# Billions In Poverty

49 replies to this topic

### #1 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

• Members
• 2480 posts

Posted 08 October 2019 - 09:15 PM

"According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report 2018, the top 1 percent of adults account for more than 47 percent of household wealth globally."

"Nearly 1/2 of the world's population — more than 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty — less than$1.25 a day. 1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty."

What do you think about this, do you think that there is something wrong economically with the world?

Edited by VictorMedvil, 08 October 2019 - 09:23 PM.

### #2 Kardashev6

Kardashev6

• Members
• 55 posts

Posted 08 October 2019 - 09:51 PM

Wealth distribution in today's society is an issue as you brought attention to. Utilization is the biggest problem in my opinion. Most of the world's wealth remains idle...selfishly hoarded whole seeking further roi (return on investment. Sure, part of the reason is so their family generations will benefit and be, "set for life". Still, a part also exists that us simply greed and wanting more. Enough...sadly, is never enough.

I understand philanthropy individuals do exist. I imagine not all actually sincere though. Tax and accounting strategies are motivators often. Lol, often large donations only go to, "Self controlled trusts" or other foundations giving the illusion of the money actually leaving their hands. The news headline reads the same in either event and they sleep well at night I suppose.

Wealth really cannot benefit needful worldly humans or animals if it is not utilized in a manner that allows it to. Sad indeed. I often hoped that Satoshi would anonymously donate his 700k bitcoins to charities that need it. 700k x $8k usd =5.6 billion usd. Of course, there is always the issue of mis-appropriation of funds. Many charities keep upwards of 90% of funds and only 10% actually makes it to needy hands:( I will not list (tarnish) any charity names here, the statistics are out there. I wonder how much hidden wealth is out there across the globe? Priceless artwork, precious gem and coin collections, crypto currency, gold, land (land in regions of the world unlike others, say China and PRC improper land grants to high ranking state officials). Boggles my mind just contemplating it! ### #3 GAHD GAHD Eldritch Horror • Administrators • 2826 posts Posted 08 October 2019 - 09:59 PM I think that if you look at history that top 1% used to be an infinitesimal fraction of %, so it's "better" now than in all of recorded history. Granted we have more humans alive now than were additively alive over the first half or so of that history so we do have larger numbers of impoveished on a purely magnitude scale...but by ratio prosperity is quite good. You have to realize that just being a "poverty line westerner" like the gang-bangers in compton elevates you into one of the wealthiest humans in recorded history. Not saying it couldn't be better, am saying it's currently a lot better than it was even 100 years ago, and far more so than in the eras before that. Economically speaking the world is becoming much better everywhere that's willing to invest in infrastructure. I suppose it all depends on exactly how much value you place on different things? ### #4 Thoth101 Thoth101 Explaining • Members • 729 posts Posted 17 February 2020 - 01:33 AM "According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report 2018, the top 1 percent of adults account for more than 47 percent of household wealth globally." "Nearly 1/2 of the world's population — more than 3 billion people — live on less than$2.50 a day. More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty — less than $1.25 a day. 1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty." What do you think about this, do you think that there is something wrong economically with the world? I would say the Rothschild banking system that has infected most of the world is the problem. I heard a question the other day I don't remember where. And I laughed a little. Who is this trillions of dollars owed to? ### #5 Flummoxed Flummoxed Creating • Members • 1341 posts Posted 17 February 2020 - 02:05 AM I would say the Rothschild banking system that has infected most of the world is the problem. I heard a question the other day I don't remember where. And I laughed a little. Who is this trillions of dollars owed to? It is a fact that their is more money in the economy now than in the past (100 years ago) . The poor have always had an uneven playing field, they dont create the money, the rich do. They do not decide how the new money flows through the economy, the wealthy do. They do not decide the taxes, the wealthy do. The poor will always be screwed unless there is a new political system or economic system based on fairness. An interesting french economist is https://en.wikipedia.../Thomas_Piketty . Do you think the Rothschilds would want to pay 90% tax. His idea of GIVING younger members of society 150000 euros to get them started and fuel the economy, is also interesting. The Young generally spend everything they have whereas the elderly horde their wealth. • Thoth101 likes this ### #6 GAHD GAHD Eldritch Horror • Administrators • 2826 posts Posted 17 February 2020 - 04:41 AM It is a fact that their is more money in the economy now than in the past (100 years ago) . The poor have always had an uneven playing field, they dont create the money, the rich do. They do not decide how the new money flows through the economy, the wealthy do. They do not decide the taxes, the wealthy do. The poor will always be screwed unless there is a new political system or economic system based on fairness. An interesting french economist is https://en.wikipedia.../Thomas_Piketty . Do you think the Rothschilds would want to pay 90% tax. His idea of GIVING younger members of society 150000 euros to get them started and fuel the economy, is also interesting. The Young generally spend everything they have whereas the elderly horde their wealth. Interesting guy, Particularly that bit about income tax being a driving force in retarding the exponential growth of higher earners. I do wonder what their analysis of the overall economic effects of those taxes was, as I've heard claims that income tax directly slows down overall economic growth significantly. That idea of giving youth money directly as an investment is interesting, but would AFAIK devalue currency in total vs existing materiel wealth like real estate or other holdings. It brings up a funky related idea though: incorporating individuals and allowing them to sell off shares of their own future income potential. Under that kind of system the government would pay a fixed over-market amount for a percentage of "shares" in an individual's future lifetime earnings(eg that 150k). Schools could also take that kind of share-swap in lieu of tuition fees, and be more motivated to output better trained and economically viable individuals to insure greater future returns. In theory it would mitigate the current "sell them what they want even/especially if it useless" degrees that have been the more popular options in post-secondary. ### #7 Thoth101 Thoth101 Explaining • Members • 729 posts Posted 17 February 2020 - 04:44 AM It is a fact that their is more money in the economy now than in the past (100 years ago) . The poor have always had an uneven playing field, they dont create the money, the rich do. They do not decide how the new money flows through the economy, the wealthy do. They do not decide the taxes, the wealthy do. The poor will always be screwed unless there is a new political system or economic system based on fairness. An interesting french economist is https://en.wikipedia.../Thomas_Piketty . Do you think the Rothschilds would want to pay 90% tax. His idea of GIVING younger members of society 150000 euros to get them started and fuel the economy, is also interesting. The Young generally spend everything they have whereas the elderly horde their wealth. I don't think we would be able to go back to it but I think the populations that were natives got it right in living off the land and nature and trading with neighbors. Although I understand that would not work this day in age since we have all been spoiled with consumerism. I think first of all if we got off the Rothschild banking system in which your money is debt and we are all debt slaves would be a good start. After all JFK and Abraham Lincoln did try making their own money and how ironic they were the ones that were murdered. So believe me when I say and you say those who have the money make the rules is the truth. People need to educate themselves on how this system we are now in works so that we are able to kick them out. We pretty much need to figure out how to beat them at their own game. Which honestly I don't think is going to happen. But you never know one day people might say they had enough. Their are billions of us and only a few of them. Once we learn we are the ones with the power the tide or flow will change. Notice currency and current, And current runs between banks. Isn't that interesting and the cash flow? ### #8 Flummoxed Flummoxed Creating • Members • 1341 posts Posted 17 February 2020 - 09:09 AM Interesting guy, Particularly that bit about income tax being a driving force in retarding the exponential growth of higher earners. I do wonder what their analysis of the overall economic effects of those taxes was, as I've heard claims that income tax directly slows down overall economic growth significantly. That idea of giving youth money directly as an investment is interesting, but would AFAIK devalue currency in total vs existing materiel wealth like real estate or other holdings. It brings up a funky related idea though: incorporating individuals and allowing them to sell off shares of their own future income potential. Under that kind of system the government would pay a fixed over-market amount for a percentage of "shares" in an individual's future lifetime earnings(eg that 150k). Schools could also take that kind of share-swap in lieu of tuition fees, and be more motivated to output better trained and economically viable individuals to insure greater future returns. In theory it would mitigate the current "sell them what they want even/especially if it useless" degrees that have been the more popular options in post-secondary. He had a good write up in the new statesman, his views are possibly a little bit progressive. Reduced Income tax big lures investors into countries, allowing them to make more profits, and save even more money. The poor spend virtually everything the earn. Taxing the poor means they have less to spend, and reduces the amount of money in the economy, to buy the goods produced by big investors. Vague ramblings > In the UK the last time I checked the income tax threshold was about £12000, before you had to pay tax, this was a long time ago so it might have increased by now. Tax rates were progressively reduced for the super rich many years ago. However I do not recall any multi millionaire merchant bankers investing in manufacturing plants, or creating 1000's of jobs. But if you are trading in the stock markets, and have a tax haven then, you will base your operations there, increased economic turnover in a stock market does not mean an improved economy for all but the super rich who profit by tax cuts. to your 2nd paragraph is this not the equivalent of indentured labour, which is slavery by any other name. Apparently both were very popular in the Americas not such a long time ago. Many indentured labourers, died still before finishing their indenture-ship and many were also apparently disposed of by greedy employers, without being paid. Ref the 150000 euros, individuals with wealthy parents receive that anyway. Less wealthy individuals would be able to burn 100 euro notes in front of elderley (over taxed) beggars. Similar to Boris Johnson and his school mates, what laughs they must have. A certain degree of social responsibility might be taught to those recieving the money. Perhaps rather than tying it to enslavement, why not if you get a criminal record before you are due to receive it, you lose the lot. Then if you miss use it, ie by burning it infront of homeless people, then you might also lose the lot. I don't think we would be able to go back to it but I think the populations that were natives got it right in living off the land and nature and trading with neighbors. Although I understand that would not work this day in age since we have all been spoiled with consumerism. I think first of all if we got off the Rothschild banking system in which your money is debt and we are all debt slaves would be a good start. After all JFK and Abraham Lincoln did try making their own money and how ironic they were the ones that were murdered. So believe me when I say and you say those who have the money make the rules is the truth. People need to educate themselves on how this system we are now in works so that we are able to kick them out. We pretty much need to figure out how to beat them at their own game. Which honestly I don't think is going to happen. But you never know one day people might say they had enough. Their are billions of us and only a few of them. Once we learn we are the ones with the power the tide or flow will change. Notice currency and current, And current runs between banks. Isn't that interesting and the cash flow? Depends on your level of consumerism, do you really need a bigger car, or another motor bike. I might be dated, people want smart **** these days dont they, then they sit and message each other at the same table in restaurants. JFK was around after the federal reserve was set up. I think Lincoln if my american history is vaguely correct wanted a more agrarian society not involving money perhaps based on trade. There are today basically 4 different types of economies https://www.intellig...s-of-economies/ I wonder if a hybrid version of these could be developed, benefiting from the advantages of each and circumventing the downsides. • Thoth101 likes this ### #9 GAHD GAHD Eldritch Horror • Administrators • 2826 posts Posted 17 February 2020 - 04:31 PM Ref the 150000 euros, individuals with wealthy parents receive that anyway. Less wealthy individuals would be able to burn 100 euro notes in front of elderley (over taxed) beggars. Similar to Boris Johnson and his school mates, what laughs they must have. A certain degree of social responsibility might be taught to those recieving the money. Perhaps rather than tying it to enslavement, why not if you get a criminal record before you are due to receive it, you lose the lot. Then if you miss use it, ie by burning it infront of homeless people, then you might also lose the lot. No, you don't understand. "Free money" has to come from somewhere. Money is a standard of exchange for labour. if every kid gets 150k at 21(or whichever age) that COMPLETELY DEVALUES the equivalent 150k that was worked for. When that happens, inflation skyrockets and the value of real things (like food, land, cars, computers, phones, electricity) gets driven upwards. It's irresponsible "just print more" fiat that leads to currency crashes like mid 80's USSR. Pocket full of gold; stand in line 10 hours for a half loaf of bread. The ONLY way that kinda exchange holds value is is if there's an EXCHANGE. Taxes are the exact equivalent to "selling shares" of your person. The difference is with shares you have the potential to buy them back, where taxes haunt you even after you're dead and reduced to ashes. Shares also wouldn't garner interest, which is the leading cause of student debt slavery in western cultures; dumb kid gets a$120k loan at 1-3% monthly compound: they better make ends meet + an extra $1.2-3.6k every single month + more if they want to pay less the next month (good luck in most cases, or for things like a psychology Bach or a history Masters that have little earning potential but massive money sinks). Share selling would leave low-earner incomes way better off than the current loan system. It would also give institutions incentive to teach people WELL instead of putting all the onus on the student; a student who actually learned the subject would give better return on investment than one who could not understand their lazy prof with tenure who would rather talk bad about *insert political figure* than ensure they're actually conveying what a Det does in relation to a matrix. Indentured servitude is a whole other ballpark and I have no idea how you can think of the comparison... Re the next bit of consumerism: every car pays for the hours people put into making it, and for the hours the maintenance people spend on it keeping it on the road. Either you get something nice (like a car) for putting food on all those tables, or you can feel free to leave them to starve and beg (or leach off the welfare state). Keep in mind "free money" devalues every single working dollar by it's equivalent % of the gross, and money sitting in a savings account loses value proportionate to inflation. Inflation that is ALWAYS higher than the ROE the bank will give you for leaving it in their hands. The best way to understand what money is actually worth: What's the cost of a balanced meal at an average restaurant, the cost to stay a night in a scummy hotel, and the cost to live for a month in a 1 bedroom apartment. With those 3 as index you can rapidly calculate how much money has valued or devalued in any country. • LaurieAG likes this ### #10 Flummoxed Flummoxed Creating • Members • 1341 posts Posted 18 February 2020 - 03:34 AM No, you don't understand. "Free money" has to come from somewhere. Money is a standard of exchange for labour. if every kid gets 150k at 21(or whichever age) that COMPLETELY DEVALUES the equivalent 150k that was worked for. When that happens, inflation skyrockets and the value of real things (like food, land, cars, computers, phones, electricity) gets driven upwards. It's irresponsible "just print more" fiat that leads to currency crashes like mid 80's USSR. Pocket full of gold; stand in line 10 hours for a half loaf of bread. The ONLY way that kinda exchange holds value is is if there's an EXCHANGE. Taxes are the exact equivalent to "selling shares" of your person. The difference is with shares you have the potential to buy them back, where taxes haunt you even after you're dead and reduced to ashes. Shares also wouldn't garner interest, which is the leading cause of student debt slavery in western cultures; dumb kid gets a$120k loan at 1-3% monthly compound: they better make ends meet + an extra $1.2-3.6k every single month + more if they want to pay less the next month (good luck in most cases, or for things like a psychology Bach or a history Masters that have little earning potential but massive money sinks). Share selling would leave low-earner incomes way better off than the current loan system. It would also give institutions incentive to teach people WELL instead of putting all the onus on the student; a student who actually learned the subject would give better return on investment than one who could not understand their lazy prof with tenure who would rather talk bad about *insert political figure* than ensure they're actually conveying what a Det does in relation to a matrix. Indentured servitude is a whole other ballpark and I have no idea how you can think of the comparison... Re the next bit of consumerism: every car pays for the hours people put into making it, and for the hours the maintenance people spend on it keeping it on the road. Either you get something nice (like a car) for putting food on all those tables, or you can feel free to leave them to starve and beg (or leach off the welfare state). Keep in mind "free money" devalues every single working dollar by it's equivalent % of the gross, and money sitting in a savings account loses value proportionate to inflation. Inflation that is ALWAYS higher than the ROE the bank will give you for leaving it in their hands. The best way to understand what money is actually worth: What's the cost of a balanced meal at an average restaurant, the cost to stay a night in a scummy hotel, and the cost to live for a month in a 1 bedroom apartment. With those 3 as index you can rapidly calculate how much money has valued or devalued in any country. Taxing the very wealthy at 90% could produce at least some of the 150000. At the basic level, which people are taught in infant class you are mostly correct. However > the worlds money supply is constantly increasing, this money does not appear out of the aether. It is printed. Meetings of extremely wealthy people put more previously none existing money into the system. There is more money in the economy today, than there was 100 years ago. Alexandra the great minted coins, made of silver and gold which had intrinsic value. The paper/electronic money today does not have the same value or security, if a country goes to war, or votes for something ****ing stupid like brexit, the currency can and is be devalued, by the worlds money markets. Inflation is what drives investment, without growth on your investments, no one would invest. Money in the bank, is constantly devalued by inflation. Inflation is driven by supply and demand at both ends of the production chain. Your average wealthy older person with spare cash might find a safe investment in buying additional houses to rent, further driving inflation in the housing market, and reducing the supply to less wealthy young people, increasing the costs causing them to have bigger mortgages, and pay more interest to the money lenders. The UK introduced student loans about 40 years/(long time) ago to replace student grants(free universities ), and if nothing has changed, they are still free loans, repayable only when the student earns above a certain value. The UK still has a mostly free health service. I tend to judge how expensive a country is, by initially buying a beer to calibrate the currency. Restaurants I find are a bad gauge of costs, 3 restaurants on the same street will give wildly different prices, for basically the same items. Wandering around a market gives a better idea of raw food costs. The value of the currency is only really felt when goods are needed to be imported, from a different economic area. All forms of labor for money(reward) are a form of slavery, are you not or have been a wage slave for a good part of your life ? Edit A bit of history: Henry Thornton was an early economist existing before Lincoln, living in England, his ideas were I involved in the American banking system if I recall correctly . I dont have his book to hand any more but here is a brief link on him, https://www.britanni.../Henry-Thornton For an economist he was mildly interesting to read about. Edited by Flummoxed, 18 February 2020 - 04:27 AM. ### #11 GAHD GAHD Eldritch Horror • Administrators • 2826 posts Posted 18 February 2020 - 09:59 AM Taxing the very wealthy at 90% could produce at least some of the 150000. So "Steal at gunpoint the earnings of individuals who put in efforts to hand it off to others who didn't put in those efforts." Not a good idea, that way lies barbarism IMHO. The only taxes that are justified are usage taxes: use the road pay for it, use the water supply pay for it, need your garbage dealt with pay for it. Those that use less pay less and those that use more pay more. Anything else puts unhealthy burden on people for crap they don't use or care about. the worlds money supply is constantly increasing, this money does not appear out of the aether. It is printed. Meetings of extremely wealthy people put more previously none existing money into the system. There is more money in the economy today, than there was 100 years ago. Alexandra the great minted coins, made of silver and gold which had intrinsic value. The paper/electronic money today does not have the same value or security, if a country goes to war, or votes for something ****ing stupid like brexit, the currency can and is be devalued, by the worlds money markets. Brexit is a response to exactly that kind of theft and redistribution man. And yes, money these days had devalued because of the excess printing. This is an inherent flaw/feature in Fiat. It's more driven by taxation and forced redistribution and it stifles rather than drives investment from most of the perspectives I'm aware of. Humans being inherently selfish/jealous beings (who lie to themselves about that motivation out of shame) love to find justification to steal from others. Your if we taxed (stole at gunpoint) 90% of the wealth of the rich (an undefined term, YOU are rich relative to someone in the 3rd world with a distended belly how bout we steal 90% of your stuff?) it could fund that$150k free money is a prime example, as was your inherent aversion to the "how about we steal 90% of your stuff" as things will suddenly change when it's YOUR possessions taking that 90% axe. "oh but I don't have that to spare and the rich do!" as the standard knee-jerk thought is completely preposterous in comparison to a 3rd worlder who's constantly hundreds of calories away from exhaustion-death.

The rationale is either comprehensive or it's false. Think hard on it.

I tend to judge how expensive a country is, by initially buying a beer to calibrate the currency. Restaurants I find are a bad gauge of costs, 3 restaurants on the same street will give wildly different prices, for basically the same items. Wandering around a market gives a better idea of raw food costs. The value of the currency is only really felt when goods are needed to be imported, from a different economic area.

The point of the meal (and the differences between restaurant prices) is to determine the living wage of the staff involved. The point of the 2 types of the rooms is to determine land taxation, utility costs, and weather or not living wage of people involved like hotel staff drastically changes the costs. The value of a currency is directly felt locally, and exchange rates between them are more calculated from average buying powers of real goods between locations...calculations very much like the 3-point one I gave as example. The peso vs dollar exchange is motivated by the cost of food and living in both locations far more than "old rich people sitting in a room" conspiracy stuff.

All forms of labor for money(reward) are a form of slavery, are you not or have been a wage slave for a good part of your life ?

Edit A bit of history: Henry Thornton was an early economist existing before Lincoln, living in England, his ideas were I involved in the American banking system if I recall correctly . I dont have his book to hand any more but here is a brief link on him, https://www.britanni.../Henry-Thornton For an economist he was mildly interesting to read about.

No, that's exchange for value. Slavery is "do it for free or I'll punish you." There is a very sharp dividing line between the two, though one can trick into the other if mismanaged.

### #12 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

Creating

• Members
• 1341 posts

Posted 18 February 2020 - 10:45 AM

So "Steal at gunpoint the earnings of individuals who put in efforts to hand it off to others who didn't put in those efforts." Not a good idea, that way lies barbarism IMHO. The only taxes that are justified are usage taxes: use the road pay for it, use the water supply pay for it, need your garbage dealt with pay for it. Those that use less pay less and those that use more pay more. Anything else puts unhealthy burden on people for crap they don't use or care about.

Brexit is a response to exactly that kind of theft and redistribution man.

And yes, money these days had devalued because of the excess printing. This is an inherent flaw/feature in Fiat. It's more driven by taxation and forced redistribution and it stifles rather than drives investment from most of the perspectives I'm aware of. Humans being inherently selfish/jealous beings (who lie to themselves about that motivation out of shame) love to find justification to steal from others. Your if we taxed (stole at gunpoint) 90% of the wealth of the rich (an undefined term, YOU are rich relative to someone in the 3rd world with a distended belly how bout we steal 90% of your stuff?) it could fund that $150k free money is a prime example, as was your inherent aversion to the "how about we steal 90% of your stuff" as things will suddenly change when it's YOUR possessions taking that 90% axe. "oh but I don't have that to spare and the rich do!" as the standard knee-jerk thought is completely preposterous in comparison to a 3rd worlder who's constantly hundreds of calories away from exhaustion-death. The rationale is either comprehensive or it's false. Think hard on it. The point of the meal (and the differences between restaurant prices) is to determine the living wage of the staff involved. The point of the 2 types of the rooms is to determine land taxation, utility costs, and weather or not living wage of people involved like hotel staff drastically changes the costs. The value of a currency is directly felt locally, and exchange rates between them are more calculated from average buying powers of real goods between locations...calculations very much like the 3-point one I gave as example. The peso vs dollar exchange is motivated by the cost of food and living in both locations far more than "old rich people sitting in a room" conspiracy stuff. No, that's exchange for value. Slavery is "do it for free or I'll punish you." There is a very sharp dividing line between the two, though one can trick into the other if mismanaged. Taxation is not stealing at gunpoint. It is redistribution of wealth for the common good of society. The worlds money supply is like the water cycle. It needs to be taxed otherwise the money flow would dry up. Brexit revalued the currency, will fuel inflation on imported goods. But may may British goods cheaper, so there may be a blip in manufacturing output figures, which wont be sustained if the UK does not get a deal on Brexit with their main trading partner europe. Think hard on it? You should not tare everyone with the same brush. Not everyone in the so called third world is starving. Socially responsible people understand the purpose of taxation in society. Living wage of staff involved ? Umh, does someone working 12 hours a day doing manual labour require a smaller living wage than a doctor working 12 hours a day. Does someone who sits in a bank deserve a bigger living wage than a checkout operator in a supermarket . They both operate of cash registers. Not been to mexico yet, so wont comment on the Peso. If someone goes to work and can not survive on what they are payed, they may need to have a second or third job to make ends meet. If they fall ill, they may in the absence of health care need to beg for food. In a fair society, the welfare systems provide a safety net. Also a guaranteed minimum wage as we have in europe, is better than being offered the opportunity to work for tips only, which happens in America. I read slaves were valuable commodities which could be bought and sold, it was in the owners interests to make sure the slaves were well fed, and happy, otherwise they run away. Top jobs for slaves were such things as house hold servants, cant think what the worst jobs might have been. Slavery is not something that was common place in the UK. If foreigners turned up with slaves they were not approved of. Being a slave in north africa was not very nice, something I hadnt realized they castrated the male slaves to stop them breeding. ouch! That didnt happen in the Americas. ### #13 Flummoxed Flummoxed Creating • Members • 1341 posts Posted 18 February 2020 - 10:48 AM This thread is drifting off thread. A definition for poverty has not been made. Does not having a smart phone, make someone poor, or are we talking not being able to afford to buy food from a market place. Or not being able to afford to eat in a restaurant like GAHD Edited by Flummoxed, 18 February 2020 - 10:49 AM. ### #14 GAHD GAHD Eldritch Horror • Administrators • 2826 posts Posted 18 February 2020 - 02:30 PM Taxation is not stealing at gunpoint. It is redistribution of wealth for the common good of society. The worlds money supply is like the water cycle. It needs to be taxed otherwise the money flow would dry up. If you don't pay your taxes, what ends up happening? Answer: people with guns eventually show up, and take your stuff. The ends defines the equivalent. Think hard on it? You should not tare everyone with the same brush. Not everyone in the so called third world is starving. Socially responsible people understand the purpose of taxation in society. Using the "socially responsible" label is just a word-trick to mitigate guilt of the action "steal from" in the grand scheme. It's like if I came to your place, rummaged though your fridge, and only took one bite of each product I find and call it you being "socially responsible" for my hunger. Gross simplification, but one that stands broad scrutiny. I also didn't say EVERYONE in the 3rd world was starving, I said in comparison to the ones that are, you are "rich" and by your own logic should have 90% of your stuff taken away and given to them. If that logic doesn't hold true to you in that case you are operating from a double-standard. --->Yes, think hard on it; think of the actual actions without flowery language. Forced charity isn't objectively "good" as that's a subjective thing. I don't see you immidiately voluteering to that 90% sudden taxation to help the people who ARE calories away from death, instead you just did a comple cop-out dodge by bringing up an unrelated semi-argument: "Not everyone in the so called third world is starving." That PROVES my point: your inherent aversion to the "how about we steal 90% of your stuff" as things will suddenly change when it's YOUR possessions taking that 90% axe. The rest of it isn't really going anywhere that I can see? Most of your half-formed points on wage/tips/etc are folded into rationales as to why different places can charge different rates and are less an argument than a plea for emotion. • Thoth101 likes this ### #15 LaurieAG LaurieAG Explaining • Members • 1569 posts Posted 19 February 2020 - 02:18 AM In ancient Athens the main public expenses fell on the shoulders of the elites while the basic citizen only had to make their bodies and lives available for military service as a Hopolite. This method reduced the impact of oligarchies and dictatorships and was a cornerstone of the original concept of democracy, The Spartans had a different dual monarchist system that also utilised citizen Hopolites as the central foundation for their society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplite If I recall correctly in the early 1960's in Australia the average lowly paid worker paid no tax while the managers and business owners were paid a large multiple of the average workers wage (100x?) and paid over 50% in taxes. At this time the ASX and the DOW were both around 1,000. Now the top 1% pay much less tax in comparison while they earn around 4-5 times (400-500x) more than they did in the 1960's, in Australia at least. But then again our major political parties have sold off most of our national assets to ensure that their old crony mates get directors seats on the boards of our new foreign masters, thanks political arse holes, at least the pommies got a BREXIT vote, you pricks have yet to gain constitutional approval for putting the crown on your heads in the Australia Act 1986, just before you started selling our public assets! It's a real pity they stopped listening to genuine Australians when the capitalists turned the world into a slave state with the help of the witless and gutless wonders they call politicians these days. • Thoth101 likes this ### #16 Flummoxed Flummoxed Creating • Members • 1341 posts Posted 19 February 2020 - 04:04 AM If you don't pay your taxes, what ends up happening? Answer: people with guns eventually show up, and take your stuff. The ends defines the equivalent. Using the "socially responsible" label is just a word-trick to mitigate guilt of the action "steal from" in the grand scheme. It's like if I came to your place, rummaged though your fridge, and only took one bite of each product I find and call it you being "socially responsible" for my hunger. Gross simplification, but one that stands broad scrutiny. I also didn't say EVERYONE in the 3rd world was starving, I said in comparison to the ones that are, you are "rich" and by your own logic should have 90% of your stuff taken away and given to them. If that logic doesn't hold true to you in that case you are operating from a double-standard. --->Yes, think hard on it; think of the actual actions without flowery language. Forced charity isn't objectively "good" as that's a subjective thing. I don't see you immidiately voluteering to that 90% sudden taxation to help the people who ARE calories away from death, instead you just did a comple cop-out dodge by bringing up an unrelated semi-argument: "Not everyone in the so called third world is starving." That PROVES my point: I posted 3 links one from a progressive modern economist, who is suggesting a way forward for economies in the world to address poverty. Another from the earliest sentient economist I know off, who corresponded with the likes of Thomas Jefferson if memory serves. His ideas are at the basis of the economics. The third was on the basic 4 different economic models in the world. You and GAHD appear to have a very low opinion of human nature. I have been to many parts of the world, where there are what we would describe as people living in poverty. There are however many definitions of poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty not being able to keep up with the Jones isnt one ### #17 VictorMedvil VictorMedvil The Human Shadow • Members • 2480 posts Posted 19 February 2020 - 04:35 AM I posted 3 links one from a progressive modern economist, who is suggesting a way forward for economies in the world to address poverty. Another from the earliest sentient economist I know off, who corresponded with the likes of Thomas Jefferson if memory serves. His ideas are at the basis of the economics. The third was on the basic 4 different economic models in the world. You and GAHD appear to have a very low opinion of human nature. I have been to many parts of the world, where there are what we would describe as people living in poverty. There are however many definitions of poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty not being able to keep up with the Jones isnt one If you don't pay your taxes, what ends up happening? Answer: people with guns eventually show up, and take your stuff. The ends defines the equivalent. Using the "socially responsible" label is just a word-trick to mitigate guilt of the action "steal from" in the grand scheme. It's like if I came to your place, rummaged though your fridge, and only took one bite of each product I find and call it you being "socially responsible" for my hunger. Gross simplification, but one that stands broad scrutiny. I also didn't say EVERYONE in the 3rd world was starving, I said in comparison to the ones that are, you are "rich" and by your own logic should have 90% of your stuff taken away and given to them. If that logic doesn't hold true to you in that case you are operating from a double-standard. --->Yes, think hard on it; think of the actual actions without flowery language. Forced charity isn't objectively "good" as that's a subjective thing. I don't see you immidiately voluteering to that 90% sudden taxation to help the people who ARE calories away from death, instead you just did a comple cop-out dodge by bringing up an unrelated semi-argument: "Not everyone in the so called third world is starving." That PROVES my point: The rest of it isn't really going anywhere that I can see? Most of your half-formed points on wage/tips/etc are folded into rationales as to why different places can charge different rates and are less an argument than a plea for emotion. No, I agree with GAHD, taxes are not the solution to this issue too often are taxes not used for the good of the people but rather stuffed into the pockets of politicians and government projects that keep the elite in control, if you were to raise taxes on the wealthy likely there would be more tax breaks to the wealthy to counter-balance this because of lobbying and bribery of politicians, in a perfect world that would work however in real life it would not because of Corruption, you forget the almighty bribery power that having loads of money has. Many politicians make only like$80,000 to \$120,000 a year in America but most of them have millions of dollars where do you suspect they got the difference from?

Edited by VictorMedvil, 19 February 2020 - 04:45 AM.