Is it moral for our governments to impose poverty on us?

[Greatest I am]

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-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-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

[Munch]

I like George Carlin a lot, the things he said were very on the nose and honest about how things are day to day, some hard truths people sometimes don't want to hear, but spoken in a comedic way.

Now, he was right about capitalism and the big corporations owning you, it's true, there is very much a monopoly on society and one ever so much more obvious in wealthy nations.

But what would the alternatives be to this? Socialism? Everyone being equal? Sad fact is that just doesn't work either, and people have a poorly quality of life.

We are either slaves to corporations and the 1%, or we are starving to death potato farmers. And I'd sooner be in a capitalist society that supports free healthcare then a dead 2 year old on a straw bed.

[Greatest I am]

But what would the alternatives be to this? Socialism? Everyone being equal?

Hell no.

The alternative is to recognize how little of the wealth in that graph actually has to move to end poverty and do just that. No big shake up or changes in most laws other than the tax laws.

We are talking loose change to the rich.

Regards
DL

[Munch]

Hell no.

The alternative is to recognize how little of the wealth in that graph actually has to move to end poverty and do just that. No big shake up or changes in most laws other than the tax laws.

We are talking loose change to the rich.

Regards
DL

That seems fair, but the nature of humanity just wouldn't let that last. Even big world charities horde money donated to them from suckers beliving it will lead to fresh water wells for poorer countries

Saying that these charities sometimes do use that money for its intended purpose people want, and do so for a good PR stunt, so at least some people in need sometimes get help.

[Greatest I am]

That seems fair, but the nature of humanity just wouldn't let that last. Even big world charities horde money donated to them from suckers beliving it will lead to fresh water wells for poorer countries

Saying that these charities sometimes do use that money for its intended purpose people want, and do so for a good PR stunt, so at least some people in need sometimes get help.

I hear you, but what do you see as wrong with our natures?

I see our world and people as evolving perfection. Not flawless, but the best it can be given our past history and entropy.

The full idea is a bit long should you want to see as I see.

Let me give you a couple of links first, with the first showing how our goodness is actually baffling the experts.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ADgh3yCSdM

You will need more time for the following but if you want to, skip to the end to see the great stats we are producing against evil. Better than we have ever enjoyed.

Richard Dawkins - Sex, Death and the Meaning of Life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLulcfyqrc0

===============

I wrote this to refute the false notion that Gnostic Christians do not like matter and reality that the inquisitors propagated to justify their many murders of my religions originators. It shows that Christians should actually hate matter and not Gnostic Christians.

The Christian reality.
1 John 2:15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.  16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Gen 3; 17 Thou shalt not eat of it;  cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.
-----------

The Gnostic Christian reality.
Gnostic Christian Jesus said,  "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.
[And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

"If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.

If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.

Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.

[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.

But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.

Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.

Regards
DL

[Baruch]

Hey, welcome back!  Richard Dawkins is even smarter than his more famous brother.  Yes, primarily in Europe, "austerity" was the chosen policy by GB and EU to deal with the 2008 crisis.  The US had a somewhat different policy, because of the "dollar".  We bailed out both the US and Europe, with 14 trillion in credit in 2008-2009.  And "quantitative easing" since 2010.

The poor we will always have .. because nobody is ever satisfied with what they have.  That is a fundamental economic motivator.  You can expand what is to be had, thru economic development (business) or by government fiat (treasury).  Usually both.  It is much easier to expand via fiat.  Economic development is much slower, and the results are iffy.  Government fiat is much faster, but there are long term consequences (like bar hopping).

So yes, the government thru greed and incompetence worked with business (also working thru greed and incompetence) to make the wonderful carnival ride we are on.  But I really don't think any of our institutions actually do anything deliberately, though they constantly try.  The economy is simply not controllable like that.

Are governments or businesses moral?  Lately I must disappoint you.  I have rejected morality and ethics as pink and white elephants.

[Baruch]

I like George Carlin a lot, the things he said were very on the nose and honest about how things are day to day, some hard truths people sometimes don't want to hear, but spoken in a comedic way.

Now, he was right about capitalism and the big corporations owning you, it's true, there is very much a monopoly on society and one ever so much more obvious in wealthy nations.

But what would the alternatives be to this? Socialism? Everyone being equal? Sad fact is that just doesn't work either, and people have a poorly quality of life.

We are either slaves to corporations and the 1%, or we are starving to death potato farmers. And I'd sooner be in a capitalist society that supports free healthcare then a dead 2 year old on a straw bed.

As argued now in GB.  Is GB slave to EU or slave to US.  Depends on if you are Remain or Leave.  Nobody proposes that GB not be anyone's slave.  People love slavery (see Nietzsche).

[Shiranu]

But what would the alternatives be to this? Socialism? Everyone being equal? Sad fact is that just doesn't work either, and people have a poorly quality of life.

How about much higher taxes on the wealthy to go towards social and science programs, stricter regulations on employee wages to keep everyone working on a living salary, stricter laws on money loaning and banks gambling with peoples money, keeping housing affordable or providing affordable housing, etc.?

It worked for us before and arguably lead to the world's highest standard of living and golden age of scientific progress (we went from basic mechanics to going to the moon, for Christ's sake)... so it's safe to assume it would work again. It would at least have to work better than the borderline unregulated late-stage capitalism we have today.

[josephpalazzo]

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.

One of the things you omit is that some people are incapable of managing their wealth - take a look at the stats of people winning the lottery and then go bankrupt after a few years, or superstar athletes who earned millions and then go bust after a few years they stopped playing. For some people no matter how much money you throw at them, they will always be poor. Secondly, taxing the rich only pushes them to move their money to other countries. So unless you can convince some 200+ jurisdictions to have very similar laws on taxation, your plan to move money from the rich to the poor will fail. Thirdly, you need low paying jobs to do those jobs that are necessary but cannot be a large burden on the economy - garbage collection, waiting on tables, nannies, etc. You just can't pay the same salary to a garbage collector and a brain surgeon. Such economy won't last very long. At best, we can provide a minimum social safety net for those who fall into the cracks and those who are vulnerable - those afflicted with chronic or mental disease, the old and the very young who can't provide for themselves. But for the rest of us, we're on our own, as it should be.

[Baruch]

Hell no.

The alternative is to recognize how little of the wealth in that graph actually has to move to end poverty and do just that. No big shake up or changes in most laws other than the tax laws.

We are talking loose change to the rich.

Regards
DL

But the financials, and thus much of the GDP ... is fake.  You can end poverty, by people choosing to be happy with what they have, or we can kill the unhappy people.

[Baruch]

How about much higher taxes on the wealthy to go towards social and science programs, stricter regulations on employee wages to keep everyone working on a living salary, stricter laws on money loaning and banks gambling with peoples money, keeping housing affordable or providing affordable housing, etc.?

It worked for us before and arguably lead to the world's highest standard of living and golden age of scientific progress (we went from basic mechanics to going to the moon, for Christ's sake)... so it's safe to assume it would work again. It would at least have to work better than the borderline unregulated late-stage capitalism we have today.

You can.  90% marginal tax rate (minus loopholes) when I was born.  We could do that.  But what about 100% taxes, nationalization of all business.  Then make it illegal to report the imputed per capita rate.  Worked for Stalin.  But tax code per 1959 would be less punitive ;-)

Do you realize why we have taxes?  It is to recycle the excess money injected into the economy by government fiat (this has been a big problem since 2008 when trillions were injected).  To close the loop.  Otherwise you get Zimbabwe.  However to use the tax code as punitive social engineering ... well we have had that for a century.  The loopholes are there to favor certain people (purely discriminatory).  Why not just kill the rich?  Would that be punitive enough for you people?  But if you destroy the imputed social contract, government and society will fall into a criminogenic anarchy.  Or is that what already happened in 1776?  Stalin's Russia was a criminogenic order (not anarchy).

[Greatest I am]

Hey, welcome back!  Richard Dawkins is even smarter than his more famous brother.  Yes, primarily in Europe, "austerity" was the chosen policy by GB and EU to deal with the 2008 crisis.  The US had a somewhat different policy, because of the "dollar".  We bailed out both the US and Europe, with 14 trillion in credit in 2008-2009.  And "quantitative easing" since 2010.

The poor we will always have .. because nobody is ever satisfied with what they have.  That is a fundamental economic motivator.  You can expand what is to be had, thru economic development (business) or by government fiat (treasury).  Usually both.  It is much easier to expand via fiat.  Economic development is much slower, and the results are iffy.  Government fiat is much faster, but there are long term consequences (like bar hopping).

So yes, the government thru greed and incompetence worked with business (also working thru greed and incompetence) to make the wonderful carnival ride we are on.  But I really don't think any of our institutions actually do anything deliberately, though they constantly try.  The economy is simply not controllable like that.

Are governments or businesses moral?  Lately I must disappoint you.  I have rejected morality and ethics as pink and white elephants.

I have missed your view buddy.

I have been busy getting banned from intolerant places.
On straight political posts, I like to get back to these less religious haunts.

Knowing your usual better than most moral thinking, I reject you last.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

As argued now in GB.  Is GB slave to EU or slave to US.  Depends on if you are Remain or Leave.  Nobody proposes that GB not be anyone's slave.  People love slavery (see Nietzsche).

Slavery may be the ultimate security and our selfish gene seems to know it.
At one time, that was true, but today it is not.
As a historian, you might not agree.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

How about much higher taxes on the wealthy to go towards social and science programs, stricter regulations on employee wages to keep everyone working on a living salary, stricter laws on money loaning and banks gambling with peoples money, keeping housing affordable or providing affordable housing, etc.?

It worked for us before and arguably lead to the world's highest standard of living and golden age of scientific progress (we went from basic mechanics to going to the moon, for Christ's sake)... so it's safe to assume it would work again. It would at least have to work better than the borderline unregulated late-stage capitalism we have today.

I generally agree with your views except for your "How about much higher taxes on the wealthy"

My view of a fair tax code is that after all are pulled over the poverty line, all pay the same % of tax.

I do not see a tax law that targets the rich more than the poor to be fair.

Care to give us an argument that justifies nailing the rich more than the rest who are not as rich?

Regards
DL 

[Greatest I am]

One of the things you omit is that some people are incapable of managing their wealth - take a look at the stats of people winning the lottery and then go bankrupt after a few years, or superstar athletes who earned millions and then go bust after a few years they stopped playing. For some people no matter how much money you throw at them, they will always be poor. Secondly, taxing the rich only pushes them to move their money to other countries. So unless you can convince some 200+ jurisdictions to have very similar laws on taxation, your plan to move money from the rich to the poor will fail. Thirdly, you need low paying jobs to do those jobs that are necessary but cannot be a large burden on the economy - garbage collection, waiting on tables, nannies, etc. You just can't pay the same salary to a garbage collector and a brain surgeon. Such economy won't last very long. At best, we can provide a minimum social safety net for those who fall into the cracks and those who are vulnerable - those afflicted with chronic or mental disease, the old and the very young who can't provide for themselves. But for the rest of us, we're on our own, as it should be.

Your first is correct, but you seem to not recognize that our system are based on waste and the incompetent money mangers spend all they have and to an economy, that is great as then the spent cash can have the value added attached to it and that is what profits the whole system.

"taxing the rich only pushes them to move their money to other countries."

Then you boycott their products and end their citizenship. No country should increase the poverty levels to keep such filth in their country. That would be putting greed ahead of morality.

"you need low paying jobs"

Sure, but not lower than about $ 15. as an economy should want to produce tax payers and not tax takers who are just make work projects for governments who just love to increase the dependence of the people on a bigger government.

Regards
DL