7 ms·

Er. Why should the bottom 20% of society be "taken care of"? Is it because we're afraid they'll turn into criminals if we don't? Because that would be equivalen

by palish 15y ago

Er. Why should the bottom 20% of society be "taken care of"? Is it because we're afraid they'll turn into criminals if we don't? Because that would be equivalent to paying off the mob. Honest question.

sliverstorm 15y ago
"Since they can't or won't do it for themselves, it's our duty" is how the argument usually goes. I've always chaffed with that sentiment a bit. "Can't"- ok. "Won't"? That's a choice.
- palish 15y ago
  But... It's not our duty. Why should it be?
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    I never said it was our duty. Hell, I even said I didn't like it. It's a moral judgement many folks make, is all.
corin_ 15y ago
My brain's not yet running this morning and I can't think of the term for this point, but as it's now in my brain I'll come back and link to more details as soon as I think of it. The rough concept is that, when it comes to society/politics/law, you should think as if you are yet to be born and don't know where in society you will end up. So, you might become the richest man in the world, or you might live a life in poverty and unemployment. As to why it matters, should people dying of hunger in the third world be ignored? Should we not care about homeless people who are sleeping in the cold and wet and will have crazily low life expectancy and a terrible standard of living? I'm not sure where the 20% comes from or how accurate an estimate that is, but the more fortunate should always do their part, whether through legislation (such as taxation) or charity, to help the less fortunate. While different people will have different views on many areas of this, such as to what extent they should be helped, how badly off you have to be to deserve it, and so on and so on, I think very few would say that the bottom end of society deserves no help at all.
- palish 15y ago
  What I'm saying is, if people decide to donate their own money to charity, then that's fine. But I don't understand the attitude of "It's noble to steal money from some, and redistribute it to others". It seems immoral.
  - corin_ 15y ago
    If you couldn't afford to pay your bills, couldn't afford a place to live, couldn't afford health insurance, couldn't afford to buy clothes for your children, would you still have that view? Or would you be rather glad that there's a system (even if not a great one) that helps balance society out a little bit? And frankly you shouldn't need to have to imagine being in that position, how can you not feel that we should all care about those worse off than ourselves? Oh, and there are plenty of selfish reasons as well. Society would fall apart if only the rich were able to live and we left the poor to, eventually, either become rich or die out. Who would make your cars, clothes, food, serve you a coffee, sell you your ticket to a sports game, etc etc.
    - fleitz 15y ago
      Honestly, in 90% of cases it's purely a choice. Most people in North America can't pay rent because they need to live downtown and work a min wage job. Let me tell you that there are plenty of starbucks in places with lower rent. If you can't pay rent in North America have 2 arms 2 legs and an IQ of 100 it's because you're spending your money stupidly and/or lazy. My ex wife (IQ of 140-150) phoned me the other day complaining about how she can't pay rent. Note that she lives in social housing despite making in excess of 68K per year. She works for the gov't and could go to any number of places with cheap rent, yet she insists on living in some of the most expensive areas of Canada. Two weeks ago she was raving about how much fun the new Green Day edition of Rock Band was and next week she is going on vacation. Think there might be a connection as to why she can't pay subsidized rent let alone market rent? When I was with her, I bought my own place at 22 while working a crap tech support job.
      - 15y ago
abbasmehdi 15y ago
Thanks for the honest question Palish. I have noticed from teaching that if you take a large enough sample the bottom 20 percent always struggle more. These could the issues udutu society or some kind of intelligence or disability. I am not going to pretend that I know the answer but there is always the bottom 20 percent that needs, extra help so I think on the grounds of compassion they shall be given extra assistance. I understand your point on meritocracy , however we cannot assume that everybody starts at the same starting line. So from my point of view it is based on the grounds of compassion. Again, thank you for the question.
- JonnieCache 15y ago
  the bottom 20 percent always struggle more Isn't this a tautology, or am I confused?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - abbasmehdi 15y ago
    Good observation Cache. So the point becomes shall we help those who have greater hardships built-in to their paths.
abbasmehdi 15y ago
Another answer: give me the choice of how my [tax] money is spent. I have no option but to pay you (taxes), and no say in how you spend it. Maybe its because I will never check the 'war' box and they need my money for it, I'd rather help pay for public education, social services for the elderly, disabled etc., and green energy research. If I had say on how my money is spent, we would not be having this conversation (I live in California and pay a gang load of taxes, majority of which goes towards things I don't support - naturally I'm not happy about the liberty taken on my behalf :-).

by palish 15y ago

sliverstorm 15y ago

"Since they can't or won't do it for themselves, it's our duty" is how the argument usually goes. I've always chaffed with that sentiment a bit. "Can't"- ok. "Won't"? That's a choice.

palish 15y ago
But... It's not our duty. Why should it be?
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  I never said it was our duty. Hell, I even said I didn't like it. It's a moral judgement many folks make, is all.

corin_ 15y ago

My brain's not yet running this morning and I can't think of the term for this point, but as it's now in my brain I'll come back and link to more details as soon as I think of it. The rough concept is that, when it comes to society/politics/law, you should think as if you are yet to be born and don't know where in society you will end up. So, you might become the richest man in the world, or you might live a life in poverty and unemployment. As to why it matters, should people dying of hunger in the third world be ignored? Should we not care about homeless people who are sleeping in the cold and wet and will have crazily low life expectancy and a terrible standard of living? I'm not sure where the 20% comes from or how accurate an estimate that is, but the more fortunate should always do their part, whether through legislation (such as taxation) or charity, to help the less fortunate. While different people will have different views on many areas of this, such as to what extent they should be helped, how badly off you have to be to deserve it, and so on and so on, I think very few would say that the bottom end of society deserves no help at all.

palish 15y ago
What I'm saying is, if people decide to donate their own money to charity, then that's fine. But I don't understand the attitude of "It's noble to steal money from some, and redistribute it to others". It seems immoral.
- corin_ 15y ago
  If you couldn't afford to pay your bills, couldn't afford a place to live, couldn't afford health insurance, couldn't afford to buy clothes for your children, would you still have that view? Or would you be rather glad that there's a system (even if not a great one) that helps balance society out a little bit? And frankly you shouldn't need to have to imagine being in that position, how can you not feel that we should all care about those worse off than ourselves? Oh, and there are plenty of selfish reasons as well. Society would fall apart if only the rich were able to live and we left the poor to, eventually, either become rich or die out. Who would make your cars, clothes, food, serve you a coffee, sell you your ticket to a sports game, etc etc.
  - fleitz 15y ago
    Honestly, in 90% of cases it's purely a choice. Most people in North America can't pay rent because they need to live downtown and work a min wage job. Let me tell you that there are plenty of starbucks in places with lower rent. If you can't pay rent in North America have 2 arms 2 legs and an IQ of 100 it's because you're spending your money stupidly and/or lazy. My ex wife (IQ of 140-150) phoned me the other day complaining about how she can't pay rent. Note that she lives in social housing despite making in excess of 68K per year. She works for the gov't and could go to any number of places with cheap rent, yet she insists on living in some of the most expensive areas of Canada. Two weeks ago she was raving about how much fun the new Green Day edition of Rock Band was and next week she is going on vacation. Think there might be a connection as to why she can't pay subsidized rent let alone market rent? When I was with her, I bought my own place at 22 while working a crap tech support job.
    - 15y ago

abbasmehdi 15y ago

Thanks for the honest question Palish. I have noticed from teaching that if you take a large enough sample the bottom 20 percent always struggle more. These could the issues udutu society or some kind of intelligence or disability. I am not going to pretend that I know the answer but there is always the bottom 20 percent that needs, extra help so I think on the grounds of compassion they shall be given extra assistance. I understand your point on meritocracy , however we cannot assume that everybody starts at the same starting line. So from my point of view it is based on the grounds of compassion. Again, thank you for the question.

JonnieCache 15y ago
the bottom 20 percent always struggle more Isn't this a tautology, or am I confused?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- abbasmehdi 15y ago
  Good observation Cache. So the point becomes shall we help those who have greater hardships built-in to their paths.

abbasmehdi 15y ago

Another answer: give me the choice of how my [tax] money is spent. I have no option but to pay you (taxes), and no say in how you spend it. Maybe its because I will never check the 'war' box and they need my money for it, I'd rather help pay for public education, social services for the elderly, disabled etc., and green energy research. If I had say on how my money is spent, we would not be having this conversation (I live in California and pay a gang load of taxes, majority of which goes towards things I don't support - naturally I'm not happy about the liberty taken on my behalf :-).