Poverty - relative vs. absolute

[opebo]

Poors are much more stressed than rich, leading to slower growth and lower 'intelligence':
Child's height linked to intellectual development

[minionofmidas]

"poors" ... probably smell as well, right?

Actually it is possible to generalize that they are more likely to smell than rich, Al, due to the severe physical deprivations they suffer. 

No, the rich are more likely to smell bad, because the least tolerable smells are actually sold for quite a lot of money.

[Emsworth]

You're all heart Emsworth ... Unfortunately, not all private citizens feel obliged to help the poor

While I donate to charity, I certainly do not believe that I am entitled to be generous with someone else's money. If someone else does not feel obliged to help the poor, should he be forced to do so against his will? In  my opinion, the answer is certainly no.

[opebo]

"poors" ... probably smell as well, right?

Actually it is possible to generalize that they are more likely to smell than rich, Al, due to the severe physical deprivations they suffer. 

No, the rich are more likely to smell bad, because the least tolerable smells are actually sold for quite a lot of money.

Yes, Lewis Trondheim, I also hate the odour of perfumes! I think I actually have an allergic reaction to most of them.  Thank goodness few Thai girls use such awful things. 

Anyway labeling certain smells good or bad is purely subjective.  Let us just say that one can usually tell something about a person's class by sniffing him.

[Beet]

You're all heart Emsworth ... Unfortunately, not all private citizens feel obliged to help the poor

While I donate to charity, I certainly do not believe that I am entitled to be generous with someone else's money. If someone else does not feel obliged to help the poor, should he be forced to do so against his will? In  my opinion, the answer is certainly no.

Yet, you feel perfectly entitled to be generous with someone else's money to pursue your goal of providing outside protection for the endangered from coercion.

[Emsworth]

Yet, you feel perfectly entitled to be generous with someone else's money to pursue your goal of providing outside protection for the endangered from coercion.

As I have noted in other threads, I see the two issues completely differently. For me, the ultimate goal of a government should be to minimize coercion and maximize individual freedom. Security is (in my opinion) necessary to accomplish these goals; welfare is not. Indeed, the very purpose of welfare programs has nothing whatsoever to do with individual freedom.

You are entitled to believe that alleviating economic disparities is a legitimate function of the government: I would simply disagree with you.

[Beet]

Yet, you feel perfectly entitled to be generous with someone else's money to pursue your goal of providing outside protection for the endangered from coercion.

As I have noted in other threads, I see the two issues completely differently. For me, the ultimate goal of a government should be to minimize coercion and maximize individual freedom. Security is (in my opinion) necessary to accomplish these goals; welfare is not. Indeed, the very purpose of welfare programs has nothing whatsoever to do with individual freedom.

You are entitled to believe that alleviating economic disparities is a legitimate function of the government: I would simply disagree with you.

Yes, I gleaned your precise position from our previous discussion, but that's why I found your quote a bit misleading:

I certainly do not believe that I am entitled to be generous with someone else's money.

I was merely pointing out that you do feel entitled to "be generous with someone else's money" (of course, 'generous' is always subjective) as long as the aim is to minimize coercion, and not minimize material want. Your position remains valid, but your quote was misleading and should have carried the necessary caveats.

[Emsworth]

I was merely pointing out that you do feel entitled to "be generous with someone else's money" (of course, 'generous' is always subjective) as long as the aim is to minimize coercion, and not minimize material want. Your position remains valid, but your quote was misleading and should have carried the necessary caveats.

"Generosity" is a term normally associated with charity; hence, I don't necessarily believe that the sentence was misleading.

[Beet]

I was merely pointing out that you do feel entitled to "be generous with someone else's money" (of course, 'generous' is always subjective) as long as the aim is to minimize coercion, and not minimize material want. Your position remains valid, but your quote was misleading and should have carried the necessary caveats.

"Generosity" is a term normally associated with charity; hence, I don't necessarily believe that the sentence was misleading.

Providing someone with protection from coercion can also be called generous, and charitable.

[Emsworth]

Providing someone with protection from coercion can also be called generous, and charitable.

If you wish, you can call it generous, but clearly this was not the context in which I was speaking.

[Beet]

Providing someone with protection from coercion can also be called generous, and charitable.

If you wish, you can call it generous, but clearly this was not the context in which I was speaking.

Ok, though most people would not disagree that protecting a stranger from coercion can be a form of generosity, which is why many people might thank a stranger for chasing after a pickpocket, for example, with a small reward if the item stolen was returned successfully.

The complete context of your post, including the line "forced to do so against his will" seemed to suggest a focus on the means of acquiring the money and the notion of using it to one's ends; there was no apparent exclusion of using it for any other ends but material wealth.

Thus it could very easily be misinterpreted, and I think most people would have done so, especially if they did not know your precise position beforehand.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

absolute

[Dr. Cynic]

Read the quote below.

[Citizen James]

Though I have no quarell with the idea of *cough* "making the pie higher" can be beneficial to individuals at all income levels - it isn't automatically so.

I do not think that pure lazzes faire economics is a panacia to correct poverty.   A lack of any sort of regulation or oversitghe is common in third world countries, and sometimes the rising profits are used only to insure the wealth of a few - while laws are encouraged to keep the poor from developing too much collective power, and preventing local competitors from having any real chance to start.  A corporate olgiarchy which possesses a de facto monopoly in the end is no more effective than communism.

Capitalism works, but only when there is the ability to compete fairly.

As to the inheritance tax, I don't see how creating a defacto aristocracy who do nothing to generate wealth will help anyone.  Especially if the would be aristocrats who gain a massive entitlement attitude and start acting as though it was their birthright to be above the law.

And profitiablity does not exist in a vaccum - for an employer, employees come in on roads payed for by the government, there is a stable pool of talent to hire from because of the educational system, and sickness due to food poisoning is uncommon because the government has standards for food quality.   Paying for that solo would bankrupt most companies, but done for the collective good - it benefits everyone.

Unfortuantely, all too many people who were born into the top eschelons (and some who worked their way there, but lack wisdom) tend to be penny wise and pound foolish.

And I haven't even touched corporate welfare....

[dazzleman]

As to the inheritance tax, I don't see how creating a defacto aristocracy who do nothing to generate wealth will help anyone.  Especially if the would be aristocrats who gain a massive entitlement attitude and start acting as though it was their birthright to be above the law.

Trust me, people like that don't hold onto their money for very long.  They never last as an 'aristocracy.'

[opebo]

As to the inheritance tax, I don't see how creating a defacto aristocracy who do nothing to generate wealth will help anyone.  Especially if the would be aristocrats who gain a massive entitlement attitude and start acting as though it was their birthright to be above the law.

Trust me, people like that don't hold onto their money for very long.  They never last as an 'aristocracy.'

What an absurd statement, dazzleman!

Are Rockefellers now poor?  Melons?  What percentage of those who's grandparents had over five million dollars have less than that in inflation adjusted terms today?  Not many I'll bet.

And who are the 'new rich' dazzleman?  Bill Gates father was a multi-millionaire.  You really should face the fact that the US has an obvious and permanent aristocracy.