What is our obligation to the poor?

[OldWiseGuy]

Or a governmental program called "social housing".....
The point.

When do you think it will be easier to get, and hold on to, a job?
When you have no home, and thus no address, and stink the place up?
Or when you have a temporary social roof over your head, even if it is just a 15m² flat with a kitchen-slash-bathroom?



1. no you don't. Anybody can wash windows, clean desks, flip burgers, collect thrash cans, cut grass, put stuff in boxes, deliver packages, pick up packages, sort packages, screw things in other things, ..................

2. a small step up of the type of jobs above, like inputting forms in a digital form using some type of software, and the company can provide you with necessary training

3. free education



I'll guarantee you that your physical and mental health will be in much better condition if you get to sleep under a roof in an actual bed and are able to take a shower and brush your teeth now and then.

Next to that: government-run universal health care



Yep, it's a viscious cricle.
A few efficient social governmental programs is all you need to break that circle.
Will it have a 100% success rate? Probably not. But it surely will go a LONG way.



As part of the viscious circle, off course




All this reads like problems that are almost exclusive to the "corporate" US. All these are problems of ultra-capitalistic, anti-social society where the general idea is to extract the maximum amount of capital from people - even when there is no capital left to extract.

It's the result of a complete lack of regulation to "humanize" society and to allow for-profit-privatisation of what are really matters of societal importance.

The problems you describe are unavoidable in a country that is as entrenched in greed and money hunger like the ultra-capitalistic corporate US.

This is exactly why I wouldn't want to live in the US and am thankfull every day for being a European citizen - regardless of the many problems we have in Europe.

Many of these issues you describe are actually very avoidable for a large, large amount of "victims" (which is what I call them).

But for some reason, the self-described "most christian" nation of the west, is actually very anti helping fellow citizens to get back - and stay - on their feet.



In the US... most certainly not the government. There are no safety nets. There are no (proper) social programs. There's only greed and profit and the extraction of capital, even where there is no capital.

If you can't pay up, you are spit out and left to die in the gutter.

Internal policies of the US are the most anti-social in the entire democratic west.

I think we deal with our poor quite well, in spite of opinions from across the pond.
The 'poor' in America are rich by many third world standards, from where many have come.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Then the admonition is intended for them, not ordinary people (my point).

So what you're saying is that it would be moral if the rich were to contribute more (financially) to society than the average or the poor?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So what you're saying is that it would be moral if the rich were to contribute more (financially) to society than the average or the poor?

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the rich contribute heavily to charity? Many also establish or contribute to many social outreach foundations and programs. They're just not in the liberal news very often.

Also the rich don't squander their money senselessly. The give 'handouts' and create opportunity for 'hand ups' as well.

 

[zephcom]

Exactly.

I like the way you phrased it: government's job is to create the environment in which capitalism can thrive.

I'll go a step further then doing that just through education, health care etc.
I'ld say that it's also the government's job to finance research at the "frontier" of scientific discovery, particularly in space exploration etc. Budgets of organizations like NASA should be through the roof, imo. They need to pave the way so that private corporations can then follow in those footsteps to do whatever it is they do. Because the ROI of those first steps into the unknown, is something that the vast majority of companies simply can not defend or afford.

There wouldn't be a SpaceX, if it wasn't for organizations like NASA taking those first steps, for example.

For sure my list was not all inclusive. America's investment in research is primary in keeping America on the cutting edge of technology.

 

[zephcom]

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the rich contribute heavily to charity? Many also establish or contribute to many social outreach foundations and programs. They're just not in the liberal news very often.

They do contribute...up to the limits which give them tax breaks. Sadly, a lot of their contributions go to charities which operate within their social status...things like orchestras and museums. There is little benefit to the masses from their contributions.

That is not to say there are not exceptions to this, but even the work of the Gates Foundation which has been involved in such things as human waste disposal in third world areas have not been very effective for the masses.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Also the rich don't squander their money senselessly.

That's a pretty bold blanket statement.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Poverty is a fact of life. Most societies have an ongoing segment that falls through the cracks, whether permanently or temporarily. History has proven that no amount of money, or other efforts, can change this fact. That's just the way it is.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's a pretty bold blanket statement.

Makes sense to them. (I want that lion for my granddaughter.)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

They do contribute...up to the limits which give them tax breaks. Sadly, a lot of their contributions go to charities which operate within their social status...things like orchestras and museums. There is little benefit to the masses from their contributions.

That is not to say there are not exceptions to this, but even the work of the Gates Foundation which has been involved in such things as human waste disposal in third world areas have not been very effective for the masses.

The "masses"? You make us sound like ancient Rome.

 

[zephcom]

The "masses"? You make us sound like ancient Rome.

And how are we not like ancient Rome? We have the obscenely wealthy running the nation, we have 'citizens' with modest rights which can be revoked at any time, and we have the non-citizens who have nearly no rights whatsoever. We have massive entertainment centers in which the wealthy use disposable human beings to play games for our entertainment. We use our military to occupy foreign nations and use puppets to provide government to those nations. We even use religion to help keep the masses under control.

Other than having better technology, how are we different from ancient Rome?

 

[Halbhh]

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the rich contribute heavily to charity? Many also establish or contribute to many social outreach foundations and programs. They're just not in the liberal news very often.

Also the rich don't squander their money senselessly. The give 'handouts' and create opportunity for 'hand ups' as well.

You'd think so, right?

Because we can tend in America to accidentally start to elevate wealth (as if wealth is virtue or a sign of virtue...), let's check on that idea that the wealthy give more....

Here are a couple of the 2016 and newer results to a search on "do wealthy people give a higher percentage of their income to charity?"
https://www.google.com/search?num=100&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS735US735&ei=LBMAXOeFGYqotQWAvI3QAQ&q=do+wealthy+people+give+a+higher+percentage+of+their+income+to+charity?&oq=do+wealthy+people+give+a+higher+percentage+of+their+income+to+charity%

Why Don't America's Rich Give More to Charity?
They could certainly afford to donate bigger sums, but something seems to be holding them back.
DEC 16, 2017
Why Don't America's Rich Give More to Charity? - The Atlantic


Do Wealthy People Give More?
On the one hand, you might think that wealthy people are obviously the ones who will give to charity. After all, they have more money, so they’re in the perfect position to help others! On the other hand, though, maybe it’s the least wealthy who are more likely to give. They may be more able to empathize with those in need.

When you look at actual data, it can look like both patterns are true. First, a bunch of studies do show that the more money people have, the more money they donate. In fact, some researchers have taken to specifically studying the donation decisions made by millionaires.

... Other studies, however, show that lower class people can show greater compassion, which is in turn associated with being more charitable. Another clue to the wealth-generosity equation is to think about the proportion of one’s income that gets donated. From this perspective, the data actually show that lower income households donate a greater proportion of their income than higher income households.
Do Wealthy People Donate More? : Donation Psychology

!

hmmmmm.....

What do you think of that?

I'm sincerely curious about your own view of this reality.

 

[Halbhh]

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the rich contribute heavily to charity? Many also establish or contribute to many social outreach foundations and programs. They're just not in the liberal news very often.

Also the rich don't squander their money senselessly. The give 'handouts' and create opportunity for 'hand ups' as well.

To add to the serious result just above, here's another article that looks at more details, and has several interesting further facts --

"It is easy to think of philanthropy as something done by the very wealthy, or big foundations, or prosperous companies. Actually, of the $358 billion that Americans gave to charity in 2014, only 14 percent came from foundation grants, and just 5 percent from corporations. The rest—81 percent—came from individuals.

And among individual givers in the U.S., while the wealthy do their part (as you’ll see later in this essay), the vast predominance of offerings come from average citizens of moderate income. Between 70 and 90 percent of all U.S. households donate to charity in a given year, and the typical household’s annual gifts add up to between two and three thousand dollars.

This is different from the patterns in any other country. Per capita, Americans voluntarily donate about seven times as much as continental Europeans. Even our cousins the Canadians give to charity at substantially lower rates, and at half the total volume of an American household.

There are many reasons for this American distinction. Foremost is the fact that ours is the most religious nation in the industrial world. Religion motivates giving more than any other factor. A second explanation is our deep-rooted tradition of mutual aid, which has impressed observers like Tocqueville since our founding days. Third is the potent entrepreneurial impulse in the U.S., which generates overflowing wealth that can be shared, while simultaneously encouraging a “bootstrap” ethic that says we should help our neighbors pull themselves up (partly because, in our freewheeling economy, we could be the ones who need help next time).

But what lies beneath our high national average? Do subgroups of the U.S. population vary in their giving, and if so, how much? What exactly do we know about who gives in America, and what motivates them?

Dissecting who is generous and who is not can be controversial. And not all of the research agrees. So we have methodically waded through heaps of studies and drawn out for you the clearest findings. You’re about to learn what today’s best social science has to say about the geography, demography, and economics of generosity in America. Some of it will surprise you."

...
Giving by income level
The curve charting charitable generosity by income takes on an unexpected U-shape largely thanks to the faith factor described above. People with means, as you might expect, are substantial givers. Middle-class Americans donate a little less. But the lower-income population surprises by giving more than the middle—and in some measures even more than the top. (As a percentage of available income, that is. In absolute dollars, those in higher income groups give much, much more money.) ..."
Who Gives

Translation: Poorer people in the U.S. give a higher percentage of their income to charity than the rich.

!

 

[Halbhh]

"One of the most surprising, and perhaps confounding, facts of charity in America is that the people who can least afford to give are the ones who donate the greatest percentage of their income. In 2011, the wealthiest Americans—those with earnings in the top 20 percent—contributed on average 1.3 percent of their income to charity. By comparison, Americans at the base of the income pyramid—those in the bottom 20 percent—donated 3.2 percent of their income. The relative generosity of lower-income Americans is accentuated by the fact that, unlike middle-class and wealthy donors, most of them cannot take advantage of the charitable tax deduction, because they do not itemize deductions on their income-tax returns."

Why the Rich Don't Give to Charity - The Atlantic

Notice that last sentence? Not only do the poor give more of what they have, but they do it without the ability to deduct it from their taxes....

...

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the rich contribute heavily to charity? Many also establish or contribute to many social outreach foundations and programs. They're just not in the liberal news very often.

Also the rich don't squander their money senselessly. The give 'handouts' and create opportunity for 'hand ups' as well.

 

[zephcom]

"One of the most surprising, and perhaps confounding, facts of charity in America is that the people who can least afford to give are the ones who donate the greatest percentage of their income. In 2011, the wealthiest Americans—those with earnings in the top 20 percent—contributed on average 1.3 percent of their income to charity. By comparison, Americans at the base of the income pyramid—those in the bottom 20 percent—donated 3.2 percent of their income. The relative generosity of lower-income Americans is accentuated by the fact that, unlike middle-class and wealthy donors, most of them cannot take advantage of the charitable tax deduction, because they do not itemize deductions on their income-tax returns."

Why the Rich Don't Give to Charity - The Atlantic

Notice that last sentence? Not only do the poor give more of what they have, but they do it without the ability to deduct it from their taxes....

...

The idea that people can deduct their charity from taxes has always baffled me. By allowing the deduction, the government is forced to participate in the giving yet never receives any credit for subsidizing charity around the nation.

I guess I should get some of the credit for charity to orchestras and museums too.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And how are we not like ancient Rome? We have the obscenely wealthy running the nation, we have 'citizens' with modest rights which can be revoked at any time, and we have the non-citizens who have nearly no rights whatsoever. We have massive entertainment centers in which the wealthy use disposable human beings to play games for our entertainment. We use our military to occupy foreign nations and use puppets to provide government to those nations. We even use religion to help keep the masses under control.

Other than having better technology, how are we different from ancient Rome?

Our masses are free.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You'd think so, right?

Because we can tend in America to accidentally start to elevate wealth (as if wealth is virtue or a sign of virtue...), let's check on that idea that the wealthy give more....

Here are a couple of the 2016 and newer results to a search on "do wealthy people give a higher percentage of their income to charity?"
https://www.google.com/search?num=100&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS735US735&ei=LBMAXOeFGYqotQWAvI3QAQ&q=do+wealthy+people+give+a+higher+percentage+of+their+income+to+charity?&oq=do+wealthy+people+give+a+higher+percentage+of+their+income+to+charity%

Why Don't America's Rich Give More to Charity?
They could certainly afford to donate bigger sums, but something seems to be holding them back.
DEC 16, 2017
Why Don't America's Rich Give More to Charity? - The Atlantic


Do Wealthy People Give More?
On the one hand, you might think that wealthy people are obviously the ones who will give to charity. After all, they have more money, so they’re in the perfect position to help others! On the other hand, though, maybe it’s the least wealthy who are more likely to give. They may be more able to empathize with those in need.

When you look at actual data, it can look like both patterns are true. First, a bunch of studies do show that the more money people have, the more money they donate. In fact, some researchers have taken to specifically studying the donation decisions made by millionaires.

... Other studies, however, show that lower class people can show greater compassion, which is in turn associated with being more charitable. Another clue to the wealth-generosity equation is to think about the proportion of one’s income that gets donated. From this perspective, the data actually show that lower income households donate a greater proportion of their income than higher income households.
Do Wealthy People Donate More? : Donation Psychology

!

hmmmmm.....

What do you think of that?

I'm sincerely curious about your own view of this reality.

Facts are facts. Note that I purposely avoided saying that the rich give more as a percentage of their income than others.

 

[Halbhh]

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the rich contribute heavily to charity? Many also establish or contribute to many social outreach foundations and programs. They're just not in the liberal news very often.

Also the rich don't squander their money senselessly. The give 'handouts' and create opportunity for 'hand ups' as well.

I got curious -- Why don't the wealthy give more? What makes them often stingy??

From the more recent article, these interesting research results
Why Don't America's Rich Give More to Charity? - The Atlantic
:
Perhaps there is another way to think about this: Why would it be expected that society’s richest give money at all? After all, wealth doesn’t bestow unique insight, nor is it proof of empathy. Instead, there’s a body of psychological and behavioral-economics research suggesting that wealthy people are generally less caring, generous, and aware of how others think, feel, and live. Whether this is the case because money corrupts or because a certain type of person tends to want to accumulate it, this finding could at least partly explain why the well-off don’t give more than they do.

In a study published last year in the journal Psychological Science, for instance, Pia Dietze and Eric D. Knowles of New York University gave each of their subjects a pair of Google Glass and asked them to take a walk on a busy street. Using the technology to track people’s eye movements, the researchers discovered that their upper-income subjects spent significantly less time looking at other people in their field of vision. In another study, from 2010, researchers had their participants compare themselves with people either lower or higher on the income stratum. The men and women participating in the experiments picked up on emotional cues better when they looked to someone who earned more than they did, but not less. In other words, they read the situation better when they believed their status to be lower than others. And when they thought of themselves as higher-income, the ability dissipated.

The best-known study in this branch of research, titled “Higher Social Class Predicts Increased Unethical Behavior,” was published in 2012. It found that the higher a subject’s self-described social rank, the more candy they took from a jar labeled as being for children. In another experiment for that same paper, the nicer the car, the more likely a driver would cut off a pedestrian in a crosswalk or fail to yield to others at a four-way stop.

That's exactly what I experience in person! When you are crossing the space in front of a store, and a car is coming towards you, I've found out that if the car is a BMW, Benz, or Lexus, then I've learned by experience to be on my toes, because I do not want to get knocked down.

Same at a 4 way stop -- if they are in an expensive car, they are more liable to ignore the right of way rules.

I don't want to stereotype. No doubt some of the most considerate and fine acting people drive such cars....some. But then there are all the others.

Does that fit your own experience?

 

[zephcom]

Our masses are free.

No they are not. At least not any more free that Roman citizens were.

We certainly like the illusion of being free but we are caged by massive amounts of law which restrict our ever action. We are now being monitored in everything we do.

We can't even leave the country without permission from the government. And many of our citizens are prone to street executions ala "Judge Dredd" of cinema fame.

That isn't freedom.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

To add to the serious result just above, here's another article that looks at more details, and has several interesting further facts --

"It is easy to think of philanthropy as something done by the very wealthy, or big foundations, or prosperous companies. Actually, of the $358 billion that Americans gave to charity in 2014, only 14 percent came from foundation grants, and just 5 percent from corporations. The rest—81 percent—came from individuals.

And among individual givers in the U.S., while the wealthy do their part (as you’ll see later in this essay), the vast predominance of offerings come from average citizens of moderate income. Between 70 and 90 percent of all U.S. households donate to charity in a given year, and the typical household’s annual gifts add up to between two and three thousand dollars.

This is different from the patterns in any other country. Per capita, Americans voluntarily donate about seven times as much as continental Europeans. Even our cousins the Canadians give to charity at substantially lower rates, and at half the total volume of an American household.

There are many reasons for this American distinction. Foremost is the fact that ours is the most religious nation in the industrial world. Religion motivates giving more than any other factor. A second explanation is our deep-rooted tradition of mutual aid, which has impressed observers like Tocqueville since our founding days. Third is the potent entrepreneurial impulse in the U.S., which generates overflowing wealth that can be shared, while simultaneously encouraging a “bootstrap” ethic that says we should help our neighbors pull themselves up (partly because, in our freewheeling economy, we could be the ones who need help next time).

But what lies beneath our high national average? Do subgroups of the U.S. population vary in their giving, and if so, how much? What exactly do we know about who gives in America, and what motivates them?

Dissecting who is generous and who is not can be controversial. And not all of the research agrees. So we have methodically waded through heaps of studies and drawn out for you the clearest findings. You’re about to learn what today’s best social science has to say about the geography, demography, and economics of generosity in America. Some of it will surprise you."

...
Giving by income level
The curve charting charitable generosity by income takes on an unexpected U-shape largely thanks to the faith factor described above. People with means, as you might expect, are substantial givers. Middle-class Americans donate a little less. But the lower-income population surprises by giving more than the middle—and in some measures even more than the top. (As a percentage of available income, that is. In absolute dollars, those in higher income groups give much, much more money.) ..."
Who Gives

Translation: Poorer people in the U.S. give a higher percentage of their income to charity than the rich.

!

The math makes sense.

 

[W2L]

Facts are facts. Note that I purposely avoided saying that the rich give more as a percentage of their income than others.

That made me think about the widows mite. The rich gave a lot but she gave all.