4 ms·

> Left or right, white collar workers that aren't giving a significant portion of their income to charity (as in, measured by percentage points) are not living

by ryan-c 12y ago

> Left or right, white collar workers that aren't giving a significant portion of their income to charity (as in, measured by percentage points) are not living ethically and sustainably. By this logic I don't see how anyone not giving away everything they don't need to live can be considered "ethical". This is not to say I don't feel I should be contributing to these things - I would just prefer that it be dealt with via taxes. People have a very hard time being generous to people outside of their communities, and as you said neighborhoods are no longer communities.

dnautics 12y ago
> I would just prefer that it be dealt with via taxes Then you are a selfish asshole. Instead of rolling up your sleeves, doing some good works, and setting a good example for your neighbors, you would rather reach into someone else's pocket to do the tough work of supporting a civil society, and pat yourself on the back for a job well done.
humanrebar 12y ago
It's not worth unpacking the ethics here, but I think there's common ground. I would suggest that if someone has an income greater than the median and expects someone else to pay to support the poor, his math is off.
- ryan-c 12y ago
  I do not expect "someone else" to pay for it. As best as I can figure at least 20% of my gross income is going towards social programs already via compulsory contributions (income taxes). Required contributions to these programs based on peoples' ability to pay seems like a good solution to me, though the allocation of those funds could be done a lot better. As far as voluntary contributions go, I do make some, but a big issue is finding and vetting charities where donations would do the most good. Psychology plays a bit into it too - "We currently have W and need X to meet demand for services. Every Y above X lets us also do Z" is more appealing than "Every dollar helps!" with no transparency.

by ryan-c 12y ago

dnautics 12y ago

> I would just prefer that it be dealt with via taxes Then you are a selfish asshole. Instead of rolling up your sleeves, doing some good works, and setting a good example for your neighbors, you would rather reach into someone else's pocket to do the tough work of supporting a civil society, and pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

humanrebar 12y ago

It's not worth unpacking the ethics here, but I think there's common ground. I would suggest that if someone has an income greater than the median and expects someone else to pay to support the poor, his math is off.

ryan-c 12y ago
I do not expect "someone else" to pay for it. As best as I can figure at least 20% of my gross income is going towards social programs already via compulsory contributions (income taxes). Required contributions to these programs based on peoples' ability to pay seems like a good solution to me, though the allocation of those funds could be done a lot better. As far as voluntary contributions go, I do make some, but a big issue is finding and vetting charities where donations would do the most good. Psychology plays a bit into it too - "We currently have W and need X to meet demand for services. Every Y above X lets us also do Z" is more appealing than "Every dollar helps!" with no transparency.