BookTalk.org

Is it moral for our governments to impose poverty on us?
Taxation determines what poverty levels will exist within it’s demographic form. It controls the graph shown below. Governments control taxation and thus control poverty levels directly.
Imagine if you will, the real truth of that taxation, if used correctly, to move the wealth shown in this graph wherever it wants to, with minimal effect on the whole. The fact is, experts say that such a reality would be a win win for everyone.
https://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-am ... ing-fact-2
Not how little of a change would be needed to reach the ideal.
Wise and moral people throughout history, as well as most religious movements, put poverty as the number one enemy to man’s first priority, which is security.
For perhaps the first time in history, we have the wealth where we could end poverty quite easily, --- just with our collective loose change.
It would seem to me that governments are not acting ethically and should be chastised.
I guess that George Carlin, a wise person, was correct in what he said of what Americans cannot feel in their anal orifices. I apply the same condition to the vast majority of the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14SllPPLxY
If true that we are being willfully ignorant, and do not even care about each other to insure we live in a moral environment, then our owners have succeeded in cowering man’s moral nature to a state of subservience. We have given up our freedom. If we ever had any.
We have all accepted to be slaves. Shame on us all.
We do not live in a Democracy. We live in a Hypocrisy.
We can easily rid ourselves of poverty.
Should we?
Morality says yes.
Will we do the right thing?
Not till hell freezes over.
Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop wrote:Is it moral for our governments to impose poverty on us?

We live in a Hypocrisy.

Regards
DL

It is not moral for our government to impose poverty on us. Our government should insure that the rich remain rich. Think of all the things you can do with $11 million that you can't do with $10 million.

We live in a Hypocrisy? I was thinking we lived in a Wes Craven remake of Alice in Wonderland.

Gnostic Bishop wrote:We can easily rid ourselves of poverty.
Should we?
Morality says yes.

We have become more of an oligarchy than a democracy and so capitalism is hobbled from within by the real players—those with power and money. There still is something to the idea that government should lay off as much as possible and allow the market to function in terms of supply and demand. But obviously that isn't working with our current system of government, which has become hijacked by corporate interests. Top down redistribution of wealth by the government—full on socialism—doesn't work because we need competition and motivation. Thus the question becomes how to restore power to the people by way of free market capitalism, or at the very least a mixed economy that utilizes elements of both capitalism and socialism.

In the end though, I don't think there's an "easy" way of ridding ourselves of poverty until we can figure out how to stop corporate influence. Maybe we need Plato's philosopher-kings running the show.

Food for thought. Thanks for posting.

Litwitlou wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote:Is it moral for our governments to impose poverty on us?

We live in a Hypocrisy.

Regards
DL

It is not moral for our government to impose poverty on us. Our government should insure that the rich remain rich. Think of all the things you can do with $11 million that you can't do with $10 million.

We live in a Hypocrisy? I was thinking we lived in a Wes Craven remake of Alice in Wonderland.

I agree that we need the rich.

I do not agree that the governments should insure that particular rich people should be helped to remain rich. The survival of the fittest rules our evolution and it should not be a government. Let the rich compete and live or die by their wits.

Regards
DL

geo wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote:We can easily rid ourselves of poverty.
Should we?
Morality says yes.

We have become more of an oligarchy than a democracy and so capitalism is hobbled from within by the real players—those with power and money. There still is something to the idea that government should lay off as much as possible and allow the market to function in terms of supply and demand. But obviously that isn't working with our current system of government, which has become hijacked by corporate interests. Top down redistribution of wealth by the government—full on socialism—doesn't work because we need competition and motivation. Thus the question becomes how to restore power to the people by way of free market capitalism, or at the very least a mixed economy that utilizes elements of both capitalism and socialism.

In the end though, I don't think there's an "easy" way of ridding ourselves of poverty until we can figure out how to stop corporate influence. Maybe we need Plato's philosopher-kings running the show.

Food for thought. Thanks for posting.

You say redistribution does not work when we have not really ever attempted it except with band aid solutions.

I am talking a fundamental and moral way of thinking of our demography, and if you look at that graph and estimate how much actual redistribution would be required to end poverty, you can easily see that it is basically loose change to the rich.

We are refusing to make a small change to make our immoral system moral.

That could be done without any negatives happening in the issues you brought up.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop wrote:t
I agree that we need the rich.

I do not agree that the governments should insure that particular rich people should be helped to remain rich. The survival of the fittest rules our evolution and it should not be a government. Let the rich compete and live or die by their wits.

Regards
DL

That was sarcasm. For the record, I do not believe it's the government's job to help the rich stay rich. I'm surprised, and a bit saddened, that the statement was taken seriously.

Litwitlou wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote:t
I agree that we need the rich.

I do not agree that the governments should insure that particular rich people should be helped to remain rich. The survival of the fittest rules our evolution and it should not be a government. Let the rich compete and live or die by their wits.

Regards
DL

That was sarcasm. For the record, I do not believe it's the government's job to help the rich stay rich. I'm surprised, and a bit saddened, that the statement was taken seriously.

Perhaps if you worked on the delivery and would remember that on the net, you will find all kinds of stupidity.
I do not mean that in any personal way.
I myself try not to use sarcasm without naming it so as many have misunderstood mine.

Regards
DL

Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang is thinking along those lines...

"The Freedom Dividend is a form of universal basic income (UBI), a type of social security that guarantees a certain amount of money to every citizen within a given governed population, without having to pass a test or fulfill a work requirement. Every UBI plan can be different in terms of amount or design.

Andrew Yang is running for President as Democrat in 2020 to implement the Freedom Dividend. This form of UBI that he is proposing for the United States is a set of guaranteed payments of $1,000 per month, or $12,000 per year, to all U.S. citizens over the age of 18. Yes, that means you and everyone you know would get another $1,000/month every month from the U.S. government, no questions asked."

https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/

DWill wrote:Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang is thinking along those lines...

"The Freedom Dividend is a form of universal basic income (UBI), a type of social security that guarantees a certain amount of money to every citizen within a given governed population, without having to pass a test or fulfill a work requirement. Every UBI plan can be different in terms of amount or design.

Andrew Yang is running for President as Democrat in 2020 to implement the Freedom Dividend. This form of UBI that he is proposing for the United States is a set of guaranteed payments of $1,000 per month, or $12,000 per year, to all U.S. citizens over the age of 18. Yes, that means you and everyone you know would get another $1,000/month every month from the U.S. government, no questions asked."

https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/

All citizens are not in need.

As you can see by the graph in the O.P., only a few need help.

If all get a break, the graph says basically the same after corporation adjust their products selling price.

Does Yang have a ways and means part to show where all that money will come from?

Regards
DL

That was sarcasm. For the record, I do not believe it's the government's job to help the rich stay rich. I'm surprised, and a bit saddened, that the statement was taken seriously.[/quote]

Gnostic Bishop wrote:Perhaps if you worked on the delivery and would remember that on the net, you will find all kinds of stupidity.
I do not mean that in any personal way.
I myself try not to use sarcasm without naming it so as many have misunderstood mine.

Regards
DL

No, I don't think it's my delivery. "It is the job of the government to ensure the rich stay rich." If someone can't tell that's sarcasm I'm not responsible. I will, however, stop correcting posts that take ridiculous statements seriously. As for stupidity... the gods themselves...