How we can fight world hunger

How we can fight world hunger? Quit making fuel out of food.
 
asterism said:
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

:lmao:

so how about we make base line for what is poor without luxuries. Lets take your pet starving in 3rd world countries.....

i like toilet paper....and toilet paper of a high quality. You do realize that is not necessary and a luxury.

Food other then basic staples.... all luxureis

I use phones and computers.. They are luxuries... along with all the stuff that go along with the use of said phones and computers.

I like reading, music and going to the movies...... all luxuries.

College educations and cars and all the stuff that goes along with it...... all luxuries.

A pet.... a luxury.

the list can go on and on...... none of the things above are necessary to survive... therefor... ALL luxuries and according to you... should be taxable.

i got three words for that...... oh hell no
.
 
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.

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?

The hard reality here is while I don't want to see people in Africa starving, I don't want to starve myself. My first responsibility is feeding MY family. If you really want to help starving people, there are private charities that you are free to donate as much as you can to.
Quite frankly, my charity is generally local. The welfare of those in my community comes way before an concern for people thousands of miles away, living under corrupt, oppressive dictators who will simply use the world's largess to enrich themselves and solidify their control.
 
Last edited:
A proposal for a 5% luxury tax for world hunger charities

Super dumb idea right here^^^^


A better idea would be for the America Government to STOP meddling and destabilizing countries so they can get up on their own feet.

The smoke and mirrors of American politics has gotta stop.
 
asterism said:
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

So money isn't the solution.
 
Here is what pisses me the hell off about the bleeding hearts who want to cure wold hunger.

What the hell about the hungry and needy right here at home. When we no longer need food pantries, soup kitchens, homeless shelters.... then we can think about taking care of the world and their crap.

if the idea of a luxury tax is going to be floated... that money damn well be spent right here in the good old USofA before we start being doing anything for anyone else.



 
Last edited:
I think the OP should start a charity. If you (the OP) started a charity that instead of just feeding people, taught them how to farm and what not, it would be a better investment and I think would be more popular than most charities out there. You can actually make a pretty good living running a charity too. Luxurious even...with a good cause, a good plan, and some marketing skills I think you could pull it off.
 
Where do i say its wrong to help people? However....it IS wrong to FORCE (tax) people into YOUR morality.

Have we never taxed for the greater good, even when a minority disagrees? We give money to governments thousands of miles away so that they can defend themselves, why is it such a large stretch to give food to people to feed themselves? We will lose nothing of value and do a lot of good, how is that not worth it?
 
The hard reality here is while I don't want to see people in Africa starving, I don't want to starve myself. My first responsibility is feeding MY family. If you really want to help starving people, there are private charities that you are free to donate as much as you can to.
Quite frankly, my charity is generally local. The welfare of those in my community comes way before an concern for people thousands of miles away, living under corrupt, oppressive dictators who will simply use the world's largess to enrich themselves and solidify their control

But this won't raise the cost of feeding your family, and we can bar certain countries from receiving our aid.
 
Where do i say its wrong to help people? However....it IS wrong to FORCE (tax) people into YOUR morality.

Have we never taxed for the greater good, even when a minority disagrees? We give money to governments thousands of miles away so that they can defend themselves, why is it such a large stretch to give food to people to feed themselves? We will lose nothing of value and do a lot of good, how is that not worth it?


the greater good .... of THIS country...sure.

feel free when you grow up and can support yourself, by yourself... to give up all of your money to feed the poor.....

the robin hood syndrome does not work for me
 
Here is what pisses me the hell off about the bleeding hearts who want to cure wold hunger.

What the hell about the hungry and needy right here at home. When we no longer need food pantries, soup kitchens, homeless shelters.... then we can think about taking care of the world and their crap.

if the idea of a luxury tax is going to be floated... that money damn well be spent right here in the good old USofA before we start being doing anything for anyone else.

We already have programs and charity here to take care of our hungry. While there may be trouble finding food no one starves to death.

How many people starve to death in America every year
 
Here is what pisses me the hell off about the bleeding hearts who want to cure wold hunger.

What the hell about the hungry and needy right here at home. When we no longer need food pantries, soup kitchens, homeless shelters.... then we can think about taking care of the world and their crap.

if the idea of a luxury tax is going to be floated... that money damn well be spent right here in the good old USofA before we start being doing anything for anyone else.

We already have programs and charity here to take care of our hungry. While there may be trouble finding food no one starves to death.

How many people starve to death in America every year


well it would seem.... not enough the way people talk about the poor and hungry. It would also seem not the way food pantries are running out of food to give out.....


you cant have it both ways.... either the poor here need help..or they don't.
 
the greater good .... of THIS country...sure.

So the military aid we give out is for the greater good of us?

We will lose nothing of value and do a lot of good, how is that not worth it? Answer.


lol.... oh i am of the opinion we should give aid to no one until the problems in this country are solved first.

How is giving aid it worth it? We give aid to people who hate us.
 
How we can fight world hunger

OMG!!! Too completely stupid and 1000% liberal!!

The liberal undoubtedly wants tax and spend welfare to fight world hunger even when Red China just saved 10's of millions from en masse liberal starvation by switching to capitalism!!!










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.[/QUOTE]
 
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?

Feel free to help them all you want, with your money and your resources.
At the moment you try to force me to use my money or my resources, you have have just performed an immoral act. You have enslaved me to another.
 

Forum List

Back
Top