English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Please be specific and explain.

2007-01-02 22:33:41 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science Economics

10 answers

The anti-poverty strategy of the World Bank [depends heavily on reducing poverty through the promotion of economic growth. However, some consider this approach does not actively or directly work to reduce or eliminate poverty. The World Bank argues that an overview of many studies show that:

* Growth is fundamental for poverty reduction, and in principle growth as such does not affect inequality.
* Growth accompanied by progressive distributional change is better than growth alone.
* High initial income inequality is a brake on poverty reduction.
* The government can directly help those in need. This has been applied with mixed results in most Western societies during the 20th century in what became known as the welfare state. Especially for those most at risk, such as the elderly and people with disabilities. The help can be for example monetary or food aid.
* Private charity. This is often formally encouraged within the legal system. For example, charitable trusts and tax deductions for charity.

2007-01-02 22:36:03 · answer #1 · answered by darkslay70 2 · 0 0

The best solution to erradicate poverty from 1st world countries is a system of forced repatriation of the impoverished to Communist or 3rd world countries.

This doesn't solve the problems that contribute to allowing poverty to exist in 1st world countries.

2007-01-02 22:37:22 · answer #2 · answered by maughanjohnson 1 · 0 0

In America we could start by making healthy people work for a living, instead of just giving them a hand out. There are jobs enough for everyone. If we all worked, and welfare was only paid to disabled people, our taxes would drop considerably, lowering the cost of living.
Right now I have some friends ,not married, that just purchased a 80,000 home in Missouri,
1500 sq ft. Neither one has worked in 15 years. They have a 2 year old 4X4 truck, They get free medical, food stamps, free school lunch's, discounted mortgage payments, no taxes, free heat assistance. They play X-Box games all day (they have over a hundred) Every member of the family has a cell phone, and they go hunting and fishing all the time. Including with me. I asked them if they ever felt bad about taking money out of my check for their living. Not at all. If the government is going to give them free money they think were are stupid for working!

2007-01-02 23:37:00 · answer #3 · answered by mark g 6 · 0 0

When you talk about poverty, one of the best ways to deal with it is to close the widening gap between the rich and the poor. This might be obtained by increasing the tax and this thus allows for a funding of other organisations that in turn help the poor.

2007-01-02 22:51:05 · answer #4 · answered by GENES 1 · 0 0

cancel world debt and half the rich people on this earth giving a helping hand im not being funny but this celebs that bye bloody 6 million pound jewlery could get a small country out of poverty its just wrong!!!!!

2007-01-02 22:36:38 · answer #5 · answered by Laura Ashley 2 · 0 0

Tax reform. Right now, getting off welfare carries a very serious tax penalty in virtually every industrialized country.

About 10 years ago, German economist Christian Thimann wrote in his article ("Germany's Social Assistance Program: The Dilemma of Reform", Finance and Development, Volume 33, Number 3, September 1996):

[Quote]

Social assistance benefits are adjusted with changes in net monthly earned income (gross income less social security contributions, taxes, and an allowance for employment expenses equivalent to around 10 percent of gross income), as follows:

* Less than DM 130: workers are entitled to receive full benefits.

* Between DM 130 and DM 1,000: social assistance payments are reduced by 85 percent of additional net income. In other words, a DM 100 increase in net earnings raises disposable income by only DM 15 -- an implicit tax rate of 85 percent.

* Between DM 1,000 and DM 1,150: social assistance payments are reduced by the full amount of the increase in net income, and the implicit marginal tax rate is 100 percent.

* More than DM 1,150: workers are no longer eligible for social assistance.

[End of quote]

In other words, getting off welfare in Germany carries a substantial tax penalty. Similar penalties exist in other developed nations. In the U.S., a mildly successful attempt was made to lessen (although not to get rid of) this penalty through introduction of Earned Income Credit...

2007-01-03 04:17:00 · answer #6 · answered by NC 7 · 0 0

* Deregulated labour markets that encourage job growth
* Education that not only skills people, but makes people more adventurous to expand their horizons and take risks
* Education
* A safety-net welfare system that stops people falling into poverty, but discourages them from staying on welfare indefinitely if they have the capacity to work

2007-01-02 22:37:43 · answer #7 · answered by Mardy 4 · 0 0

Communism?

2007-01-02 22:35:28 · answer #8 · answered by lou b 6 · 0 2

Have you ever heard of Heroshima?

2007-01-02 22:41:30 · answer #9 · answered by jfxk79 2 · 0 0

Get off of welfare, stop relying on government handouts and get off of your buttocks and WORK!

2007-01-02 22:35:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers