This conversation is closed.

Designate $100 from each tax payer's contributions to fight world hunger.

Currently, like the education tax credit, the U.S. tax payer can voluntarily contribute up to $400 to the "Working Poor" tax credit allowing the tax payer to designate where they want their tax contribution to be spent. This is great but its voluntary and not everyone has the means before tax time to make the contribution. I am proposing to the U.S. government to just designate $100 from current tax contributions (not add it on as an increase) to this $10.3 billion need to fight world hunger. The U.S. could most likely pay this alone and if other countries help in the process so much the better. In the long run we will all be better off. And its the humane thing to do.

  • Feb 19 2014: The western worlds have given billions in aid and money to beat world hunger, but it has not helped in the slightest. A new strategy is needed which isn't about us continuously giving and them continuously receiving. This method only makes the rich richer and the poor permenantly relient. We need to encourage sustainability and encourage Third world governments to be more responsible with the way they manage their tax system. We need to make giving worth while. And putting the owness on the corrupt governments to make good with our money is a bad way of going about it in my opinion. Giving is good, but it's got to be done right.
  • thumb
    Feb 20 2014: To fight world hunger two issues have to be addressed:
    1. Freedom from harm for all, via eliminating warlords, drug lords, oppressive tyrants, etc. (I have no new thoughts on how to do that)
    2. Improve Soil health, via Holistic management/ranching.

    I believe we can do much the same thing for the oceans, via whales and returning shellfish shells back into the sea. FYI: shellfish shells are getting thinner do to the reduce amount of calcium in the oceans.
    Grinding shells into powder and dumping the powder back I suspect may help. And like I’m getting at it needs to be an Holistic management approach, all aspects need to be considered.
  • Feb 20 2014: It is unfortunate, but along with disease, hunger and starvation is a major form of population control in some parts of the world.

    Many countries in Africa, women still average 5-6 children each. We need that to come down to 2. Then we can start talking about ending world hunger.
    • Feb 20 2014: I understand your point, but I am sure tackling world hunger would encourage smaller families. It is relevant to mention that people life plan more the richer they become and generally choose to have fewer children as a result. Whether life planning results in fewer people, I do not know as life expectancy also increases.
      I do agree though that world hunger is a deliberation, without poverty there is no cheap labor for western countries to take advantage of.
      There is no excuse for world hunger as enough money has been invested to iradicate it, but through deliberate means people have been kept still needing. World hunger is political and i'm afraid our politicians don't care a toss for the reason stated above.
  • Feb 19 2014: That dog won't hunt! but keep trying
  • thumb
    Feb 18 2014: Wow! What an idea!
    Let’s tell the richest 1% (who are the only one left who can afford to give to charity) to give only $100 to a group that has never done charity properly, instead of millions to charities they select and make sure they actually help people.

    Or better yet let’s forced the 50-60% that are not on US food stamps, to pay for world food stamps so war lords and others have enough food for their armies. So what if 50% the working class are now dipping into their life saving and can’t save for retirement, being middle class is so passé.
  • thumb
    Feb 18 2014: We probably should solve American hunger first. A problem of past efforts by the government to aid foreign countries suffering from food shortage has been the earmarks. It's a hidden pork barreling operation that typically calls for using any donated amounts to cover the cost of purchase and shipment of AMERICAN food products to that region. In the third world, that divides the amount of aid that can be achieved for the same amount of money if it were purchased regionally or the exponential benefit of basic terraforming technologies coupled with farming tools and techniques.

    Here's another possibility: Let's eliminate hunger as well as the other bottom rung elements of the Mazlow's hierarchy of needs so that society can focus on the higher elements which will have the effect of lowering crime, increasing patriotism and improving the speed and frequency of innovation cycles while eliminating the harm that comes frm unemployment and currency valuation fluctuation! We cn do it within a few months if we try. You can read my ideas for the changes in these two locations:
  • Feb 17 2014: Not a bad idea Anthony, so many billions of our tax payers dollars do go unaccounted for each year, and we tax paying citizens do wonder where that lost money has gone. Even implementing a small monetary goal for each country who has sustainable sources of food that is able to raise the money needed could be done with ease. I think finding solutions that congregate the world will help combat this issue best. Your idea is great and perhaps we could cast a vote to implement a world hunger tax today, not tomorrow as those of less fortunate countries in food crises die everyday.
  • thumb
    Feb 17 2014: Greetings Anthony! Personally I don't think we should look at this from a dollars and cents perspective. There is so much foreign aid around the world, but how much of that really gets down to the people? Throwing tax dollars at world hunger is like the quote "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." I believe the real question is do we have the know-how, the technology, the manpower, etc. to eradicate world hunger. I took a college course clear back in the day where the teacher said that supposedly the main problem with food is distribution. Another part of the scenario is what are the political, economic, etc. climates of the area? Among other places, think of the climate of Syria right now. Due to war, some people have to resort to eating grass. I do believe there are some great strides though. The late Nobel Prize medalist Norman Borlaug has contributed much to increased crop yields. With an ever increasing population, I do hope we as citizens are smart about how we use land and resources in the future.
  • Feb 15 2014: If anything, take from corporations or the very rich--you could take smaller percentages of their income to have the same impact without hurting the already struggling lower classes.

    It'll probably never happen though. Politicians aren't accountable for anything happening to foreign citizens outside their borders--in dictatorships no one cares, and in democracies, enlightened as they claim to be, no one cares either (not enough to get anyone elected back into office anyway). Though they do start caring when a politician "throws away" money on helping people outside the country...