The Coming End of Wealth in America…?

Tax resistance, the practice of refusing to pay taxes that are considered unjust, has probably existed ever since rulers began imposing taxes on their subjects.  

It has been suggested that tax resistance played a significant role in the collapse of several empires, including the Egyptian, Roman, Spanish, and Aztec.   

Many rebellions and revolutions have been prompted by resentment of taxation or had tax refusal as a component. Examples of historic events that originated as tax revolts include the Magna Carta, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution.

What has changed over the past 250 years that has allowed the U.S. government to easily legislate and levy taxes on its citizens?

Why don’t Americans demand an overhaul to the system of taxation with the goal of reducing all forms of taxes?  Reducing the burdens of taxes improves the quality of life for everyone.

With the tax burden rising year after year, the question of when it will end has taken on an almost metaphysical dimension, not unlike the title of that popular book, “Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People?”

For many of us, the tax burdens foisted on us by government have accelerated to a level where we can’t fully adapt. Yet, we rarely complain and do in fact adjust our lives, accepting that our hard work and the money we earn is going to be taken from us.

The average American works 4 months of every year to pay the taxes levied by government taxing authorities.

Money is on everyone’s mind. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a wonderful opportunity for those of us who want greater control over our lives. 

But, once again, feeling trapped and powerless to resist, too many Americans have already taken the bait of the COVID-19 disaster… hook, line and sinker!

We’ve allowed politicians and bureaucrats to dictate to us what’s an essential business and what isn’t, who has access to hospitals and who doesn’t, and a host of minor and major dictates.

Leftist politicians who want to get into our pocketbooks are beginning to argue that the COVID-19 pandemic is the best argument for a wealth tax.  The gigantic spending in the past ninety days, three trillion dollars, will soon need to reckoned with.

Let’s first define a wealth tax. A wealth tax is applicable to and levied on a variety of accumulated assets that include cash, money market funds, real property, trust funds, owner-occupied housing and other wealth accumulations. 

Assume a taxpayer earns $150,000 a year and falls in the 32% tax bracket. That individual’s income tax liability for the year will be 32% x $150,000 or $48,800. Say the taxpayer has a net worth of $500,000 consisting of a business or home and the government imposes a wealth tax of 32%, the person’s tax liability is $160,000.

The problem with most politicians is when they enact a law, they seldom ask, “Then what?” 

They assume a world of what economists call zero elasticity wherein people behave after a tax is imposed just as they behaved before the tax was imposed and the only difference is that more money comes into the government’s tax coffers. 

The long-term effect of a wealth tax is that people will try to avoid it by not accumulating as much wealth or concealing the wealth they accumulate.

A wealth tax has become increasingly attractive because it lends itself to demagoguery about the significant wealth disparity in the United States. The Federal Reserve reports that, in 2018, the wealthiest 10% of Americans owned 70% of the country’s wealth, and the richest 1% owned 32% of the wealth. That fact gave Democratic presidential contenders such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren incentives to propose a wealth tax as a part of their campaign rhetoric. Leftists lament that multibillionaires such as Charles Koch, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison and Sheldon Adelson have not made charitable efforts to address the coronavirus crisis.

Questions to these political leeches must be: To whom does the billionaire’s wealth belong? And how did they accumulate such wealth?

Did they accumulate their great wealth by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man, as has been the case throughout most of human history? 

No, they accumulated great wealth by serving and pleasing their fellow man in the pursuit of profits. Unfortunately, demagoguery and lack of understanding has led to “profit” becoming a dirty word. Profit is a payment to entrepreneurs just as wages are payments to labor, interest to capital and rent to land. In order to earn profits in free markets, entrepreneurs must identify and satisfy human wants in a way that economizes on society’s scarce resources.

Here’s a question to consider… 

Which entities produce greater consumer satisfaction: for-profit enterprises such as supermarkets, computer makers and clothing stores, or nonprofit entities such as public schools, post offices and motor vehicle departments? 

I’m guessing you’ll answer the collection of businesses, NOT the governmental services. Business survival depends on pleasing ordinary people. Public schools, post offices and motor vehicle departments’ survival are not strictly tied to pleasing people but rather on politicians and the ability of government to impose taxes to maintain their existence.

Some advocates of wealth taxes and other forms of taxation might argue that they are temporary measures to get us over the COVID-19 crisis. Do not buy that argument. The great Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman once said, “Nothing is more permanent than a temporary government program.” 

The telephone tax was levied on wealthy Americans with telephones in 1898 to help fund the Spanish-American War. That tax was repealed over 100 years later in 2006. One of the objectives of the World War II withholding tax was to bring faster revenues to fight the war. The withholding of taxes is still with us blinding Americans on the taxes they pay. Let us not allow a crisis such as COVID-19 to bamboozle us again.

What does all of this mean for America’s future?  Wealthy people in America have been the stimulus to much of our innovation, technology and conveniences.  They do their part by investing, providing seed capital and research resources that enable creative people with a vision to pursue their ideas… bringing them to reality.   Those who are growing in wealth, have been leaders of innovation, developing products and services that improve the lives of everyone.

Earning a profit is not a bad thing.  Nor is the wealth of those who have invested and taken the risks to build the dynamics of an industrial and technologically advanced culture, fair game for government who cannot seem to operate within their budget. 

When problems arise, usually driven by government over-spending, the growing deficit, the first place politicians look to attack-with-tax is the assets and accumulated wealth of the “so-called super-rich.”

The less fortunate in our society cheer these ideas to tax the wealthy.  The politicians know that proposing such plans will gather grassroots support from middle income America.

Here’s the risk… taxing away the wealth of those who drive innovation in our country, and for that matter our world, will STOP them from caring about risking their wealth in driving innovation in the future!

What does that mean?  America, without the benefit of wealthy individuals investing in economic growth, development and innovative prosperity, will render America a second class nation in the world.

Maybe that doesn’t matter to you right now.  Like many people,  you might think it would be more fair to balance and share the wealth for all Americans.  Except it won’t work that way.  

Taxing the wealthy, taking it away from those who legitimately earned it, does not do one single thing to increase the bank accounts of average Americans.  Whatever is taxed, is not shared with average American households.  It all goes to the U.S. Treasury!   Then the majority-controlling political party fund their pet projects and buffet the overspending disease that afflicts our government.

America cannot afford to be a second class nation.  America cannot afford to see its creative innovation fall behind other nations.  

America must begin to value and honor the wealthy in our society, who have laid it on the line, assuming risk most of us cannot begin to fathom, nor could we tolerate, to build the sources of their wealth.

It’s time to stand up and honor WEALTHY AMERICANS as true heroes who merit our respect and thanks for making it possible for all Americans who want to work, to have a paycheck.

_______________________________________________________

Commentary by Steven K. Haught, MBA -

Publisher and Editor of GLOBAL INSIGHTS & TRENDS

_______________________________________________________

VIEWPOINT: COVID-19 and the Surrender of Common Sense and Human Decency

Since the threat of 2.2 million deaths crossed to the U.S. shores in the form of COVID-19, Americans took the seemingly necessary steps to shut down the national economy. The high mortality numbers were based on predictive models constructed by the Imperial College London COVID-19 Response Team, led by professor Neil Ferguson.

COVID-19 was to be the most serious respiratory threat since the 1918 influenza pandemic, and “suppression” methods would be needed to mitigate the infection and death numbers. These methods would need to remain in place for “18 months or longer,” until a vaccine could be created.

It bears repeating: 2.2 million deaths and 18 months of suppression methods. It’s interesting, infuriating, and alarming that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and many other medical organizations and professionals openly confessed (and still confess) to knowing little about the disease, and yet boldly stood by these outrageous claims as if they were absolute certainties.

Not only did they stand by these claims, but they also stood by the man who produced them. These projections come from the same person—Ferguson—who suggested in 2005 that the bird flu could kill up to 200 million; from 2003 to 2015, 440 had died from the avian illness. He also predicted that somewhere between 50 to 150,000 (quite a range) could die from the 2002 mad cow disease outbreak.

But Ferguson isn’t alone. David Nabarro of the WHO warned that between 5 million and 150 million could die from the 2005 bird flu. In 1992, the mad cow disease scare in England led to 4.4 million cows being slaughtered, after it was estimated that approximately 180,000 were infected. The CDC predicted that Liberia and Sierra Leone would suffer 550,000 to 1.4 million deaths during the 2014 Ebola outbreak; fewer than 12,000 died.

The statistics that should have been adhered to were the ones produced by the CDC in October 1999 regarding a potential influenza pandemic, before this pandemic ever began. It’s predictions were highly accurate with what has transpired in the United States. It predicted between 314,000 to 734,000 hospitalizations, 89,000 to 207,000 deaths, and high-risk patients would account for 84 percent of all deaths.

Thus far, there have been roughly 192,500 hospitalizations, just over 100,000 deaths, and 79.7 percent of deaths have been among those 65 years of age and up.

Should Bad Information Introduce a ‘New Normal’

The term “new normal” has been continuously propagated by health organizations and health specialists in academia through the means of mass media. Without question, talking heads have fully embraced this recommendation.

This is the new normal. Gloves and masks. Don’t touch anything. Social distancing. Isolation of the elderly. No more handshakes. Hugs? Don’t be preposterous! Church gatherings? Only in the parking lot, in separate cars, with the windows rolled up. Dining in restaurants? To-go orders will have to suffice. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the new normal.  Isn’t it wonderful?

Some things seem outright ridiculous, but that hasn’t kept people from going above and beyond the ridiculous to avoid transmission. The question is how much of the information coming out is reliable?

Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has now become a household name, went on “60 Minutes” on March 8 and said, “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.” On May 12, on PBS NewsHour, he recommended people wear masks. The CDC recommended cloth face covers in April, but mainly when in “areas of significant community-based transmission.”

That hasn’t stopped people from wearing masks in their vehicles or in isolated areas.

In March and April, studies were being released that the coronavirus could remain on metal and plastic surfaces for days, even weeks; that has been changed to 72 hours.

On May 12, Fauci testified before the Senate that there could be serious consequences if the country reopened too soon. On May 22, he stated that “irreparable damage” could be done if the lockdown lasted too long.

The conflict of views is obvious, but in regard to his May 22 interview, the question arises: how long is too long, according to Fauci? In mid-March, most states began their lockdowns. The American people were promised a 14-day lockdown, and even that felt like a very long time. These lockdowns have lingered over two months, with some governors and mayors resisting reopening.

The “irreparable damage” has already begun. When President Donald Trump warned of depression and increased suicide rates, the media scoffed and “fact-checked” their way into oblivion. It was an expected media response. But Trump was spot-on. History shows the direct correlation between a poor job market and depression/suicide rates. Between 1920 and 1928, the suicide rate was 12.1 per 100,000 people. It jumped to 18.1 in 1929. The poor job market in the 1980s created a surge of suicides. Most recently, suicides increased by 10,000 in Europe and the United States between the beginning recession years of 2007 to 2009.

A report by The Washington Post in early May shows that the United States is headed toward a major mental health crisis that includes substantial increases in depression and suicides.

Who and What Do We Protect?

The alarm bells were ringing to protect the elderly and those with immunodeficiency; this was the obvious step to take. But something idiotic took place. The idea of fairness took over.

If some had to go into lockdown, then everyone had to go into lockdown. The young and the healthy were reduced to the elderly and infirm. Those with everyday jobs joined those who were living off their Social Security checks. The insult of $1,200 checks were distributed to the masses as a gesture of goodwill; and those were distributed nearly a month after the lockdown began. The promise of increased unemployment checks were doled out as if U.S. workers had been gagging for a chance to stay at home for weeks on end.

Small businesses were forced to close with the threat of fines and jail time—some followed through on those anti-American threats—while large businesses, such as Walmart, Target, and Home Depot, were allowed to remain open. Places of worship and their parishioners were stripped of their First Amendment rights, as politicians deemed the basis of American life as “not essential.”

Not only was common sense sacrificed in the process but also human decency. While Americans scrambled to gather what was left of their existence, the most vulnerable were targeted by the cruelest form of euthanasia, as Gov. Andrew Cuomo forced long-term care facilities to open their doors to the infected, which led to thousands of deaths within the older adult community.

New York isn’t alone. Data for 14 states shows that deaths in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities made up 52 to 80 percent of the death rate. It’s a question of morality that can’t be ignored; that must not be ignored. It’s a travesty that can’t go without recompense.

Atop the mass deaths in these facilities, families across the nation have been kept from their parents and grandparents by law for the safety of all. This supposed protective measure, however, hasn’t protected those thousands of older adults in substandard care who are being shunned and at times abused by their nurses and staff.

While many clamor for more restrictions, longer lockdowns, and trillions of more dollars to be spent so that more can stay home, the worst of everything is happening. While the mainstream media champions the tyranny of governors such as Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, J.B. Pritzker, Jay Inslee, and Cuomo, they disregard the true troubles that are taking place among the American people.

Whitmer called her own constituents “racist and misogynistic” for demanding the state economy be reopened. Pritzker called it “reprehensible” that a journalist would report the fact that his wife broke quarantine to go to Florida while the rest of the state had to stay home. Newsom has shown his disdain for state citizens by promising to have them pay $75 million more in taxes to pay for unemployment insurance for illegal immigrants. Inslee has ignored the deadly results of placing the infected in long-term care facilities by recently opening COVID-19 units within some of them.

It’s become painfully obvious that the elderly, the economic fallout, the mental health repercussions, and the liberties secured by the Constitution matter very little.

What Could Have Been Avoided

When COVID-19 first emerged, it was near blasphemy to compare it to the flu. And yet, when we look at it, we can’t help but see the numerical similarities.

Had America treated this pandemic like the flu, the fallout would have been manageable. Common sense would have set in for everyone. Those who were sick would have quarantined themselves. The elderly and immunodeficient would have remained protected, but without the pandemonium that led to grossly negligent orders detrimental to long-term care facilities. People would have become more cautious about washing their hands.

Chances are the stock prices on hand sanitizer, rubber gloves, and masks would have gone up, but those are prices we can handle. There’s a chance people would have still acted as if the world of toilet paper was settling for single-ply.

We could have left matters in the hands of responsible adults when it came to social distancing and sneezing into our elbows, instead of pretending as if the only responsible Americans are those holding political office.

There are great questions before us. Who will be held responsible? Ferguson caustically said, “We will be paying for this year for decades to come.” But what will he pay? His resignation from Imperial College after breaking lockdown rules to meet his married lover isn’t recompense; it’s a self-inflicted slap on the wrist for displaying the most intolerable arrogance.

Can the CDC and the WHO ever be trusted fully? Has science become nothing more than ongoing experiments in ways to tragically destroy people’s lives? What will be the price to pay for those governors who, either purposely or inadvertently, caused the death of thousands because of illogical and cruel policies? What will be the outcome for an increasingly destructive mainstream media that cares not about the truth or the people for whom it is supposed to be the watchdog?

And, finally, can the people have the courage to resist a tyrannical government, a misleading media, and bridge the gap between ideological differences on the basis that it’s we who suffer and suffer together?

Will this moment in U.S. history, when everyone became obsessed with hysterics, finally bring us to our senses? Or will this—this absolute insanity—become our new normal to which we fully surrender our common sense and our human decency?

________________________________________________

Dustin Bass is the co-founder of The Sons of History, a YouTube series and weekly 

podcast about all things history. He is a former-journalist-turned-entrepreneur. 

He is also a publisher author.

                       

Church, Don’t Let Coronavirus Divide You

For church leaders and elder boards everywhere, the last few months have presented a near-constant array of complex challenges related to shepherding a church during the COVID-19 pandemic. The latest complex challenge is perhaps the trickiest yet: how to prudently resume in-person gatherings.

As if the logistical details weren’t challenging enough—how to maintain social distance and limit crowd size, whether or not to require masks, to sing or not to sing, what to do with children, and so on—the whole conversation is fraught with potential for division.

If a congregation—and within it, a leadership team—is at all a microcosm of our larger society, it will likely contain a broad assortment of strongly held convictions.

Some will be eager to meet in person and impatient to wait much longer to get back to normal. Others will insist it’s unwise to meet at all until there’s a vaccine. Plenty will fall somewhere in between. 

In such a precarious and polarizing environment, how can churches move forward in beautiful unity (Ps. 133) rather than ugly division? It won’t be easy. But by God’s grace and the power of the Holy Spirit working to unify us in ways our flesh resists, the opportunity is there for us to be a countercultural model for the rest of the world. 

Countercultural Sacrifice

At a time when self-idolatry is being exposed in ugly ways, the church has an opportunity to model love that places the interests of others above the self. For example, someone might find it personally difficult—even maddening—to have to wear a mask during church and stay six feet away from everyone at all times. 

You might think these precautions are a needless overreaction. But here’s the thing: even if it turns out you’re right, can you not sacrifice your ideal for a season, out of love for others who believe the precautions are necessary? Even if you personally think it is silly, or even cowardly, for someone to stay home even after the church is open again on Sundays, can you not heed Paul’s wisdom in Romans 14: “Let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother”? Or 1 Corinthians 8:9: “Be careful, however, that your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.” 

Even if you think these precautions are a needless overreaction, can you not sacrifice your ideal for a season, out of love for others who believe the precautions are necessary?

Likewise, those who think the lockdowns should continue should not pass judgment on those who question the wisdom of the government’s ongoing restrictions. Churches should strive to honor people on both sides of the spectrum. Yes, it will be costly for churches to keep offering online services for those who don’t feel comfortable attending physical gatherings. Yes, it will be a sacrifice for church members who are sick of masks, social distancing, and Zoom to continue to use these for the sake of others. But little is more Christian than a posture of sacrifice (Rom. 12:1). We should embrace it with gladness.

Countercultural Humility

Have you noticed how remarkably confident so many of us are in our views right now? Unfounded certainty—on the part of laypeople, leaders, modelers, and “experts” alike—is a contagion at least as viral as COVID-19 itself. We could all use a bit more humility, and the church should lead the way.

As much as ever before, Christians should follow the advice of James to be “quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger” (1:19). Listening well may slow down the process of deliberation and planning, but it is worth it. Whatever opinions church leaders themselves have on the matter of reopening, they should take time to humbly hear the voices of others—perhaps convening forums of various stakeholders within the church, as well as other church and government leaders in their area. 

Church members should likewise model Christlike humility (e.g., Phil. 2:3) in how they react to the plans outlined by leaders, even if they don’t agree with every aspect of it. No one of us should assume we’ve arrived at the definitive answer on how to do this well. Let’s model humility by acknowledging that everything is not obvious, and we are all just trying to do the best we can in this “build the plane in midair” moment. 

Countercultural Patience

Patience is one of the rarest virtues in today’s insta-everything world. And yet patience has rarely been more needed, as many of us are antsy to break free of “stay home” isolation and get back to normalcy as soon as possible. To be sure, it is good and right to be eager to gather again as churches. We should take Hebrews 10:25 seriously when it says we ought not neglect meeting together. We should feel the ache of what is lost when we only meet virtually, and every Christian should long for the day when “church on Zoom” gives way to “church in a room.” That day will come. But we should be careful to not rush it. 

We should be careful to not go faster than governments allow, or faster than those in our community can understand. We should be patient with a timeline that might be slower than we’d prefer; patient with a reopening process that will doubtless be clunky; patient with leaders feeling the pressure of this complex situation; and patient with one another as we figure out the new normal. 

Those who are not comfortable with physical gatherings should be patient with those who are, and vice versa. As hard as it will be to practice patience, remember that in the scheme of eternity this season—whether it’s months long or years—will be but a blip. 

As hard as it will be to practice patience, remember that in the scheme of eternity this season—whether it’s months long or years—will be but a blip.

Countercultural Nuance

We live in an un-nuanced age. The economic model of the media (built on clicks and views) works against nuance. Advertisers know nuance doesn’t sell. Politicians know it too. We shouldn’t be surprised by how rare it is for someone to hold humble, complicated, “both/and” views in today’s hyper-partisan, media-catechized world. But if churches are going to emerge from this crisis with unity and fellowship intact, we must embrace the countercultural path of nuance. 

It’s the path that avoids ALL CAPS hysteria of every extreme sort, recognizing that truth is rarely as simple and shrill as Twitter would have us think. It’s the path that prizes both courage and prudence, and avoids both pollyannaish and doomsday responses. It means we can be skeptical of some aspects of the lockdown without resorting to outrageous conspiracy theories, and we can honor governing authorities (Rom. 13) while engaging them in civil pushback when necessary. 

Countercultural nuance avoids thinking the worst of people and concedes that the other side of a debate is sometimes right, just as we are sometimes wrong. Nuance often results when humility and patience combine.

There are some things Christians should not be nuanced about, of course, and one of those is our rugged commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ and all that Scripture commands. What Paul urges the Ephesian church, therefore, should be equally urgent for us today: “Walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:1–3).

__________________________________

Authored by Brett McCracken -- a senior editor at The Gospel Coalition and author of Uncomfortable: The Awkward and Essential Challenge of Christian Community, Gray Matters: Navigating the Space Between Legalism and Liberty, and Hipster Christianity: When Church and Cool Collide. Brett and his wife, Kira, live in Santa Ana, California, with their son Chet. They belong to Southlands Church, where Brett serves as an elder. You can follow him on Twitter.

_________________________________________________

MYANMAR CHRISTIANS AND THE STRUGGLE TO BE FAITHFUL

Myanmar is emerging from almost fifty years of military rule, often brutal in its repression of dissent. In November 2015, the country held a democratic election, the first in decades, and the party of Aung San Suu Kyii, recipient of the Nobel Peace prize, had a landslide victory. The army, however, still wields tremendous power.

Most Christians in Myanmar are from one of the seven minority ethnic tribal groups recognized by the government. The Burman, 63% of the population and Buddhist (hence the former name for the country, Burma), hold the power of government and the military. Thus most Christians find themselves twice disenfranchised, by both religious faith and ethnicity.

What does it mean to be a faithful Christian in Myanmar?

In addition to their second class status, the church continues to face numerous challenges as they navigate through a jungle of competing stances, positions and perspectives within their faith communities. What does it mean to be a faithful Christian in these contexts?

Should Christians hold to a strictly non-violent agenda or support their tribes’ armed resistance against the government? If they choose the former, non-violence, are they being sufficiently loyal to their tribe?

Since independence from England in 1948, there has been insurgency fighting within Myanmar, led by tribal groups who want autonomy and self-governance within their regions. What role should Christians take in these conflicts which sometimes divide churches and families?

What is a Christian stance towards protecting the environment when sometimes the only work available degrades the environment?

Myanmar is rich in precious and semi-precious stones, including jade and rubies, and timber and forest products make up a sizeable part of the country’s resources. Much of the mining and lumber industry is located in tribal regions and sometimes this is the only employment option for Christians, other than subsistence farming – and yet many are aware how these industries do great damage to their environment.

What should a Christian’s response be to unjust laws set down by the Myanmar government?

In 2015, four laws, known as the “Race and Religion Protection Laws,” were adopted by parliament. They are, arguably, protection for the Buddhist majority and not for religious or tribal minorities, including Christians. These include having to petition your township if you wish to convert to another religion, or if a Buddhist woman wishes to marry a non-Buddhist man.

Another provision makes it a criminal offense to have more than one spouse, or to live with someone who is not your legal spouse (clearly aimed at the Muslim minority). Most troubling for many tribal Christians is the requirement that women in certain regions must space the birth of their children at least 36 months apart. This is clearly aimed at controlling population growth among the tribal Christians and Muslims. Should Christians comply with this government order?

Should churches continue to worship in the manner taught them by missionaries fifty years ago, or should they contextualize to their culture, time and place?

There is both love and resistance to the history and legacy of missions in Myanmar, as there is in other post-colonial countries. Great power and deference is given to western missionaries and Myanmar Christians still look to the west as the defining foundations of their faith.  After more than a century of hard work, Christianity is perceived as a potted plant, not yet rooted in the soil of Myanmar, and most believers are unwilling to break the pot.   There are some people that see the need for change, but they are clearly in the minority.

Myanmar Christians have truly embraced the Good News of Jesus Christ, knowing all too well the darkness and oppression of their land. Myanmar Christians need courage, wisdom and fortitude as they discern what faith-full living means in their complicated living experiences, even as we must discern what it means to live in ours alongside them as supporters. 

The Christian leaders and pastors of Myanmar have endured so much, and have had so few resources, that we should be proud to respond to their requests for our help. The needs and challenges of the Christians in Myanmar are most of the time unfathomable to westerners.  We find it hard to accept that needs could be so great.   They are great and they never end.  When one challenge is solved another emerges.   Burmese Christians are our brothers and sisters in Christ, we dare not turn our backs on the family of God.

Will you help us encourage and equip God’s family in Myanmar? Your generosity will enable us to demonstrate to this long-suffering church that we love them enough to help them effectively communicate God’s word.

___________________________________________________

Life in a Garbage Dump - Burmese Migrants scrounge through trash to survive

MAE SOT, Thailand - February 2019 — When entering the landfill on the outskirts of Mae Sot on Thailand’s border with Burma, flies buzz chaotically around the waste, which ranges from metal devices to worn out clothes to rotten food, the pile standing taller than a grown man.

“We consume wasted food if it is good enough. We cook it, if needed. We make our living by collecting wasted and recyclable materials and selling them,” explained Ma San Aye, a 45 year-old Burmese woman originally from Kyaukki Township in Pegu Division who has made her home at the garbage dump for more than 15 years along with her children and grandchildren.

“We can survive on 20 baht (US$0.58) a day here,” she said, sipping her tea as flies attempt to land on the cup’s rim.

Ma San Aye prepares to head out to collect rubbish. The garbage piles stand like a small hill in an area called Mae Pa—it is where all of the waste from Mae Sot town is thrown.

“Of course it is bad for our health. Before, I had no diseases. Now, I have back pain and chest pain. It is smelly, but we have adapted to it. Before, I would vomit and I couldn’t eat for five days. But it is okay now,” said Ma San Aye said.

She said she makes around 2,000 baht (US$58) a month selling materials she finds at the dump.

Those who reside near the waste site live in makeshift tents, where they eat and sleep. Some sort through the trash during the daytime, and others do so at night.

Ma San Aye’s grandson plays in a tent near the landfill where he lives with his family. 

“We can’t survive if we are afraid of bad, dirty and smelly waste. It is like our kitchen—we eat here and live here,” said Ko Than Oo, 49, while collecting recyclable materials around the landfill.

Sweat fell on his face and his clothes were soaked with perspiration.

“I know the smell is not good for our health. I get severe headaches and dizziness. Sometimes, I have heavy coughing,” he said.  Ko Than Oo collects recyclable waste at the front of the garbage dump in Mae Sot. 

Ko Than Oo has lived near the garbage pile with his blind and aging mother for 12 years. Despite the reforms underway in Burma, he said he has no plan to go back to his homeland, as he does not have a job there. He makes about 150 baht (US$4.34) a day by collecting and selling recyclable materials. This, he said, is enough to feed himself and his mother.

Several other people, including women and children, are also busy, collecting rubbish in the heat. There are more than 100 households living at the garbage pile, and, according to residents, some have been living here for up to 20 years.

Ko Than Oo and other waste collectors work at the garbage pile in Mae Sot. 

U Moe Joe, chairman of Joint Action Committee for Burma Affairs in Mae Sot, has been supporting Burmese workers in the area for 14 years. He told The Irrawaddy that there are 300 Burmese people currently living in and around Mae Sot’s landfill; they came to Thailand hoping to escape poverty and unemployment in their hometowns.

“They depend on the garbage. They make their living by collecting waste,” he said. Although Mae Sot is experiencing economic growth, many of the benefits do not reach the Burmese migrant workers who live and work there, U Moe Joe explained, saying that instead, those who work in factories, construction, and in waste collection are frequently “left behind.”

The garbage collector Ko Than Oo said that migrants like himself are excluded from experiencing development in Mae Sot, adding, “It has nothing to do with us.”

For Ma San Aye, her relationship with the waste site has become a way of life, and a resource on which she depends in order to make a living.

“For us it is like a pile of gold and money. We rely on this garbage,” she says, smoking a cheroot in her tent while her grandchildren play nearby.

Myanmar Military violating human rights in Rakhine Unrest

Amnesty International says military shelling villages, limiting access to food and keeping humanitarian groups out.

Myanmar's military is shelling villages and preventing civilians from getting food and humanitarian help, amid an intensifying crackdown on the rebel Arakan Army in the restive northwestern state of Rakhine that has pushed thousands from their homes, Amnesty International has said.

The human rights group said on Monday its investigations also found that the security forces had used vague and repressive laws to detain civilians in its battle against the Arakan Army, an ethnic Rakhine group that is fighting for more autonomy.

"These latest operations are yet another reminder that the Myanmar military operates without any regard for human rights," Tirana Hassan, Amnesty's director of crisis response, said in a statement. "Shelling inhabited villages and withholding food supplies is unjustifiable under any circumstances."

Fighting between the military and Arakan Army intensified in January after the rebels attacked a police post leaving 13 officers dead.

The military responded by deploying more troops to the region, the site of a massive crackdown on the Rohingya Muslim minority in 2017, in an attempt to "crush" the fighters. The United Nations says some 5,200 people had been forced from their homes on January 28, as a result of the conflict.

There was no immediate response from the Myanmar authorities to Amnesty's report.

Unlawful tactics

Amnesty said it had spoken to people affected by the fighting, as well as to local activists and humanitarian workers to get an understanding of the effects of the latest unrest. It said most of those forced to flee were Buddhist and included minority Mro, Khami, Daingnet and Rakhine people. Myanmar has about 135 different ethnic groups.

It noted that unlawful tactics had been a "hallmark of the military's operations against armed groups" and that previous operations in Kachin and northern Shan states had killed and wounded civilians and displaced thousands. It added that the troop build-up in Rakhine included the 99th Light Infantry Division, a unit Amnesty and others had previously implicated in atrocities against the Rohingya in August 2017.

Two villagers who spoke to Amnesty said that they had fled their homes under military bombardment and when they returned to collect belongings discovered money and other valuables were missing. They suspected soldiers of the theft because troops had been expected to secure the area.

Another said Myanmar soldiers and police had restricted the amount of rice that people in her village could bring into the settlement even though they were already suffering from a shortage of basic foods because fighting in December had prevented them from harvesting their crops. As a result, they abandoned the village, as had other people in settlements nearby.

"We talked among ourselves that it was impossible to live in our village any more," the 34-year-old woman from a remote ethnic Mro village in Kyauktaw Township told Amnesty. "We didn't want to move to a (displaced persons) camp, but we couldn't trade what we found in the forest and we couldn't get through enough supplies."

Military presence

The unrest has also spilled over into neighboring Chin State where locally-based human rights monitors say the sporadic violence and escalating military presence in its southern part is affecting local communities.

An update from the Chin Human Rights Organization (CHRO) that was released on Sunday said the military had imposed restrictions on movement and a curfew in three villages after troops moved into a nearby town. Residents told CHRO more than 50 military vehicles had arrived in Matupi Town, checkpoints had been erected and that there were regular helicopter flights in and out of the area.

Despite the unrest in Rakhine, the Myanmar authorities have made it more difficult for aid groups to work in the region, Amnesty said. On January 10, the Rakhine government barred all UN agencies and international organizations with the exception of the Red Cross and the World Food Program from operating in the five conflict-affected townships.

"The Myanmar authorities are deliberately playing with the lives and livelihoods of civilians," Hassan said. "As we've seen time and again, the military's priority is not to protect people in the crossfire, but rather to hide their abuses from the international community."

Amnesty said it had also gathered evidence that the military and police were abusing the law to detain and prosecute civilians, including Aung Tun Sein, a Mro village leader who had been picked up in the wake of an outbreak of fighting in the area around his village in mid-January and remained in jail. Ten other men held with him were released.

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA NEWS