It’s hard for me to go a full day without hearing someone lambasting rich people. Barack Obama, in an attempt to shore up support from the liberal base for the election next year, has revitalized his “tax the rich” rhetoric. He says rich people need to pay their fair share, despite the fact that the top 5% of earners in America pay almost 60% of the federal income taxes already.
I can understand Obama criticizing rich people because for not paying 100% of the federal taxes. I was, however, surprised to hear on twitter last night that God feels the same way.
Here’s a tweet I read last night from a fellow personal finance blogger, Matt_SF:
Only in America: the political party that represents the wealthiest Americans also claims to follow Jesus’ gospels. $$ does strange things.
Wow. Apparently God hates wealthy people. He doesn’t care if you provide jobs to hundreds of people, create some valuable product or service that people want or need, donate money to your church and other charities, volunteer your time, or any other positive thing a wealthy person might do with his or her money.
Nope, Matt thinks God wants you to stop doing all those things and just be poor. (Actually, through further discussions I found out Matt is an atheist, so he doesn’t think God even exists to be able to want anything.)
Matt’s point, as he explained it to me, is that he finds it hypocritical for someone to believe in the Bible and to be wealthy at the same time. Interesting idea. I wonder if he would like to see all Christians decide to give away their wealth, do the “Godly” thing and become poor.
Great idea Matt! Let’s take 78.4% of the population of America (that’s the number of Christians in America according to this website) and throw them into poverty! Who needs all those evil, profit hungry, wealth grabbing companies run by Christians that provide all the goods and services that make America a prosperous nation when we can have 4/5ths of our population beneath the poverty line? PRAISE THE LORD!
And let’s take the “America glasses” off for a minute. How about all 2 billion Christians in the world stop building wealth and start building cardboard box houses under bridges? Can you imagine how wonderful and holy the world would be then?
Are you seeing the absurdity here?
Can wealthy Christians be ungodly? Absolutely. Are wealthy Christians ungodly simply because they are wealthy? Of course not.
While I am a proud Catholic, I would never preach to you guys. If you want preaching, there are some great Bible-based personal finance sites like KNS Financial and Bible Money Matters. However, for argument’s sake I want to point to a verse in the Bible about wealth that I believe illustrates a reasonable religious approach to money.
Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed. – 1 Timothy 6:17-19
I’m no biblical scholar so I won’t attempt to interpret that passage. I’ll let you decide whether the God described in this passage would approve of a person who not only has money but also lives a “good” life.
Kevin McKee is an entrepreneur, IT guru, and personal finance leader. In addition to his writing, Kevin is the head of IT at Buildingstars, Co-Founder of Padmission, and organizer of Laravel STL. He is also the creator of www.contributetoopensource.com. When he’s not working, Kevin enjoys podcasting about movies and spending time with his wife and four children.
Nice. I concur…
I didn’t know you were Catholic! I went to Catholic school from kindergarten to 12th grade … I probably know more about Catholicism than I do about my “own” religion.
A lot of people wrongly think the Bible says that money is the root of all evil. In fact, 1 Timothy 6:10 says THE LOVE OF money is the root of all evil.
Translation: GREED — or putting money above God — is the root of all evil. Money itself is just a medium of exchange. It’s an object.
Some people think anything that brings joy to your life is a sin. They say music is a sin. They say dancing is a sin. They say wearing clothes that reveal your shoulders (or that reveal the top of your head, if you’re a woman) is a sin. At their core, they think happiness is a sin. Those people used to piss me off. Now I just ignore them.
Add me to the original sinners column, as well.
Great reflections. From my reading of the Bible — if I believe that my money belongs to me (I earned it, so I can use it how I’d like, even maybe doing some “good things”) and therefore remain in control, that’s idolatrous. If I on the other hand view my money as belonging to God and entrusted to me (I didn’t earn it, it still very much belongs to God — not just 10% but all of it) and therefore let God direct me on how to use it, then that’s honoring God.
It’s a question of heart condition, not rich/poor. I know poor folks as well as rich who cling to their money rather than live in dependence and obedience to God.
If there was a facebook “like” button for this comment, I’d like the crap out of it. Well said my man, well said.
If the love of money is the root of all evil, I am sooooooo going to hell. Because I loves me my cash.
Thanks for the link! I’ll have to start preaching away now!
I think there are a lot of misconceptions about Christianity, wealth, and whether it’s ok for a Christian to be wealthy. The one verse I hear more often than any other is quoted above – the “money is the root of all evil” verse. People like to quote that saying that any Christian that has money of any kind is hypocritical because the bible says that money is evil. Except that it’s doesn’t – it says the “love of money is the root of all evil”. Context and the meaning behind the verses tends to get lost a lot of the time.
I think that while it’s very true having wealth can be a barrier to one’s spiritual life, it isn’t the money or wealth that is the true barrier, it’s the person’s attitude and the condition of their heart that really determines their faith life. If a wealthy man can strive to live a life full of obedience to God, being a good steward, being charitable and loving, it is possible to be wealthy and a Christian at the same time. There are plenty of examples of wealthy men of faith in the bible.
A recent guest post on my site covered the topic – hope it’s ok to link it here.
Being Wealthy And God Fearing
Great post!!! (love Ninja’s reply too)!!
Nice post, Kevin
Your quote from 1 Timothy 6:17-19 reminded me of a lot of the old quaker businesses. But the world has moved on since the days of Cadburys, Frys and Rowntrees etc and I’m not sure they could survive in the modern world.
TMG
Matthew 19:24: New International Version (©1984)
“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Naturally, it is also fairly easy to find other verses that will contradict this. I don’t think that the bible is a particularly good guide for making money.
If you read the context of the verse you mention, you notice it doesn’t say that it’s impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. It says that with God all things are possible. “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” The verse in essence is talking about how none of us is perfect, and we all have sin and counterfeit gods in our lives, keeping us from truly believing in God. Instead we allow money to take God’s place (both rich and poor) – and we place our trust in it instead. For other people it might not be a love of money , but instead a love of things, or love of political power, or love itself. There are a myriad of things that keep us from truly believing in and worshipping God.
So yes, it’s easy to find contradictions in the bible if you interpret certain verses certain ways, and if you take them out of context. I agree.
Indeed. Let’s have a look at the entire parable, including the verses you don’t mention, and paying particular attention to 21-23 :
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
If the love of money is a root of evil, can you become rich without loving money?
Yes!
Conversely, you can also love money and be poor. The two (“love of money” and “net worth”) have zero correlation. It’s all about what’s in your heart. Make a priority list — what’s at the top?
You don’t have to love something to have it. Can you become healthy without loving exercise and vegetables?
Also, some people are rich without having acquired any of their money themselves. Is an infant whose rich dad puts $1,000,000 in his bank account evil?
It is very true that someone who is rich by inheritance could not love money. He/she might even dislike it.
“Can you become healthy without loving exercise and vegetables?”
Perhaps, but it certainly helps. Some people are blessed with health even if they treat their body poorly, and some people have the mental toughness to endure things that they don’t like because they know that they’re good for them. But enjoying healthy actions makes it much easier to successfully take care of your health and much more likely that you will do it.
My argument is not that rich people are definitely evil, but loving money is helpful if you are on a quest to become rich. Being successful at anything involves sacrifices (perhaps free time because you work more, or perhaps random purchases of “treats” because you are trying to build your savings), and in order to give up things you want, you need to need to ascribe a positive value to being rich.
(I wrote this out and closed my browser before submitting it, but then when I restarted firefox and hit reply again, the comment was still there waiting. That’s awesome whatever you have on your blog that makes that happen.)
Anyway, maybe it’s okay to value wealth if you balance it with being a good person and following the teachings of your religion. Maybe it’s okay to value wealth if you don’t take it as evidence that you are superior to the non-wealthy people around you. Maybe it’s okay to value wealth as long as you don’t value it more than your faith.
Ultimately, I’m a bit of a disinterested party in whether Christianity hates the pursuit of wealth. I find it interesting, but I’m not religious, so the teachings of the Bible don’t form the foundation of what I decide is right and wrong.
“He says rich people need to pay their fair share,….”
How about we all pay the same percentage of tax. Now that’s fair!
I always tell people that the harder you work the more you get punished. The lazier you are the more you get from the government.
I agree! The rich should definitely pay at least the same percentage of tax as the middle class! Instead, we have megarich people paying a smaller percent of income in taxes than their secretaries.
And that’s why we need the “Buffett Rule.” I’m glad you think it’s a good idea.
Two things…
1.) Super-rich Buffet’s super-rich company, Berkshire Hathaway, owes the government tens of millions in taxes and has been wrangling with the IRS over this for years.
2.) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44592106/ns/business-us_business/t/are-rich-taxed-less-secretaries/#.Tp8mW5uIk8k
President Barack Obama says he wants to make sure millionaires are taxed at higher rates than their secretaries. The data say they already are.
“Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it,” Obama said as he announced his deficit-reduction plan this week. “It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million.”
On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.
The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
In his White House address on Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the “Buffett rule,” named for the billionaire investor.
The rule says, “People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay.” Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.
“Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires,” Obama said. “That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against that.”
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that’s less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.
Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.
The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.
Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.
Obama’s claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.
With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’ official scorekeeper on revenue issues.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes.
If God hates rich people, then Joel Osteen is the devil.
When you have the power to alleviate suffering and chose not to do so is that acting with Christen charity? I don’t think it is so easy to dismiss the contrast of a duty to your fellow man and your choice to live lavishly. Those choices should be taken with care and consideration. I strongly feel we in the USA are far to uncaring about our fellow man suffering. It is far too easy to isolate yourself and pretend you can’t do anything or that it isn’t your concern.
Those are perfectly valid choices. I think it is much more difficult to say those are perfectly valid choice for a Christian to make. Christianity has great variation and there certainly are those that do not believe there is anything wrong with essentially not caring about human suffering you could address if you chose to. To me that is stretching the meaning of Christianity quite a bit but that is certainly people’s right.
It is no fun to think that I could save people’s lives if I just lived a simple life and didn’t indulge. But that is the actual fact. You can chose to save people’s lives or chose to live as we do in the USA, very lavishly. I make that choice myself. I give to charity but I could give much more if I just chose to do so. I just don’t. That is a selfish choice that as a person I am entitled to make. But it is fraught with moral consequences. In the USA we tend to want to avoid the stark consequences our actions have. When you are rich (and at least 60% of the USA is, probably much more, but I’ll be generous – yes those in the USA don’t feel that way, but that is mainly a sign of how much they believe the world owes them) you have the ability to help. Which is great, it is nice to have what you need and the ability to splurge on yourself or help others. But it also means you have to accept the moral consequences of your decisions. And it isn’t some simple game. People die because of your decision. People suffer greatly because you chose not to help. It is your right to make that decision. It is not your right to do so without accepting the moral consequences of the decision.
Let me close with this link http://curiouscatlinks.blogspot.com/2010/07/they-will-know-we-are-christians-by-our.html
I want to address your suggestion that people in the USA are far too uncaring about our fellow man.
Do you realize that citizens of the USA donate more money to charity (as a percentage of their income) than any other developed nation in the world? And it’s really not even close. Here is a quote from http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers
“No developed country approaches American giving. For example, in 1995 (the most recent year for which data are available), Americans gave, per capita, three and a half times as much to causes and charities as the French, seven times as much as the Germans, and 14 times as much as the Italians.”
It’s also important to understand, in my opinion, that the best charity anyone in poverty can receive is a job. I believe creating jobs for people, while not officially “charity”, is a noble and worthy cause.
I have read that many times. I mention the USA because that is where I know. In my opinion we care far too little about those less fortunate than us. I can believe, even though I find us far too uncaring, we give more than other countries.
My view is out of step with most of those in the USA. We are incredibly rich. Not just compared to the other 6 billion people alive today, but compared to all people that have ever lived. Yet, I hear much more complaining about how it isn’t fair that this other person is richer than me or I have it so hard, or I can’t have what this other person has – without understanding they are sitting at the top 2% [many in the top .5%] of rich humans ever and complaining that you don’t have more.
I completely, totally agree with your premise that creating a job is extremely valuable and often more effective than charity. Also doing charitable works is more noble than giving cash. But on the topic of creating jobs, I could not agree more. That (along with making those jobs rewarding and effective) is actually my focus, again, out of step with most people. Dr. Deming, (a management consultant I respect and promote his ideas) aimed to “to advance commerce, prosperity and peace” through his ideas. I think that is exactly right. Economic factors are the cause of huge suffering. Addressing that (which may well not seem like charity at all) is often the most effective way to lower suffering globally, which has many benefits. http://management.curiouscatblog.net/2007/08/23/the-importance-of-management-improvement/ http://curiouscat.com/deming/
John Hunter, I appreciate your perceptive remarks. For Americans to pat themselves on the back for their charity is to overlook the fact that poverty in this country is growing, not shrinking, and that the top 1% or even less than 1% are gaining at an incredible rate while the remainder of the population stagnates or declines. To say that this top 1% or so are the “job creators” at a time of 9% unemployment is ludicrous. They aren’t creating jobs.
As for the Christian thing, sorry, but to point out this or that Old Testament patriarch is to miss the point, which (despite Kevin’s heavy-handed sarcasm) Jesus expresses quite explicitly both in the camel-needle parable and the excerpt from 1 Timothy above – which is that hoarding riches for one’s self while others are impoverished is to go against the will of God, and that the best use of wealth is to share it with others who are less fortunate. Americans, buying into the “greed is good” mentality, don’t want to hear this. They want to have their cake and eat it too, or to believe in the watered-down Happy Talk version of Christianity of a Joel Osteen or Robert Schuller. But Jesus is quite firm on this point: you can’t worship both God and Mammon, and don’t fix your hopes on the “uncertainty of riches.”
What is “hoarding riches”? Everyone hoards riches, are we all sinners going against the will of God?
The notion that “hoarding riches” is ungodly is absurd. Everyone hoards riches, no one, with the exception of priests/nuns/monks actually give up all their worldly possessions and riches.
Like I said before, to call people out for “hoarding riches” and saying they are going against the will of God is hypocritical and ignorant.
“It’s also important to understand, in my opinion, that the best charity anyone in poverty can receive is a job. I believe creating jobs for people, while not officially “charity”, is a noble and worthy cause.”
Really? Because you’ve written several posts now about how if you were an employer, you would NOT hire someone who was unemployed and therefore create a job for someone in need.
If I hire someone who is employed, that creates an open position at another company, who can then fill it with an unemployed person if they want. Creating a job means there is one more job in existence. If the company I hired chooses not to backfill that position, then they eliminated the job, not me.
Also, I said long term unemployed, not just any unemployed.
There are two commonly discussed topics in the world that I am wholly ignorant of: sports and religion. So I won’t comment on either here. But I did want to point out that maybe one of the reasons that Americans are so charitable is that people in America need charity in a way that people in other parts of the developed world don’t. In Europe, where college and healthcare are provided and there are substantial social safety nets – and people are heavily (by our standards) taxed – charity just isn’t quite as needed as it is in the U.S., where our income isn’t tied up in taxes but on the other hand we don’t have a lot of our needs provided for.
In other words, Europeans might not feel that donating to charity is a high priority because there are government programs in place to deal with a lot of the needs that we in America donate for. They are paying for these programs, but with their taxes. It’s not voluntary (IMO this is how America should operate, too, but I recognize that I have a lot of fringe political ideas that don’t jibe well with American values).
Also – and I didn’t look into it, so I’m not sure about this – Americans get tax deductions for our charitable donations. Do people in other countries?
If you’ve either watched the news or watched your investments tank in the last few weeks, then I find it hard to understand how you support the European “pay for everything” model. The entire continent is on the brink of governmental bankruptcy, and you think America should be more like them. I would love to hear how you think the American government can tax higher, spend more, and avoid following in the European debt crisis footsteps.
Frankly, this is an ignorant and hypocritical point of view.
If you subscribe to Matt’s thinking, unless you give up everything like a priest, nun or monk, you are a hypocrite.
Plain and simple, this is just ridiculous and Matt sounds envious of the rich, and isn’t that a sin?
Avarice is one of the seven deadly sins too.
OK… what’s your point? People with money are greedy?
Being rich or wealthy does not make you greedy.
In fact, you’ll probably find that the poor are more greedy than the rich.
There are many historical figures in the Bible that would be considered to have been blessed by God and given great wealth and power. Individuals like Abraham, Joseph (2nd in command under Pharoah), Job, and Solomon (the wisest and wealthiest man ever) come to mind. To say that wealth in and of itself is wrong seems misguided. Of course, many do feel that it is the associated attitude that is problematic.
It’s really nice to read this very heartwarming content here.Thanks a lot for sharing such a great article.Keep it up!!
Yes, there are some European countries that have been irresponsible and are mired in debt because of their extensive government programs (Greece, Portugal). But there are other European countries that have been responsible (the UK, Germany) and still manage to provide substantially more for their citizens than America does. Germany is one of the most productive economies in the world. It’s hardly “tanking.”
But your response didn’t really address my point: I was making a point about charity, that perhaps Americans feel compelled to be more charitable because our government provides so little. You’ve made your political views clear and so have I – I just think that to tout Americans as being some of the most charitable people in the world while ignoring the possible underlying cause of this charitable attitude is a uncharacteristically superficial of you.
I usually just pick one thing in each comment to address so I don’t write a book on every comment. I’ll address your original point.
I don’t live in Europe so I can’t say for sure if they need charity less, but I am willing to accept they may need less charity there. However, I’m also willing to bet that there are charitable needs that still go unfulfilled.
Pretend Germany has an unfulfilled charitable need of $100M and America has an unfulfilled charitable need of $1B. Both still need donations and volunteers, and Americans donate and volunteer more to fill that need. Until any country declare themselves at their charitable capacity, I think a direct comparison of donations and volunteer hours is appropriate
I guess we are just looking at this in two different ways; you think it’s good that Americans are donating and volunteering more, and I think it would be good if we had a government that made sure that there was less of a charitable need to begin with.
Dave Ramsey recently pointed out that this is just one of the fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals. We all agree that people need help, but the question is whether or not it’s government’s responsibility to provide that help. I think Dave Ramsey has some (SOME, not all) decent ideas, but he was obviously arguing the conservative viewpoint, which, deep down to my bones, I will never, ever understand.
So, this appears to be something you have in common with good ‘ol Dave! (Lol, I know you’ve said before you disagree with him about a lot of issues).