LDS Church Proposed ObamaCare in 1939

[snoscythe]

From the Melchizedek Priesthood Manual published in 1939 (copyright held by President Heber J Grant)--this is what the Church itself was teaching members:

"But since all capitalistic systems are founded upon the institution of private property, inheritance and the profit motive, great inequalities of ownership and income inevitably result. . . . Among the more plausible suggestions offered to correct existing abuses without adversely affecting the productive system, is to continue the socializing of our service institutions through a system of progressive taxation based upon ability to pay . . . taking the bulk of their [captains of industry] profits to finance free education, free libraries, free public parks and recreation centers, old age benefits, sickness and accident insurance, and perhaps eventually free medical aid and hospital service. . . . The average family may not have much more money, if any, to spend under such a system than now. But . . . then the meagre family income can be devoted entirely to the necessities of life, plus some of the comforts now enjoyed by the higher income classes. To finance all of this, of course, will necessitate huge sums of money And it will also require a carefully worked out tax system so that everyone will contribute according to his financial ability. Inheritance and estate taxes will become progressively higher, until the present system of permitting large fortunes to be passed on from generation to generation will become extinct. And incidentally, the so-called idle rich who have been living off the earnings of past generations will be no more."

[snoscythe]

[jvquarterback]

"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground."

That part is true, at least until we're in the ground.

I don't see any indication in the quote to denote support of what is written though. Do you have a link? It could be like quoting eat, drink, and be merry and saying that is church doctrine because it's in the scriptures (or my pet peeve of people believing that there was no other way in the garden because the father of lies said so).

[snoscythe]

I was mostly posting these to see if jvqb would have a stroke.

When I first read this, I had the same response -- I couldn't find it online anywhere, so I bought the book myself. When I get home tonight I take photos of the entire chapter and post for your reading enjoyment.

I'm a conservative, and I disagree with the quoted portion. I just get tired of folks posting Ezra Taft Benson quotes and ignoring the very friendly relationship the Church and Prophets (starting with Joseph Smith) have had in the past with what we might call liberal policies and thought. Just demonstrating that resorting to quoting LDS sources in political arguments is almost never a winning strategy.

[jvquarterback]

I haven't found the original but this guy says the questions at the end of this chapter indicate the principles outlined above were to induce reflection upon the above quote. Here are a couple questions from after that quote:

"If we eliminate the profit motive will we destroy individual initiative?"
“Is it not wrong to take wealth away from people after they have struggled so hard to acquire it?”

[jvquarterback]

I was mostly posting these to see if jvqb would have a stroke.

When I first read this, I had the same response -- I couldn't find it online anywhere, so I bought the book myself. When I get home tonight I take photos of the entire chapter and post for your reading enjoyment.

I'm a conservative, and I disagree with the quoted portion. I just get tired of folks posting Ezra Taft Benson quotes and ignoring the very friendly relationship the Church and Prophets (starting with Joseph Smith) have had in the past with what we might call liberal policies and thought. Just demonstrating that resorting to quoting LDS sources in political arguments is almost never a winning strategy.

How'd I do?

FYI this didn't start with President Benson, in fact, if you look at what Heber J Grant, George Albert Smith, David O McKay and J Reuben Clark had to say about socialism, government spending on war, FDR, and the new deal you'd think President Benson was a liberal. The guy I cited above has quotes from just about every prophet of the restoration condemning socialism.

[BoiseBYU]

I was mostly posting these to see if jvqb would have a stroke.

When I first read this, I had the same response -- I couldn't find it online anywhere, so I bought the book myself. When I get home tonight I take photos of the entire chapter and post for your reading enjoyment.

I'm a conservative, and I disagree with the quoted portion. I just get tired of folks posting Ezra Taft Benson quotes and ignoring the very friendly relationship the Church and Prophets (starting with Joseph Smith) have had in the past with what we might call liberal policies and thought. Just demonstrating that resorting to quoting LDS sources in political arguments is almost never a winning strategy.

Pavlov lives!

[snoscythe]

I haven't found the original but this guy says the questions at the end of this chapter indicate the principles outlined above were to induce reflection upon the above quote. Here are a couple questions from after that quote:

"If we eliminate the profit motive will we destroy individual initiative?"
“Is it not wrong to take wealth away from people after they have struggled so hard to acquire it?”

I read the whole chapter again last night. I disagree with his characterization of it being a "false flag" argument to persuade you of the opposite. To backstop the argument, it examines the great benefit of the public school system of the time. I will try to remember to post it tonight.

To get to where the blogger gets, you have to assume the answers to those questions can only be yes, and you have to assume that when the prophets speak of the hazards of the dole, they mean public education, public healthcare, and any benefit bestowed by the government. I don't take it that far, and I don't think they did either--the dole is unemployment benefits, not all government programs. You can decry the dole, but nevertheless be full-throated in support for other government programs. Thee blogger himself states it, but misses the significance of the distinction he himself points out-- "A key concern: members were not required to work in exchange for their assistance." That's the dole, not public education, healthcare, etc.

I agree that the prophets are pretty unanimous in decrying socialism and communism, but that doesn't mean that they must have opposed all government assistance programs. There are gradations in between.

[jvquarterback]

To get to where the blogger gets, you have to assume the answers to those questions can only be yes. . .

The blogger is only arguing against the idea that the church ever supported socialism in response to the facebook posts you see from time to time.

I'd need to see a quote from a prophet to see if they support socialism in specific instances like schooling or healthcare. For the most part they avoid anything like that. The only form of socialism I can think of that is explicitly endorsed is the military for war in some very, very limited circumstances. Even then it is not necessarily socialism that is endorsed, but tolerated and obeyed like any other form of government.

[snoscythe]

Here it is. I included another Chapter on the role of Government as well since it also cuts against the blogger's bright line arguments--it's also a good reference for loons who claim the Church is against taxation.

If you want to see more, go pull it from the BYU Library or do what I did and grab it off of eBay, bookfinder, or Amazon.



PRIESTHOOD AND CHURCH WELFARE
A Study Course for the Quorums of the Melchizedek Priesthood for the Year 1939

Prepared under the direction of the Council of the Twelve by:
Dr. George Steward
Dr. Dilworth Walker
E. Cecil McGavin
Deseret Book Company - 1938


Chapter 10
Distribution of Wealth and Income

“A noble income nobly expended, is no common sight. It is far more easy to acquire a fortune like a knave, than to spend it like a gentleman. If we exhaust our income in schemes of ambition, we shall purchase disappointment; if in law, vexation; if in luxury, disease. What we shall lend, we shall most probably lose; what we spend rationally, we shall enjoy; what we distribute to the deserving, we shall enjoy and retain.” –Colton.

Connection of Wealth and Income Inequalities. In Chapter 8, the inequalities of wealth and income among the people of the world, particularly in the United States, were briefly discussed. We found that the so-called capitalistic system as it works today in American and in most European country has been unusually efficient in the creation of wealth. It has encouraged a high degree of specialization, extreme division of labor, and has fostered private initiative.

But since all capitalistic systems are founded upon the institution of private property, inheritance, and profit motive, great inequalities of ownership and income inevitably result.
Since no solution to the problems arising out of such a situation were included in the discussion in Chapter 8, perhaps it might be well for us to consider next, how we might preserve the desirable features of this very efficient super-economic organization and yet bring about a more equitable distribution of the products of the system.

In other words, how can we reduce unemployment, eliminate extreme poverty among the lower classes, and secure greater economic welfare for the less fortunate members of society, without destroying the moral fibre of those who receive aid, or the individual initiative of those who create wealth?

Would it be advisable to divide the wealth among all the people, even if it were legally possible? Could the economic machinery continue to operate as effectively, divided up into so many units or even into so many ownerships? In the United States the amount of wealth per capita would be worth approximately $3,000.00 and much less in other countries.

Assuming that such a division of wealth would greatly impair the productive efficiency of our economic organization, then what alternatives are there that might improve the situation?

Progressive Taxation. Among the more plausible suggestions offered to correct existing abuses without adversely affecting the productive system, is to continue the socialization of our service institutions through a system of progressive taxation based upon the ability to pay. In other words, to let such captains of industry, and financial geniuses as the Mellons, the Morgans, the Fords and the Rockefellers, continue to produce wealth and provide employment in the future, much as they have in the past, but through a scientifically worked out tax system, taking the bulk of their profits to finance free education, free libraries, free public parks and recreation centers, unemployment insurance, old age benefits, sickness and accident insurance, and perhaps eventually free medical aid and hospital service.

Such a program, introduced step by step, is in fact nothing less than a panorama of the social reforms that have taken place during the past hundred years and that are on the agenda for legislative consideration during the decades immediately ahead of us.

Diffusion of Benefits. It will be remembered that when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were practically no free schools, no state road systems and no community health clinics. The Mormon Church established the first school in Utah. They (the Mormons) provided secondary education for their young people through Church supported academies, until the tax-supported (free) high schools came into existence. Following the same policy, the L.D.S. Church established Brigham Young University and junior colleges in Utah, Idaho, and Arizona.

But, with few exceptions, the Church has withdrawn from the secular education field, as fast as the state and local governments have established tax-supported systems to take their place, as they logically should do.

Thus we see how the Mormon Church, through the wisdom and foresight of its leaders has led the way in this movement toward a greater diffusion of the benefits of our economic progress. They have set the pace for a greater realization of the Christian ideal of the brotherhood of men, through a wider distribution of economic and temporal things as well as in religious and spiritual blessings.

Steps Towards Brotherhood. The ultimate outcome of such a proposal may not differ greatly from the plan advocated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the Law of Consecration and Stewardship, where each person is assigned economic responsibility according to his respective ability, and where all surplus production is turned over to the Bishops to be used in providing for the economic, social and spiritual needs of the entire Church membership, including aid to the less fortunate members, be they young or old, able-bodied or crippled, leaders or lay members.

Under such an economic system the profit motive for private gain and personal aggrandizement will become less important, necessitating other incentives for achievement and other measures of success. The opportunity for leadership and for service in the betterment of mankind may become more significant as the amassing of wealth becomes more difficult and more futile. Greater economic security will take precedence over exploitation, speculation, and “get rich quick” schemes generally.

The average family may not have much more money, if any, to spend under such a system than now. But if education can be provided free, regardless of the number of children; if police protection, health and sanitation inspection, recreational facilities and other social welfare services, can be had without cost, then the meagre family income can be devoted entirely to the necessities of life plus some of the comforts now enjoyed by the higher income classes, and perhaps even a few luxuries eventually—if the system is progressively extended.

For if hospitalization, medical and dental care, music and art education are added to the to the list of free services; and then if old age benefits, unemployment insurance and similar social reforms are also provided for those in need, out of the tax receipts, surely the average family income will be greatly augmented. True, the income may not appear in the weekly pay check, but the total goods and services available to the family in the form of education, medical care, and social security benefits, if paid for on a cost basis, would amount to a surprisingly large cash income.

To finance all of this, of course, will necessitate huge sums of money. If will require an extremely efficient economic system to turn out all of the desired goods and services. And it will also require a carefully worked out tax system so that every one will contribute according to his financial ability. Inheritance and estate taxes will become progressively higher, until the present system of permitting large fortunes to be pass on from generation to generation will become extinct. And incidentally, the so-called idle rich who have been living on the earnings of past generations will become no more.

However, it will always be possible for anyone who is energetic and thrifty to accumulate a substantial competence to care for his own retirement period, without having to depend upon the Government old age program. But he would probably not be permitted to leave an inheritance worth millions of dollars for his children to quarrel over. The major part of his surplus would revert back to society when he died.

QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS

1. How can we reduce the inequalities of wealth and income and still retain the qualities of individual initiative?
2. If we eliminate the profit motive will we destroy individual initiative?
3. What incentives do Church workers have to spur them on to maximum achievement?
4. Is it not wrong to take wealth away from people after they have struggled so hard to acquire it? What if the wealth is acquired through inheritance?
5. Is there a difference between confiscating wealth and taxing the income from the wealth as it is produced?


Chapter 13
The Role of Government

“We are more heavily taxed by our idleness, pride, and folly than we are taxed by the government.”—Franklin.

Government and Economic Welfare. Any plan for improving our economic security or social welfare must take into consideration the increasing role of government in human affairs. There was a time when governmental functions were very few and simple. They offered protection from enemies, looked after the legal affairs of state, and settled the major disputes among their constituents. But, today, there is scarcely a phase of our life with all of its complexities that government does not touch in one way or another. And the trend seems to be toward even more government; more regulation; more supervision; more operation.

Government, and Economic Burden or Expense? Some persons have peculiar notions about our Government, its activities, services and costs. They look upon the cost of government as a burden upon society. Taxes are considered evil and something to be avoided (or evaded) if possible.

In reality, the expense of government is no more of a burden than the cost of telephone, transportation, or postal service. For example, if a business concern should purchase a truck for delivery service, that would be a legitimate expense. But if the same business is asked to pay a gasoline tax to help construct and maintain a hard surface road over which the truck is to operate, that would probably be regarded as a burden, because it is a governmental function.

Likewise the typical taxpayer considers his payments for fire insurance an ordinary expense. But he “knows” that his payments in the form of taxes to keep a trained and well-equipped fire department to protect his home and property are not an expense, but a burden. Similarly, the cost of his summer cottage or his country club is not a burden, though the cost of public parks is a burden; the education of his daughter at a private musical conservatory is merely an expense, but payments through taxes for their education in public schools is a burden.

Demand for Increased Governmental Services. In spite of this inexplainable attitude toward taxes and government, people continue to press for more governmental services. The question is not one of expense, if we really want the service; it is merely a question of who can render the service best at the least cost. If the Government can build our roads, provide public parks and educate our children more effectively and efficiently than we could do it ourselves, then the people are justified in shifting such functions from private service to public or governmental service.

Some of the more recent fields of governmental intervention are along the lines of economic and social welfare. Considerable labor legislation, including minimum wage laws, compensation and insurance laws, eight-hour day laws, child labor laws, and laws requiring factory and mine sanitation have been enacted in recent years.

Public health is being promoted through clinics, hospitals, publicity, and medical supervision. Community recreation is provided through public parks and supervised play grounds. Pure food laws regulate what we eat and drink.

In many respects the government has become an agency of social reform. Censorship decrees the clothes we wear, the literature that we may read, and the theatrical entertainments we may see. Of course, not all of its policies are wisely formulated. But in general, the weight of government influence has been cast decidedly on the side of social betterment.

We must recognize, too, the manifold productive functions of government in our complex world. By preserving the rights of private property, by maintaining the freedom of contract, by defining and enforcing the terms of free competition, by extending the sphere of government ownership and operations where expediency demands, and by conserving the natural resources, the government exercises important economic functions that could not be performed so effectively by private agencies.

Apportioning the Cost of Government—Taxation. But of course, all of these added functions of government cost money, and they must be paid for by the people in the form of taxation. The big problem, therefore, is to apportion this governmental burden as fairly and as equitably as is humanly possible among the beneficiaries who have the ability to pay.

Thus taxation has come to be an important element in every family budget; in every business venture. And as governmental functions expand, governmental expenses will increase. To pay for these added services will require a larger and larger share of the family’s income to be turned over to the government in the form of taxes, of one kind or another.

Originally the general property tax, with a very moderate levy, provided all the revenue required for the simple functions of government. At that time, most people lived on farms, and their ability to support the government could be measured fairly well by the amount of property a man owned. For example, if one man owned 100 acres, he might be assessed $10 per year as his share of the governmental expense; whereas, his neighbor, with 200 acres, would be asked to pay $20 for governmental services.

The amounts were small, and the measure of taxable ability seemed fair enough then, but as more and more people moved into cities and earned their living from wages, fees, and commissions, or from interest, rents and dividends, then the amount of tangible property owned was no longer an accurate measure of ability to support government.

Consequently, new forms of taxation had to be devised to supplement the general property tax, and to bring in the additional revenue requires from year to year to meet the expanding needs of government. Thus we now have the income tax, the sales tax, the tobacco tax, the beer tax, the gasoline tax, the excess profits tax, the gift tax, the inheritance tax, and many others. They are so many and varied that no matter what one’s occupation is, in what form his wealth exists or in what state he lives, or dies, he must contribute his share to the government treasury—according to his financial ability, as measured by these varied and numerous pipe lines into his income and expenditures.

To be sure, our present tax system has many defects. Assessment practices are far from perfect. Some governmental agencies are woefully inefficient. As a result, many persons and businesses become proficient at shifting the tax on to some one else, or in evading it entirely. Students of taxation, legislators, and tax officials are constantly studying the problems and constantly modifying the laws and methods of assessment and collection.

Some taxes are too expensive to collect for the revenue they yield. Some tax the poor proportionately too much. Others hit the home owner, the wage-earner or the farmer too hard. Still others tend to retard business enterprise unduly, and thus reduce economic output.

But if we want governmental services, they must be paid for; and in a capitalistic system, where individual initiative and freedom of enterprise is preserved, taxation in one form or another is the only way these expenses can be met. The only alternative is a socialistic system, where the government owns and operates all forms of productive wealth.

So if we want to preserve our present economic system, and still have the many governmental services it is trying to perform, we shall have to get used to taxation and plenty of it. Of course, we shall try to perfect these devious ways of collecting revenue for the government, but it must be collected one way or another.

Increased Governmental Services Mean Increased Taxation. However, we must also be conscious of the fact that each new governmental service will require additional funds, which means heavier taxation. Consequently, if we are getting concerned over the amount of our tax “burden”, we shall have to curtail our demands for increased governmental service. We simply cannot continue to add new forms of education, public health service, unemployment insurance, old age pensions and work relief projects, without taxation to pay the bills. If they are necessary, and if we can afford such services, if that is the wisest way to use our surplus income, then the new program is justified—and we should not complain at high taxes, if we are paying no more than our just share.

But if the tax load really is becoming a burden, perhaps we are becoming a little governmentally extravagant, just as any other luxury expenditure, beyond our financial ability, would be considered extravagant. The problem is for each citizen to ponder over, to study carefully, and to vote on intelligently when the opportunity presents itself.


QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS


1. How does the governmental sphere of activity of one hundred years ago compare with the numerous services of today?
2. In what fields of activity has the Government expanded most?
3. How do the governments of European countries compare with ours in scope and effectiveness?
4. One writer maintains that our tax system is antiquated. What are its major defects?
5. What reforms in taxation would be desirable?
6. What difficulties arise in devising a more perfect tax system?
7. What principles should guide our efforts?