Your Best Plan to Reduce Poverty
An increase in income tax for higher earners as well as an increase in subsidies for companies, a decrease in defence spending where possible and an increase in education spending and some sort of basic universal income coupled with a decrease in administrative jobs in general, possibly automating them.
Overall I support this proposal.
It lists methods to extract resources for the policies that need to be imlemented to reduce poverty: "increase in income tax for higher earners"; "decrease in defence spending where possible".
As well as listing effective policies to reduce poverty: "an increase in education spending", "basic universal income".
I think ultimately the problem is that American language is upside down. It creates a version of reality which is the mirror opposite of the real one. When you say "defence spending" you don't mean that at all, do you? You mean spending more money on a military force which presently occupies 150 of 195 different countries. I don't see much which is defensive about that.
The focus here is on redistribution and not on the generation of wealth. I fear these policies lead to suppressing the markets and having everyone become equally poor rather than raising the poor out of poverty. Given that most markets are already overtaxed, it is typical of tax revenue to increase when the tax rate is relaxed, moving towards a local maximum.
Poverty is already on the decline under capitalism, even if inequality is on the rise. I don't see why change would be necessary.
The focus here is on redistribution and not on the generation of wealth.
That's because wealth doesn't actually exist you nincompoop. We made it up. Money becomes worthless the moment the banks declare it such, or the moment the people declare it such. And if we take money out of the equation and say that wealth is just a measurement of a person's share of global resources, well then the total sum of those resources doesn't change!! Only the share of them a particular person controls.
The problem with guys like you is that you repeat the arguments you hear right wing economists make without ever actually thinking about them or deconstructing the ideas behind them.
Direct policy interventions are needed for a solution. Assuming a country can rid itself of a corrupt government (maybe through external forces). The majority of African countries that suffer from poverty (e.g. Somalia) don’t have the data or knowledge on identifying their poor. Meaning no resources can get to them. Anti-poverty campaigns in Niger for example failed because of this. Without a significant improvement in governance, no sustainable solutions can be found. Therefore the first step in reducing poverty will likely come from external powers helping educate/install sustainable governments. The second step is locating the poverty, and the third step is installing the necessary infrastructure for support (e.g. roads, water pipes etc). Then comes education in order to make the reduction in poverty sustainable. Somewhere between the third and 4th step, there will need to be some plan in creating an economy in these poor areas. Most likely first coming from something like mining natural resources (like coal) and providing the necessary tools for this.
Tax cut's and benifits have to be provided by someone. In rich countries it is achieved by taxing middle and high class individuas businesses.
A government of a poor country has no such luxury.
I don't agree that subsidies, tax cuts and benefits is the best set of action to reduce poverty as it is not possible in countries where poverty is the largest.
This applies to both rich and poor countries, the way poorer countries get help is usually through foreign investment into local infrastructure (an example of this would be china's investment into africa) this means that they would normally hire local construction companies which could then be taxed more heavily or if done by a foreign construction company they then could be taxed, besides this they are also able to tax foreign investments. Arguably taxing foreign investment could mean it drives away investment, but there will always be investment interest where there is growth. The amount received through Foreign Direct Investment in only one region of Africa, Southern Africa in 2019 was 4.9 billion USD which is also the lowest amount on the continent, taxing even 1% of that is substantial due to the low cost of living in Africa. There is a issue with perception that most do not understand poorer countries do not require so much money and thus do not require a huge amount of people to tax. It is a sliding scale depending on the cost of living in a country. There are also many billionaires and rich in poorer countries there is no place on earth where they do not exist. Providing a low cost of living that is both high standard solves the main issues with poverty in poorer countries which is low productivity stemming from the time spent on basic needs like gathering water etc.... This can be alleviated if their basic needs are met.
There are some methods that could work for poorer third world countries. One that has been going on for a long time already is the focus children going to university and working in a richer country and sending money back. This is a common story with many first gen immigrants but has problems - the main ones being brain drain, and the initial access to education. This method can lead to a few families getting out of severe poverty but doesn't help most people, and it doesn't help the development of the country since the individual is less likely to want to go back where the income is much lower. A different solution would be to reduce the number of children families have. Children cost a lot to raise (clothes, food, health, etc.), and aren't guaranteed to give back to the family (disabled, lazy, no jobs available, etc.). Better education on sexual health and childcare, and access to contraceptives would reduce child birth, allowing more investment on the fewer children they have.
Would you then say that the best way to reduce poverty is to transition to a different economic system?
That would be my own opinion, certainly.
That said, what you could also do is introduce a poverty baseline into the market system. Say, for example, if everybody in need is provided with basic shelter, food and water through the state and then when those essential needs have been met the markets can begin. I don't think it would be a long-term solution, but it could probably extend the lifespan of capitalism before it eventually blows up in our faces.
It is in my opinion doing us no good to continuously be increasing our numbers while we simultaneously make any excuse possible to justify why we can't feed them all.
Greater tax for those in higher brackets, more funding for education with stricter spending so it isn't just funnelled to individuals. Classes on better financial decisions in poorer districts, focus on hiring homeless/lower income individuals for government funded jobs that aren't popular.
Dispense with corporations, jail all the fat cat company directors who will be forced to earn their keep by maintaining the nation's infrastructure.
Pay everyone, including surgeons, road sweepers, bus drivers politicians etc., equal wages.
No bonuses or productivity related incentives, just one standard wage regardless of exceptional competency or outstanding individual achievement.
Those privileged pigs with unused rooms in their homes must be compelled to offer their spare accommodation to the homeless and ensure they don't go hungry or thirsty.
Only when we've torn down the system of inherited entitlement and racial privilege followed by the creation of an equal society in which everyone, without exception, is treated and rewarded uniformly, regardless of ability or effort, will we enjoy a fair and classless society.
I think poverty is relative. The homeless people where I live are better off than people in some countries. I think we need to realize that a few things in life are better accessed if we all SHARE (like a tribe) - healthcare and education. Other things are better if left up to a TRUE OPEN MARKET (not a CRONY “make it take “ market). And all this free education shit - so many people have college degrees that a degree is not worth that much anymore. I think scholarships should be totally based on Academic Performance (not sports and race etc)
Also >>big corporations are worse than big government! I think there should be some sort of antitrust law that insures we have a lot of smaller companies competing with each other!!!