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-am ... ing-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

[commonsense]

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

No.

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-am ... ing-fact-2

Please recheck your link to the graph. It isn’t working.

Your thoughts on the downside of taxation are notable.

On the upside, aren’t taxes the way we get to have firefighters, utilities and streets with stop signs and traffic lights?

We could still receive vital services without taxes. Firefighting could be privatized. People could simply be charged a fee for using these services.

In order to stay in business, the firefighters could operate on the principle that you can pay or you can put out your fire with a garden hose.

Premium services could be available, too. For an additional fee a customer could insure that he is given a higher priority on the waiting list.

Roads could be handled in a similar way. Drivers could make payments directly to highway maintenance crews rather than indirectly through their taxes. Forward thinking crews could develop new ways of collecting revenue to offset the increase in off road vehicle sales.

Other services like water supply and sewage management could also be privatized with challenges and advantages not exactly unlike those above.

In the end, privatization would force the poor to pay the same market adjusted prices as anyone else, effectively making them remain impoverished.

So there may be a need to recognize taxation as a necessary evil.

[HexHammer]

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

No, no one should work 2 - 3 jobs, that's modern slavery and is highly immoral! ..which is why it would be easy for anyone with a better economy model to take over USA.

[henry quirk]

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

Is it moral for people to take my money without my permission?

Nope.

Is it moral for people to wear coats and ties, call themselves 'government', and take my money without my permission?

Nope.

'But, Henry, how will the poor eat?'

Get thee to a charity (you might find me there, servin' gruel to the hopeless, er, I mean 'homeless').

'But what about government, Henry? How can we fund the legit functions of government?'

Well, first off, the 'legit functions' of government are constabulary, local courts, border-stationed military, and militia (and not all the other jazz usually associated with government) so the on-going cost is small. Second, payin' for the minimal gov (not really a government at all [do you really need hired hands 'governing' you?]) can be handled through a simple, low consumption fee (or tax, if you insist).

'But, Henry, how can such a fee pay for government?! You're mad, sir! MAD!'

Obviously, no, a small sales tax can't pay for gov 'as is', but the minimal night watchman affair I suggest could do nicely on it.

#

"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."

Another set of wise & moral folks consider the #1 enemy of man the hobbling of the individual's self-ownership and undercutting of his right to his life, liberty, and property, ya know, the unacceptable shit that usually comes with large, centralized governments (large, centralized schemes that justify existing by -- on one hand -- creating scarcity and insecurity and -- on the other -- promising to address scarcity and insecurity [but never quite gettin' 'round to it])

[Greatest I am]

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

No.

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-am ... ing-fact-2

Please recheck your link to the graph. It isn’t working.

Your thoughts on the downside of taxation are notable.

On the upside, aren’t taxes the way we get to have firefighters, utilities and streets with stop signs and traffic lights?

We could still receive vital services without taxes. Firefighting could be privatized. People could simply be charged a fee for using these services.

In order to stay in business, the firefighters could operate on the principle that you can pay or you can put out your fire with a garden hose.

Premium services could be available, too. For an additional fee a customer could insure that he is given a higher priority on the waiting list.

Roads could be handled in a similar way. Drivers could make payments directly to highway maintenance crews rather than indirectly through their taxes. Forward thinking crews could develop new ways of collecting revenue to offset the increase in off road vehicle sales.

Other services like water supply and sewage management could also be privatized with challenges and advantages not exactly unlike those above.

In the end, privatization would force the poor to pay the same market adjusted prices as anyone else, effectively making them remain impoverished.

So there may be a need to recognize taxation as a necessary evil.

The link is working for me but if you google ---- 9 out of 10 Americans are completely wrong about this mind-blowing fact. -----
you will find it.

All the services now rendered by governments could be shifted to the private sector, no argument, but it would still take a lot of government supervision thanks to borders.

I think that we are systematically nailing the poor for more taxes than the rich. Just look at the value added taxes that have the less rich paying a higher % of their income for those taxes than the rich. What a sweet ride for the rich as wee screw the poor.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

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

No, no one should work 2 - 3 jobs, that's modern slavery and is highly immoral! ..which is why it would be easy for anyone with a better economy model to take over USA.

I find it strange that the U.S. is collectively turning it's nose up at what, a 6% gain in GDP for just going to a single user pay social medical system.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

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

Is it moral for people to take my money without my permission?

Nope.

Is it moral for people to wear coats and ties, call themselves 'government', and take my money without my permission?

Nope.

'But, Henry, how will the poor eat?'

Get thee to a charity (you might find me there, servin' gruel to the hopeless, er, I mean 'homeless').

'But what about government, Henry? How can we fund the legit functions of government?'

Well, first off, the 'legit functions' of government are constabulary, local courts, border-stationed military, and militia (and not all the other jazz usually associated with government) so the on-going cost is small. Second, payin' for the minimal gov (not really a government at all [do you really need hired hands 'governing' you?]) can be handled through a simple, low consumption fee (or tax, if you insist).

'But, Henry, how can such a fee pay for government?! You're mad, sir! MAD!'

Obviously, no, a small sales tax can't pay for gov 'as is', but the minimal night watchman affair I suggest could do nicely on it.

#

"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."

Another set of wise & moral folks consider the #1 enemy of man the hobbling of the individual's self-ownership and undercutting of his right to his life, liberty, and property, ya know, the unacceptable shit that usually comes with large, centralized governments (large, centralized schemes that justify existing by -- on one hand -- creating scarcity and insecurity and -- on the other -- promising to address scarcity and insecurity [but never quite gettin' 'round to it])

"Is it moral for people to take my money without my permission?

Nope."

Yes it is buddy as your country has voted that it is moral.

It would be immoral for you to used the roads and resources your government provides on someone else's money.

Taxes are good if the system works for the whole demography. At present, if serves the rich better than the poor.

Regards
DL

[Sculptor]

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

Not only immoral but bad for the economy generally.

[henry quirk]

"Yes it is buddy as your country has voted that it is moral."

No, pal, that just makes it 'legal' (the same way slavery used to be), not 'moral'.

#

"It would be immoral for you to used the roads and resources your government provides on someone else's money."

Since my tax dollars (lots of 'em) go ino roads & other 'resources' gov monopolizes, my soul is clean.

#

"Taxes are good if the system works for the whole demography. At present, if serves the rich better than the poor."

A consumption tax, for the legit functions of a night watchman affair is, or would be, great. The curent system -- no matter who it serves best -- is not.

[henry quirk]

"I find it strange that the U.S. is collectively turning it's nose up at what, a 6% gain in GDP for just going to a single user pay social medical system."

And I find it disheartening that human beings being herded through a system that deprives them of individual autonomy is championed -- simply cuz it's 'cost effective' -- by intelligent folks.

There was a day when slavery was seen as 'cost effective' and its abolishing was resisted cuz of increased production costs.

Same as it always was...

[Greatest I am]

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

Not only immoral but bad for the economy generally.

True. They shoot themselves in our foot.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

"I find it strange that the U.S. is collectively turning it's nose up at what, a 6% gain in GDP for just going to a single user pay social medical system."

And I find it disheartening that human beings being herded through a system that deprives them of individual autonomy is championed -- simply cuz it's 'cost effective' -- by intelligent folks.

There was a day when slavery was seen as 'cost effective' and its abolishing was resisted cuz of increased production costs.

Same as it always was...

Individual autonomy that bankrupts you should you become ill.

Yay for autonomy that is untouched by a single payer system.

Don't bother looking.

Regards
DL

[henry quirk]

You'd prefer: 'Yay for the gilded cage!', yeah?

Each & every one safe, secure, well-tended, yoked.

Cattle.

Yeah, I ain't doin' that.

[Greatest I am]

You'd prefer: 'Yay for the gilded cage!', yeah?

Each & every one safe, secure, well-tended, yoked.

Cattle.

Yeah, I ain't doin' that.

Ask anyone in such a system if they feel that way.

Ask your friends who have gone bankrupt thanks to a common illness if they feel like cattle or worse.

Regards
DL

[henry quirk]

Which system?

The gilded cage? We got any posters from a socialist craphole who wanna speak to the virtues of true universal medical care?

Autonomy? As an uninsured fella who racked up some uncomfortable medical bills in the last couple or three years, I tell you plainly: I'd rather be worryin' about my shit (and comin' up with some novel solutions) than walk an unwaverin' line laid by some one else that offers me X, and only X.

In short: I'll suffer on my own terms, not someone else's.