Why so many?
Why so many good people going to church with you (and many church leaders) vote for socialist parties?
Because generally they think that “socialism” does more for the poor than capitalism. Thus, even when they are well off themselves, they think they are more compassionate (i.e.: feel less guilty) by voting for left wing parties.
Mostly because of lack of information and biased media reports, they believe that the poor will suffer less under left wing parties who develop more social programs with tax money (that the poor do not pay anyway).
However, the above conclusion it is not morally superior and is not true.
Morally, we are all called to help the poor personally, not collectively, by imposition of taxes.
To understand why the above conclusion is not true, two concepts need to be clarified:
1. The poor are suffering most in a poor economy. We can cite examples of countries around the world, but even better, people can understand that when the salary (cash in hand) of a “rich” person is cut in half, this person can do without some unessential goods, but when the salary of a poor person is cut in half, this person will have to do without essential items, such as food and shelter.
2. More government (Total Investment in Government infrastructures and programs) does not mean a better economy or a more compassionate government:
This second point needs to be further explained:
There are two extremes: No government and Total government (everyone works directly or indirectly for the government).
When there is no government at all, then some investment in government (e.g.: police, roads) is a investment for all.
When there is too much government (e.g.: nobody has a productive job), then everyone starves.
Thus, there IS and optimum level of investment in government, in between the two extremes.
Before that optimum point, when investment in government is very low, more government social programs will raise the standard of living of the poor (by taxing most of the others), but
After that optimum point, when investment in government is very high, more government social programs will lower the standard of living of the poor (as well as everyone else’s).
This has been explained in graphical form in the article: The STING curve. For reference, click on http://www.familycoalitionparty.com/FCP%20Notes/FCP%20SECTIONS%203/policies%20-%20optimum%20-%20maximum%20point.htm
Thus, with today’s Canadian size of government (federal, provincial and local) any MORE investment in social programs (while maintaining the same old programs and priorities) is deleterious to the economy and lowers the standard of living of the poor (contrary to the very objective of those new programs).
Can compassionate “good people” (including many preachers) understand the negative implications of "more government" on the poor, in today's society?
Finally, they should also study what the role of government is: They should not confuse our personal call to help the poor with enforced government policies (which do not secure anyone a better place in Heaven).
Leader, Family Coalition Party of Ontario
1. Georgios Karras, “The Optimal Government Size: Further International Evidence on the Productivity of Government Services,” Economic Inquiry, Vol. 34, (April 1996), p. 2
2. No previous government has tried to quantify its “size” with an econometric model, thus more studies will be required to identify the parameters and obtain a more precise definition of the “optimum point” in the STING curve.
3. Including Income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, capital taxes, business taxes and a list of hundreds of other taxes.
4. A misconception, very common in left wing circles, is that more taxes generate more government revenue. Of course, this is true when the Total Investment in Government is low (BEFORE the optimum point), but is preposterous in today’s reality, with our Total Investment in Government is well AFTER the optimum point. The fact that after the optimum point lowering taxes increases government revenue has been demonstrated (e.g.: During the presidency of Ronald Reagan).