Koldo
Outstanding Member
One issue I see is that you're making an assertion but not showing anything to support your assertion; you're not presenting an argument, only a claim or conclusion without premises.
Tell me what your premises are and how you can arrive at this assertion from those premises; that's what I'm asking you for.
Sure.
- Premise 1: Poverty, hunger, lack of shelter and access to basic necessities happen mostly due to the poorest having a lack of resources/money.
- Premise 2: The rich people have many more resources/money than necessary to provide for their basic necessities and comfort.
- Premise 3: If the government taxes the rich people, it has access to their resources/money.
- Premise 4: If the government has access to their resources/money, the government distributes these resources/money to the poorest.
- Premise 5: If the government distributes theese resources/money to the poorest, the lack of resources/money of the poorest will be reduced.
- Conclusion: Therefore, if the government taxes the rich people, the lack of resources/money of the poorest will be reduced.
You're just essentially rephrasing the same assertion, not really adding anything.
When I was in college working on my engineering degree, I took courses in mechanics statics and dynamics. In these courses, students learn that statics analysis works for systems of bodies where there is no change in their mechanical motion. Some of the analysis methods for dynamics (where there is change in the mechanical motion of a system of bodies) are not needed in statics, because there's less involved. If you analyze a dynamic system of bodies using only static analysis, then you'll encounter a problem.
A simple way to think of this is if you were to take a still photo of a car on a stretch of flat, level street. This car might be moving or it might be stopped, but you essentially won't be able to tell from a still photo. You can if you do something like dangle a small weight from a string attached to this car; you'll be able to tell whether or not it's moving, and if it is moving, you can tell which direction it's moving in.
This is analogous to what you're doing. You're presenting an assertion based on something analogous to a "static" assessment but not a "dynamic" assessment. You're dealing with a situation that's analogous to being "dynamic", by which I mean that you're not taking into account what happens over time, including past and future.
In the short run, you'll be able to take money from wealthier people and give it to others, and they'll be able to use that money to buy food for the next day or week or so; then what happens? Do a thought experiment to explore what will happen next week, next month, next year, etc. I'll do a limited amount of hand-holding, but this is it; you need to figure out the answer for yourself, or at least try. If you at least try but give up, I'll explain, but for now I want you to try to figure this out on your own.
Ok, so your disagreement is that you presume that if we heavily tax the rich people, they will no longer produce the wealth that we are using (through taxation) to feed the poor, is this correct?
There are many ways to address this, but I would like to make sure we are on the same page before I continue.