• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Elimination of Poverty, the Re-establishment of the Middle Class

How To Eliminate Poverty, Re-establish the Middle-Class? Check all you agree with

  • Government funded higher education just as other industrialized nations do

    Votes: 28 68.3%
  • Cut out tax loopholes for the rich to benefit the lower and middle class

    Votes: 34 82.9%
  • Start disallowing outsourcing to other countries for lower wages

    Votes: 28 68.3%
  • Institute a flat tax

    Votes: 7 17.1%
  • Disallow those in poverty to have children

    Votes: 2 4.9%
  • This is not possible; we will always have poverty and no middle class

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • There should always be poverty

    Votes: 6 14.6%

  • Total voters
    41

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,381
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
There will always be "poverty" because someone will always have more than someone else.


Try to eradicate THAT and we will ALL be "the poor".

people making lower middle class wages have far more creature comforts than the most powerful duke in 18th century england. those in walk in free clinics have better medicine than John Rockefeller.

years ago I met a Masai prince in Kenya. he had gone to Oxford when an anglican priest who saw his potential helped him go to university. he came home to nairobi to work in the government but being Masai, not being Kikuyu he was unable to advance beyond what would be about a GS-11 in our federal service despite graduating with First Honors from one of the best universities in the known world

so he gave it up when his father died and went back to be a leader of his people-no automobile, no 300 L suits, no briefcases and secretaries. rather a red sari, a spear and many head of cattle. I asked him if "being poorer" was upsetting. He just laughed and noted he was the richest man in the area. he had more cattle, a bigger hut and was respected. wealth he said was relative and while most would say having an air conditioned apartment and a land rover in Nairobi with a color TV set was wealth, he said many others there had more. in his environment he was the richest man
 

atrasicarius

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
2,227
Reaction score
1,182
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
There will always be "poverty" because someone will always have more than someone else.


Try to eradicate THAT and we will ALL be "the poor".



(poverty is relative, you see. Our "poor" in America today are better off than a prosperous medieval middle-class person, or half the people on the planet now, but still see themselves as poor because they're at the bottom. Also, attempting to eliminate income equality entirely or largely, would destroy incentive, stifle innovation and enterpreneurism and destroy the economy.)

You can define poverty like that, but you can also define it by things like being in danger of getting evicted, or not getting enough to eat, or not being able to afford medical bills. As I was just saying in another thread, I don't care if some people have more as long as everyone has enough.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You can define poverty like that, but you can also define it by things like being in danger of getting evicted, or not getting enough to eat, or not being able to afford medical bills. As I was just saying in another thread, I don't care if some people have more as long as everyone has enough.

What if people have enough, but have misplaced priorities, that make it look like they don't have enough?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,381
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You can define poverty like that, but you can also define it by things like being in danger of getting evicted, or not getting enough to eat, or not being able to afford medical bills. As I was just saying in another thread, I don't care if some people have more as long as everyone has enough.

what is enough and if we give someone enough and then they engage in behavior that means they need more (like breeding like rabbits) why do we have a duty to increase what was given them?
 

atrasicarius

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
2,227
Reaction score
1,182
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
what is enough and if we give someone enough and then they engage in behavior that means they need more (like breeding like rabbits) why do we have a duty to increase what was given them?

I'm not talking about giving. There are some things I support giving, like education and health care, but you can't eat education and you can't live in health care. What I support is equal opportunity, so that if someone ****s up, the only person they can blame is themselves. When you can legitimately look at anyone in poverty and say, "They deserve to be there," I'll be happy.
 

Temporal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
3,691
Reaction score
2,243
Location
Everywhere and Nowhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent

(poverty is relative, you see. Our "poor" in America today are better off than a prosperous medieval middle-class person, or half the people on the planet now, but still see themselves as poor because they're at the bottom. Also, attempting to eliminate income equality entirely or largely, would destroy incentive, stifle innovation and enterpreneurism and destroy the economy.)

I see this argument made a lot. There are also new medical conditions (owed to our long lives and our industrial effects on environment), much poorer food choices (unless you are rich and can afford the best food), more people than at any time in history competing for the same resources, a more complex world where education is needed, and a social climate where excess is needed in order to relate (see: TV, computer, internet, cars to go places beyond your locale, etc.).

I agree that poverty is relative. So are our living conditions and understandings of the world. Comparing the modern to the medieval is useless. We are several paradigms ahead of that way of life. The stakes are different and the game has changed. What is "needed" to live a basic life requires more work now than at any other point in history. Where people had no money but just farmed before, now you MUST have money to buy the necessities of life because most of the world lives in urban areas.

The "haves" of our era have more than any other bourgeois in history. For the first time, the wealth of entire nations is held by non-government, private actors (see: the Federal Reserve, and the top 10 American corporations.) Not even the monarchies had to compete with that.

This has nothing to do with eliminating poverty. That can never be done. Many people choose to live what one might call an impoverished lifestyle. They don't want to be part of the system; just as some people choose to be homeless. This is about income disparity, where 1% of our people are holding 3/4 of the cards while tens of millions are come down on by the same system invented by these people.

I want to see FAIR application of the tax to EVERYONE. No loopholes. No lobbying government for bailouts. We either all play by the same rules or we don't.
 

presluc

DP Veteran
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
10,967
Reaction score
2,134
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
people making lower middle class wages have far more creature comforts than the most powerful duke in 18th century england. those in walk in free clinics have better medicine than John Rockefeller.

years ago I met a Masai prince in Kenya. he had gone to Oxford when an anglican priest who saw his potential helped him go to university. he came home to nairobi to work in the government but being Masai, not being Kikuyu he was unable to advance beyond what would be about a GS-11 in our federal service despite graduating with First Honors from one of the best universities in the known world

so he gave it up when his father died and went back to be a leader of his people-no automobile, no 300 L suits, no briefcases and secretaries. rather a red sari, a spear and many head of cattle. I asked him if "being poorer" was upsetting. He just laughed and noted he was the richest man in the area. he had more cattle, a bigger hut and was respected. wealth he said was relative and while most would say having an air conditioned apartment and a land rover in Nairobi with a color TV set was wealth, he said many others there had more. in his environment he was the richest man

Problem is this ain't the 18th century and it sure ain't Narobi.

Although it is true poverty will always be with us.

To handle poverty one must have tax revenue not only for corporations who need financial help but those that are in poverty.

As far as being considered the richest person in America go to any unemployment office ask any of the unemloyed what is more important being rich or living comfortably?

There are many average working Americans that are living on anywhere from 26 to 38 thousand a year and making it work.
Many are living on poverty wage or minimum wage they make it some move up.

Not counting small business who's profits never come close to that $100, 000 mark they make it profits may dip to 10,000 to 20.000 a year thy make it.

Not only do they make it they help with the poverty problem.

You take away their jobs and kill their small business you just put more people on the poverty list and less people to handle it.:peace
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,381
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Problem is this ain't the 18th century and it sure ain't Narobi.

Although it is true poverty will always be with us.

To handle poverty one must have tax revenue not only for corporations who need financial help but those that are in poverty.

As far as being considered the richest person in America go to any unemployment office ask any of the unemloyed what is more important being rich or living comfortably?

There are many average working Americans that are living on anywhere from 26 to 38 thousand a year and making it work.
Many are living on poverty wage or minimum wage they make it some move up.

Not counting small business who's profits never come close to that $100, 000 mark they make it profits may dip to 10,000 to 20.000 a year thy make it.

Not only do they make it they help with the poverty problem.

You take away their jobs and kill their small business you just put more people on the poverty list and less people to handle it.:peace

What is your understanding of what a "job" is
 

ender1

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
646
Reaction score
142
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I agree with TurtleDude. maybe there will always be poverty rather than there should be. With free will and over 350million people in the U.S. there will always be those who make VERY bad decisions that will result in poverty. Why should I pay for their mistakes.
 

presluc

DP Veteran
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
10,967
Reaction score
2,134
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What if people have enough, but have misplaced priorities, that make it look like they don't have enough?

Any person living outside their means knows the cosiquences if priorties are not kept.

Example your rent is due, you see a brand new upgrade cellphone you really want.
Where does your money go if it goes to the cellphone and the rent is not paid you deserve to get evicted.
I have no sypathy for these people math is math numbers don't lie.

However if you're paying your rent on time and paying taxes and you get a 30 day notice that your job is going overseas and your wife is working as a waitress to save money you got 30 days to get a job paying the same wages you were getting after that eventualy you won't have enough money to pay the rent.
6.3 million people haven't worked in half a year.
Some say they aren't looking .
That may be true for some , but all 6.3 million???:peace
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Any person living outside their means knows the cosiquences if priorties are not kept.

Example your rent is due, you see a brand new upgrade cellphone you really want.
Where does your money go if it goes to the cellphone and the rent is not paid you deserve to get evicted.
I have no sypathy for these people math is math numbers don't lie.

However if you're paying your rent on time and paying taxes and you get a 30 day notice that your job is going overseas and your wife is working as a waitress to save money you got 30 days to get a job paying the same wages you were getting after that eventualy you won't have enough money to pay the rent.
6.3 million people haven't worked in half a year.
Some say they aren't looking .
That may be true for some , but all 6.3 million???:peace

If your job is specifically stated that it is going overseas, you get state paid education and unemployment benefits until that education is completed.

Pretty good deal if you ask me.
 

1Perry

Banned
Joined
Jun 26, 2011
Messages
7,624
Reaction score
1,859
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Well too bad you could only vote one for me it was a toss up.

Disallowing people in poverty to have children and disallowing outsourceing to other countries.

I voted disallowing outsourceing to other countries.

Even if you could disallow people in poverty to have children you would have to fight organized religion.

I'm pretty sure you would have a bigger fight than that on your hands.
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,003
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I agree with TurtleDude. maybe there will always be poverty rather than there should be. With free will and over 350million people in the U.S. there will always be those who make VERY bad decisions that will result in poverty. Why should I pay for their mistakes.

Dude... it takes a village.























































BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!

*ahem*
 

Baralis

DP Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
2,400
Reaction score
1,551
Location
MO
Political Leaning
Independent
Government funded higher education just as other industrialized nations do

I could support this if we restructured our educational system. I won't get into that now, that is a different thread entirely.

# Cut out tax loopholes for the rich to benefit the lower and middle class

I am for cutting loopholes but not necessarily for the purpose you gave. I believe in being fair and by allowing loopholes were persons can take advantage of the system is something that should not be permitted.

# Start disallowing outsourcing to other countries for lower wages

I would not disallow it but I would increase import taxes significantly making US labor more competitive.

# Institute a flat tax

I am all for a progressive flat tax on all income with no income credits.

# Disallow those in poverty to have children

I do not feel persons should have children if they need government assistance to support those children or pay for the medical bills associated with the birthing. But how to accomplish this in a reasonable manner?

# This is not possible; we will always have poverty and no middle class

We will always have poverty. Some people simply will never do for themselves.

# There should always be poverty

I believe so. Persons that refuse to help themselves should live with the consequences and not on the labor of others.
 

LesGovt

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
3,665
Reaction score
863
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
This pole was spurred by a thread I read and responded to regarding the birth control and the poor.

This was the OP:

MA, whew! I would think you could have been a little less biased in your poll options. I don't agree with any of the options.
 

DemonMyst

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
727
Reaction score
299
Location
Seattle WA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
MA, whew! I would think you could have been a little less biased in your poll options. I don't agree with any of the options.

Your a conservative.. Why would you?? Anything to actually help the poor is just not an option and of course anyone who suggests helping the poor is of course bias..

So how well did the tax cuts for the rich do?? What did we as a nation get for that 3.2 trillion spent on tax cuts for the rich?? Where are the jobs?? Where is the economy?? Where is the debt and deficit??

Just about everything in the poll list needs to be done.. While we will always have some live in poverty.. It should be an issue of them living that way by choice for some religious thing and not because they don't have any options to better themselves..

College should be free.. All education should be free.. Knowlege should be free.. Healthcare should be free.. 44,000 people die each year due to lack health insurance.. I am sure they aren't rich..

There should be no loopholes of any kind.. For any tax bracket.. People that make 50k or less a year in income should be exempt from paying taxes.. That includes sales tax or any other tax..

Since religion has failed in staying out of politics.. All churches need to start paying taxes for the people they employ and the profits they make..

Dramatically increase the taxes on all imports for companies that out source jobs to other nations for cheap labor.. They want to sell their products here they can make it here as well.. This would only apply to companies that started their Existence as U.S. companies.. Foreign companies are not obligated to build their products here.. But again, Tarifs can be used to make sure that all foreign and domestic companies have a level playing field to sell their wares here..

There should be a flat % tax rate.. No matter what your income, you pay 30% income tax on your income.. Again.. 50k or less do not pay taxes..

I don't think the government should get into allowing or not allowing who can or can't have children..

The income of the CEO of every company needs to be tied to the lowest paid person in their company.. No CEO can make more than 40 or 60 times the lowest wage earner in their company.. For privately owned companies this would work with the owners.. The key here is to make sure that when the rich people get a raise.. So does everyone else.. This will go along way with economy.. I am realitively certian that a dramatic cut in pay at the exective level will help with any payroll problem that most companies have..

Education and healthcare need to be removed from the for profit arenas..

Luxary taxes need to be assessed on multiple homes and private airplaines..

Forcing companies to treat their employees fairly and equally will go a long way toward not needing unions.. No company should provide a pension for their employees.. All pension funds should go to Social Security to boost their retirement amount there.. Basically just an employee bill of rights is all that is needed..

No bail outs.. If a company fails then it fails..

There are a lot of creative things we can do with taxes to make sure people get hired and are working.. But the biggest issue is making sure every child, reguardless of who their parents are, has the same chances and opportunities.. We really need to level the playing field.. Companies would be a lot better off hiring someone who really has talent and not someone who was rich and with a titanium spoon up his butt..
 
Last edited:

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
46,713
Reaction score
51,979
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You can define poverty like that, but you can also define it by things like being in danger of getting evicted, or not getting enough to eat, or not being able to afford medical bills. As I was just saying in another thread, I don't care if some people have more as long as everyone has enough.


Defining "enough" is a big part of the problem. A medieval peasant, transported in time to 2011 and put in a government housing project, given welfare and food stamps, would marvel at having a fine home with no straw on the floor, no animal dung mixed in with it; a home that never really got unpleasantly hot or dangerously cold; with a magical stove that could cook a meal in minutes and a magical ice-box to preserve food and have cold drinks and ice in the summertime. Indoor plumbing would be a marvel to him. Electric lighting, TV... amazing. Rich food to eat, more meat than he could imagine, in exchange for little bits of paper someone sends him every month. Free healthcare at the county clinic so that he doesn't have to die of influenza or an abcess tooth in his 30s as so many medieval folks did.

He'd almost think he'd died and gone to Heaven. :lol:


But the modern poor set their standards far higher, mainly because they know there are many people who have more than they do.

That's why "the poor will always be with us." The bottom 10% will always consider themselves "poor"... even when it is because they can't afford the latest-model robot-housekeeper, and have to settle for one that occasionally folds the clothes backwards. :lol:
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,125
Reaction score
37,576
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
truth. most of our "poor" are solid middle class by international standards or US standards a few decades ago. the plans under discussion in this thread will only serve to hurt the poor. Items that would actually help them don't seem to be desired.
 
Last edited:

WI Crippler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
15,427
Reaction score
9,577
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
You see, I'm not worried about all of this recent talk of the distressed poor or middle class. once the economy starts rolling again and the middle class aren't victims anymore, the left will once again chastise the middle class for destroying the planet by living in suburbs, driving SUVs, and shopping at Wal-Mart.
 

atrasicarius

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
2,227
Reaction score
1,182
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Defining "enough" is a big part of the problem. A medieval peasant, transported in time to 2011 and put in a government housing project, given welfare and food stamps, would marvel at having a fine home with no straw on the floor, no animal dung mixed in with it; a home that never really got unpleasantly hot or dangerously cold; with a magical stove that could cook a meal in minutes and a magical ice-box to preserve food and have cold drinks and ice in the summertime. Indoor plumbing would be a marvel to him. Electric lighting, TV... amazing. Rich food to eat, more meat than he could imagine, in exchange for little bits of paper someone sends him every month. Free healthcare at the county clinic so that he doesn't have to die of influenza or an abcess tooth in his 30s as so many medieval folks did.

He'd almost think he'd died and gone to Heaven. :lol:


But the modern poor set their standards far higher, mainly because they know there are many people who have more than they do.

That's why "the poor will always be with us." The bottom 10% will always consider themselves "poor"... even when it is because they can't afford the latest-model robot-housekeeper, and have to settle for one that occasionally folds the clothes backwards. :lol:

The thing is, it's no so much about material goods as it is about abstract financial stuff. If someone is in danger of having their house taken away because of debt, then they're poor even if that house has an automatic yacht fabricator or something in it.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
46,713
Reaction score
51,979
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The thing is, it's no so much about material goods as it is about abstract financial stuff. If someone is in danger of having their house taken away because of debt, then they're poor even if that house has an automatic yacht fabricator or something in it.

Well, if that's the definition of "poor".... then there's a lot of middle-class-to-rich-ish people who are really "poor". I know quite a few people who live in a high-dollar gated subdivision with its own golf course, where the houses start at half a mil and go up from there... who are so heavily in debt and have so little savings that if they lost their high-paying job for 3 months they'd lose everything. I've known some who built a mansion in that subdivision then coiuldn't furnish it for lack of funds. :lol:

Financial mismanagement knows no "class boundaries".
 

atrasicarius

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
2,227
Reaction score
1,182
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Well, if that's the definition of "poor".... then there's a lot of middle-class-to-rich-ish people who are really "poor". I know quite a few people who live in a high-dollar gated subdivision with its own golf course, where the houses start at half a mil and go up from there... who are so heavily in debt and have so little savings that if they lost their high-paying job for 3 months they'd lose everything. I've known some who built a mansion in that subdivision then coiuldn't furnish it for lack of funds. :lol:

Financial mismanagement knows no "class boundaries".

A fair point. Maybe I should include the stipulation that they're forced into debt for some reason or another, rather than getting in due to their own stupidity. Medical bills are a common one.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You see, I'm not worried about all of this recent talk of the distressed poor or middle class. once the economy starts rolling again and the middle class aren't victims anymore, the left will once again chastise the middle class for destroying the planet by living in suburbs, driving SUVs, and shopping at Wal-Mart.

:lol:

Great point.
Selective caring for the plight of people.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,381
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Well, if that's the definition of "poor".... then there's a lot of middle-class-to-rich-ish people who are really "poor". I know quite a few people who live in a high-dollar gated subdivision with its own golf course, where the houses start at half a mil and go up from there... who are so heavily in debt and have so little savings that if they lost their high-paying job for 3 months they'd lose everything. I've known some who built a mansion in that subdivision then coiuldn't furnish it for lack of funds. :lol:

Financial mismanagement knows no "class boundaries".

so true, I live in an area that 25 years ago was farm land-at best 4-5K an acre and now the lots next to me are going 110 an acre and that is a discount from what the seller/developer wanted before the bust. One of the cops I know had an ER to one of the big "HOMARAMA" (a show case of new homes in a single street or subdivision) that went for 975 and he said the upstairs was completely empty save the one bed time. The downstairs was furnished in the rooms you would come into for a party but not say the downstairs guest bedroom. People making a combined income of 250K a year are pretty comfortable in my area if they don't buy more than a 450-500K house

when I went looking for my first house, my father noted that the conservative rule of thumb was you shouldn't have a mortgage 2X your annual income meaning if your salary was 90K a year and you had 20 for a downpayment, 200K home was what you should shoot for. THere are at least 1000 homes within a 5 mile circle from me that are over 500K and many close to a million- I doubt that many people are making between 250K and 500K
 

Temporal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
3,691
Reaction score
2,243
Location
Everywhere and Nowhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Defining "enough" is a big part of the problem. A medieval peasant, transported in time to 2011 and put in a government housing project, given welfare and food stamps, would marvel at having a fine home with no straw on the floor, no animal dung mixed in with it; a home that never really got unpleasantly hot or dangerously cold; with a magical stove that could cook a meal in minutes and a magical ice-box to preserve food and have cold drinks and ice in the summertime. Indoor plumbing would be a marvel to him. Electric lighting, TV... amazing. Rich food to eat, more meat than he could imagine, in exchange for little bits of paper someone sends him every month. Free healthcare at the county clinic so that he doesn't have to die of influenza or an abcess tooth in his 30s as so many medieval folks did.

He'd almost think he'd died and gone to Heaven. :lol:


But the modern poor set their standards far higher, mainly because they know there are many people who have more than they do.

That's why "the poor will always be with us." The bottom 10% will always consider themselves "poor"... even when it is because they can't afford the latest-model robot-housekeeper, and have to settle for one that occasionally folds the clothes backwards. :lol:

Did you miss my post?

I already outlined why your analogy to medieval times is irrelevant.
 
Top Bottom