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

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

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-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-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

 

[Harry Bosch]

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-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-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

So you think that it's moral to take someone's wealth away? There have been countries that have taken away people's wealth at the top, then redistributed it. I don't think that it's helped a whole lot. I do favor helping people up. Creating a strong safety net. Creating incentives. Lowering barriers. But just take away people's stuff. And do what? You don't boost people up by knocking others down.

 

[dismal]

I wouldn't consider you "moral" for authorizing people to point guns at other people and take their money away from them to give it to the poor.

If you think it's "moral" to help the poor, you should help the poor.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-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

So you think that it's moral to take someone's wealth away? There have been countries that have taken away people's wealth at the top, then redistributed it. I don't think that it's helped a whole lot. I do favor helping people up. Creating a strong safety net. Creating incentives. Lowering barriers. But just take away people's stuff. And do what? You don't boost people up by knocking others down.

You were able to determine an actual position being taken in that post? I'm impressed.

 

[Jarhyn]

I wouldn't consider you "moral" for authorizing people to point guns at other people and take their money away from them to give it to the poor.

If you think it's "moral" to help the poor, you should help the poor.

I wouldn't consider you "moral" for authorizing tyrants to point guns at other people and restrict their access to natural resources so that they can extort resources from the poor.

If you think that it's "moral" to extort people over access to natural resources, go fuck yourself.

 

[ZiprHead]

I wouldn't consider you "moral" for authorizing people to point guns at other people and take their money away from them to give it to the poor.

If you think it's "moral" to help the poor, you should help the poor.

Do you think it's moral to authorize people to point guns at other people to take money away from them to give it to the military/industrial complex so they can point guns at other people on the other side of the planet?

Which one do you believe to be more or less moral?

 

[Bronzeage]

Is it moral to enjoy the benefits of taxation, paved streets, honest weights and measures, a reliable police force, and limited possibility of foreign invasion, and then whine that the government is stealing from you when the bill comes due?

Why is it, people who are old enough to vote and hold a valid driver's license suddenly act like toddlers when taxes are concerned?

 

[Jarhyn]

Is it moral to enjoy the benefits of taxation, paved streets, honest weights and measures, a reliable police force, and limited possibility of foreign invasion, and then whine that the government is stealing from you when the bill comes due?

Why is it, people who are old enough to vote and hold a valid driver's license suddenly act like toddlers when taxes are concerned?

Because FUCK YOU, I GOT MINE.

Mostly it's the same reason that certain orange turds stiff contracts: it's because they are shitty people who will apparently only acknowledge debt at gunpoint

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I guess it's like throwing the fat kid in front of the train to stop the train from crashing, killing hundreds of people. Moral experts say it's moral to do because if you don't, hundreds of people die. So, by analogy, if you do not redistribute wealth from the richest of the rich, to those who actually need it for survival reasons only, then many more people die. It feels wrong to many because we concentrate on the victimization of the individual rich guys.

However, all that being said, I don't really agree with underlying premises involved that are not even looked at. For example, I don't think of property as a others may, but instead view it mostly as renting it, at least in terms of natural resources. The present persons making tons of money off the planet are renting it from the population and from the future generations. They don't actually own it in the sense that you don't own a river because you put a sign on it and a fence around it. Their presumed individual benefits in the form of money ought to be shared, regulated, to both help others to survive and to keep future mankind alive. However (again), we do not want these property "owners" to have their productivity significantly hurt, their motivations wasted away, them to rebel and scream, and so we should let them declare they owned something but pay a continued price for it. All other money eventually, indirectly, leads to "ownership" of such resources, even facebook venture capitalists' money. So, it's all fair game within reason--to optimize productivity of capitalism but also to optimize survival of individuals and the future...

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

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-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-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

So you think that it's moral to take someone's wealth away? There have been countries that have taken away people's wealth at the top, then redistributed it. I don't think that it's helped a whole lot. I do favor helping people up. Creating a strong safety net. Creating incentives. Lowering barriers. But just take away people's stuff. And do what? You don't boost people up by knocking others down.

Your first is incorrect in the way you state it.

Your last is correct.

Trump just took away, what, 2 trillion from the lower incomes and gave it to his rich friends.

Who got knocked down? The rich or the rest of Americans?

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I wouldn't consider you "moral" for authorizing people to point guns at other people and take their money away from them to give it to the poor.

If you think it's "moral" to help the poor, you should help the poor.

Guns.

Thanks for the idiocy.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I guess it's like throwing the fat kid in front of the train to stop the train from crashing, killing hundreds of people. Moral experts say it's moral to do because if you don't, hundreds of people die. So, by analogy, if you do not redistribute wealth from the richest of the rich, to those who actually need it for survival reasons only, then many more people die. It feels wrong to many because we concentrate on the victimization of the individual rich guys.

However, all that being said, I don't really agree with underlying premises involved that are not even looked at. For example, I don't think of property as a others may, but instead view it mostly as renting it, at least in terms of natural resources. The present persons making tons of money off the planet are renting it from the population and from the future generations. They don't actually own it in the sense that you don't own a river because you put a sign on it and a fence around it. Their presumed individual benefits in the form of money ought to be shared, regulated, to both help others to survive and to keep future mankind alive. However (again), we do not want these property "owners" to have their productivity significantly hurt, their motivations wasted away, them to rebel and scream, and so we should let them declare they owned something but pay a continued price for it. All other money eventually, indirectly, leads to "ownership" of such resources, even facebook venture capitalists' money. So, it's all fair game within reason--to optimize productivity of capitalism but also to optimize survival of individuals and the future...

I will take it that you agree that it is immoral for the government to impose poverty.

"However (again), we do not want these property "owners" to have their productivity significantly hurt,"

Neither do I as they are job creators.

Did you note how little wealth would actually need to be moved in that graph to end poverty?

That is loose change to the rich, yet they hoard it.

Regards
DL