How we can fight world hunger

[BoredDead]

A proposal for a 5% luxury tax for world hunger charities

Around the world, there are many people facing starvation. A 2010 statistic places the number or people facing hunger at 925 million, which is a terrible situation that the United States must face. Charities around the world see this problem, and do their best to fight it, but it’s not enough. Millions of people are still starving and millions need help. This problem, like any problem, can be solved with enough effort, and here is what I believe is a realistic solution to this problem through a good economic plan.

This plan is to create a 5% luxury tax in the United States, and give the proceeds to world hunger charities, with one important restriction: they may only be allowed to fight world hunger with resources bought in the United States.

Two problems exist with this plan. One is that we don't produce enough food to feed the world’s hungry, and another is creating new taxes hurts our economy and costs jobs. How the first problem is going to be solved is that charities will increase demand for food production, which will cause the agricultural industry to supply more food. One may expect a temporary rise in food prices.

How the second problem will be solved is by each charity buying mass amounts of food in the economy causing the agriculture to expand, which means more jobs. The creation of these agricultural jobs (as well as charity jobs), will equal the jobs lost due to raising taxes on luxury goods (like expensive cars, video games, diamonds, TVs, basically anything for entertainment or anything luxurious)

So the net result, I theorize, which I believe is a worthy trade, will be less production of some luxuries nations don't need, for feeding of the hungry in needy places around the world, with no job loss.

Additional problems people have brought up:

Dangerous people seizing the food and attacking the distributors

Well this can be solved by charities hiring security in dangerous territories

The population becoming lazy due to no longer needing to search for food

This has been brought up and is ridiculous to me, as people won't be happy with just having enough food to survive. They will always want money and will search for ways to get it.

 

[LibertyLemming]

check the sig

 

[BoredDead]

Well technically taxing is bad, but in reality you have to balance that with the good you can do with the money from those taxes. For instance people should have the right to have all of their income but more importantly people should have the right not to starve to death. Easy choice really.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Well technically taxing is bad, but in reality you have to balance that with the good you can do with the money from those taxes. For instance people should have the right to have all of their income but more importantly people should have the right not to starve to death. Easy choice really.

I agree but literally nothing should be done for people if it involves robbing others of their property. The only time I would even be able to justify taxation on labor would be to defend the entire country against an attack that would ruin everyone's liberty.

 

[william the wie]

Well technically taxing is bad, but in reality you have to balance that with the good you can do with the money from those taxes. For instance people should have the right to have all of their income but more importantly people should have the right not to starve to death. Easy choice really.

Wouldn't be a hell of a lot simpler to create a food surplus by abolishing the ethanol subsidy?

 

[BoredDead]

Well technically taxing is bad, but in reality you have to balance that with the good you can do with the money from those taxes. For instance people should have the right to have all of their income but more importantly people should have the right not to starve to death. Easy choice really.

Wouldn't be a hell of a lot simpler to create a food surplus by abolishing the ethanol subsidy?

That wouldn't create a food surplus, as the price of corn would go down and demand would rise or the ethanol corn wouldn't be produced, thus negating the corn not going to ethanol. Also the food would not reach those who need it in Africa.

 

[AquaAthena]

check the sig

Birth control measures for all.

 

[BoredDead]

I agree but literally nothing should be done for people if it involves robbing others of their property. The only time I would even be able to justify taxation on labor would be to defend the entire country against an attack that would ruin everyone's liberty.

Then if nothing but defense is worth taxing for your probably against welfare, NASA, publicly funded scientific research, education and public roads, of which I am sorry, but I cannot value your opinion very highly then. Unless part of this is somehow false...

 

[william the wie]

Well technically taxing is bad, but in reality you have to balance that with the good you can do with the money from those taxes. For instance people should have the right to have all of their income but more importantly people should have the right not to starve to death. Easy choice really.

Wouldn't be a hell of a lot simpler to create a food surplus by abolishing the ethanol subsidy?

That wouldn't create a food surplus, as the price of corn would go down and demand would rise or the ethanol corn wouldn't be produced, thus negating the corn not going to ethanol. Also the food would not reach those who need it in Africa.

Africa's problem is sucky logistics not a lack of food and farmers would simply plant something else. But the scale of logistical infrastructure problems is massive. Mozambique for example has the world's largest coal reserves and does not have the rail system and harbors to get the coal to market. So, unless roads, rails and harbors are built you can't get the food in and if they are built no charity is necessary.

 

[BoredDead]

So there is no hunger in poverty stricken citys or anywhere we can drive a supply truck? And the reasons listed at the World Food Programme are not the real reasons for starvation or they ignored the greatest cause of hunger?

 

[Katzndogz]

The people in these starvation areas are used to feeding themselves by standing in line at a UN feeding station. That's why they are starving.

The aid convoys come under attack from gangs, the goods stolen and left to rot.

The proposed tax is simply to enrich the UN.

 

[expat_panama]

...A 2010 statistic places the number or people facing hunger at 925 million...

You could be making this up for some scam you're running or perhaps you just don't think numbers very important. They are, and let's work together with them a bit. A lot of sources say there're about 7 B people in the world. You're saying less than a billion are starving while other people say there are more than to billion while still others say "No one really knows how many people are malnourished."

If you don't care about numbers and you want my money for this, then I'll give you $100, or maybe I'll give you $1, or maybe we can take a deep breath and do the hard work of taking on reality here.

 

[whitehall]

The operative word is "hunger". The UN statistics are careful not to use the word "starvation" because the numbers might not be high enough for a global extortion scam. What the hell is "hunger" anyway? Everyone is hungry. Anti-American statistics tell us that X amount of people "go to bed hungry in the US". Did you ever meet a teenager who wasn't hungry?

 

[expat_panama]

...UN statistics are careful not to use the word "starvation" because the numbers might not be high enough for a global extortion scam...

That's one reason, and another is that they often prefer the word "malnutrition" because then they can inflate the numbers with huge populations suffering from obesity. A little known fact is that during the Iraq embargo Saddam Hussein complained about Iraqi starvation even while there were more Iraqis hospitalized for obesity than starvation.

 

[BoredDead]

The people in these starvation areas are used to feeding themselves by standing in line at a UN feeding station. That's why they are starving.

The aid convoys come under attack from gangs, the goods stolen and left to rot.

The proposed tax is simply to enrich the UN.

So your logic is that lines are too long...

 

[syrenn]

A proposal for a 5% luxury tax for world hunger charities

Around the world, there are many people facing starvation. A 2010 statistic places the number or people facing hunger at 925 million, which is a terrible situation that the United States must face. Charities around the world see this problem, and do their best to fight it, but it’s not enough. Millions of people are still starving and millions need help. This problem, like any problem, can be solved with enough effort, and here is what I believe is a realistic solution to this problem through a good economic plan.

This plan is to create a 5% luxury tax in the United States, and give the proceeds to world hunger charities, with one important restriction: they may only be allowed to fight world hunger with resources bought in the United States.

Two problems exist with this plan. One is that we don't produce enough food to feed the world’s hungry, and another is creating new taxes hurts our economy and costs jobs. How the first problem is going to be solved is that charities will increase demand for food production, which will cause the agricultural industry to supply more food. One may expect a temporary rise in food prices.

How the second problem will be solved is by each charity buying mass amounts of food in the economy causing the agriculture to expand, which means more jobs. The creation of these agricultural jobs (as well as charity jobs), will equal the jobs lost due to raising taxes on luxury goods (like expensive cars, video games, diamonds, TVs, basically anything for entertainment or anything luxurious)

So the net result, I theorize, which I believe is a worthy trade, will be less production of some luxuries nations don't need, for feeding of the hungry in needy places around the world, with no job loss.

Additional problems people have brought up:

Dangerous people seizing the food and attacking the distributors

Well this can be solved by charities hiring security in dangerous territories

The population becoming lazy due to no longer needing to search for food

This has been brought up and is ridiculous to me, as people won't be happy with just having enough food to survive. They will always want money and will search for ways to get it.

aahh yes. Taxing the rich.

you do realize that means EVERY poor person in this country would be taxed...... ALL of them. Every last person in this country.


Let me tell you the easy way to fight world hunger. If you can't feed your babies.... don't have MORE of them.

 

[syrenn]

check the sig

Birth control measures for all.

 

[BoredDead]

You could be making this up for some scam you're running or perhaps you just don't think numbers very important. They are, and let's work together with them a bit. A lot of sources say there're about 7 B people in the world. You're saying less than a billion are starving while other people say there are more than to billion while still others say "No one really knows how many people are malnourished."

If you don't care about numbers and you want my money for this, then I'll give you $100, or maybe I'll give you $1, or maybe we can take a deep breath and do the hard work of taking on reality here.[/QUOTE]

Your saying I'm trying to scam you???? How would I even do that, I'm not asking for your money at all I'm just trying to get feedback on a rough plan I came up with in high school. I have no way of benefiting from it.

Here is where I got that statistic

Overall, you know there are millions of people starving so why hold back because we can't get an accurate statistic?

Can't you at least give me some reasonable feedback? Could the idea work? Are the economics it's based on wrong?

 

[BoredDead]

The operative word is "hunger". The UN statistics are careful not to use the word "starvation" because the numbers might not be high enough for a global extortion scam. What the hell is "hunger" anyway? Everyone is hungry. Anti-American statistics tell us that X amount of people "go to bed hungry in the US". Did you ever meet a teenager who wasn't hungry?

How can you ignore that hundreds of millions of people struggle to find food?

 

[syrenn]

The operative word is "hunger". The UN statistics are careful not to use the word "starvation" because the numbers might not be high enough for a global extortion scam. What the hell is "hunger" anyway? Everyone is hungry. Anti-American statistics tell us that X amount of people "go to bed hungry in the US". Did you ever meet a teenager who wasn't hungry?

How can you ignore that hundreds of millions of people struggle to find food?

do said millions keep breeding more millions into said struggling situation?

So VERY good question.... how do they ignore the FACT that THEY are the ones responsible for bringing more into a bad situation?