Society inherent injustice

[Nanees]

^^ I'll be the first to give you since you & I are of the same qabiil, reer digaag-cune.

Cambuulo

[Advo]

War yarka muxuu sheegay

[Lamagoodle]

lamagodle you compliment me, have you read it?

Union point them out.

If you can write like a 19th century scholar, you are good. This reminded me of a preamble in a famous book.

[union]

Summary: The OP states that society has benefited mankind overall but the distribution of scarce resources in society has disenfranchised many and proposes taxation to solve the problem.
.....or at least thats what i think he said. i just skimmed it

My questions to OP: What makes your proposal different than the programs already in place to aid the needy? And how do you respond to those who say taxation hurts the economy and reduces the creation of jobs which in turn leads to greater poverty? Also, why aren't you advocating for the empowerment of women, which is the single greatest thing that can be done to alleviate poverty worldwide?

[Lamagoodle]

Summary: The OP states that society has benefited mankind overall but the distribution of scarce resources in society has disenfranchised many and proposes taxation to solve the problem.
.....or at least thats what i think he said. i just skimmed it

My questions to OP: What makes your proposal different than the programs already in place to aid the needy? And how do you respond to those who say taxation hurts the economy and reduces the creation of jobs which in turn leads to greater poverty? Also, why aren't you advocating for the empowerment of women, which is the single greatest thing that can be done to alleviate poverty worldwide?

If I may paraphrase;

How do you trade-off equity and efficiency?

[SultanOrder]

Union lets not digress to gender differences and complicate what I'm advocating. I don't get into detail on any one society but society as a whole, so I ignore present taxing systems and social programmes. My view is that we need to have a universal tax at a set percentage for every one, for the sole purpose of alleviating some of the inequalities of society, that owes a lot to it's poor. I also believe that countries have a similar relationship with each other as people do within a society, so they too must own up. This is not about hurting an economy but doing what is right, besides this is a guarantee that money is in continual circulation, which is the blood of the economy. Stagnant wealth is the enemy of economy.

[Twist]

If we are to argue that society, or the coming together of peoples based on relationships of benefit to one another is the greatest achievement of mankind, I would not argue with you there. It is true that we would not be where we are if it was not for society, the sum of intellectual though and innovations. Yet, has this relationship on the individual level had a positive or beneficial effect on all levels? Has this relationship helped more than others? Is there anyway to over come these negative side effects?
Society has enabled man to increase his food supply. The shared knowledge of agricultural innovations and domestication of animals have led to a boom in the amount of people. With more time to specialize it has led to break through in medicine increasing the life span. Not also to mention the flowering of civilization, culture, and language. We owe it all to the coming together of people, and have all benefited from this accumulation. No one young or old can say they have not benefited from this innovation.
All society is based on the organizations of individuals into a hierarchy with fewer on top and more as you go down. This structure can be put into almost any organization whether it is economy, politics, knowledge, or religion. Consequently resources are also divided unproportionately from top to bottom. It is no wonder that the higher you go up in income levels the fewer the number. Society has developed from a relationship of giving and taking. But not everything is equal in this field and not everyone has an equal leverage. We have developed mechanisms to reduce this effect but they are only so effective, and in truth it is a system designed for inequality and abuse. Take for example two families, with the same exact income, they would be considered equal right? Well lets say one has 10 kids and the other has two. The family with 10 kids has to divide it's resources between 12 people, reducing the likelihood of that family having enough food, education, and better health. This family might need to work harder and longer thus reducing their quality of life. Now we look at a an owner of a company with 10 employee's, does not the owner benefit from each worker, thus increasing his share of the total benefit from this company? In a developed economy one entering this system is forced to by necessity to do less and less desirable trades, and some are altogether forced to beg as the lowest members of society. It is unfair, and unequal, for no two people are equal in anything except being alive.
So what then is a solution to this inherent inequality system of society. How does one try to rectify the situation, if one truly believes in justice and equality? I propose a system of taxing on all individuals at a certain percentage of tangible wealth, the sum being distributed to the lowest rings of the social ladder. I do not limit this tax on just one society, but to all societies in the world. In truth the whole world is now part of one society, with some nations better off than others and unfortunately taking advantage of each other. I propose that every nation should take an equal percentage to the percentage taken from individuals of the total sum levied and distributed to poorer countries.

It's a good theory about social inequality in general (how resources are shared, taxation etc) but can you elaborate that last highlighted part? What's it you're suggesting there?

[union]

Lamgoodle, yes bascially.

PO, your post was about the need to remedy the inequity in society and there's no better way of doing that than by empowering women. The fact that you so casually dismiss this truth as a mere 'complication' to your message shows that you are not sincere but full of hot air!!

[Lamagoodle]

Union lets not digress to gender differences and complicate what I'm advocating. I don't get into detail on any one society but society as a whole, so I ignore present taxing systems and social programmes. My view is that we need to have a universal tax at a set percentage for every one, for the sole purpose of alleviating some of the inequalities of society, that owes a lot to it's poor. I also believe that countries have a similar relationship with each other as people do within a society, so they too must own up. This is not about hurting an economy but doing what is right, besides this is a guarantee that money is in continual circulation, which is the blood of the economy. Stagnant wealth is the enemy of economy.

Milton Friedman wrote: Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.

[SultanOrder]

Twist, in truth I am not proposing a plan but merely proposing an idea. It is only fair that every one should pay x percentage of their wealth into a pool to be redistributed from the bottom up, a charity tax, and that countries should also take that same x percentage from the sum of the wealth they raised and redistribute it to poor countries. I would imagine some kind of international body would do this, for this specific purpose.

Union you don't get what I'm saying, woman are part of society, so therefore they are already included in this. What your talking about is just nuances. No matter how much woman come ahead there are still people in the bottom, so that means those people in the bottom need to be given back some wealth.

lamagoodle I say that there is an inequal relationship, and this is just a bandaid to this inequal relationship.

[Twist]

Union lets not digress to gender differences and complicate what I'm advocating. I don't get into detail on any one society but society as a whole, so I ignore present taxing systems and social programmes. My view is that we need to have a universal tax at a set percentage for every one, for the sole purpose of alleviating some of the inequalities of society, that owes a lot to it's poor. I also believe that countries have a similar relationship with each other as people do within a society, so they too must own up. This is not about hurting an economy but doing what is right, besides this is a guarantee that money is in continual circulation, which is the blood of the economy. Stagnant wealth is the enemy of economy.

In other words, global socialism? That might only happen markaad capitalism god ku hubsato.

Twist, in truth I am not proposing a plan but merely proposing an idea. It is only fair that every one should pay x percentage of their wealth into a pool to be redistributed from the bottom up, a charity tax, and that countries should also take that same x percentage from the sum of the wealth they raised and redistribute it to poor countries. I would imagine some kind of international body would do this, for this specific purpose.

I see. Well, within individual states, specially the so-called third world countries where kings & dictators use the wealth of the nation as their own, it's a very good idea but in a global scale, we are not there yet.

[SultanOrder]

Well not true, a lot of countries, especially wealthier countries do give a lot of foreign aid to poorer countries, but unfortunately it can sometimes be biased and just much too small in what they reap from the poorer countries. We litterly live on the misery and hardship of people like migrant workers in china. I am no socialist, but I do agree with certain socialist policies.

[Lamagoodle]

Perfect order, an uneven relationship or development is a characteristic of the capitalist economy. Through out human history, lagging/periphery areas, society, regions, nations have been the feature of the global economy. Indeed there are societies where so called "gift economies" exist but this is rare.
The very notion of "economy" is based on house keeping of scarce resources. In an age where the market economy seems to have achieved a total and omnipresent hegemony, there is little to discuss.

My own take on the issue of taxation is not how much an economic actor pays but what is done with the collected taxes. If, it is to promote equity then it should be done in such a way that the taxpayer also benefits.

In the 1950s there were successive essays, books and articles on the theory of uneven exchange which basically advocated your line of reasoning. The point of departure for many of these theorists was that the capitalistic economic system is based on notions devised for capitalist societies; development , it was claimed took place at the behest of the underdeveloped.

[Nanees]

1. correction, i think we havent benefited from this massive coming together. we've become a very codependent society, the independance of a nomad who knows and understands everything he needs to survive and is able to provide his family and himself with those necessities is living a far richer life than us, who live in this precarious bubble. if the bubble bursts were as screwed as a domesticated cat in the wilderness.

2. thats the dumbest shit Ive ever heard.

3. How do you tax the tribesman with cows, but no cash whos richer than the middleclass american?

4. thats the absolute dumbest shit ive ever heard.

[SultanOrder]

Nanees obviously you have never been a nomad And it is due to society that we do have the technology, medicine, and lifespan we do have now.

2. you just tax them according to the number of animals they have and take from that, of course there is a minimum amount one has to have to be taxed. I used wealth for a reason, because money isn't the only wealth.

Lamagoodle I completely agree with you, capitalism can not continue forever, there will come a time where you can not abuse or take advantage of people, and then it will collapse within itself. I have always held this notion.
Of course the wealth has to go back into the economy so that the tax payers will benefit from it, the people at the bottom receiving it will have money to spend in the economy.


p.s. nanees you failed to see the irony