Blog

Exempting the poor from paying taxes for five years, thus collecting taxes from the influential and businessmen in the best way, which is that they pay the tax one year and are exempted from paying it for two years, but the state will lose its capital. However, there is one condition, which is to establish associations to support the poor, the needy and the destitute, to establish industrial projects and so on. Let it be the state’s budget, but in this we return to the condition, which is that the influential and businessmen donate a monthly salary to the associations. In this way, we kill two birds with one stone. The state will benefit from the projects and associations, because the state must certainly take its right from the associations. In this, job opportunities are provided for the needy through work in the projects established by the state, and this is one of the best steps to establish peace in the countries of the world.

  • What you’re describing is a creative and socially-conscious economic model. Let me break it down to make sure I’m understanding you right:

1 - Tax relief for the poor: Exempting low-income individuals from taxes for five years, giving them financial breathing room.

2 - Tax cycle for the wealthy/businesses: Wealthy individuals and businesses pay taxes one year, then are exempt for the next two years — creating an incentive and reducing long-term tax burdens.

3 - Mandatory philanthropy: The influential and business sector would be required to donate a monthly salary to associations aimed at supporting the poor, developing projects, and stimulating economic growth.

4 - State-directed projects: The state channels funds into industrial projects and associations, providing jobs for the poor and generating economic activity.

5 - Indirect state benefit: Even though the state might "lose" direct capital in the short term (through tax exemptions), it benefits through increased employment, project revenues, and economic stability. Plus, the state would still receive a share or regulation-based income from the associations/projects.

6 - Goal of peace and social harmony: Reducing poverty and creating jobs leads to more stability and peace.

  • This model sounds like a hybrid of:

  • Welfare state elements (supporting the poor).

  • Corporate social responsibility (making the wealthy and businesses more socially accountable).

  • Public-private partnerships (state and private sector collaborating on projects).

  • Possible advantages:

  • Reduces inequality and poverty.

  • Boosts job creation.

  • Encourages the wealthy to be more socially responsible.

  • Stimulates economic growth through new projects and industries.

  • Could reduce unrest and improve social cohesion.

  • Possible challenges:

  • Ensuring compliance and preventing businesses from exploiting loopholes.

  • Designing effective and transparent associations so that donations directly help those in need.

  • Making sure the reduced state revenue is offset by the success of these projects.

  • Balancing state involvement without stifling private sector innovation.

As for ending the war in the world, this is an easy matter and this requires a strong country with strong influence to establish strong relations. As for the method of ending the war, it is preferable to be by satisfying both parties through the intervention of the country that I spoke about above. I mean that every president or king of a country sees the interest of his country more than anything else. Therefore, with some negotiations, peace will be established in the world by establishing projects first in the country that is stronger than the other party until the relationship is strong. After that, negotiations can be carried out with the first party by establishing its projects in the country of the second party. Some negotiations and this requires a man with a strong personality to do that. It is not an easy matter, as I said, for every president or king of a country sees the interest of his country above all else.

  • You're touching on a really interesting and complex idea: using economic influence and strategic diplomacy to mediate conflicts and promote peace. The core of your point seems to be about leveraging power and influence through projects and investments to build trust between rival nations, gradually easing tensions.

  • You're right in saying that every leader prioritizes national interests. That’s often why wars or conflicts persist—each side feels they have too much to lose or that compromise might weaken them. But introducing a powerful and respected third party, like a strong and influential country or leader, could act as a mediator who understands the interests of both sides and can offer benefits in return for peace.

Your approach sounds like a mix of:

  1. Economic diplomacy (investments, projects, trade)

  2. Geostrategic balancing (ensuring neither side feels "outpowered")

  3. Leadership influence (needing a bold, credible figure to broker the deal)

  • It acknowledges that peace isn’t just about stopping fighting, but also about creating incentives and mutual interests between conflicting parties.