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

Greatest_I_am · September 7, 2019, 6:59pm

It would confuse your immature mind.

Regards
DL

bahman · September 10, 2019, 7:53pm

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.
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.
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

I think there should be a minimum income for everybody. The income also should scale with amount of work you do. We don’t need many governments. One state one government as it is stated.

Greatest_I_am · September 10, 2019, 8:42pm

bahman:

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.
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.
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

I think there should be a minimum income for everybody. The income also should scale with amount of work you do. We don’t need many governments. One state one government as it is stated.

I agree and see government growth as make work projects for their friends.

We would all be millionaires if we did not have to support so much political duplication.

Look at all the state and municipal governments that just duplicate services.

Stupid tax payer is as stupid tax payer pays for.

Ending poverty means that all will pay taxes and the minimum income should be based on an after tax number.

To keep things fair, we would have to rid ourselves of regressive sales and VAT taxes and charge everyone the same tax rate.

Many want to nail the rich but if we did that, it would not be a fair tax system.

Regards
DL

bahman · September 10, 2019, 9:35pm

Greatest I am:

bahman:

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.
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.
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

I think there should be a minimum income for everybody. The income also should scale with amount of work you do. We don’t need many governments. One state one government as it is stated.

I agree and see government growth as make work projects for their friends.

We would all be millionaires if we did not have to support so much political duplication.

Look at all the state and municipal governments that just duplicate services.

Stupid tax payer is as stupid tax payer pays for.

Ending poverty means that all will pay taxes and the minimum income should be based on an after tax number.

To keep things fair, we would have to rid ourselves of regressive sales and VAT taxes and charge everyone the same tax rate.

Many want to nail the rich but if we did that, it would not be a fair tax system.

Regards
DL

I forgot to mention about warfare. There would be no need for warfare if there was one state obe government.

Greatest_I_am · September 11, 2019, 5:43pm

I forgot to mention about warfare. There would be no need for warfare if there was one state obe government.
[/quote]
I don’t know about that. At the micro level within individual countries under one ruler, revolts have happened.

At the macro level, revolts might still happen. but then we would have all the resources necessary to end them more easily and hopefully more justly than if the resources were not available to the rulers.

But yes, I tend to agree that not being hungry or poor should reduce evolutional thinking by quite a bit.

Regards
DL

bahman · September 11, 2019, 8:16pm

I don’t understand the relation of what you said to what I said. I meant that we could save tons of money from no building warfare. What is the use of warfare when there is one state?

Greatest_I_am · September 11, 2019, 9:15pm

I thing analogically and, agree when you say an army would not be necessary.

I was looking at the military being replaced by police or whatever the unified world would call their emergency services.

The main point was that people would have less to revolt against.

I hope that clears things up.

Regards
DL

bahman · September 11, 2019, 9:33pm

Greatest I am:

bahman:

Greatest I am:

I don’t know about that. At the micro level within individual countries under one ruler, revolts have happened.

At the macro level, revolts might still happen. but then we would have all the resources necessary to end them more easily and hopefully more justly than if the resources were not available to the rulers.

But yes, I tend to agree that not being hungry or poor should reduce evolutional thinking by quite a bit.

Regards
DL

I don’t understand the relation of what you said to what I said. I meant that we could save tons of money from no building warfare. What is the use of warfare when there is one state?

I thing analogically and, agree when you say an army would not be necessary.

I was looking at the military being replaced by police or whatever the unified world would call their emergency services.

The main point was that people would have less to revolt against.

I hope that clears things up.

Regards
DL

I see and I agree.

Greatest_I_am · September 11, 2019, 10:06pm

Regards
DL