4 ms·

> If every household above the poverty line donated 2.5% of their net worth annually to people living below the poverty line, we could erase poverty instantly.

> If every household above the poverty line donated 2.5% of their net worth annually to people living below the poverty line, we could erase poverty instantly. For a day. A lot of people below the poverty line would spend all the money on trips and luxuiry goods. And would be right back where they've started. Also, the question is why would anyone want to work, if you would be given money for free even if you don't work anywhere (I mean, you're below the poverty line)?

bsenftner 1y ago
[flagged]
piva00 1y ago
> Also, the question is why would anyone want to work, if you would be given money for free even if you don't work anywhere (I mean, you're below the poverty line)? Because people want more comforts than just being barely above the poverty line, of course there will be freeloaders just as in anything (there are even freeloaders at many companies right now, shocker!) but it doesn't mean everyone that gets some cash to be above poverty would just stop working. It opens their lives to pursue other stuff they wouldn't be able to while fighting to barely survive, they could go to school, take better care of their kids with the free time available, they could look for jobs that are not a dead end because they wouldn't be hostages of working for shitty pay to barely survive. This argument comes purely from a puritan/protestant belief, the data usually shows that people who get money to cover their basic needs will have better outcomes, commit less crimes, seek education, etc. Isn't the cost of a minority of freeloaders good enough to provide better outcomes for the whole society? Or do you prefer to keep punishing the poor just in case some of them decide to be freeloaders? Rather inhumane to think that way.
- self_awareness 1y ago
  It always comes down to the same set of arguments. The rich doesn't pay the price because money is nothing to them. The poorest have additional grants, so life is not that bad for them, even if they don't work. And who pays the most expensive fee for this? Middle class. The actually working class. The class that nobody thinks about, and the class that always funds everything. In your world, the worst place to be is to be the middle class, because they don't deserve any grants, but still they earn just barely enough to sustain themselves. Also, the difference between freeloaders in companies and freeloaders in your model of financing the poor is that we generally want to get rid of company freeloaders and we identify them as an unwanted behavior, and you want to encourage social freeloaders and defend their existence.
  - ambicapter 1y ago
    ??? If they earn barely enough to sustain themselves, they're not middle class by any sane individual's definition. They're poor.
    - self_awareness 1y ago
      Well, you can use the "poverty line" definition to separate people who will get grants (below the line), and people who will pay for the grants (above the line). So being just barely above the line means that you pay, not that you get. This is the worst place to be in. Also, a lot of sane US citizens seem to use the "poor" word to describe someone who is not able to get the newest model of iphone. That's why it's generally hard to talk about the issue.
      - piva00 1y ago
        > So being just barely above the line means that you pay, not that you get. This is the worst place to be in. Why do you think that's how it would work? That's the most simplistic way of thinking about it, instead try to apply the same model of progressive taxation in reverse, you get less benefits the more you earn up to a threshold. Or just implement some form of UBI, there are many models for it as well.
        self_awareness 1y ago
        Or we do communism, the right way this time. Last time I've seen communism being implemented the right way was the CHOP/CHAZ in Seattle. It ended up with some actual warlord taking a gun and killing some people. In the middle of the city. Also, who do you think would pay for the UBI. It's not like UBI is some solution that was even implemented anywhere.
        piva00 1y ago
        Don't jump directly into the red scare through a slippery slope fallacy, it's just intellectually dishonest while being the most boring thought-terminating cliché on this type of discussion. Wanting to live in a better and more just system, even if we can most realistically just work towards an improved version of capitalism, is probably something most of us can agree upon. I don't think anyone sane is against people having their needs fulfilled so I don't think anyone sane would look at any system we live under and think "yeah, this is it, we found the perfect system". So instead of deflecting into communism as a gotcha, why don't we behave as adults, and agree that discussing how to find ways to improve our systems of production, distribution of wealth, how we view the less fortunate, how society can be better overall for all of us, is quite fucking important? Going directly into the pigeon hole of ideology is just lazy and unimaginative. Humanity did unthinkable achievements already, we can always try to do better, don't be lazy and unimaginative...
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

bsenftner 1y ago

[flagged]

piva00 1y ago

> Also, the question is why would anyone want to work, if you would be given money for free even if you don't work anywhere (I mean, you're below the poverty line)? Because people want more comforts than just being barely above the poverty line, of course there will be freeloaders just as in anything (there are even freeloaders at many companies right now, shocker!) but it doesn't mean everyone that gets some cash to be above poverty would just stop working. It opens their lives to pursue other stuff they wouldn't be able to while fighting to barely survive, they could go to school, take better care of their kids with the free time available, they could look for jobs that are not a dead end because they wouldn't be hostages of working for shitty pay to barely survive. This argument comes purely from a puritan/protestant belief, the data usually shows that people who get money to cover their basic needs will have better outcomes, commit less crimes, seek education, etc. Isn't the cost of a minority of freeloaders good enough to provide better outcomes for the whole society? Or do you prefer to keep punishing the poor just in case some of them decide to be freeloaders? Rather inhumane to think that way.

self_awareness 1y ago
It always comes down to the same set of arguments. The rich doesn't pay the price because money is nothing to them. The poorest have additional grants, so life is not that bad for them, even if they don't work. And who pays the most expensive fee for this? Middle class. The actually working class. The class that nobody thinks about, and the class that always funds everything. In your world, the worst place to be is to be the middle class, because they don't deserve any grants, but still they earn just barely enough to sustain themselves. Also, the difference between freeloaders in companies and freeloaders in your model of financing the poor is that we generally want to get rid of company freeloaders and we identify them as an unwanted behavior, and you want to encourage social freeloaders and defend their existence.
- ambicapter 1y ago
  ??? If they earn barely enough to sustain themselves, they're not middle class by any sane individual's definition. They're poor.
  - self_awareness 1y ago
    Well, you can use the "poverty line" definition to separate people who will get grants (below the line), and people who will pay for the grants (above the line). So being just barely above the line means that you pay, not that you get. This is the worst place to be in. Also, a lot of sane US citizens seem to use the "poor" word to describe someone who is not able to get the newest model of iphone. That's why it's generally hard to talk about the issue.
    - piva00 1y ago
      > So being just barely above the line means that you pay, not that you get. This is the worst place to be in. Why do you think that's how it would work? That's the most simplistic way of thinking about it, instead try to apply the same model of progressive taxation in reverse, you get less benefits the more you earn up to a threshold. Or just implement some form of UBI, there are many models for it as well.
      - self_awareness 1y ago
        Or we do communism, the right way this time. Last time I've seen communism being implemented the right way was the CHOP/CHAZ in Seattle. It ended up with some actual warlord taking a gun and killing some people. In the middle of the city. Also, who do you think would pay for the UBI. It's not like UBI is some solution that was even implemented anywhere.
        piva00 1y ago
        Don't jump directly into the red scare through a slippery slope fallacy, it's just intellectually dishonest while being the most boring thought-terminating cliché on this type of discussion. Wanting to live in a better and more just system, even if we can most realistically just work towards an improved version of capitalism, is probably something most of us can agree upon. I don't think anyone sane is against people having their needs fulfilled so I don't think anyone sane would look at any system we live under and think "yeah, this is it, we found the perfect system". So instead of deflecting into communism as a gotcha, why don't we behave as adults, and agree that discussing how to find ways to improve our systems of production, distribution of wealth, how we view the less fortunate, how society can be better overall for all of us, is quite fucking important? Going directly into the pigeon hole of ideology is just lazy and unimaginative. Humanity did unthinkable achievements already, we can always try to do better, don't be lazy and unimaginative...

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]