I often hear of people finding it perverse that you should give to people so that you yourself feel better. It is often psychiatrists who get caught in that dilemma.
However, perhaps it would help them to dwell on what is said about this in the bible, namely "give, so that God can give to you."
I am sure that approach could help quite a few people.
My husband informed me that the Conservative Party is intending to reduce taxes to the rich. To reduce the risk of this being detrimental to the lower paid and to the poor, perhaps the following could be implemented:
There would be two governing parties, ie the Labour and Conservative Party. This would mean that all levels within the population would be represented. This alone would bring in more balance.
I feel that by reducing the overall tax revenue by 15% and by not going into too much deficit spending, as the latter is unnerving and creates a shaky dependency on the world economy, we could then start certain other factors.
People above a certain income could not use the NHS and they would have to pay for their children's education. They would also have to pay for any university education their children would have. There are other things too that one could add to the list.
In turn some of the revenue would be spent on creating a modest, rewarding and healthy life style for the lower paid and poor.
People who are deprived (by the rich) of their rightful circumstances may not have the financial or socially behavioural wiles to gain their rights, but their negative thoughts resulting from this - thoughts of resentment, envy, depression, hate, or dull resignation, often carry and permeate whole areas. These negative factors are exacerbated by boredom and there is often a spiralling downwards within society as a whole.
There is the same percentage of refined people and intelligent people born to these classes as there are to any other class of society, so let's not waste our Einsteins and Shakespeares in a council hovel just because the rich are greedy and can't set themselves limits.
Many women in the past have been very hurt at baby boys being valued so much more than baby girls. Although this is no longer the case in the West, one still sees it elsewhere in the world. However, understanding it in its historical context is perhaps useful. On many occasions in history there have been more women than men. Life then, of course, was much more physical. The women were unable to fell trees etc to build homes or do many of the hard physical tasks needed for the group's survival. Realising this the men out of compassion, took on more than one wife. We see this in biblical times, in the past with the Mormons and still with present day Muslims.
Now if the wives didn't bear enough sons, there would not be enough men to maintain the group's needs and also there wouldn't be enough men to protect the women. They could all perish. Thus there was relief and joy when a son was born, as it assured the survival of the whole group.
After years and years of such circumstances, it is ingrained in us genetically and will probably take some considerable time before it is eliminated.
With regard to women needing to obey their husbands and so gain their protection, I would add that the husband must have integrity and any instructions must always be realistic.
I feel it would be about right if one quarter of the Earth's land mass would be reforested and would remain so. I feel this could restore and maintain balance ecologically and yet enable successful human survival and activity.
