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

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Quote:
You don't understand Socialism.

Thanks for correcting me.

Oh wait. You didn't. You win this argument.

Quote:
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.

Paranoid. Don't be stupid, if you can help it.

I see that as a boon and not something I should be paranoid over.

Quote:
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.

Since I do not know how you define socialism, and it is not something I favor, I cannot agree with you as there is no real socialized country in the list of oligarchies that we actually live in.

Regards
DL

0 Replies

@Greatest I am,

Quote:

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?

Very obviously in my assertion that your idea that " we have the ability to solve poverty through collective loose change" is false - I have thought demographically (implied through the explanation of what would be done with the money if it were given to the poor).

Quote:

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

I gave a qualifier "in the West" - in relation to what you are replying to in this quote, being tax. In the West, very few except homeless people go hungry without making multiple decisions with the prioritisation of their money that leads to hunger.

And even if people in poverty are hungry, it doesn't change the necessity (if they are to get themselves out of poverty, and keep themselves out of poverty), nor the truth of the statement. There are concepts regarding money, the nature of how we work, the purpose of working, the value of things we spend our money on, thinking to the future and how to grow money (even if it's very little) etc., that exist in financially successful people, but is almost never found in those in poverty (and those in poverty with that mindset & knowledge don't stay in poverty for extended periods).

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Very obviously in my assertion that your idea that " we have the ability to solve poverty through collective loose change" is false - [/quote]

You would have had to work out the amount or % involved to say this.

Show the stats or information please.

Regards
DL

1 Reply

@Greatest I am,

Quote:

You would have had to work out the amount or % involved to say this.

No, I wouldn't have. The % is irrelevant to the fact that even if you gave them money, they would be back in the poverty zone after they spent the money on things that lose value (and don't generate extra money for them), and usually need replacing years later (losing more money). This is shown time and again (though not every single case) when poor people are given large amounts of money (lotto wins, inheritance etc)

It appears you don't understand what keeps people in a cycle of poverty (it's given that name for a reason), nor what results in people becoming financially successful.

In your simplicity, you focus on just one factor. You blame tax. Even in doing this, you ignore that in plenty of countries with poor people (every single country), many don't start taxing until a threshhold, and some like australia have family grants (through the welfare system) that means the government is giving (even poor working families) more money than they are taxing them - so the governments in the end, tax many poor much less than rich people.

Poverty has much a much wider combination of factors than just tax, and staying out of poverty requires mindset & knowledge, which any can acquire but most of those in poverty are not taught:
- prioritising spending in the right way
- understanding the value of the money you are spending, and the consequences of how you are spending it
- understanding the consequences of purchasing things that lose money, and if you have to purchase that category of thing, which purchase is most cost effective over time
- understanding what your 'loose change' is
- planning for the future, and working out how you are going to get there from where you are, then putting that plan into action
- knowing how to budget (if you are planning, then your budget helps identify where your money is going, what you should be prioritising at that point in time, how much loose change you have to invest etc)
- investing in the future
- etc

Many higher income earners will get lucky through education / right job (without the above). But the process of getting out of poverty (if the above isn't the case), and staying out of poverty, requires a change in mindset / knowledge (as per previous paragraph). Some help from the government can help raise people with this mindset above poverty, but isn't the deciding factor in keeping people (given money to raise them out of poverty) out of poverty.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr

You are talking about the poor and how they act and spend.

I am talking about the immorality of our governments creating poverty by favoring the rich.

It is the ethics of you and me and our governments at issue. Not how you think the poor will spend.

Even if some fool of a poor person blows all his cash on blow, it is noe of our business.

The moral thinking and ethics you and I do is what is important to me.

That is our business, not what some poor fool of a poor guy does.

Poverty is clearly imposed by governments given the wealth of most nations. Do you think that moral or not.

Regards
DL

2 Replies

izzythepush has stated views most similar to mine on this thread. In the USA, progressives, such as Bernie Sanders are our best hope. But the oligarchs and right wingers are firmly enough entrenched, it may be too late to restore democracy here. To make things worse, our brand of corruption seems to be spreading over much of the globe.

1 Reply

@Greatest I am,

Greatest I am wrote:

vikorr

I am talking about the immorality of our governments creating poverty by favoring the rich..

Really? You were complaining about having to pay taxes, now you've done a volte face.

Greatest I am wrote:

Even if some fool of a poor person blows all his cash on blow, it is noe of our business.

That is our business, not what some poor fool of a poor guy does.

Very condescending attitude towards poor people. I can see why someone with such a superior attitude could never understand Socialism.

1 Reply

@Greatest I am,

Quote:

I am talking about the immorality of our governments creating poverty by favoring the rich.

Actually, you specifically went on at length about tax creating poverty, which you are now avoiding. You specifically said it could be solved with our loose change, which I said it couldn't, and provided explanation why.

In many ways governments do favour rich people - which is a slightly different topic to tax, and a different topic to what creates poverty, and a different topic to whether or not 'loose change' can solve poverty. They have some overlapping contributing factors that are the same, and also have different contributing factors.

Quote:

It is the ethics of you and me and our governments at issue. Not how you think the poor will spend.

Of course how they spend is at issue. You say it can be solved with our loose change, but if they spend the loose change given to them and so remain poor...how is poverty solved (as you claim it can be)? It wouldn't be. Returning to the poverty zone would prove your claims false, so it is in fact, central to the issue.

Quote:

Even if some fool of a poor person blows all his cash on blow, it is noe of our business.

True, and neither is it the point of what I wrote. The point was the glaring flaws in your ideas, and why they won't work - which directly relates to that list I wrote.

Quote:

Poverty is clearly imposed by governments given the wealth of most nations

We disagree (if we are talking western nations). You haven't articulated anything of substance to support your view, and nor have you argued with any substance against what I wrote.

Your main point, relating to tax, you couldn't even address that fact that in Australia, many poor families are effectively taxed zero.

Three parts usually contribute to this:
Tax thresholds
Family Tax Benefit
Child Care subsidies

But apparently, according to you - do so is favouring the rich.

Search "australian tax threshold"
Australian income tax rates for 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 (residents)
Income thresholds Rate Tax payable on this income
$0 – $18,200 0% Nil
$18,201 – $37,000 19% 19c for each $1 over $18,200
$37,001 – $90,000 32.5% $3,572 plus 32.5% of amounts over $37,000
$90,001 – $180,000 37% $20,797 plus 37% of amounts over $90,000

Quote:

https://www.pregnancybirthbaby.org.au/family-tax-benefit-part-a

Family Tax Benefit Part A pays a maximum of $182.84 per fortnight for children up to 12, and $237.86 per fortnight for children up to 19, if they are eligible. The payments can either be made fortnightly or as a lump sum at the end of the financial year to your bank, credit union or building society.

Child Care Subsidy - combined annual family income
Combined family income^ Subsidy rate*
Up to $66,958 85%
Over $66,958 to under $171,958 Gradually reducing to 50%
$171,958 to under $251,248 50%
$251,248 to under $341,248 Gradually reducing to 20%
(you should do a search of how much child care costs - the annual figure is significant)

Yep, favouring the rich indeed. Forcing Poverty on the poor. Not assisting the poor in any way. Not even taxing many poor families...in some cases actually giving more money to them than tax they obtain from the family...terrible, terrible, unethical government.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

izzythepush has stated views most similar to mine on this thread. In the USA, progressives, such as Bernie Sanders are our best hope. But the oligarchs and right wingers are firmly enough entrenched, it may be too late to restore democracy here. To make things worse, our brand of corruption seems to be spreading over much of the globe.

This is arguable. I see the U.S. following a trend, not creating it.

The U.S., like most nations, is an oligarchy and not a democracy.

All Democracies are Hypocrisies.

The less intelligent may not see it but it is quite apparent and that is why immoral tax codes are producing graphs like the one I used.

Regards
DL

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Quote:
Greatest I am wrote:

vikorr

I am talking about the immorality of our governments creating poverty by favoring the rich..

Really? You were complaining about having to pay taxes, now you've done a volte face.

Get the quote you lying piece of human garbage.

Quote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Even if some fool of a poor person blows all his cash on blow, it is noe of our business.

That is our business, not what some poor fool of a poor guy does.

Very condescending attitude towards poor people. I can see why someone with such a superior attitude could never understand Socialism.

I was talking of your shitty attitude.

Bite me, liar.

Regards
DL

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
I am talking about the immorality of our governments creating poverty by favoring the rich.
Actually, you specifically went on at length about tax creating poverty, which you are now avoiding. You specifically said it could be solved with our loose change, which I said it couldn't, and provided explanation why.

In many ways governments do favour rich people - which is a slightly different topic to tax, and a different topic to what creates poverty, and a different topic to whether or not 'loose change' can solve poverty. They have some overlapping contributing factors that are the same, and also have different contributing factors.

Quote:
It is the ethics of you and me and our governments at issue. Not how you think the poor will spend.
Of course how they spend is at issue. You say it can be solved with our loose change, but if they spend the loose change given to them and so remain poor...how is poverty solved (as you claim it can be)? It wouldn't be. Returning to the poverty zone would prove your claims false, so it is in fact, central to the issue.

Quote:
Even if some fool of a poor person blows all his cash on blow, it is noe of our business.
True, and neither is it the point of what I wrote. The point was the glaring flaws in your ideas, and why they won't work - which directly relates to that list I wrote.

Quote:
Poverty is clearly imposed by governments given the wealth of most nations
We disagree (if we are talking western nations). You haven't articulated anything of substance to support your view, and nor have you argued with any substance against what I wrote.

Your main point, relating to tax, you couldn't even address that fact that in Australia, many poor families are effectively taxed zero.

Three parts usually contribute to this:
Tax thresholds
Family Tax Benefit
Child Care subsidies

But apparently, according to you - do so is favouring the rich.

Search "australian tax threshold"
Australian income tax rates for 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 (residents)
Income thresholds Rate Tax payable on this income
$0 – $18,200 0% Nil
$18,201 – $37,000 19% 19c for each $1 over $18,200
$37,001 – $90,000 32.5% $3,572 plus 32.5% of amounts over $37,000
$90,001 – $180,000 37% $20,797 plus 37% of amounts over $90,000

Quote:
https://www.pregnancybirthbaby.org.au/family-tax-benefit-part-a

Family Tax Benefit Part A pays a maximum of $182.84 per fortnight for children up to 12, and $237.86 per fortnight for children up to 19, if they are eligible. The payments can either be made fortnightly or as a lump sum at the end of the financial year to your bank, credit union or building society.

Child Care Subsidy - combined annual family income
Combined family income^ Subsidy rate*
Up to $66,958 85%
Over $66,958 to under $171,958 Gradually reducing to 50%
$171,958 to under $251,248 50%
$251,248 to under $341,248 Gradually reducing to 20%
(you should do a search of how much child care costs - the annual figure is significant)

Yep, favouring the rich indeed. Forcing Poverty on the poor. Not assisting the poor in any way. Not even taxing many poor families...in some cases actually giving more money to them than tax they obtain from the family...terrible, terrible, unethical government.

You are so busy looking to make points that you are ignoring how small a change to that graph is actually required to end poverty.

Poor families are taxed heavier than rich ones via our regressive sales and value added tax. Not total $ as I am not counting income tax in this case.
I am just looking at regressive sales taxes and V A Ts.

So you should rethink just a bit.

As to your list of benefits for the poor. They are make work for governments that disappears when all are pulled over the poverty line as they then pay their own way with dignity instead of being forced to go begging because of government created poverty.

Regards
DL

1 Reply

@Greatest I am,

You really are up yourself aren't you. That's a bit of an extreme reaction and it's clear you're not used to being challenged.

You're not exactly an advert for Gnosticism, it doesn't appear to be doing you any good.

0 Replies

@Greatest I am,

Greatest I am wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

izzythepush has stated views most similar to mine on this thread. In the USA, progressives, such as Bernie Sanders are our best hope. But the oligarchs and right wingers are firmly enough entrenched, it may be too late to restore democracy here. To make things worse, our brand of corruption seems to be spreading over much of the globe.

This is arguable. I see the U.S. following a trend, not creating it.

The U.S., like most nations, is an oligarchy and not a democracy.

All Democracies are Hypocrisies.

The less intelligent may not see it but it is quite apparent and that is why immoral tax codes are producing graphs like the one I used.

Regards
DL

It's part of being a progressive to undo the oligarchy that has formed.

1 Reply

@Greatest I am,

Quote:

You are so busy looking to make points that you are ignoring how small a change to that graph is actually required to end poverty.

Keh - I am dealing directly with the problem of your hypothetical graph change - which essentially comes down to 'give more money to the poor'.

That you cannot understand what you are saying (in saying 'move the graph a bit'), nor see how I've been addressing it's practical application (give more money to the poor) by explaining the outcome of that practical application -in every single post, is resulting in some very nonsensical statements from you.

Quote:

Poor families are taxed heavier than rich ones

So nothing to say against governments in some countries like Australia - that are actually giving more money to some poor families than they are taxed on income....

.....so now you want to move the talk to the government 'favouring the rich' when it comes to tax that everyone pays equally on purchases they make? And everyone that pays that VAT/GST includes the 60-80% (roughly) that aren't poor, and aren't rich? So if it's not imposing poverty on the bulk of the population that are neither rich, nor poor...where does that leave your position of such imposing poverty on the poor?

You need to give a great deal more thought to either your position, or your explanation.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

izzythepush has stated views most similar to mine on this thread. In the USA, progressives, such as Bernie Sanders are our best hope. But the oligarchs and right wingers are firmly enough entrenched, it may be too late to restore democracy here. To make things worse, our brand of corruption seems to be spreading over much of the globe.

This is arguable. I see the U.S. following a trend, not creating it.

The U.S., like most nations, is an oligarchy and not a democracy.

All Democracies are Hypocrisies.

The less intelligent may not see it but it is quite apparent and that is why immoral tax codes are producing graphs like the one I used.

Regards
DL

It's part of being a progressive to undo the oligarchy that has formed.

I agree.

I don't know if I would use the term undo them.

I strive to undo their immoral thinking and then they would have their lackeys in governments make the necessary change to our socio economic demographic pyramid.

Regards
DL

Regards
DL

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:

You need to give a great deal more thought to either your position, or your explanation.

You need to give a great deal more thought to your position by recognizing that sales taxes and VATs are regressive taxes that target the poorer harder than the rich.

Regards
DL

1 Reply

@Greatest I am,

Quote:

You need to give a great deal more thought to your position by recognizing that sales taxes and VATs are regressive taxes that target the poorer harder than the rich.

This is not the issue of your original topic - which states that governments (through tax -without qualification) impose poverty on the poor. It's even the title of this thread by you. The fairness of each tax is a different debate, and one that we may even agree on - but it is not the topic of your OP.

Your OP position requires you provide evidence (or at least solid explanation) of the government imposition of poverty. Further, if even a percentage of poor stay poor (when they could lift themselves out of poverty) through their own decision making, then the government does not impose poverty on that percentage of poor people. And there is evidence of lotto winners etc, who stay poor through their own decision making.

--------------------------

Your original OP has a major proposition that you repeat multiple times - that Government imposes poverty on people through tax - has shown itself to be false, with you having no counter to the evidence of:

- governments giving more money to the poor than they get through income tax, and the poor still being poor (so it's impossible to argue such tax imposes poverty)
- the majority of the population paying VAT/GST and not being poor (so it's impossible to argue that such tax imposes poverty)
- with you offering no other tax issue that might impose poverty on the poor.

So your major proposition is shown false, and you are unable to provide evidence to support your position, and unable to debate the evidence that shows it to be false.

----------------

Your only other proposition has also shown itself to be false (that we could solve it through our collective loose change), because there are numerous examples of poor being given large amounts of cash (eg lotto wins, inheritance), and still ending up poor. That shows your position to be be false because so long as there is a segment of the poor population that spend their extra cash (given to them) in a way that burns through that cash without generating more - there will be poor, and poor through no imposition by the government. Your position is that poverty can be stopped. The evidence shows otherwise.

It's why there will always be poor. The only rational debate is on the percentage, and how to reduce it, not on whether or not it can be completely solved. The latter buries it head in the sand on the two most important factors relating to poverty - human nature, and economics (ie how to make money work for you).

-----------------

Now to your spurious reply - making a claim that you:
- are unable and/or unwilling to provide any substantive argument for ( how it works in practice, how it would stay working) or evidence for (eg any examples of it working en mass etc)
- are unable to argue evidence showing it to be false;
- then just ignoring the evidence against your position, to
- accuse the other of not putting thought into their position

Is quite delusional.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

if even a percentage of poor stay poor (when they could lift themselves out of poverty) through their own decision making, then the government does not impose poverty on that percentage of poor people.

There is also the evidence in the amount of debt rescue / budgetting services that exist (you can google budgetting service, financial rescue, etc).

Before, the people going to these services are drowning under debt, and after they have 'loose change'. This isn't criticism, but illustration of the mindset / knowledge issues that I mentioned contribute to the cycle of poverty. If during the years they accumulated that debt, those people had known to build a budget (they would have had that loose change back then, that the financial service helped create when they went to such), and (as a necessity to outcome) the discipline to stick to that budget, and a plan that invest some of that money (with robo investors, it's quite easy these days) to make loose change work for them...they would by now be in a much better financial position.

The number of these financial rescue / budgetting services (together with the results they achieve), are unfortunate evidence of self imposed severity of poverty, and the opposite, in blue, the mindset / knowledge of people who can lift themselves into ever increasing better financial positions.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

To give you a further idea of how these things work:

From Age 20
depositing $10/week into an investment portfolio (with $10 initial deposit)
Calculating compound 8% annually (market average)
to age 60
gives $134, 927

If you are lucky and the market averages 12% during your time, then your $10/week investment it equals $399,818 by age 60

If you change that figure to $20/week (with $20 initial deposit), then the maths change to:
@ 8% = %269,853
@12% = $799, 636

Change that to $40/week (with $40 initial deposit), then the maths changes to:
@8% $539,707
@12% $1599,272

Even most people in poverty (not all) are able to do such an investments (how much one can deposit is up to individual circumstances). For many, what it takes is only cutting down a few cups of coffee, or softdrink, potato chips in front of the TV, or alcohol (I'm not saying give these things up - I'm saying reducing the consumption), or quitting smoking, or many of the other numerous vices that many people engage it. Reducing such to invest is not usually a big ask - it is usually one of financial goals and discipline.

The government certainly isn't the one preventing most from doing such. And the vast majority (not all) of those in the poverty bracket can find consumables to cut / reduce (even if through actual budgeting) in order to invest like the above.

So who is preventing them from doing so?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr

Lets try to focus and create a logic trail.

Do you recognize that the graph in the O.P. is as is because of the present day wealth distribution that has been decided on by governments on where to set taxing % at various levels for various incomes?

Regards
DL

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know