If governments controlled disposable income of the .1 %, would poverty end?

Policies should not be based on fear. They should be based on morality and progress.

Regards
DL

 

I am more focused on --- why.

It is the moral thing to do.

Regards
DL

 

Why not?

Do you think it moral for a rich nation to impose poverty onto it's population?

Regards
DL

 

Similar convictions can be projected (well argumented and all) onto rich capitalists.

 

The stats I have do not have it that high.

https://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2

Have you got a link?

Regards
DL

 

Who made that stupid suggestion?

I think it should go to the poor.

Regards
DL

 

Exactly. Control of a pittance. Loose change to the rich.

Regards
DL

 

I hear you.

Obama gave the poor health care while Trump clawed any gain back by giving his rich friends a tax break.

Regards
DL

 

Directly? How?

 

Well put.

The rich rule to get richer. Governments are supposed to rule for the benefits of all.

Both the rich and governments must change their ways if a social revolution is to be averted.

Change may not happen without violence, but American's in particular, seen to not care or feel it when the big oligarch's red white and blue dick gets rammed up their asses even further by the rich.

Regards
DL

 

Again, a well put reply. Thanks.

I see Brexit slightly differently. I see a means of Brits to protect their country.

That I get from how Brits look at the huge influx of refugees and others who can just walk into their country and social systems. This song exemplifies that, and if a Brit, I would vote to leave the E.U. as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq_lhlIn1e0

Australia is following suit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZZlo0WZ_iU&feature=youtu.be

Regards
DL

 

I agree that we have to come up with a more equitable socio economic demographic pyramid.

I do not see how we can sell that idea but without it, the required changes will be really slow to come.

Regards
DL

 

I do not think it make a difference if it goes directly or indirectly.
Let the rich decide if they will take the credit for ending poverty or allow their owned politicians to do so.

Our owners like to stay hidden or in the backgrounds and do not rule over us directly so they will likely continue doing that.

Regards
DL

 

Humans can be greedy. Our Capitalist system also rewards greed and looks down on tax and social welfare (in America at least). What you have is 100% yours and if someone wants it why don't they work as hard as you did they will say.

For this reason I think it's important to regulate the ultra wealthy. We don't want to go too extreme with the control though. It's important to reward innovation. However, it's not hard to do this.

Higher tax on the wealthy helps schools, hospitals, basically anything us common man use.
As Obama famously said "you did not build that". I think many wealthy resent tax since they do not acknowledge the role society as a whole plays. They only see their personal idea succeeding not the infrastructure that helped it. And what does infrastructure need? TAXES.

Today we have the ability for every human on Earth to have food and shelter. We do not since not all humans can pay. We reward money and the chasing of it. Poverty can end if we wish it to.

 

So why dont you use part of your income to help those in Africa?

Or how about Arizona? It has the highest poverty rate in the US

 

How do rich people who aren't part of the political class benefit from poverty existing?

Rich people who are inside the political class certainly benefit from it though. For reasons I already mentioned.

My source from Census Income and Poverty in the United States: 2017

• The official poverty rate in 2017 was 12.3 percent, down 0.4 percentage points from 12.7 percent in 2016. This is the third consecutive annual decline in poverty. Since 2014, the poverty rate has fallen 2.5 percentage points, from 14.8 percent to 12.3 percent.

So it appears I was off by a few percentage points. It's now down to 12.3% since I last checked.

 

There is no solution that we can control. It's all going to crash. Which will wipe out a substantial part of our population. The massive gap in equity is a sure sign that SOME people know what's about to happen and have established themselves to emerge on the other side of it somewhat intact.

For the remaining 97% or so, it's going to be a slog.

 

because governments have no interest in ending poverty, and even if they did they are often kind of incompetent.

i do not think that's moral, but i also don't see what that has to do with anything.

 

12.3% is still 40 million people

Seems ridiculously high for the country US is supposed to be

In fact US does seem to be the worst of all OECD countries

Poverty rates in OECD countries 2016 | Statistic

How the fuck is the poverty rate 3 times higher in the US than it is in Czech Republic?

 

Because the USA is not "the richest country" on Earth. With a $22 trillion deficit, that's impossible.

 

It would be hilarious if the US completely tanked and my Chinese bank account became literal fucking gold...

EDIT: For a moment I thought it actually happened and I felt like Elon Musk.