

Tax Gap Due To Under-Reported Income To IRS Can End World Poverty Ten Times Over - npguy
http://statspotting.com/tax-gap-due-to-under-reported-income-to-irs-can-end-world-poverty-ten-times-over/

======
lutusp
> ... Can End World Poverty Ten Times Over

Yes, for thirty seconds. When are people going to realize that using money to
end poverty is a fantasy? The conventional way to try to end poverty is to
give people money -- but when people get money, they have more children. There
isn't enough money in the world to begin to approach people's enthusiasm for
creating poor, starving children.

But there really is a way to end poverty, and it has nothing to do with money.
It consists of:

1\. Education.

2\. The right to reproductive self-determination.

That's right -- the two things Third World dictators dislike the most.

~~~
thejsjunky
> but when people get money, they have more children.

I'm curious what you're basing this assertion on. In general a lower income
level (household/region) or lower economic development (region) are correlated
with higher fertility levels, that is pretty well established. Of course the
relationship is complicated, and it's not quite that simple. It's true that
just giving people money would not necessarily lead to a lower birth rate, but
it could if done strategically and in the right circumstances.

> nd it has nothing to do with money

Education costs money, and money can help kick start economic development.

I agree that just throwing money at poverty doesn't make it go away, but money
is certainly an important factor.

~~~
lutusp
>> but when people get money, they have more children.

> I'm curious what you're basing this assertion on.

History. In particular, the sad history of anti-poverty programs like AFDC
(just one example among many):

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aid_to_Families_with_Dependent_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aid_to_Families_with_Dependent_Children)

AFDC was abolished for the reason that it made the problem worse. A quote:
"... it was criticized for offering incentives for women to have children, and
for providing disincentives for women to join the workforce."

> It's true that just giving people money would not necessarily lead to a
> lower birth rate, but it could if done strategically and in the right
> circumstances.

Money alone can only make the problem worse. To do any good at all, it must be
accompanied by something else. Reproductive self-determination would be a good
start.

> Education costs money ...

There's a difference between schooling and education. Your remark applies to
schooling. Education is free.

"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." -- Mark Twain

~~~
thejsjunky
> he sad history of anti-poverty programs like AFDC

Right, but that's a more specific point than what you made and the distinction
is important. You said "when people get money they have more children"..this
is demonstrably false when talking in general.

The reality is, when you give people money in certain ways it becomes an
incentive to have more children. On this we are in complete agreement. This
does not hold as on overall trend though. It's perfectly possible to spend
money on subsidies or programs which have the opposite effect.

> There's a difference between schooling and education.

There is, but in this context it's just splitting hairs.

> Your remark applies to schooling.

Not so.

> Education is free.

That's true, but meaningless in practical terms. The level of education is not
going to spontaneously raise itself. It's true that some people could start
providing education of their own accord, in fact many already do. However to
have a real effect you need to organize and disseminate information, etc...all
much easier with money.

~~~
lutusp
> ... this is demonstrably false when talking in general.

No, it is demonstrably true when talking in general. To deny this is to deny
the scientific theory of evolution. More resources leads to more reproduction.
Organisms that don't follow this rule, die out.

>> Education is free.

> That's true, but meaningless in practical terms.

What? Are we talking about education, or are we talking about purchasing a
sheepskin?

> However to have a real effect you need to organize and disseminate
> information, etc...all much easier with money.

So education can't happen unless the ruling class releases the information
essential to education? You have a very interesting picture of reality. How
did people educate themselves before there was a ruling class, before there
was someone who needed to "organize and disseminate information"? On that
topic, how did the ruling class get there in the first place -- or was it
"turtles all the way down" (a famous Bertrand Russell line)?

Education doesn't mean waiting to be told _what_ to think, it means learning
_how_ to think.

~~~
thejsjunky
> To deny this is to deny the scientific theory of evolution.

No, it's to understand the statistics. The richer and more economically
developed a country is in general; the lower the birthrate. Likewise that's
the trend for households/regions/etc. In general the better off a person is,
the less likely they are to have children or to have many children.

Your analysis is too simplistic. The issue here is where the incentive lies:
with having more children or less. Programs that give money to the poor do
neither of those things __inherently __. It depends on __how __the money is
given; that is what causes the incentive to go one way or the other.

As we covered, it becomes more complicated because there are ways to give
incentive to have more children. To put it simply, if you pay a woman for each
child she has...she is more likely to have more children. If you give her the
chance to earn more money, she is LESS likely to have more children.

> So education can't happen unless the ruling class releases the information
> essential to education?

That's a rather nice strawman you've constructed.

> How did people educate themselves before

Much more slowly and with greater difficulty than they do now; that's the
point.

