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

Greatest_I_am · July 18, 2019, 4:05pm

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

WendyDarling · July 18, 2019, 5:21pm

This topic should not be in the Religion subforum, should be moved to Society, Government, and Economics to get an appropriate viewing and discussion.

Carleas · July 18, 2019, 5:24pm

Agreed; moved.

Silhouette · July 18, 2019, 6:12pm

Love it

Given P1: that Government controls taxation, and P2: taxation determines what poverty levels will exist, then yes, governments to a degree control poverty levels directly: Modus Ponens - albeit relative to whatever other factors also control poverty, if any.

A direct control does not entail a significant degree of control, if other direct or even indirect factors are more controlling.

But even if controlling taxation was the sole, or even a major factor in controlling poverty, I am not sure I accept P2 in the first place: that taxation determines what poverty levels will exist.

To get the obvious out the way, taxation goes towards services that can counter at least someone’s poverty - only difference here is someone else (in government) is deciding what the money is spent on instead of you if you had not been taxed. Maybe the money goes back into something that makes you better off, maybe it doesn’t. For some people, they are net beneficiaries of tax, others are not. It’s a control to adjust what the market is doing by its own devices.

But this opens up the bigger question of whether or not the government choice on how to spend the money it taxes, instead of leaving it to you, creates poverty. It might make you poorer at the point of taxation, but it may or may not make you richer depending on what it spends it on, compared to what you might have spent it on. It might make society as a whole richer whether or not you individually are poorer or richer. So what purchases make richer and what make poorer?

Investment in a valuable product or service makes richer. Tax can do that, so can you if you are not taxed: tax is independent of richness or poorness - in fact, the correlation between taxation and GDP per capita is probably a negative one: with the countries with least taxation being the poorest, and vice versa. What makes a country rich is the ability to get money to the right people to create value, and to the right people to spend on what they value. The better individuals do this, the less tax they should be charged, and the better government does this, the more tax should be charged.

Therefore it can be moral or immoral for our governments to tax us, depending on the above.
And it is immoral to impose poverty whether it is governments or individuals who compromise the ability to get money to the right people to create value, and to the right people to spend on what they value.

Greatest_I_am · July 22, 2019, 3:27pm

Silhouette:

Greatest I am:

We do not live in a Democracy. We live in a Hypocrisy.

Love it

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.

Given P1: that Government controls taxation, and P2: taxation determines what poverty levels will exist, then yes, governments to a degree control poverty levels directly: Modus Ponens - albeit relative to whatever other factors also control poverty, if any.

A direct control does not entail a significant degree of control, if other direct or even indirect factors are more controlling.

But even if controlling taxation was the sole, or even a major factor in controlling poverty, I am not sure I accept P2 in the first place: that taxation determines what poverty levels will exist.

To get the obvious out the way, taxation goes towards services that can counter at least someone’s poverty - only difference here is someone else (in government) is deciding what the money is spent on instead of you if you had not been taxed. Maybe the money goes back into something that makes you better off, maybe it doesn’t. For some people, they are net beneficiaries of tax, others are not. It’s a control to adjust what the market is doing by its own devices.

But this opens up the bigger question of whether or not the government choice on how to spend the money it taxes, instead of leaving it to you, creates poverty. It might make you poorer at the point of taxation, but it may or may not make you richer depending on what it spends it on, compared to what you might have spent it on. It might make society as a whole richer whether or not you individually are poorer or richer. So what purchases make richer and what make poorer?

Investment in a valuable product or service makes richer. Tax can do that, so can you if you are not taxed: tax is independent of richness or poorness - in fact, the correlation between taxation and GDP per capita is probably a negative one: with the countries with least taxation being the poorest, and vice versa. What makes a country rich is the ability to get money to the right people to create value, and to the right people to spend on what they value. The better individuals do this, the less tax they should be charged, and the better government does this, the more tax should be charged.

Therefore it can be moral or immoral for our governments to tax us, depending on the above.
And it is immoral to impose poverty whether it is governments or individuals who compromise the ability to get money to the right people to create value, and to the right people to spend on what they value.

The right conclusion.

As to who gets to pay the tax on goods and services, I have heard one of our oligarchs mention that the poor can and do pay a lot more tax than the rich as much of their income goes to taxes while just a bit if any of the rich person’s cash goes to taxes.

Regards
DL

Karpel_Tunnel · July 23, 2019, 9:30am

The rish also get more services and are treated better by all sorts of government organizations. They also get to radically affect foreign policy, what roads and other infrastructure built, where toxic dumps will end up, what laws get passed, how laws are enfornced, how the courts will view their needs and potential suffering in prison, and all sorts of stuff that doesn’t really fit with a democracy.

Greatest_I_am · July 23, 2019, 1:41pm

You are correct and hopefully know that we do not live in democracies, we live in oligarchies and or Hypocrisies.

Regards
DL

Karpel_Tunnel · July 24, 2019, 4:57am

Yes, the US is an oligarchy.

Greatest_I_am · July 24, 2019, 5:17pm

I like a realist. =D> =D>

Regards
DL

Jakob · September 2, 2019, 10:59pm

I wouldn’t think so, no.

Distribution of wealth is a really rough scheme. It leads to more debt than profit.
Welfare usually doesn’t lead to too much profitable behaviour.
No Marxist ever proved otherwise. Well, one or two but that really proves only the rule.

Well I think there is your problem.
I personally think that any revolutionary movement should seek to allow the wealthy classes to keep their wealth.
“Ask” them to invest in the new order, with only monetary and no political gain as there is already an agenda.

on account of having been assraped too much I surmise, or rather as a precursor to such abuse?

I haven’t. It is true that therefore I am often shamed.
But fuck it. Literally.

Same thing old man.
People be sheeple.

We will.

Yes.

Agree to disagree and regards.

Greatest_I_am · September 5, 2019, 7:32pm

You do not think it is immoral to impose poverty.

Make your argument.

Regards
DL

Urwrongx1000 · September 5, 2019, 8:54pm

Sometimes, yes it is.

Is it moral now, in Modern times? That is questionable. The Western Standard-of-Living is so high nowadays, that “poverty” has a new-age meaning. Is “Obesity” a form of poverty? That’s debatable.

Karpel_Tunnel · September 5, 2019, 8:54pm

gia: is it moral for…
jakob: no (which means it is not moral. If he answered yes, then he thinks it is moral)
gia: you do not think it is immoral.

the batch of negatives seemed to have confused things but your conclusion about what he meant is not correct.

Jakob · September 5, 2019, 9:23pm

I just haven’t seen any indication, let alone argument, to the effect that it is moral.

I didn’t say it is actively immoral (though it might be), I just don’t think, personally, that Ive ever seen any definition of morality where making people poorer than they need to be fits in.

Greatest_I_am · September 6, 2019, 5:00pm

Your assertion is not an argument for the proposition.

When is genocide and killing better than the curing that Jesus said he came to cure?

Regards
DL

Greatest_I_am · September 6, 2019, 5:04pm

I read him as saying that genocide is sometimes justified and I asked our friend to actually show an argument for that barbarity.

I think that any god who chooses to kill when he can just as easily cure is a prick of a god.

Those who try to justify genocide show how they like a god who is synonymous with Hitler and Stalin.

Regards
DL

Greatest_I_am · September 6, 2019, 5:07pm

If you have to read that from somewhere to dither out that imposing poverty through the tax system is immoral, then you are not much of a thinker.

If you need something though, read Ghandi. He calls it immoral.

Regards
DL

Urwrongx1000 · September 6, 2019, 7:38pm

If a foreign nation wages war against you, then it’s moral for government to increase taxes to 80-100% to fund killing and self-defense.

In other circumstances, such as a trade-war, it also might be necessary for a government to impose poverty on “us”, the general population.

Greatest_I_am · September 6, 2019, 7:52pm

Neither of those conditions have applied for what, about 70 years now if not longer.

You would have a point if the whole population was made to suffer a bit instead of forcing all the harm onto the weakest and poorest of our people.

Regards
DL

Jakob · September 7, 2019, 12:00pm

I suggest you start reading Tragedy and philosophy. You appear unaware that there is no standard definition of morality. I recommend you start with Sophocles.

When you have acquired some conditions for thought in your life and have developed a mind, come back here and read my post again, and respond to me like a grown up.