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

Reply Mon 29 Jul, 2019 05:43 pm
@Greatest I am,
Lets try to focus
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.
Greatest I am
Reply Mon 29 Jul, 2019 06:26 pm

The results are in the graph regardless of the taxes you wish to break down and discuss. You are stuck in the middle while the rest of us are at or near the end.

If you have so little imagination that you cannot see how little change is required to end poverty in that graph, you are not worth my time.

You want to learn to argue and not really learn anything so go find another teacher. Your are not worthy of my time.

Reply Mon 29 Jul, 2019 09:03 pm
@Greatest I am,
regardless of the taxes you wish to break down and discuss
Uh wow...you're the person who raised the issue of taxes. When someone actually engages you with examples of tax, you then complain? Seriously?

If you have so little imagination that you cannot see how little change is required to end poverty in that graph.
Ummm, wow again... I've already acknowledged twice that your hypothetical would result in a redistribution of wealth.

But it won't solve poverty (which is what my points were aimed at) because many of the poor will return to being poor after they've spent their newly redistributed money.

You want to learn to argue
Keh. The only person who isn't engaging in any form of logic here, is the person who has been ignoring every piece of evidence that goes contrary to his beliefs. You won't be able to quote me doing so, but there's around 6 or so examples in here I can quote of you doing so.

Your are not worthy of my time.
ROFL. What you mean is "I haven't got a single argument to counter your evidence, so I'm going to make like an ostrich'
0 Replies
Real Music
Reply Mon 29 Jul, 2019 09:22 pm
@Greatest I am,
Is it moral for our governments to impose poverty on us?

1. Is it moral for super wealthy corporations to impose poverty on us?
Reply Mon 29 Jul, 2019 09:46 pm
@Real Music,
You might actually get a response, seeing as the question agrees with his line of thinking.


So far, this is the conversation I've had with him, which is all in the context of his OP - that government imposes poverty on the poor:

GIA claims the government imposes poverty, then:

- Refuses to discuss how a small investment of $10/week at 20 years of age can end up being worth $400,000 by retirement age 60 (the govt doesn't prevent anyone from doing so)

- Refuses to discuss or acknowledge that financial understanding plays a part in whether one is broke or bettering their finances <like in the above through investments> (the govt doesn't prevent anyone from accumulating this knowledge)

- Refuses to discuss further evidence of the value of financial understanding - how debt restructuring firms are able to restructure broke families incomes to once again give them disposable income. Again, not a criticism, but an unfortunate reality for many.

GIA makes claim that tax imposes poverty, then:

- Ignores evidence of governments giving more money to the poor than taxing them on income

GIA then modifies his claims to it being VAT/GST that imposes poverty, then:

- Ignores that 60-80% of the population that are neither rich nor poor, who pay VAT/GST without it imposing poverty on them

GIA claims that ‘our collective loose change could solve poverty’, a shift in the ‘graph’ (I haven’t seen this graph, but easy enough to imagine) would result in the end of poverty. Both say the same thing (redistribute wealth). He then:

- Ignores the percentage of poor people winning Lottery who end up bankrupt

- refuses to discuss the financial repercussions of spending money on things that lose value (without ever investing), avoiding discussion and saying 'it's none of your business how they spend'

- refuses to discuss the list of knowledge / attitudes (eg budgetting, financial discipline) I provided relating to managing money, and how it contributes to a persons financial status


Lesson is - GIA is only interested in discussing something that agrees with his viewpoint, and ignores/avoids like the plague any evidence that provides argument against his viewpoint.

The irony of calling oneself 'Greatest I am'...
0 Replies

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/21/2023 at 10:11:47