@Greatest I am,
Keh - you are the one that keeps changing focus/topics:
- the original: that govt imposes poverty on us
(which we don't agree on)
- to 'is the tax system fair'
(which is a related but different topic, and one we may even agree on),
- to 'does the government favour the rich'
(which is a related but different topic, and one we may even agree on)
So yes, a little bit of focus from you would be much appreciated.
Just so we are clear:
- a logical argument for your OP would go something like this: 'the government imposes
poverty on the poor through the following aspects of its tax system: <type of tax>, which does <what it does>, which directly results in <result>, which indirectly results in<indirect results> through <method of indirect results>
- the government favours the rich
, is a different argument because, because favouring one group does not automatically equal imposing X on another
(Eg. favouring a child at school by giving him/her an apple does not mean imposing hunger on the rest of the class). Or what is called 'favour' may be the governments way of creating jobs, which is done through only one of two ways: government jobs, and private sector jobs (which private sector companies are owned by the rich). So we may agree - depending on what particular 'favour' you give. Until you tie yourself down with a specific example, it's hard to tell - but while there is some overlap, it is still a different topic to 'does the government impose poverty on the poor'
- same goes for is the tax fair? We may agree that parts of it, or even many parts of it, are unfair, but it's still a different topic.
Any discussion of 'is it fair' is by nature, related to, but also very different to a discussion of 'they are forcing a person to / imposing on a person X'
So they are related but different topics, and some focus on the topic by you, as you are claiming to want, would be very much appreciated.
Lets try to focus and create a logic trail.
And if you wish to engage in a trail of logic, you need to first show that you can actually engage in logic. Only one side engaging in logic would be a waste of time. So, how about before we start:
- you stop attempting to change the topic under discussion (as described above).
- you address evidence that directly contradicts your stated positions. Just ignoring mounting evidence against your position while still arguing for your position is not logical.
- you start showing logic by actually making an argument to articulate how your solving poverty would work. So far you've just posed a hypothetical (moving a graph is a hypothetical. It says nothing of how it would work, if it would work, nor if it would stay in place after it is attempted) and 3 beliefs (that the government imposes poverty, that the tax systems impose poverty, and that our collective loose change could solve poverty), but no supporting argument for those.
I'm happy to look at what you wish to present, and respond thoughtfully- but given the length of this discussion, and your avoidance at every step of responding to the evidence and arguments I offered....first you need to show others that you are willing to do for others, the things that you are asking of them.