Silhouette:
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.
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
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.
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.
You are correct and hopefully know that we do not live in democracies, we live in oligarchies and or Hypocrisies.
Regards
Yes, the US is an oligarchy.
I like a realist. =D> =D>
Regards
Jakob
September 2, 2019, 10:59pm
10
I wouldn’t think so, no.
Distribution of wealth is a really rough scheme. It leads to more debt than profit.
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.
Not how little of a change would be needed to reach the ideal.
Well I think there is your problem.
on account of having been assraped too much I surmise, or rather as a precursor to such abuse?
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.
I haven’t. It is true that therefore I am often shamed.
Same thing old man.
We will.
Yes.
Agree to disagree and regards.
Jakob:
I wouldn’t think so, no.
You do not think it is immoral to impose poverty.
Make your argument.
Regards
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.
gia: is it moral for…
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
14
Make your argument.
Regards
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.
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
[
gia: is it moral for…
the batch of negatives seemed to have confused things but your conclusion about what he meant is not correct.
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
Jakob:
Make your argument.
Regards
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.
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
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.
Urwrongx1000:
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.
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
Jakob
September 7, 2019, 12:00pm
20
Jakob:
Make your argument.
Regards
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.
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
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.
It would confuse your immature mind.
Regards
bahman
September 10, 2019, 7:53pm
22
Is it moral for our governments to impose poverty on us?upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-am … ing-fact-2 youtube.com/watch?v=-14SllPPLxY
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
bahman
September 10, 2019, 9:35pm
24
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
I forgot to mention about warfare. There would be no need for warfare if there was one state obe government.