4 ms·

Are you from the US ? My 2ç: I noticed that there is a strong tradition there to favour charity over social welfare and one of the recurring argument is about

Are you from the US ? My 2ç: I noticed that there is a strong tradition there to favour charity over social welfare and one of the recurring argument is about how the receiver should feel grateful toward the giver because it somehow attaches a moral debt to the help which the receiver wouldn't feel the burden if the government was the proxy (through taxes) for helping those in need. I am a European and my first thoughts are always "What a nasty way to help others, adding moral debt to being helped, to put conditions on what should be an act of voluntary uninterested generosity (as opposed to an obligatory act through an inhumane government). That must have something to do with the protestantism cultural background in the US but I can't put my finger on it.". Likewise, in Europe, I also hear a lot of "I don't give money to beggars but if they want to eat then I can buy something". I disagree because to me it's part of a larger dehumanization process: who are we to tell people what they should spend their money on ? If the guy wants to drink it or buy a night in a cheap hotel or buy a blanket or food or whatever... it's still up to him. I don't have the `right` to control what his priorities should be. Personally I don't give money to beggars. I did some volunteering and I regularly donate money to some very specific charities I support because: 1. they are going to do a much better job than I and 2. in the city, once you get tagged as a coin giver then words get around pretty fast. It got so bad at one point that I couldn't walk some streets without having two people coming up to me and 3. my government (which has some decent support for homelessness) don't support those specific charities with its welfare system so... Edit: format and light rewording. I believe this has to do with everyone's specific set of values. I am not saying Americans are bad people and manipulative moralistic individuals (and I just found some arguments that support the idea that the american charity style helps poor people better than the euro style).

siphon22 7y ago
Im totally shocked that someone who doesnt give to those in need is okay with them using panhandling money for alcohol or drugs. Its always okay when its not your own money.
- johnchristopher 7y ago
  I haven't been clear. I used to give money in the street, I did some volunteering and now choose to give to some specific charities regularly. I still give a coin every three months but way less more than before. I am still okay with this coin being used for whatever purposes though. > Its always okay when its not your own money. Are you trying to build an anti-socialist argument ?
  - siphon22 7y ago
    I am anything but anti-socialist. Just pointing out that i can see why you dont care about what these poor, usually mentally ill people do with money given to them out of good will, since its not your money and you have no stake. Edit: Wanted to add something. People usually donate or offer help to those who need because they want to see their lives improve or to make them happy. And that makes you feel bad because they dont wish their money or help end up causing harm.
m0zg 7y ago
>> if they want to eat then I can buy something The reason for this one is that in the US some of the "beggars" aren't really struggling at all. When offered food or whatever else they claim on their placard they're lacking, they will decline. Where I live we have a beggar woman standing on the corner with a placard. Behind that placard, though, she's watching YouTube on her iPhone XS. She's been doing this for at least 5 years now, swapping phones more often than I do. Nearly all of those guys who "ran out of cash to get home" will decline an offer to pay their fare, too.
- news_to_me 7y ago
  This is definitely true in many cases, but I'd wager that it's the exception, not the rule. (It also probably depends on location.) It makes sense to me to refuse to help individuals who seem to be abusing goodwill, but I think this is a poor excuse to refuse helping anyone who asks. I always give the benefit of the doubt to those in need. If you don't want to give, that's your prerogative, but I don't think this is a good justification for that decision.
  - RHSeeger 7y ago
    I disagree. If I can - give $10 to the person on the corner who has a 20% chance to waste it on alcohol or drugs, or - give it to a charity that I know does good work then the second option seems better to me; and that 20% is part of the (reasonable) justification why.
- johnchristopher 7y ago
  It's a given that the rate of success for beggars would plummet if they asked money for anything else than food or transportation anyway. Iphone of unknown origins ? Free WiFi around ? That could explain it. Honestly, 90% of homeless people have psychological problems so I take the iphone lady over the grumpy drunkard any day :). Everyone has a different coping mechanism :/. Now, "some beggars" is likely not "the majority". Anyway, there are many different ways to help others (giving money to the lady so she can keep being by herself without annoying anyone, giving the social workers or ngo that will try to get to her through other means, etc.). I believe what is important is that we try do something from time to time and we don't forget these are humane beings.
news_to_me 7y ago
I totally agree, and I wish more people thought this way. I currently have the good fortune of having more than I need, through both hard work and luck. If someone asks me for help, I have an obligation as a fellow human and neighbor to help without judgement.
ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
>Likewise, in Europe, I also hear a lot of "I don't give money to beggars but if they want to eat then I can buy something". I disagree because to me it's part of a larger dehumanization process: who are we to tell people what they should spend their money on ? If the guy wants to drink it or buy a night in a cheap hotel or buy a blanket or food or whatever... it's still up to him. I don't have the `right` to control what his priorities should be. If someone is living off a welfare check, I do not want them using that money to buy things I consider luxury goods with the money I worked to earn (tax dollars). This is more a comment to your 'drink it' part, but also applies to people who buy soda/candy bars/junk food on food stamps. When I was working minimum wage I didn't buy that stuff because it was a waste of money that I couldn't afford.
- tbyehl 7y ago
  > using that money to buy things I consider luxury goods It always pains me to see people convey that attitude. We spend on luxury items because they make us feel good, they give us a little endorphine hit when we buy / use / consume them. I grew up in a poor family of four, like my first real job out of high school in the mid-90s at $20K was more than my step-father ever brought home. Having that "luxury" chocolate bar, or being able to save enough for a brand-new bicycle or Nintendo... that was a huge deal. Saying that poor people shouldn't have access to "luxuries" is saying that they shouldn't be allowed to spend money to feel good.
leetcrew 7y ago
> Likewise, in Europe, I also hear a lot of "I don't give money to beggars but if they want to eat then I can buy something". I disagree because to me it's part of a larger dehumanization process: who are we to tell people what they should spend their money on ? I would never tell someone what to spend their money on. if I'm going to spend my money to help them out, I'd prefer it not go straight to a pint of liquor. is that unreasonable?
- johnchristopher 7y ago
  Hi, my answer is just food for thought: I was having a conversation with a friend of a mine who happens to be a doctor and she works for the red cross some days of the week. I happen to have another friend who works as a social worker in a refugee centre so we traded stories and impressions. She told me that there were a lot of tensions between people and electricity in the air as time goes by. Now, every few months workers there organize a party where refugees cook typical dishes to share with everyone. It does a lot for easing the tension and the weeks after those parties are easier on everyone, staff and refugees. Now those parties have a lot of desserts (easier to bake and to store) which are for all intents and purposes a bit of luxury. I think there could be a bit of alcohol but don't quote me on that. Would you say that was not money well spent in the end (the red cross is supported through donations and the government adds some at some point) ? > I would never tell someone what to spend their money on. if I'm going to spend my money to help them out, I'd prefer it not go straight to a pint of liquor. is that unreasonable? It really does depend upon your values. What if - alcoholism excluded - that money is going to buy a 15ç can of bad beer but it'd be only one beer. What if this is the alcohol in that can of beer that'll help the guy to muster the courage to spend all of his days panhandling so he can get food or pay for his spot under the bridge for the night ? My point is that I don't believe that because I gave them some money I should have some control on them, or restrict the use of that money to my liking (shelters do that, with contracts and agreement put in place with the objective to lift people out of the street but that's another debate). Either that gift is free or it's not a gift, it's a salary for a behaviour I want the beggar to have. If I give money it becomes their money, if he can't dispose of it then it wasn't given. I often wonder what would happen if I just said : "OK, I'll give you ten bucks if you help me move some stuff for an hour or help me with the garden". Then, what if he spend that money on booze, girls or WoW pre paid card ? At least he didn't mug anyone. Anecdote: where I live, people on social welfare can get some small jobs (lawn mowing, paint jobs, that kind of things). They aren't paid in money. People give them some kind of social paper that is the equivalent of money and then they have to go the administration to get that turned into money into their account. Here's the catch: only people on welfare can get these jobs. And they are basically given monopoly money by people buying their services (who first bought these cheques from the government). These papers have validity dates, can't be used on the spot to buy something. Some money get lost this way. Why should people on welfare be paid with fake money ? It reminds me of this news about beggars getting a qr code or a RFID chip. Mobile payments would go to the shelter they are affiliated with and that would be converted into housing and food. > is that unreasonable? To each its own, it just means we have different outlook and a different set of values (and by that I don't mean to imply I am better than you or correct). edit: and of course, we live in many different cultures that have different subsets of values and people in it so what might be the righteous and the practical way to help beggars/homeless people might be different on a different continent... or over in the next town.

siphon22 7y ago

Im totally shocked that someone who doesnt give to those in need is okay with them using panhandling money for alcohol or drugs. Its always okay when its not your own money.

johnchristopher 7y ago
I haven't been clear. I used to give money in the street, I did some volunteering and now choose to give to some specific charities regularly. I still give a coin every three months but way less more than before. I am still okay with this coin being used for whatever purposes though. > Its always okay when its not your own money. Are you trying to build an anti-socialist argument ?
- siphon22 7y ago
  I am anything but anti-socialist. Just pointing out that i can see why you dont care about what these poor, usually mentally ill people do with money given to them out of good will, since its not your money and you have no stake. Edit: Wanted to add something. People usually donate or offer help to those who need because they want to see their lives improve or to make them happy. And that makes you feel bad because they dont wish their money or help end up causing harm.

m0zg 7y ago

>> if they want to eat then I can buy something The reason for this one is that in the US some of the "beggars" aren't really struggling at all. When offered food or whatever else they claim on their placard they're lacking, they will decline. Where I live we have a beggar woman standing on the corner with a placard. Behind that placard, though, she's watching YouTube on her iPhone XS. She's been doing this for at least 5 years now, swapping phones more often than I do. Nearly all of those guys who "ran out of cash to get home" will decline an offer to pay their fare, too.

news_to_me 7y ago
This is definitely true in many cases, but I'd wager that it's the exception, not the rule. (It also probably depends on location.) It makes sense to me to refuse to help individuals who seem to be abusing goodwill, but I think this is a poor excuse to refuse helping anyone who asks. I always give the benefit of the doubt to those in need. If you don't want to give, that's your prerogative, but I don't think this is a good justification for that decision.
- RHSeeger 7y ago
  I disagree. If I can - give $10 to the person on the corner who has a 20% chance to waste it on alcohol or drugs, or - give it to a charity that I know does good work then the second option seems better to me; and that 20% is part of the (reasonable) justification why.
johnchristopher 7y ago
It's a given that the rate of success for beggars would plummet if they asked money for anything else than food or transportation anyway. Iphone of unknown origins ? Free WiFi around ? That could explain it. Honestly, 90% of homeless people have psychological problems so I take the iphone lady over the grumpy drunkard any day :). Everyone has a different coping mechanism :/. Now, "some beggars" is likely not "the majority". Anyway, there are many different ways to help others (giving money to the lady so she can keep being by herself without annoying anyone, giving the social workers or ngo that will try to get to her through other means, etc.). I believe what is important is that we try do something from time to time and we don't forget these are humane beings.

news_to_me 7y ago

I totally agree, and I wish more people thought this way. I currently have the good fortune of having more than I need, through both hard work and luck. If someone asks me for help, I have an obligation as a fellow human and neighbor to help without judgement.

ApolloFortyNine 7y ago

>Likewise, in Europe, I also hear a lot of "I don't give money to beggars but if they want to eat then I can buy something". I disagree because to me it's part of a larger dehumanization process: who are we to tell people what they should spend their money on ? If the guy wants to drink it or buy a night in a cheap hotel or buy a blanket or food or whatever... it's still up to him. I don't have the `right` to control what his priorities should be. If someone is living off a welfare check, I do not want them using that money to buy things I consider luxury goods with the money I worked to earn (tax dollars). This is more a comment to your 'drink it' part, but also applies to people who buy soda/candy bars/junk food on food stamps. When I was working minimum wage I didn't buy that stuff because it was a waste of money that I couldn't afford.

tbyehl 7y ago
> using that money to buy things I consider luxury goods It always pains me to see people convey that attitude. We spend on luxury items because they make us feel good, they give us a little endorphine hit when we buy / use / consume them. I grew up in a poor family of four, like my first real job out of high school in the mid-90s at $20K was more than my step-father ever brought home. Having that "luxury" chocolate bar, or being able to save enough for a brand-new bicycle or Nintendo... that was a huge deal. Saying that poor people shouldn't have access to "luxuries" is saying that they shouldn't be allowed to spend money to feel good.

leetcrew 7y ago

> Likewise, in Europe, I also hear a lot of "I don't give money to beggars but if they want to eat then I can buy something". I disagree because to me it's part of a larger dehumanization process: who are we to tell people what they should spend their money on ? I would never tell someone what to spend their money on. if I'm going to spend my money to help them out, I'd prefer it not go straight to a pint of liquor. is that unreasonable?

johnchristopher 7y ago
Hi, my answer is just food for thought: I was having a conversation with a friend of a mine who happens to be a doctor and she works for the red cross some days of the week. I happen to have another friend who works as a social worker in a refugee centre so we traded stories and impressions. She told me that there were a lot of tensions between people and electricity in the air as time goes by. Now, every few months workers there organize a party where refugees cook typical dishes to share with everyone. It does a lot for easing the tension and the weeks after those parties are easier on everyone, staff and refugees. Now those parties have a lot of desserts (easier to bake and to store) which are for all intents and purposes a bit of luxury. I think there could be a bit of alcohol but don't quote me on that. Would you say that was not money well spent in the end (the red cross is supported through donations and the government adds some at some point) ? > I would never tell someone what to spend their money on. if I'm going to spend my money to help them out, I'd prefer it not go straight to a pint of liquor. is that unreasonable? It really does depend upon your values. What if - alcoholism excluded - that money is going to buy a 15ç can of bad beer but it'd be only one beer. What if this is the alcohol in that can of beer that'll help the guy to muster the courage to spend all of his days panhandling so he can get food or pay for his spot under the bridge for the night ? My point is that I don't believe that because I gave them some money I should have some control on them, or restrict the use of that money to my liking (shelters do that, with contracts and agreement put in place with the objective to lift people out of the street but that's another debate). Either that gift is free or it's not a gift, it's a salary for a behaviour I want the beggar to have. If I give money it becomes their money, if he can't dispose of it then it wasn't given. I often wonder what would happen if I just said : "OK, I'll give you ten bucks if you help me move some stuff for an hour or help me with the garden". Then, what if he spend that money on booze, girls or WoW pre paid card ? At least he didn't mug anyone. Anecdote: where I live, people on social welfare can get some small jobs (lawn mowing, paint jobs, that kind of things). They aren't paid in money. People give them some kind of social paper that is the equivalent of money and then they have to go the administration to get that turned into money into their account. Here's the catch: only people on welfare can get these jobs. And they are basically given monopoly money by people buying their services (who first bought these cheques from the government). These papers have validity dates, can't be used on the spot to buy something. Some money get lost this way. Why should people on welfare be paid with fake money ? It reminds me of this news about beggars getting a qr code or a RFID chip. Mobile payments would go to the shelter they are affiliated with and that would be converted into housing and food. > is that unreasonable? To each its own, it just means we have different outlook and a different set of values (and by that I don't mean to imply I am better than you or correct). edit: and of course, we live in many different cultures that have different subsets of values and people in it so what might be the righteous and the practical way to help beggars/homeless people might be different on a different continent... or over in the next town.