virologist or epidemiologist, but I’m willing to respect their expertise, listen to the prevailing concerns they hold, and follow their lead on how to get ourselves out of this situation.”
I honestly understand where you’re coming from on this, but there are many stereotypes of scientists that have rung true to me during this pandemic (some of which I meet myself given some of my academic background). Most of these scientists make no indication of looking beyond the diseases they’re studying and how they directly affect human beings. Rarely a thought is given as to how combating the disease can also be a problem in and of itself. I do think it’s placing all your eggs in one basket. I’m trying to get data from a variety of sources, and while others may accuse me of cherry picking, my goal is ultimately to harvest the entire tree or orchard. I will always leave open the option of changing my mind. There are legitimate health concerns for healthy people, same as other common viruses.
I do understand the “delaying until a vaccine” argument, but from what I’ve read, we are as unlikely to be successful in eradicating it as we have been with the flu and the flu vaccine, since mutation seems likely in both.
I understand where you’re coming from on the economy as well. Many just don’t feel the measures we’re taking to open up go far enough. I think there’s a chicken/egg scenario at play as well. We start to open up and cases go up. One side blames the anti-lockdown and anti-mask crowd as anti-science troublemakers who are ruining it for everyone else. On the other side, people watch other cities actually take the utmost caution, and still have cases keep going up, making them wonder if pro lockdown and pro maskers understood the science of the virus spreading to begin with, and implemented a strategy that not only did not work, but brought side effects that simply weren’t worth it. Reality is probably more nuanced.
I’ve said similarly on other posts, but based on the data I’ve gathered and weighed out, I don’t think the approach we’re taking is the correct one. I understand others feel differently. Although I think it may be a selfish act to believe and act differently than me, I will not think you are inherently selfish. It would be nice to see others offer the same courtesy.
“The science doesn’t favor masks.” “Science has been corrupted.” “The UK hasn’t been following the science.”
Seriously? This is nothing more than conspiracism. Study after study published by the leading experts in a variety of scientific fields has shown the efficacy of masks. Government policy around the world, with the notable exception of Trump’s policies, has been based on the studies and findings of the leading public health experts and leading epidemiologists. And the prevailing attitudes towards masks aren’t scientific? You anti-mask clowns are anti-science. You rely on the unchecked opinions of fringe figures who have no standing or reputation in the scientific community. You say that they practice the real science. Nonsense. These guys have no real allies. They could never publish or think on a level that could command the respect of other experts. So they fool and dupe the uninformed masses and claim there is a conspiracy against them. And you’re losing your precious freedom because of masks and government intervention. This a cry for fake freedom. It is a bad distraction. Real freedom is freedom from the coronavirus.
Eli, When the numbers are low and an infection is detected, if you trace everyone that person has been in contact with within 24 hours, and test them all. You can keep things under control and everyone else stays as normal as pre covid. The can is picked up, not kicked down the road. So our states are each doing that, and we open borders with other states that have the virus under control. Part of universal healthcare is having contract tracing, it is part of the preventative/proactive part of the system, not sure who could do that in your system.
One state has had an outbreak, and has had a hard lockdown for 2 months, and got it back under control 4 new cases each last 4 days, all contract traced, so restrictions are being eased. Their hard lockdown included, closing schools, no gatherings of people, no travel more than 5k from home. Masks when outside. This in a state of 6.4 million people.
It appears America has had an ineffective soft lockdown which slowed the first wave, but then before it was to a point where you could trace the contacts of each positive case within 24 hours, you opened up and lost control. Who would do contact tracing in your system anyway?
It is interesting that conservative governments in Australia were pushing to open up before the scientists were ready. Conservatives value the economy, the left value saving lives, and then opening up when the life saving is under control. The less conservative approach seems to work better, as we have community transmission under control, and the economy has returned to normal, except for international travel. My state has the great barrier reef and gold coast which are big tourist areas, whale watching, turtle hatcheries, the best beaches in the world, and the outback. Australians are traveling within Aus and NZ and even tourism is returning.
America being more conservative than our conservatives, is an example of the consequences of opening up before you have control, and so prolonging the problem. Having been in soft lockdown for so long, it would be hard to convince people to take on a hard lockdown for 2 months to get to Australias position. Especially as science and truth are so badly undermined, and having conservative media v mainstream media, how would you unite the community in such an effort? Our media says a vaccine that has been proven safe, and effective is 9 to 12 months away, so America is in a mess. Not sure what can be done even if Trump goes?
I would not be going to church in America unless there was no singing, and everyone was wearing masks. Probably not then. Did the example of the conference, with everyone masked except when speaking not register?
I’m glad you raised this because I’ve been perplexed as to why they don’t make a strong statement on masks. Wearing masks themselves just isn’t getting the message across. For a group of people who can adhere to the WoW (like seriously – tea and coffee?) you’d think masks would be a breeze to ask for? Where I reside there are pretty strong requirements to wear masks but I’m concerned for my family – and frankly that includes humanity in general.
I suspect they wouldn’t send such a letter because they understand that Trump has turned acknowledgement of the seriousness of the virus into a political issue, and they know that many of the most reliable Mormons who happily magnify all their callings and pay all their tithing are deeply indoctrinated into the cult of Trump. Therefore, such people will resist wearing a mask, because to them it’s being forced to wear something that shows they disbelieve their beloved president. It’s effectively telling them that they have to wear a sign that says “I blame Trump for the coronavirus.” To avoid chasing such people away, I think the FP chooses not to be so explicit.
While I understand the point, they ARE allowing individual stakes to follow their local ordinances and guidance and, I can see why . I live 20
Minutes, in traffic, from NIH. Many in my stake and indeed people in my ward, work with Fauci and that division of NIH. Fauci said a couple months ago that the virus is not the same in all areas and all areas need not have identical restrictions in place at the same time. He used a red, yellow and green light analogy when assessing guidelines locally . Including a return to school being appropriate in some places in the country. So in my county in MD, we are adhering to our very strict county guidelines, based on how transmission rates are here, pews are liberally blocked off,More than 6 feet apart, we have an alphabetical split every other Sunday, hallways are blocked and only one door is open, a box of disposable masks and sanitizer are on a table upon entry, only one bathroom open along with a laminated instruction sheet and cleaning materials should one have to use the facilities during the one hour we’re there .. absolutely no signing, just organ playing and only one adult priesthood member blessing both parts of Sacrament. Everyone in masks. I think this is an issue the church is communicating down the chain and respecting local and global guidelines on so, what good would an FP letter really do?
“ Just as the left can be rightfully accused of ignoring the church when it comes to social issues like gay marriage, the right ignores the church when it comes to social issues like immigration and masks. We are equal opportunity cafeteria Mormons, the left just tends to own that more readily.”
Including this in her opening paragraph detracted from Elisa’s comment.
It is an example of false equivalences. The consistent element in the common stance samong people who think progressively is basing the opinions on enduring truths – science (mask wearing, recognizing that homosexual attraction is science-based, global warming is a major threat), social justice (OT, NT, BOM: all promote social justice), and taking a long, broad view of the effects such policies will have, and, thus, how they will be recognized by future generations looking back to our day.
Today’s church policies can be like polygamy, racism, evolution, misogyny, age of the earth, . . . or they could move us forward. (I don’t find it talked about enough, but another looming threat is wealth disparity and income inequality: the upward redistribution of wealth ($50 trillion) hurts everyone’s ability to provide for themselves and raise a family. Unequal opportunity is such a sad waste of human capital.)(There is that D&C scripture, “there is enough, and to spare”, applied during the seventies to rationalize large families. It can only be true when commodities are equitably distributed.)
TIME: The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%—And That’s Made the U.S. Less Secure
https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/?amp=true
Business Insider: The wealthiest 1% has taken $50 trillion from working Americans and redistributed it, a new study finds. Here’s what that means.
https://www.businessinsider.com/wealthiest-1-percent-stole-50-trillion-working-americans-what-means-2020-9?amp
@Sasso not sure I understand the criticism of my comment? I agree with you that progressives are actually on the better side of the debate and have a lot of support in science and scripture. My point was simply that although conservatives like to pretend that they always follow the prophet and progressives don’t, that’s not really true, so sending a letter about masks wouldn’t move many of the conservative anti-maskers.
Geoff-Aus writes “Conservatives value the economy, the left value saving lives . . .”
I genuinely appreciate your response. Statements like these, however, strike me as somewhat dismissive and out of touch. It’s something I’ve reluctantly come to expect from those on the left.
I think we had a similar conversation months ago (and I could probably echo the same broken record sentiment you did on another post), but as one who is definitely more conservative, this has never been a matter of economy vs. lives. It’s been a matter of lives.
While still recognizing this virus is more deadly than the flu, it’s not as deadly as we thought it was. Older people and those with pre-existing conditions are the most at risk for this. Efforts can and need to be in place to protect them. It’s also undisputed that suicides have gone up since this started. I know suicide is a choice, but I think it’s a choice many should not have had to make. I know plenty of older people who are taking precautions and would want me to take precautions around them, which I’d respect . None of them, that I know of so far, feels that any of what we’re doing is worth a father of four taking his own life and letting his kids grow up without a father, essentially destroying their LIVES. None of it is worth the increase in child trafficking. None of it is worth the increased child starvation in third world countries. None of it is worth enabling certain criminal practices. There have been immediate consequences from this. Others will remain unseen for some time.
I do see room for compromise in certain areas. I listen closely to many of my friends in the medical world. They’re also many of the very people recognizing the need to look outside of medicine, and take in a bigger picture. Again, I’m open to changing my mind, but think the approach of many governments thus far has been nearsighted, at best.
” Did the example of the conference, with everyone masked except when speaking not register?”
You don’t think it would have anything to do with the fact that around 95% of those speaking belonged to one of the most at-risk groups for the virus?
I think all of those ill effects Eli mentioned, plus more, can be attributed to the uneven wealth distribution and income inequality that results from conservative policy.
The pandemic revealed who the essential workers are throughout the country and world: besides respiratory therapists, nurses and doctors, it’s those who work to keep the hospitals clean, it’s our grocery store workers, its those who grow and process our food (some are undocumented), it’s those who deliver our mail, it’s our truckers, it’s our teachers, it’s those who manufacture PPE and other necessary equipment.
Few of our essential workers earn a comfortable living. Many live in subsistence circumstances.
Conservatives used to espouse (or claim to) people working as a means to support themselves. They’ve grossly reduced the effectiveness of that, and still blame those with lower incomes for their situations. He’s blowing smoke, fiddling with mirrors.
Not to nitpick, but I don’t think most people who support LGBT rights do so because homosexuality is science-based. They do so because it’s a human rights issue, and they did so before the (relatively recent) scientific consensus on the issue.
Dylan
Good point! Thank you for pointing that out.
Another way of presenting the inequality is that in 1970 the top 1% had 10% of the income and wealth. Now the top 1% have 50%, and the top 10% have 70%, leaving 30% for 90%.
This is the worst inequality in the first world, and reduces productivity, and other economic efficiencies.
It would require a lot of redistribution in the other direction, both in money and services, to get back to an equitable situation. Trump is still trying to move money to the rich, so it is up to the democrats. How can republican voters earning less than $400,000 justify continuing redistributing income to those who already have too much? For that matter how can anyone justify it? At least in Australia our minimum wage is $21/hour, and our tax threshold is $19,200.
Eli, Why is Trump continually calling for democrat governors to open up their economies, If it is not a different valuing of life v the economy? This is a common theme from the right in Australia too. The figures above show that he values the wealthy more than the other 90%. Do you have thoughts on wealth distribution?
Geoff-Aus writes “Eli, Why is Trump continually calling for democrat governors to open up their economies, If it is not a different valuing of life v the economy? This is a common theme from the right in Australia too. The figures above show that he values the wealthy more than the other 90%. Do you have thoughts on wealth distribution?”
Trump is enough of a loose cannon that I wouldn’t envy anyone who tried to ascertain exactly what he’s thinking. As far as others asking to see economies open in democratic states, it still comes down to the long-term effects of what’s going on. We can choose just to look at the immediate and long term effects of the disease on people, or we can choose to look at both the effects of the disease on people and the long term effects of combating the disease. Doing the latter requires looking beyond medical science, but placing no less of an emphasis on life, the lives of our posterity, and making the world we live in worth living for. Many have looked at the data, crunched the numbers, and have concluded the democratic states are not taking the best approach or are not properly crunching the numbers they have. My own conclusion (again open to changing my mind) has been that fully reopening for those who have little or no risk to the disease is, in the end, the most compassionate thing to do for all involved and the most likely long term saver of lives. I understand your conclusion may be different.
I’ve derailed this thread way too much already, but as far as wealth distribution is concerned, I would love to see poverty erased as much as anybody. I simply disagree with many as to how to go about it. I do not think it should be the role of government to redistribute wealth. Morally, I don’t feel it’s much better than stealing. I also feel there are very few things the government can do for the poor that small business or religion can’t do better. I like to ask myself who knows more about the struggling family down the street. Is it me, or a system of government application and bureaucracy? If I answered the latter, I’m failing as a human being (and yes, I can do better). I’m extremely hopeful, if not outright confident, that we can get poverty erased, but it will be hard to get others used to the idea that they can’t just sit around while legislation takes from one and gives to another. We all have to be willing to do something about it individually.
Sasso writes “He’s blowing smoke, fiddling with mirrors.”
I’m sincere in my beliefs and arguments, but you’re welcome to think otherwise.
Eli – I agree that it is hard to muster justification for government redistributing the wealth. The reality is that it already has and continues to do so. The top 10% owning 70% of the wealth is not solely due to gumption and innovation. It is due largely to a tax and regulatory environment that helps the rich get richer.
I have an upper-middle-class income – I’m not looking to grab more. But as Geoff points out, it’s nearly impossible for the “not upper 10%” to be expected to bear the burden of a more level playing field or better access to health care, schooling, etc. in the richest country on the planet.
I get it when Trump says that he’s not breaking the law when he has to pay virtually no income taxes. Seems that represents a problem with the objectives of the tax system and those who create those laws.
Wealth redistribution has been happening for decades – it is upward redistribution. The Business Insider and TIME links refer to a study showing government policies have redistributed $50 trillion dollars upward.
An example is the $1.7 Trillion tax cut the Republicans passed in 2017, grossly benefitting corporations and ultra wealthy individuals. All Republicans in Congress voted for it.
-Wealth disparity was already enormous.
-Small tax cuts for working people were temporary.
-Progressive predictions about how corporations would use their tax cuts to buy back their own stock were correct.
-Republican promises of how it would stimulate the economy and pay for itself did not materialize.
Shortly after the tax cut, Republicans started talking about cutting Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare to balance the budget.
I agree that wealth distribution isn’t a new thing. I still don’t think that makes it right.
Sasso writes: “Wealth redistribution has been happening for decades – it is upward redistribution. The Business Insider and TIME links refer to a study showing government policies have redistributed $50 trillion dollars upward.”
So do you think more government regulation is the answer? I think it would be naive to say Republican laws and policies alone are truly to blame for this. Truth be told, I see few difference in both parties in these regards. Plenty of politicians on both sides are profiting right now.
How many poor people or organizations have ever given you a job? Is it generally the richer folks who hire others? If more money is their primary objective (I think studies show this isn’t always the case), would they be more inclined to make it by hiring more people to produce that wealth if that money to hire wasn’t taxed first? I realize there are plenty of loopholes out there, but I think taxing the rich often trickles down to payment at the expense of the employee or customer.
I’m doubtful we’ll convince each other one way or another but I’ll continue to ponder some of the points brought up. Ultimately, I don’t think the government should or will be the primary solution to ending poverty.
As a professional bookkeeper with clients who use shell companies to make millions of net income and pay zero in taxes, I can say with some authority that it makes no difference to their hiring practices. It likely effects their spending habits though. One less trip to Europe or maybe skip the new BMW or 3rd Beach house this year. But that’s about it. I handle some of my clients biz and personal accounting and have so many crazy stories that those darned NDAs won’t let me tell…
Eli, On the virus I am in a situation where the virus is contained, where there has not been a positive for over a month, where there are no restrictions(except on overseas travel), where work has returned to normal. If you had a leader who did not undermine the science because he knew better, perhaps you could be in that situation too. Are the long term effects greater with the US system or the Australian system?
This idea that governments should not distribute money is an idea only heard from the right in America, where republicans distributes the money from the poor to the wealthy. Everywhere else that is one of the main responsibilities of government.
There is a direct correlation between financial inequality, and happiness.
It is rediculous to claim republican and democrats have similar policies. Republicans more redistribution toward rich. Democrats, $6000 tax credit for every family under $150,000, and tax increases for those over $400,000. And their attitude is to help improve the financial situation of the majority who are under $400,000, and make the wealthy pay their share.
Lehcargt, above should make anyone on the right reconsider.
Goff-Aus writes “Are the long term effects greater with the US system or the Australian system?”
I suppose time will be our biggest indicator.
” Everywhere else that is one of the main responsibilities of government.”
Ah, if most everyone else does it, that makes it right. Got it.
“It is rediculous to claim republican and democrats have similar policies.”
Forgive me, I meant to refer to the politicians themselves. Yes, policies are very different, but minus a few good guys on both sides, I think there’s corruption on both sides. I do think Republicans could practice their policies a little more though. I once heard an Independent state “The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans will take two weeks longer to become socialists.” There is a bit of hyperbole there, but I can see his point.
I’m amazed at how often two different people can cite or look at numbers and come to two different conclusions, but the points are taken. Thank you, and others, for bringing them up.
This thread has veered from the main topic but issues have been raised which need addressing.
That the wealthiest are job creators is unfortunately a myth that is repeated so frequently that it becomes difficult to question its veracity. Many policies which favor the wealthiest have the effect of destroying jobs and stifling innovation.
When unemployment numbers in the US drop below a certain threshold the Federal Reserve adjusts interest rates in an effort to keep inflation in check. The wealthiest benefit the most from monetary policy which controls inflation (a laborer with a mortgage can actually benefit from inflation if it is accompanied by increased wages. A retiree on a fixed income benefits from controlling inflation. This is a complex topic but it’s important to look at the big picture that the overall result of this monetary policy is that the rich get richer.). The wealthiest also benefit from the monetary policy that keeps wages suppressed which is what results from this interest rate manipulation.
When corporations control a monopolistic share of a given market, innovation suffers. Monopolistic corporations are known to purchase innovative startups with the potential to disrupt their market in order to crush the startup. Sometimes rather than purchase the disruptive startup they use other methods to destroy the competitor while their power differential is still great enough to do so.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
No one claims government is perfect, but it actually is what the Constitution is all about. The checks and balances are intended to regulate its power, creating a democratic republic for people of the U.S. There are built-in failsafes to root out corruption. [VOTE!]
Big business has a poor history of caring for anything or anyone beyond profits. One example is swill milk. During the early to mid 1800s, bringing fresh milk from farms into large cities was difficult. Distilleries answered the problem by placing dairies next to their whiskey production. Steaming hot swill (alcohol byproducts) was directed down chutes to feed the cows held in tight conditions. The cows quickly became diseased from their hooves to their mouths. The milk they produced was bluish and filled with pus. The business owners added plaster of Paris (to whiten it), starch and eggs (to thicken it), and sold it as pure milk.
Frank Leslie a NYC newspaper owner, sent his journalists to investigate, and in 1858, Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper ran an exposé of their findings. It is estimated that up to 8,000 babies died every year in many large cities from drinking this vile product.
One toxic combination for corruption is wealthy businesses owners creating secret combinations with government officials. Citizens United increased the avenue for dishonest government. Such collaborations factored in for it to take years before swill milk was banned in New York. (Since 1906 our food supply is regulated by the FDA.)
All told, government is a better tool for widespread regulation than depending on the good will of corporations and business owners. The Free Press and informed voters play vital roles.
Sasso, all very good points, and you listed some of the few areas where small business and religion really couldn’t take the place of government or do any better. I also have absolutely no issues with informed voters needing to step up to the plate.
Madi writes “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
This is as much or more true with the government as it is any corporation.
The government has a system of checks and balances. Do corporations? The recent opioid scandal with the Sackler family and Purdue Pharma shows that, unrestrained, corporations will seek money regardless of the cost to consumers. They manipulated government entities to achieve their ends, but the solution is clearly not less government but better government.
Elizabeth Warren was instrumental in bringing forward the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which the GOP has worked hard to weaken. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Nordic countries have found ways to protect individuals from the unrestrained power of both corporations and governments. We can as well.
It’s naive to think that if we eliminate our government we will all just happily govern ourselves. Dictators seek power vacuums and if we create a power vacuum in the US we will be vulnerable to dictators seeking absolute control.
From Theodore Roosevelt:
“There once was a time in history when the limitation of governmental power meant increasing liberty for the people. In the present day the limitation of governmental power, of governmental action, means the enslavement of the people by the great corporations who can only be held in check through the extension of governmental power.”
His entire speech is worth reading.
Madi writes “It’s naive to think that if we eliminate our government we will all just happily govern ourselves.”
I don’ t think I ever made that case. It has to be able protect the rights of the individual, and has to exist in order to do that. I do have some libertarian leanings, but they do lose me in a few areas in which I think that vacuum you speak of becomes very real. We probably differ as to the extent of it, however. I do think the government, mainly the federal government, could be much smaller and stay very functional.
I agree that corporations can become too powerful. The optimist in me feels that grassroots consumer groups can have a bigger impact than we realize. And often, it’s government officials that are benefiting from the large corporations, so that they’re part of the problem. Personally, I’d love to see a form a guilds make a comeback and replace much of the corporate mentality. But I also wouldn’t be too quick to condemn corporations. The one I belong to regularly organizes blood drives, does habitat for humanity, regularly donates to shelters and first responders, and encourages its employees to do the same, often matching our individual efforts. In fact, the only other organization I’ve belonged to that does more good with greater efficiency than most government organizations is the Church.
Having lived in one of the Nordic Countries, I’ll say that while they do get some things right, my appreciation for the United States only increased while living there, mainly in the Big Brother sense.
Although not a fan of all his policies, I am a fan of Roosevelt as a historical figure. I did look up and read the speech you mentioned. Thank you.