How we can fight world hunger

[BoredDead]

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.

People will simply have to buy less luxuries and starving people will be fed. What is bad about that?

 

[BoredDead]

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?

You can't stop people from reproducing, that's ridiculous.

 

[syrenn]

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.

People will simply have to buy less luxuries and starving people will be fed. What is bad about that?

How dumb are you?

That is not how luxury taxes work. *Buy less....scoff*. You WANT people to continue to buy as many luxuries as they want... so you can TAX them and give the money to your pet project.


and exactly do you consider a "luxury"

 

[syrenn]

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?

You can't stop people from reproducing, that's ridiculous.

So whos fault is that here are starving children? Ours or the ones who keep breeding them into poverty?

 

[BoredDead]

So whos fault is that here are starving children? Ours or the ones who keep breeding them into poverty? [/QUOTE]

God or nature's fault.

 

[syrenn]

God or nature's fault.

nice dodge.


but if that is the way you want to go.....im game.

If god wants them born into poverty.... then why should we interfere with god? Lets leave it to god to pull them out of poverty...and god can feed them. God can also let them starve to death.... gods fault, now anyone else.

 

[BoredDead]

How dumb are you?

That is not how luxury taxes work. *Buy less....scoff*. You WANT people to continue to buy as many luxuries as they want... so you can TAX them and give the money to your pet project.


and exactly do you consider a "luxury"

It will still raise revenue because people who can afford the tax will still buy luxuries.

I like this definition of a luxury:

A luxury tax is a tax on luxury goods: products not considered essential. A luxury tax may be modeled after a sales tax or VAT, charged as a percentage on all items of particular classes, except that it mainly affects the wealthy because the wealthy are the most likely to buy luxuries such as expensive cars, jewelry, etc. It may also be applied only to purchases over a certain amount; for instance, some U.S. states charge luxury tax on real estate transactions over a limit.

 

[BoredDead]

nice dodge.


but if that is the way you want to go.....im game.

If god wants them born into poverty.... then why should we interfere with god? Lets leave it to god to pull them out of poverty...and god can feed them. God can also let them starve to death.... gods fault, now anyone else.

Well it's not their fault, humanity can not stop having children.

 

[asterism]

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.

Define luxury.

How much money per year do you think this tax will raise?

Do you think world hunger is due to a lack of money?

 

[syrenn]

It will still raise revenue because people who can afford the tax will still buy luxuries.

People will simply have to buy less luxuries

Not what you said..... again... buy less and you get less for your pet project.

I like this definition of a luxury:

A luxury tax is a tax on luxury goods: products not considered essential. A luxury tax may be modeled after a sales tax or VAT, charged as a percentage on all items of particular classes, except that it mainly affects the wealthy because the wealthy are the most likely to buy luxuries such as expensive cars, jewelry, etc. It may also be applied only to purchases over a certain amount; for instance, some U.S. states charge luxury tax on real estate transactions over a limit.

so who is to define what is ..... considered essential?

i think toilet paper...and QUALITY of said toilet paper is essential.... not so for a good deal of the world.

Just about everything we use and purchase in the western world is "not essential"

 

[syrenn]

nice dodge.


but if that is the way you want to go.....im game.

If god wants them born into poverty.... then why should we interfere with god? Lets leave it to god to pull them out of poverty...and god can feed them. God can also let them starve to death.... gods fault, now anyone else.

Well it's not their fault, humanity can not stop having children.

so again.... let god deal with it.... since you say its gods will.

 

[expat_panama]

You could be making this up for some scam you're running or perhaps you just don't think numbers very important...

Your saying I'm trying to scam you???? ...

A lot of snags that are slowing our communications here. On the outside chance you're interested in getting your message out you might want to proofread your html, your spelling, and your sticking question mark. Most of all is that if you read "could be making this up... ...or perhaps you just don't think" and understand that means "Your (sic) saying I'm trying to scam you" then we apparently have a communication problem that seriously involves words as well as numbers.

 

[william the wie]

You could be making this up for some scam you're running or perhaps you just don't think numbers very important...

Your saying I'm trying to scam you???? ...

A lot of snags that are slowing our communications here. On the outside chance you're interested in getting your message out you might want to proofread your html, your spelling, and your sticking question mark. Most of all is that if you read "could be making this up... ...or perhaps you just don't think" and understand that means "Your (sic) saying I'm trying to scam you" then we apparently have a communication problem that seriously involves words as well as numbers.

Sorry, I can't rep you. Is there a post of the week contest thread?

 

[BoredDead]

so again.... let god deal with it.... since you say its gods will.

I said god or nature, more than likely nature. But the bottom line is that the only way to solve this problem is to do something, and we should do it because that is the moral thing to do.

 

[syrenn]

so again.... let god deal with it.... since you say its gods will.

I said god or nature, more than likely nature. But the bottom line is that the only way to solve this problem is to do something, and we should do it because that is the moral thing to do.

ok.... ill bite with that too.......


let nature take its course.

 

[syrenn]

so again.... let god deal with it.... since you say its gods will.

I said god or nature, more than likely nature. But the bottom line is that the only way to solve this problem is to do something, and we should do it because that is the moral thing to do.

and make up your mind here will you

is it god...nature...or something moral.

 

[asterism]

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.

Define luxury.

How much money per year do you think this tax will raise?

Do you think world hunger is due to a lack of money?

???

 

[BoredDead]

and make up your mind here will you

is it god...nature...or something moral.

As an agnostic, I accept that we can't know whether it was god or nature (nature as in godless evolution), and morality is not a cause. But that really doesn't matter. Why is it wrong to help these people if we just have to pay more for luxuries?

 

[BoredDead]

Define luxury.

How much money per year do you think this tax will raise?

Do you think world hunger is due to a lack of money?

I only have a rough idea of the definition, which is things we don't need. But the exact definition, as in what should be taxed, should be up to a bi-partisan panel.

As for how much we would raise, I can't give an accurate statistic since I haven't defined what is going to be taxed, but this statistic places the amount of money we spend on non-essential goods at 1.2 trillion, so 5% of that would be... now that I calculate it, too much, a lower tax would be safer and not unnecessary, and after a less expensive proof of concept on top of that, like a successful relief of a poverty stricken city.

I would say weak economies and droughts, but I would also rather defer to the World Food Programme

 

[syrenn]

and make up your mind here will you

is it god...nature...or something moral.

As an agnostic, I accept that we can't know whether it was god or nature (nature as in godless evolution), and morality is not a cause. But that really doesn't matter. Why is it wrong to help these people if we just have to pay more for luxuries?

lol

then why did you try and justify your reasoning on god, nature and then morality?


Where do i say its wrong to help people? However....it IS wrong to FORCE (tax) people into YOUR morality.


You still have as yet set your bar for luxuries. You do realize almost EVERYTHING we buy in the western world is considered a luxury don't you?

So again... what is it YOU consider a luxury?