About the removal of poorness in this world

Removing poverty will never happen, but things could be improved for a lot of people if wealth was not controlled by the few and if laws that favour the rich were changed..

Being a poor and remaining poort is a state of mind.

Adopting a village is not as much about removal of poverty as holistic development out here. That means ensuring that necessary infrastructure is available and there is a way to monitor it all, and bringing it all into the ambit of the common laws, so that everybody has access to what the constitution mentions. The gap dividing cities and villages has grown much too wide because of which many atrocities continue to happen in many villages even today. When a celebrity adopts it, he or she will hopefully understand the problems better, and come up with his or her solutions to them. Competition between different celebrities doing that will speed up the process, nothing more, nothing less. As to poverty, we need to be very clear about what poverty is, and to what extent help needs to be given. In urban areas, poverty would inadequate meal, and inadequate shelter and inadequate scope for education and medication. Lack of job that provides these four should be considered as poverty. Then again, whether it should include parents and children and spouse should be considered. Yes, if parents are above a specific age group, and children are below a specific age group, they should be considered. The wife needs to work, unless she is a caregiver for her parents, siblings, and or any other in-laws. In addition, there should be a cut off date for considering education level. If by that date, the lady was not educated to say 7th standard, then it is likely she does not know much, and therefore, she may have more children. Otherwise, every person who is educated beyond 12th standard, would only be entitled to help if they have less than three children. There should also be a limited time frame for any help. The wife should be asked to learn some talent so that she becomes independent. Her training should be financed for that job. Effectively, it is not perpetual drain on resources tax payer is paying. It would be very unfair on middle class men and women who have nothing coming from government to be sparing monies for families that are bringing additional mouths to feed recklessly. So help should be at the most for 10 or 15 years in lifetime. Once they use it, they are no longer entitled to it. In fact, this should entitlement of every citizen of the country, and if the citizen is able to avoid using the value of the help, 1/2 of it should be passed on to the legal heirs of the person as tax rebate deductible in phased manner. That should be incentive enough for people to avoid cashing in on the benefit unnecessarily. In rural areas, many facilities are not there, even though children may be educated, so for considering the poverty levels, different criteria should be fixed such as land holding, water table, rainfall during the preceding few years, crops during the preceding few years, distances from good quality amenities such as hospitals and educational institutions available close by, etc. Again this should remain dynamic.