How much extra in taxes would you pay to eliminate poverty?

[yllus]

For the sake of the thought experiment, imagine that you've somehow been able to create a forcefield at your borders that has brought illegal immigration down to nearly zero. So we're talking about legal immigrants and citizens only.

What would you be willing to pay in additional taxes to fully eliminate poverty in your country?

 

[Jaskalas]

Wealth redistribution only mitigates poverty, it does not eliminate it. Are we supposed to assume for the sake of argument that this "plan" will work?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I can't give a number because poverty cannot be completely eliminated by paying more taxes, unless you suggest we take everyone's income and divide it all up regardless of occupation or situation. Now would I pay more in taxes to intelligently create a robust and sustainable job market? Yes, but I'd need to know more before committing.

 

[Matt1970]

If government had excess revenue they would distribute it equally to the poor? Now there's a hoot.

 

[schmuckley]

If government had excess revenue they would distribute it equally to the poor? Now there's a hoot.

^This.
People are already taxed around 2/3 too much.
Everywhere from the cost of electricity,to healthcare, to fuel,to food,to property,to doing business;the government has an extortive strong-arm in all of it.

 

[cabri]

Two separate issues.

Poverty is a value of wealth and an arbitrary figure/level by people that feel good by wealth distribution.

A secure border is a different story. It will not eliminate poverty. It will help reduce extra outflow of taxes and funds leaving the country.


The government has been dumping $$ since LBJ to tackle poverty; it has not accomplished such. It has hidden it, shuffled the definition, moved the goal posts, etc.

 

[DigDog]

in the animal kingdom food=reproduction. its the same now. if you make people rich, they will make themselves poor by growing excessively in number.

if everyone who lives at the poverty line stopped having kids, in 50 years there would be no poverty, workers, instead of work, would be a commodity, and we would have a new reneissance similar to the one which followed the black plague.

we are allowed to quote facts, right? or just ideas?

 

[Zaap]

So its agreed? Giving the members of the Millionaire's Club we call government MORE money than they already piss down a sewer won't actually reduce poverty one iota?

B-but won't someone consider the poor poor millionaires in congress? They *need* more money to piss into even larger sewers, as all the histrionics from the next round of political theatre will demonstrate...

 

[Subyman]

Money isn't the only reason for poverty. Its motivation as well.

 

[Greenman]

If what you're talking about is simple wealth redistribution, a guaranteed income, socialized medical, things like that, I'd quit working the day it started and go get in line for my free stuff.

 

[feralkid]

Money isn't the only reason for poverty. Its motivation as well.

Everyone who is poor is just a lazy slob and so are their children.





.

 

[Bitek]

I wouldn't aim to eliminate poverty, but we can dial back the depths of it for the truly misfortunates. Some of it also is shifting priorities in spending also.

More than anything however, we need robust efforts to create strong economies, which will alleviate poverty much better than any social programs.

Too much taxes and protectionism and you just distribute poverty.

 

[BoberFett]

Eliminate poverty, poverty will be redefined.

 

[DCal430]

Poverty exist because of the greedy rich who exploit those less fortunate. We need to tax the greedy rich more and share the wealth that belongs to all of society.

 

[fskimospy]

Threads like this are an interesting insight into just how extreme American conservatism has become. I'm not aware of an equivalent movement anywhere else in the developed world.

 

[SparkyJJO]

You can't eliminate poverty via taxation. It does not work. You just get fat cats in Washington doing that.

How about instead of looking at the government as the "savior" go help a poor person directly instead.

 

[mizzou]

There is more to poverty then just $. Some of it is a mindset, some of it is an illness, some of it is an injustice, some of it is chance.

Throwing $ at people could have the same result as a poor person winning the lottery, then immediately becoming bankrupt a year later.

 

[BoberFett]

Threads like this are an interesting insight into just how extreme American conservatism has become. I'm not aware of an equivalent movement anywhere else in the developed world.

 

[OutHouse]

Poverty exist because of the greedy rich who exploit those less fortunate. We need to tax the greedy rich more and share the wealth that belongs to all of society.

 

[Jaskalas]

in the animal kingdom food=reproduction. its the same now. if you make people rich, they will make themselves poor by growing excessively in number.

Developed countries have increased the cost of living to the point of depressing population growth. Instead of children we invest in cell phones, cars, and luxuries. This use of "riches" throws a thorn into your argument.

Third mouth to feed, or big screen TV. Americans choose the TV.

 

[mizzou]

Honestly, we should do more though for a safety net on basic life needs. Health, Shelter, and Food. We do a decent job with Shelter and Food and we are OK on Health. I've never heard anyone complain about medicaid benefits or foodstamp benefits...I have heard a lot of rumbling though about HUD housing.

Your typical HUD housing complex will have an extremely visible and vocal minority of criminals that tend to control the psyche of the neighborhood. Many are just drifters who leech off others state benefits, and little to nothing can be done about it except punish the person who they are leaching off of and hope they drift somewhere else.

More needs to be done to ensure that those who receive benefits, are not abusing the system or being taken advantage of. And then once you identify those problems, you have to figure out what the fuck to do. Since many are already at the bottom barrel of society, where else do you put them?

 

[boomerang]

Developed countries have increased the cost of living to the point of depressing population growth. Instead of children we invest in cell phones, cars, and luxuries. This use of "riches" throws a thorn into your argument.

Third mouth to feed, or big screen TV. Americans choose the TV.

I am truly glad I won't be around when this methodology catches up with us. We can't support the government we have now without massive borrowing. When the population dwindles down and there are exponentially less makers things are going to get real dicey.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

I'd rather keep my income and distribute it how I see fit to various charities that I support.

 

[boomerang]

Eliminate poverty, poverty will be redefined.

Exactly.

 

[boomerang]

I'd rather keep my income and distribute it how I see fit to various charities that I support.

The majority of the nation feels that government can do a better job of that than you. You are in the minority with those thoughts and there may come a time when you will have to keep those thoughts to yourself.