| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Stealing. The Seventh Commandment | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sunday, 24. October 2010, 21:42 (486 Views) | |
| Rose of York | Sunday, 24. October 2010, 21:42 Post #1 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Is stealing ever justifiable? Are there circumstances in which taxation is theft? |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Peter | Monday, 25. October 2010, 07:16 Post #2 |
|
I would like to make the point that this is just a personal view which I believe to be a morally justifiable in certain circumstances, however, I don't say it is right. Whilst I won't tolerate dishonesty from people who steal as a career choice from people no better (or even worse) off than themselves, sometimes necessity and desperation play a part in determining a person's actions. The Tesco juggernault, Waltmart and the rest of the big supermarket chains continually bulldoze through our country destroying everything in their wake. Small businesses go to the wall, people are thrown out of work and then these companies hold us all to ransom with higher prices, less choice etc. Adults and children in the third world countries work in appalling slave labour conditions to supply cheap clothing to these giant supermarkets and their lives are expendable as a result. The shopping experience that might have seemed so inviting once upon a time originally now becomes a nightmare. I believe a case could be argued on behalf of some that have lost businesses in the above circumstances. Taxation is theft on behalf of the goverment and occurs on lots of occasions. When a government take us into an illegal war, for instance - like Iraq, we are paying through the tax system for the continuation of genocide against, for the most part, innocent civilians and for me that is immoral and a mis-use of tax payer's money. On a much lighter note, Mrs Thatcher celebrated her 85th birthday recently and although she wasn't able to attend the Downing Street party in her honour, it still went ahead - funded by us, the tax payer. Mrs Thatcher divided the country between the have's and have not's more than any other British political leader of the 20th century so why honour her with tax payers money especially when the cuts have just been announced? In between those two extreme examples there are many other instances of theft by taxation on the part of successive governments. I rest my case! Edited by Peter, Monday, 25. October 2010, 07:19.
|
![]() |
|
| Alpac | Monday, 25. October 2010, 09:00 Post #3 |
|
Question 1. Yes I believe that there are circumstances when a person may be entitled to take something which does not legally belong to them. The old cliché of a starving person taking a loaf of bread comes to mind but I suggest that we all take something which we do not legally own every day, the air we breathe. This brings me to question 2. If the government were to introduce a tax to pay for air purification would we be obliged to pay that, after all does the government own the air we breathe? In a similar vein the government introduced, back in the 50's I think it was, a clean air bill. The benefits of this for those who live in cities are obvious and some might hail the legislation as the first step to halt global warning. The difficulty is that in order to comply with the act companies had to pay for filters, alter production methods and all in all incur a cost both financial and indirectly in employment for the newer cleaner methods were generally less labour intensive. With the rise in demand for "Action on Climate Change" I foresee an increase in indirect taxation for the air we breathe if I don't pay will I be required to stop breathing or would I be justified in "Stealing" the air I breath from law abiding tax payers? |
![]() |
|
| tomais | Monday, 25. October 2010, 11:54 Post #4 |
|
Peter makes many valid points. |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Monday, 25. October 2010, 12:41 Post #5 |
|
Yes - the penniless mother taking food to save her starving children scenario for one example.
Somebody can certainly steal the tax raised - dictators siphoning tax into Swiss bank accounts are at one extreme and MP's fiddling expenses are at the other - but I don't see how tax raising itself can be classed as theft; there are other things that Governments can be accused of - sheer bad management of other people's money is one example - but I don't think they can be accused of stealing from the people. |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Monday, 25. October 2010, 13:00 Post #6 |
|
No offence, Peter, but that's a load of nonsensical hyperbole. Supermarket chains don't "bulldoze" their way through the country, they are subject to planning conditions that are at least as tight as and probably tighter than most other businesses.
It's not the supermarkets who decide if a particular business survives or not, it's the customers who vote with their feet. I've seen lots of small businesses survive and new ones spring up around supermarkets, the ones I have seen going to the wall are the ones who generally don't run their business in an effective way e.g. marketing into a niche rather than trying to compete directly with the big guys.
From what I have seen, the large supermarkets usually create net extra jobs.
Can you give a single example of a large supermarket raising prices and reducing choice?
Can you give a single example of a major supermarket knowingly employing such slave labour?
If it's such a nightmare, why aren't droves of people would be abandoning it and going back to the smaller shops? It strikes me as somehow incongruous that we complain about the recent government cuts and their impact on the poor as has been going on in another thread yet we condemn the supermarkets who do so much to increase choice an reduce prices and without whom a lot more people would struggle to put food on the table |
![]() |
|
| Derekap | Monday, 25. October 2010, 15:17 Post #7 |
|
In order to compete with supermarkets a family business may have to work daily from 6am to 11pm, whereas staff in a supermarket may work a maximum of 8 hours a day for a five day week or less if they are part-time workers. In a supermarket there are dedicated staff for all the jobs whereas in a family business everything has to be done by the family alongside their household duties. The latter worked reasonably well, for example, in large immigrant families in the ice-cream businesses run by Italians. A different point, I don't approve of virtual child slavery but at least they are earning something for themselves and/or their family. If we boycott the goods they make there may be no alternative and they starve. The governments in their countries should improve the situations. |
| Derekap | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Monday, 25. October 2010, 16:45 Post #8 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Morally the use of taxes to pay the interest and capital elements of mortgages on large expensive second homes for Members of Parliament was theft. There was no limit on the size or cost of property eligible. Inland Revenue sets a limit on the amount tax deductible by persons travelling away from home in connection with work or business. Parliament permitted the sale of one property, the proceeds being kept by the individual, and a bigger property being bought on yet another mortgage. The system was legal but in my opinion, immoral. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Monday, 25. October 2010, 17:14 Post #9 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Supermarkets do bulldoze but not physically. They have the buying power, and they tell the farmers what they will pay for crops. Normal business practice is for the seller to quote a price, and the buyer to accept. The farmer who will not accept the price offered by the supermarkets goes under. My friend had teams of people harvesting and packing crops on one of the biggest farms in Lincolnshire. When the supermarket told the farm what they would pay, the farm had to reduce the price paid per hour to my friend, with which he paid his workers and provided portakabin shelters, mini bus travel, wet weather clothing. That resulted in my friend being unable to have any profit for himself and his family. He went bankrupt and lost his home. Farmer get less per litre of milk than it costs to produce. It is common for farmers to encourage their children not to follow in their footsteps. The farmer retires or dies, the farm is put up for auction. Many farmers apply for planning permission to build houses on part of their land, just to keep their heads above water. According to grocery trade magazines when I was in that business over twenty years ago, for every two jobs created in supermarkets, three other jobs were lost. The drivers who used to deliver to small shops are no longer needed. One bread delivery van offloads its total load at one location, the supermarket. One other van takes hours to visit many shops and cafes. Cash and Carry warehouses downsize or close down. In the supermarket the customer does the work, taking goods off the shelf. The ratio of staff to volume of goods sold is lower in supermarkets than independents.
A newly opened supermarket will sell food, non food goods and petrol at knock down prices until it has gained the customers from independents, then they make fewer special offers.
A few years ago there was a row about Tesco selling jeans, made in third world countries, for £4. It turned out they were produced by slave labour. A large retailer has a moral responsibility to check on how the goods are produced.
Simple. In most residential areas it is no longer possible to walk down the street to a parade of shops where everything can be bought. A typical large village that used to have a dozen shops is lucky now to have a post office cum general store. Wholesalers pay more for goods than supermarkets pay. Wholesalers need to add their profit on the price they charge the retailer, who has to add a further markup. That makes most independents unviable. Supermarket shopping is a nightmare for people with mobility problems. They can get everything under one roof, that can involve a half mile walk round the store.
Yes they sell at low prices, at a cost to their suppliers and their workforce, farmers, rural economy, and even the estate agencies which are gradually being taken over by supermarkets. I understand rural life and have experience as a retailer. We closed our shop because we did not want to end up running at a loss and going bankrupt like some of our friends. Supermarket policies may not a breach of the Seventh Commandment, I am not sure of that, but in my opinion they do not practice love of neighbour as the directors love themselves. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Monday, 25. October 2010, 20:30 Post #10 |
![]()
Administrator
|
The first Clean Air Act was in the fifties, followed by another with tighter controls in the sixties. The benefit was most effective in industrial towns, particularly steelworks, textiles and power stations. The highest rates of chest disease were in mill towns, where the machinery was powered by steam. Coal was used for production of the steam. Nearby were large power stations, using coal. Alpac wrote "companies had to pay for filters, alter production methods and all in all incur a cost both financial and indirectly in employment for the newer cleaner methods were generally less labour intensive." The health of the workers improved. Employment costs would have dropped due to less time taken off for sickness and early retirement necessitated by difficulty in breathing. Steam continued to be used, smokeless fuel was used for its production. A Northern textile town had the highest rate of infantile chest disease in the country. In about 1947 the Government's Inspector of Health decreed that town was to take priority, after the bombed cities, for new Council estates to be built at the top of hills away from the mills to get the families away from the sulphur pollution. Industry's methods were causing bad health to a high proportion of people in towns, my opinion is, Government was justified in enforcing the switch to smokeless fuels. We accept that butchers must pay for their own refrigerators. Manufacturers must pay for equipment for the health of workers and local resident. I would not say the new law was government theft. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Emee | Monday, 25. October 2010, 21:01 Post #11 |
|
In fairness I think the government in this country were responding to a definite need when they passed the Clean Air Acts. I was born towards the end of 1963 so I don't have first hand knowledge of the 1950's but I have, however, seen old black and white clips of London in the smog of that decade. It looked pretty disgusting to me... I spent my youth first in North and then in West Yorkshire but I didn't really see the place when it was at its industrial best. The mills were already starting to close and the landscape was already changing when I lived there. Mill chimneys were replaced by the towers of cooling stations, and then even they were decommissioned. I remember some towers called Salt and Pepper somewhere along the M62 and I remember them being demolished, perhaps about 20 years ago now. We are so much, much healthier these days than our ancestors just one or two generations before us. As well as the Clean Air Acts this is as much to do with society moving on into other sectors of industry and also technological developments which provided alternative methods of production. Rose, I agree with you. Cleaner working conditions, including air, can only benefit the workers. Everyone should be able to breath unpolluted air. It is only a shame that other countries are not so tight on this... |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Monday, 25. October 2010, 21:07 Post #12 |
![]()
Administrator
|
I forgot to mention the reduction in Health Service costs for treating respiratory illnesses, and the cost to the State of supporting people too ill to work. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Monday, 25. October 2010, 21:53 Post #13 |
|
Rose, I think that supermarkets are one of those convenient targets that we all like to use to blame changes in society that we don't like. Take the points you raise about farming, if the supermarkets are screwing the farmers into the ground as badly as you say, then how come the amount of farmland has not decreased over the years and that farmland prices are going through a boom at the moment? The reality is that the whole nature of agriculture has changed with a movement towards large farms with heavy capital expenditure in technology - that is the main thing what has driven out the small farmers, not the supermarkets. The same with small shops. There is relentless consumer pressure for reduced prices on basic commodities and that can only be met by large businesses with substantial purchasing power but it is consumer desire - and changes in shopping practices as part of wider societal change - that is the driving force behind that, not anonymous men in grey suits in some boardroom. We might not like what the supermarkets and other large businesses are doing but they are providing a service that people want, that is why they are successful, they are only one factor in a wide range of factors that are affecting society today |
![]() |
|
| Peter | Tuesday, 26. October 2010, 07:42 Post #14 |
|
I hadn't had the time to contribute to this thread since my original posting but have just seen Rose's response to Mairtin regarding his own view on the opinions that I'd expressed. Rose has articulated with great fluency the damage that supermarkets can inflict on the infrastructure to our towns and villages and to society as a whole. I live near to two market towns. The people have tried to stop the juggernault which is Tesco settling in their back yards but have failed. One fight has lasted 15 years, but when Tesco lose one fight, they just throw more money into the ring to finance another campaign, and another and another, until eventually they succeed in their endeavours. This isn't democracy, this is having enough money to buy whatever they want. This is ego, this is greed. Rose points out the link with slave labour. Check the other so called "cost cutting" supermarkets that also sell clothes. And the use of slave labour in foreign countries is not just restricted to supermarkets. "Gap" that well known high street brand caused controversy recently for their use of cheap labour and the list of others that do is considerable and heart breaking. When I mentioned child labour in my original posting one response said something like - well at least they get paid something, without it they would starve. Of course the above statement IS true and I know the writer of that comment wouldn't wish harm on anyone, but what kind of world do we live in to allow modern day slavery in third world countries to not just continue, but to flourish, feeding the fashion needs and egos of the rest of us. We are all guilty. |
![]() |
|
| Alpac | Tuesday, 26. October 2010, 08:48 Post #15 |
|
Peter you are correct in much of what you say but TESCO is not the only guilty party. Sainsbury bought up a sight in a town near where I once lived and were refused planning permission for a store, over the next few years under subsidiary companies they acquired much of the adjoining land and eventually as the area became an ever increasing wilderness and centre for dumping and illicit trading the council actually approached Sainsbury and asked them if they were still interested. To the towns delight the store opened and it was several years before the true activity came to light. Martian does make a good point when he acknowledges that these supermarkets are often major employers. The demand for cheep goods is nothing new either and one might wont to check on the history of the cotton industry in Lancashire, and how the need for cheep cotton almost draged Britain into the American Civil war on the side of the Confederacy. India offered the solution the confederacy lost the war and India gained a commercial advantage which they still exploit. Britain stole rubber plants from South America and created the Rubber industry in Indo-China and Malaya. It planted tea in India and created a new Industry there rather than trade at a disadvantage with the Chinese. I could go on and on, believe me I can go on, but the point is Peter in your rage you over simplify the global economics that are the reality of life. If British car workers are not prepared to settle for a job on a lower pay scale then the owners of the factories will find a work -force who will, so land-rovers and Jaguars will be built in India and in time the cycle will turn and maybe an Indian firm will set up a call centre in Birmingham or Oxford. This is economics it may not be moral but you would be hard put to find any actual illegality which brings us back to the topic,'The Seventh Commandment' and here Peter I think in all your rant you have grasped an essential truth . It is not enough to say no law of man has been broken in order to avoid the charge of theft, one has to understand the spirit of the ‘Law of God’ which I interpret to be, 'That no one should unjustly deprive another of that which they morally own' and in that I would include the dignity of the worker. Edited by Alpac, Tuesday, 26. October 2010, 08:51.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |







7:52 PM Jul 11