3 ms·

When the Government Tells Poor People How to Live

9 points by tokenadult 11y ago

late2part 11y ago
It strikes me that in the 'old' days; charity was a voluntary function. Organizations (mostly religious) would offer help, provided you comply with their requests, e.g. attend church, don't drink, etc. Now, a lot of the charity is called welfare or a better politically correct name, and alot of those same strings are attached. But it's not voluntary on the giving side, it's taxation. I don't know what the right answer is here. I wonder if the high rate of taxes causes people to give less, and assume/trust that the government will take care of the issue.
Torgo 11y ago
1. The government can only "tell you how to live" in this case if you take the money. You're free to work it out yourself if you don't, but you know, strings attached. 2. Don't want strings attached? Unconditional Basic Income now.
kayfox 11y ago
So, the solution to people who are struggling with instability as a result of and causing them to be poor and have issues surviving is to threaten them with more instability? We have seen time and again the solution to homelessness is stability without many strings attached. From my own personal experiences with homelessness the reason why some people who are homeless choose to remain homeless is because their situation, however instable it appears to be from the outside, is essentially stable to them. And programs which are intended to help them move up from homelessness often impose onerous "if you dont do x we will kick you out", where x can be any number of things productive or silly, and that is in inherently more instable situation than just worrying about showing up for food at the mission at such and such a time or showing up to get a spot in the shelter at another time every day. We should take a system engineering approach to this situation and fix it in a way grounded in science rather than the whims of politics.

3 ms·

When the Government Tells Poor People How to Live

9 points by tokenadult 11y ago

late2part 11y ago
It strikes me that in the 'old' days; charity was a voluntary function. Organizations (mostly religious) would offer help, provided you comply with their requests, e.g. attend church, don't drink, etc. Now, a lot of the charity is called welfare or a better politically correct name, and alot of those same strings are attached. But it's not voluntary on the giving side, it's taxation. I don't know what the right answer is here. I wonder if the high rate of taxes causes people to give less, and assume/trust that the government will take care of the issue.
Torgo 11y ago
1. The government can only "tell you how to live" in this case if you take the money. You're free to work it out yourself if you don't, but you know, strings attached. 2. Don't want strings attached? Unconditional Basic Income now.
kayfox 11y ago
So, the solution to people who are struggling with instability as a result of and causing them to be poor and have issues surviving is to threaten them with more instability? We have seen time and again the solution to homelessness is stability without many strings attached. From my own personal experiences with homelessness the reason why some people who are homeless choose to remain homeless is because their situation, however instable it appears to be from the outside, is essentially stable to them. And programs which are intended to help them move up from homelessness often impose onerous "if you dont do x we will kick you out", where x can be any number of things productive or silly, and that is in inherently more instable situation than just worrying about showing up for food at the mission at such and such a time or showing up to get a spot in the shelter at another time every day. We should take a system engineering approach to this situation and fix it in a way grounded in science rather than the whims of politics.