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

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

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

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 5 • Views: 1,919 • Replies: 44

@Greatest I am,

All the crooked stuff going on and you come up with this crap. Why don't you stay on the religious sites?

2 Replies

@RABEL222,

I’m not sure showing up on a thread for the sole purpose of telling someone to go to a different site is in keeping with the TOS, but I’ll find out.

2 Replies

@Lash,

It would help if you took the same advice.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

I've never done it. YOU did.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Did what?

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

tsk, tsk, tsk Rabel....you really should be talking about St. Bernie......the only hope for America.

0 Replies

@Greatest I am,

Quote:

For perhaps the first time in history, we have the wealth where we could end poverty quite easily, --- just with our collective loose change.

This line of thought has shown itself to be false.

Even most lotto winners find themselves back to the place they were at before they won, usually within 5-10 years. What exactly do you think a person with a poverty mindset will do if given extra money - and a lot less than a lotto winner? The answer for most is quite simple - most will spend it on things that lose value, and almost none will spend it on things that generate money.

In this case 'giving away money to stop poverty' does not stop poverty at all. Here, 'give a man a fish and he will be hungry tomorrow, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime', has never been more apt.

Quote:

Taxation determines what poverty levels will exist within it’s demographic form.

Taxation is just one of the contributing factors. It certainly has an affect, but if you are talking most western countries, it is not the limiting factor.

1 Reply

Excusing the very rich from paying their taxes does not relieve poverty at all it does the opposite.

We need to ensure the rich do pay and take very strong punitive measures to punish noncompliance. They way the money can be redistributed to help the poor.

We don't need any more religious bollocks we need international socialism.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

We have two legs of communism. A dictator and a compliant senate. We need to elect a compliant house so our dictator has no constraints. And we need to let the CIA operate in the continental u s so they can control the populace. Than we will have the perfect republican government?

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Pretty sure Izzy isn't american.

That aside, what he said was largely correct. You can have a look at your own Whitehouse records for federal revenue if you like, as to which sectors (civlian or corporate) are paying the bulk of U.S. Federal Revenue. It's an easy search.

You can also see the percentage of people in poverty doesn't change (in the U.S.) https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-people.html

What you do find is the percentage of wealth in the top tier, grows every time tax revenue quote is moved from corporations to the population. You also find the middle class disappearing (as a percentage). That last is problematic, as it's where most entrepreneurship comes from (just do a a search : do most entrepreneurs come from "middle class")

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

All the crooked stuff going on and you come up with this crap. Why don't you stay on the religious sites?

Crap is what you spew.

Why don't you bite me?

Regards
DL

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

I’m not sure showing up on a thread for the sole purpose of telling someone to go to a different site is in keeping with the TOS, but I’ll find out.

Haters have a hard time thinking.

Regards
DL

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:

Taxation is just one of the contributing factors. It certainly has an affect, but if you are talking most western countries, it is not the limiting factor.

Think demographically.

Do you see a major change to anything if you move the required wealth to end poverty by moving a small bit of wealth from the extreme right to the extreme left of the graph?

BTW, it is harder to teach anyone anything when they are hungry.

Regards
DL

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Excusing the very rich from paying their taxes does not relieve poverty at all it does the opposite.

We need to ensure the rich do pay and take very strong punitive measures to punish noncompliance. They way the money can be redistributed to help the poor.

We don't need any more religious bollocks we need international socialism.

That is a part of the U.N. plan for the future.

An international world government as well as an international religion.

It may be too late if global climate change has reached it's run away stage.

Regards
DL

1 Reply

@Greatest I am,

Morality is what you do when people are watching.

Ethics is what you have when no one cares to watch.

Therefore, your logic is flawed.

It's ironic you bring up George Carlin, the sayer of the 7 things you cannot say on tv, the seeker of coffee flavored coffee and the pundit of everything esoteric about government.

Quoting someone who is watched by everyone doesn't mean your claim is true or false. It just means you aren't as funny.

2 Replies

@neptuneblue,

Quote:

Morality is what you do when people are watching.

Ethics is what you have when no one cares to watch

Apparently you believe that any person who has morals is a hypocrite.

That would be a cynical, jaded view of morality.

It would also be treating all those that live by morals / are true to their morals, in an unethical manner - lumping them with hypocrites.

The irony of doing so publicly.

0 Replies

@Greatest I am,

Excellent Christian comeback. True republican trumpista reply.

0 Replies

@Greatest I am,

You don't understand Socialism. There's no reason why power has to be centralised, that's your thinking. As for your global religion well that's just paranoid nonsense.

I accept that International Socialism is an ideal, and something that's never going to happen in my lifetime if ever, but that doesn't mean it's not worth believing in. At least it offers something more substantive than religion.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

Morality is what you do when people are watching.

Ethics is what you have when no one cares to watch.

Therefore, your logic is flawed.

It's ironic you bring up George Carlin, the sayer of the 7 things you cannot say on tv, the seeker of coffee flavored coffee and the pundit of everything esoteric about government.

Quoting someone who is watched by everyone doesn't mean your claim is true or false. It just means you aren't as funny.

I take it that English is not your forte given that your definitions are not the way your dictionary defines the words you define poorly.

Regards
DL

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know