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

[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.
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

[Vittorio]

Gonna post this until I'm blue in the face.

The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

Poverty isn't the problem. Production for exchange is. And that isn't something you solve through a Universal Basic Income or tweaks in the tax code.

[GP270watch]

 This is why you should laugh very loudly when somebody suggests that a progressive tax code is "punishing the rich".

[Crumpets]

That doesn't sound like a strawman argument at all...

[°Leprechaun]

First we would have to do something about the obscene military budget which is a grotesque waste of money.

Yang has also proposed (along with Gillibrand) "democracy dollars" which means giving  vouchers to all voters. This would get money out of politics.

The Democrats are promoting getting money out of politics by making individual contributions one of the qualifications for getting into the debate. This forces the candidates to get broad support instead of relying on corporations for money.

In the recent past the Democrats haven't made poverty an issue. Clearly "the lack of money is the root of all evil." George Bernard Shaw.

[QAnonKelly]

There’s no reason anyone in the richest country in the history of the world should live in poverty.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

we truly live in a society

[Greatest I am]

Gonna post this until I'm blue in the face.

The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

Poverty isn't the problem. Production for exchange is. And that isn't something you solve through a Universal Basic Income or tweaks in the tax code.

Correct. That is not what a fair tax code is written to accomplish.

Do you see that graph as showing a moral tax code or one that favors the rich at the expense of the poor?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

This is why you should laugh very loudly when somebody suggests that a progressive tax code is "punishing the rich".

I agree.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

That doesn't sound like a strawman argument at all...

It isn't.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

First we would have to do something about the obscene military budget which is a grotesque waste of money.

Yang has also proposed (along with Gillibrand) "democracy dollars" which means giving  vouchers to all voters. This would get money out of politics.

The Democrats are promoting getting money out of politics by making individual contributions one of the qualifications for getting into the debate. This forces the candidates to get broad support instead of relying on corporations for money.

In the recent past the Democrats haven't made poverty an issue. Clearly "the lack of money is the root of all evil." George Bernard Shaw.

Insecurity is indeed the root of all human to human evil.

Our selfish gene rules us.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

There’s no reason anyone in the richest country in the history of the world should live in poverty.

Indeed. It is a disgrace.

Shame seem to be a trait we have ignored for a long time.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

we truly live in a society

Oligarchies.

Our Democracies are Hypocrisies.

Regards
DL

[pbrower2a]

This is why you should laugh very loudly when somebody suggests that a progressive tax code is "punishing the rich".

We have basically a flat tax on corporate income that effectively favors monopolists and cartels, especially if vertically-integrated. Thus a mom-and-pop manufacturing business is taxed as heavily as Exxon-Mobil.

Progressive taxation created niches for small businesses -- veritable cottage industries as local banks, mom-and-pop restaurants and groceries, and small-scale manufacturers. We used to have lots of independent pharmacists; that is over. Giant, monopolized, vertically-integrated businesses find ways to cut back employment -- for which executives are richly rewarded. Those are not job-creators.

Right-wing pols encourage Big Business to create poverty through pressure on the wages of those who still have jobs and by squeezing out business. 

[junior chįmp]

I am curious as to why
Your post reads
Like a
Haiku

?

[Greatest I am]

This is why you should laugh very loudly when somebody suggests that a progressive tax code is "punishing the rich".

We have basically a flat tax on corporate income that effectively favors monopolists and cartels, especially if vertically-integrated. Thus a mom-and-pop manufacturing business is taxed as heavily as Exxon-Mobil.

Progressive taxation created niches for small businesses -- veritable cottage industries as local banks, mom-and-pop restaurants and groceries, and small-scale manufacturers. We used to have lots of independent pharmacists; that is over. Giant, monopolized, vertically-integrated businesses find ways to cut back employment -- for which executives are richly rewarded. Those are not job-creators.

Right-wing pols encourage Big Business to create poverty through pressure on the wages of those who still have jobs and by squeezing out business. 

Squeeze them out or buy them out is how the larger control the smaller as well as the market place.

While the government is anti-labor unions which are know to elevate the low standards to better ones.

Most countries know this but not the U.S., of course.

Regards
DL