Do we have an obligation to help the poor?

[KanigawaCards7]

This is a question not an opinion piece. I am a wealthy(but not rich, my dad makes 200k, i am in college)I live in a secluded suburban area where most people make that kind of money, if not more. At my high school debate and politics was taken very seriously. One arguement that always comes up is the arguement of helping the poor through the govermnemnt. I have developed no opinion just an understanding of the issue. Basically the arguement is summarized on both sides this way

YES: Of course we have an obligation to help the poor. Many people are disabled and discriminated against and they need us, those who have been blessed to help them. We are obligated by the success this country has brought us to help make the american dream possible for those less fortunate through welfare programs and government grants.It is selfish to want to save money we dont need when we could help the poor, thats the cristian thing to do.When the public is hurt through greed it hurts me indirectly too.

NO you know what? I earned all my money. I wasnt born rich. I was born to a middle class family/poor family, and I worked my way up of my own ability.If the poor / less fortunate ever really want to be succesful. They need to work their way up like I did. Feeding off a government is like the man who was given one fish every day but refused to learn how to fish. I shouldnt be taxed for my success.

Then there are points/counterpoints that go on forever. I have no view on this matter, only comprehension. Oh yeah and rich white people have always voted for republicans about60-40 and thats the way it has been always. In my community it is 65-35 in favor of the GOP.

So what are your opinions?

[W00lygimp]

My parents own a restaurant, any person that even resembles a needy person gets a free meal and help.
My mom is one of the kindest people I know...she would give 75% of her money away to help other people...
My dad on the other hand is a stingy [censored], can't blame him hes one of the reason the business is so sucessful.

[wacki]

KanigawaCards7, good post. I don't say that to many people.

I say the government has an obligation to provide opportunity to everyone but must NEVER eliminate the process of natural selection.

Opportunities create greatness. Freebies create leaches. I think the rest is self explanatory. But if you want me to continue I will... just ask.

[ACPlayer]

One way to look at it:

IT is OK to lend a hand to someone in need, it is generally not OK to give a hand out to that same person.

Government policy should have as its goal to build a societal infrastructure that provides opportunity for all. Most would agree with this but necessarily in the best way to meet the goal. The difference between liberal and conservative is usually in the implementation and not in the goal.

[MMMMMM]

"Government policy should have as its goal to build a societal infrastructure that provides opportunity for all."

Protection of the individual's right to life, liberty and property does provide opportunity for all.

[nicky g]

It provides a lot more opportunity to some than others.

[ACPlayer]

Like I said -- every body agrees on the goal everybody draws their own line.

But then I am always right -- it is truly a curse.

[MMMMMM]

Life isn't fair Nicky.

[nicky g]

The point is to make it fairer.

[MMMMMM]

Wrong. The point is to try to ensure that nobody usurps your right to life or liberty.

[ACPlayer]

Your responses in simple declarative sentences are correct.

It is when you try compound sentences or more than one sentence in your response that you stop making sense.

Try this more often.

[nicky g]

That isn't the point that's relevant to life being unfair.

[MMMMMM]

Yes it is, because you can't make life fair anyway no matter how hard you try, and you may even do harm by trying (not at all uncommon, that). The best you can do is try to ensure that nobody usurps anyone's right to life or liberty. If you want to give to the less fortunate yourself, by all means do so, but trying to force others to do so is an infringement on their liberty.

[nicky g]

You can never make it absolutely fair. You can absolutely make it fairer.

"trying to force others to do so is an infringement on their liberty"

Democratic societies entail all sorts of things that infringe other people's liberty. You yourself advocate taxes for certain things. If democratically elected governments go in for a bit of redistribuion that's perfectly legitimate. Rights aren;t written in stone, they're decided. People's success is often founded on the society they live in, it's a two-way street.

[The once and future king]

Then once an individual has achieved position of power and influence in society there is no way to intervene to stop that individual passing that power and influence through generations of his off spring Indeed this will bcome the only way that status and power is transmited. You then have an entirely static society in which status and wealth is achieved entirley by virtue of Birth.

We practicaly have this now anyway.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
YES: Of course we have an obligation to help the poor. ....

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry I have no obligation to help anyone that makes a concious decision to be poor. Are there any among the poor that make a concious decision to do so? The problem the way I see it is addressing the poor as a homogeneous group. I think there are those among the poor that deserve extra help and some that don't. For instance the plight of the homeless in the U.S. is a terrible thing and they probably need some kind of help from government that they're not receiving but I'm not sure in what form.

[ACPlayer]

Be careful, without his trust fund, MMMMMM would not be able to play poker for very long and may have to get a job.

The rest of us need his trust fund for our meals, shelter and clothing. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

That is ridiculous; people are becoming self-made millionaires today at an ever increasing rate, and they didn't get there by being aided by public assistance programs.

[jakethebake]

No one has any obligation to help anyone else. With that said charity is a wonderful thing when it is given from the goodness of one's heart. When it is forced by taxation under threat of violent government-sanctioned action, it is no longer charity. It is theft.

[James Boston]

You really need to define poor. The richest 14,000 American households hold more wealth than the "poorest" 96 million. Those 96 million people aren't all bums on the street who refuse to work. And no, it isn't fair that they take an unreasonable burden of the flaws in our tax system, while the richest Americans hardly pay taxes at all.

[The once and future king]

Whilst there is social mobility, the majority of people do not become millionaires (imagine the inflation /images/graemlins/wink.gif).

The overwhelmingly vast majority of people in the West assume a social rank similar to their parents.

The real way people become wealthier is that over time Capatalist societies create more goods and services avialable to each social rank.

Some one who is relatively poor today will enjoy greater consumption of recources than some one who was middle class at the turn of the century.

I think hard work should be rewarded, I think every one should be given access to opportunities that can be realised thorough hard work. At present to many of these opportunites are realised via generational transfer and not on merit.

This is perhaps one of the key reasons why I am in support of governement intervention into certain areas of our society.

[tolbiny]

"That is ridiculous; people are becoming self-made millionaires today at an ever increasing rate, and they didn't get there by being aided by public assistance programs."

Public schools- the vast majority of people who move from the lower class upwards attend public schools, and use public transportation, or drive on publicly funded roads.

[MMMMMM]

So...is there a point you are trying to make with that?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a wealthy...my dad makes 200k

[/ QUOTE ]

Your dad is wealthy. You are just a parasite right now.

[ QUOTE ]
NO you know what? I earned all my money. I wasnt born rich. I was born to a middle class family/poor family, and I worked my way up of my own ability...

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of an ironic argument given the above, no?


Having worked so hard for all of your wealth, it might very well be in your own selfish best interests to help the poor. Poverty leads to crime and the wealthy people, like yourself, have more to lose.

[tolbiny]

Your argument for helping the poor is off base in a way. The social plans that have been implemented by the government are meant to build a healthy society. There are direct correlations between good education and low crime rates. If you were to eliminate public schools (and by that i mean eliminate availibility for education, so that a privitized school industry could work as long as it provided enough opportunity for all to attend) you would experience a trememdous increase in social problems. If you were to eliminate the prison and court systems again many many problems. Universal access to health care allows people to build up personal wealth at a faster rate, welfare programs were originally designed to help put people back on their feet. Some of these programs need to be reworked, or perhaps scrapped and started again, but their mission isn't to "help the poor" its to create a healthy society where people can enjoy personal liberties.

[tolbiny]

You stated that there are plenty of people who are able to increase their financial well being and cross class distincitions, and that they did so without socila assistance programs.
I ask you how many people could go from the lower class to the middle class without public schools? Public roads to get to those schools, to get to those first jobs that they have? The courts, the police, the fire department are all public service programs.
How many people would be sucessfull if all of them were eliminated?

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
You really need to define poor.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. The definition of poor has nothing to do with whether you have an obligation.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Having worked so hard for all of your wealth, it might very well be in your own selfish best interests to help the poor. Poverty leads to crime and the wealthy people, like yourself, have more to lose.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a different issue than whether we have an OBLIGATION to help the poor.

[jakethebake]

Why is everyone arguing whether we should or shouldn't help the poor? The question posed was whether we have an OBLIGATION. This is very different than should we or shouldn't we and why or how.

[MMMMMM]

You really can't pose that question properly without attempting to compare that scenario with the alternate scenario which of course involves local funding, or even private funding, for those things. Without federally funded infrastructure, there would be locally funded (from local taxes or state taxes) infrastructure. Without that, there would be private schools and roads, etc.

Also, tax revenues providing for generally used and necessary infrastructure does not fall into the same classification as "helping the poor"--which I take to mean "helping the poor exclusively (or primarily).

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Having worked so hard for all of your wealth, it might very well be in your own selfish best interests to help the poor. Poverty leads to crime and the wealthy people, like yourself, have more to lose.
--------------------------------------------------------------

This is a different issue than whether we have an OBLIGATION to help the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]


And that is yet a different issue from whether we have an obligation to force others to help the poor.

[vulturesrow]

An obligation to help the poor should be born out of one's personal values. The problem with government interference in this area is that you are in effect creating subsidies for being poor. The welfare system is a great example of that. Bush's faith-based initiatives have taken a lot of heat, but they have been successful in putting the onus back in the community where it belongs.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush's faith-based initiatives have taken a lot of heat, but they have been successful in putting the onus back in the community where it belongs.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not exactly clear what you mean here. I don't believe there is an "onus". People bear the responsibility for themselves. The community does not have an onus, that is to say bear a responsibility to take care of them. IMO.

[jcx]

A personal obligation, yes. A national obligation, no. And what's the definition of poor, anyway? The lower classes that live in the 1st world today enjoy a higher standard of living than 99% of the people who have ever walked the earth. In the US, they likely have plenty to eat (Obesity in the US is higher among the poor than the affluent), a roof over their head, a vehicle to drive and a flushing toilet to take their feces away. There are billions of people walking the earth today who experience real poverty. Does the 1st world have an obligation to feed them, house them and clothe them?

[vulturesrow]

The onus is on the community to decide what, if any, obligation they have to assist the poor in their community and then discharge that obligation in a way that is satisfactory to them.

[cornell2005]

to answer this question correctly you have to include some discussion about free trade and economic theory. it is academically accepted that the most efficient system of international trade involves free trade, and subsidies paid to those who free trade hurts most. this is an interesting topic if anyone would like to elaborate. answers like "i earned all the money, i should keep it, are entirely wrong from a macro perspective. if a committment to welfare programs was not understood, then as a country we would not be able to use the highly successful free trade system that we all benefit from today

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
if a committment to welfare programs was not understood, then as a country we would not be able to use the highly successful free trade system that we all benefit from today

[/ QUOTE ]

On what basis do you make this assertion? What is the reasoning and evidence for it?

[Utah]

As we have discussed before, it isnt that equal distribution is a bad concept. The problem is the cost potential costs of distributing.

If possible, I think it would be awesome if everyone have the same level of income. However, as a whole the nation/world would be incredibly poor versus an unequally distributed society.

[nicky g]

But if that's the case why are there societies that are both much, much more equal than the US nearly as wealthy? I agree there is a cost but I don't think it's anywhere near as high as you do.

[nicky g]

"The onus is on the community to decide what, if any, obligation they have to assist the poor in their community and then discharge that obligation in a way that is satisfactory to them. "

And if they decide on an inheritance tax to fund assistance programmes for example?

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
A personal obligation, yes. A national obligation, no.

[/ QUOTE ]
I for one refuse to acknowledge ANY obligation. Do I give to charity? The answer is yes, but NOT out of a sense of OBLIGATION. The problem with most people that feel this is an obligation is that they want to dump their own sense of obligation on me. Everone should be free to give as much or little as they choose of the money they earned through their own labor.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
The onus is on the community to decide what, if any, obligation they have to assist the poor in their community and then discharge that obligation in a way that is satisfactory to them.

[/ QUOTE ]
You fuc*ing socialists. The community has no right to decide that I have an obligation. It is morally wrong for the community to steal the fruit of my labor, my earnings through taxation and give it to someone who has not earned it. It may be legal, but it is morally wrong.

[jakethebake]

O.k. the f-word was not warranted. Apologies.

[EarlCat]

We should reach out to people who truly need our help. Our obligation to help the poor, however, does not entitle us to take from others in the process. That's called stealing. If I don't have a right to take your stuff to give it to the poor, I don't have the right to elect someone to take your stuff to give it to the poor.

People champion Robin Hood as such a great guy because he robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. As the story goes, however, he robbed from the government and gave to the taxpayer--now that's a hero. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A personal obligation, yes. A national obligation, no.

[/ QUOTE ]
I for one refuse to acknowledge ANY obligation. Do I give to charity? The answer is yes, but NOT out of a sense of OBLIGATION. The problem with most people that feel this is an obligation is that they want to dump their own sense of obligation on me. Everone should be free to give as much or little as they choose of the money they earned through their own labor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was speaking for myself and no one else w/ regard to personal obligation.

[GWB]

I think we should tax the heck out of the rich folks (98% rate sounds good) and redistribute the wealth to all the people, especially those who just never quite got motivated to develop job skills (it wasn't their fault). No one should have to pay to heat their homes, to feed their cats, or to own a vehicle no older than 2 years old. This is basic human kindness, it is our obligation. From the people who make the money, to the people that have a need for money. That is my opinion.

Wait a second, that's what John Kerry wants... never mind.

[Utah]

Hi nicky,

I am glad we at least agree on the one of the basic issues - that economic equality is ideal but there are potentially tradeoffs. I think this provides a good basis for discussion as we can focus on the effects of those tradeoffs. Unfortunately, I am working 16 hour days so I dont have time to discuss it. Maybe we can pick it up in the future.

As to your question - there can be many reasons. I think that the size of the population, natural resources, % of working age, etc. However, I also think that economic and social policies have a huge effect. The question is how do you separate those things out. I would like to see the movement in wealth within countries as economic and social policies change as that might give you a better picture.

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
The definition of poor has nothing to do with whether you have an obligation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it does. Granted, it mainly would affect the degree of your obligation. "Poor" because you have several children and no child support is different than "poor" because you can't hold down a job, or just plain don't try to gain employment. Also, since this is a politics forum, politicians who talk about "helping the poor" or "favoring the rich" are not clear on who they plan to help. Their definition of poor and rich comes mainly from a statistical analysis of income, not common sense definitions.

[James Boston]

It sounds like he's saying that we can keep outsourcing to lower costs, as long as we're prepared to support those who lost their jobs...which I don't buy.

[Bez]

Shame your good mate Tony Blair taxes us English folk so damn much. Could you have a word with him about it next time you see him?

[cornell2005]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if a committment to welfare programs was not understood, then as a country we would not be able to use the highly successful free trade system that we all benefit from today

[/ QUOTE ]

On what basis do you make this assertion? What is the reasoning and evidence for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Free trade between countries has negative welfare impacts a select group of people, most notably the lower class. In a sense they are "exploited" by the free trade. A way to counter this is to impose tarrifs, in a sense "protecting" certain industrie and groups of people from the brutal competition worldwide. However, it can be shown (and is being taught in any international trade econ class) that if a country is concerned at all with the welfare of its lowest class, it is better off allowing free trade and funneling some of the financial benefits of this free trade back to the people that suffer from it, rather than enacting high tarriffs and restricting trade. It is also more optimal than allowing completely free trade, and doing so would not only be torture for a large group of people, it would harm the country's economy in the long run as well.

that is my poor attempt at an explanation. But it really is an accepted part of international trade theory and welfare theory. I am merely pointing out that people assume that if we didnt redistribute to the poor in terms of welfare policies, the middle and upper class would still maintain their current levels of comfort. Welfare decisions go far beyond personal issues and compassion. This is why it is no surprise that the most successful countries in the world are also some of the most progressive in terms of welfare.

Of course there is a level where further welfare giving is detrimental to the economy and society as a whole. For example if aid levels were too high and are not structured correctly, people will lose incentive and productivity will suffer, setting off a chain reaction of negative effects in the economy. Finding not only the optimal level of aid but the optimal distrubution system is a very very difficult task, and is something we are not close to reaching. However, if you look back at the last 100 years of welfare history in the US and the UK, you can see how far we have come and how utterly inefficient the systems used to be.

[MMMMMM]

Thank you for your attempt at explanation. Unfortunately it strikes me more as a series of assertions than a logically linked chain, and the fact that it is being taught in college classes does not especially impress me. Not your fault but I'd have to see more specific facts and the logic chain before I would believe all this.

[lastchance]

The way BK explained it, it is just a bunch of assertions, and if you want to learn more about it, which one probably should, I suppose you would need to take one of these trade classes.

Nice explanation/introduction, though, BK.

[cornell2005]

well if you want to read more about it pick up any international trade text book. there is no way i can "prove" the model to you off the top of my head but it is a pretty simple one. pure free trade = bad for many reasons. pure isolationism = bad for many reasons. the best solution is where you allow for free trade and compensate the "losers" with a portion of the extra profits gained from the free trade system. everyone is better off, from the lower class to the upper class.

[lastchance]

Mind recommending one to us? Hopefully we can find it, and it doesn't break our banks.

[ACPlayer]

They are teaching you well at Cornell.

It is absolutely correct that welfare benefits the rich as well as the poor at least upto some point.

Further the rich get their own welfare services in the form of, for example, police protection of their property from the poor in western societies. If you travel to third world countries you see the rich living behind barbed wires (Johannesburg was a good example) as there is no welfare to keep the poor minimally fed and so there is rampant petty crime which gets violent sometimes.

[tolbiny]

As i posted elsewere in this thread i believe that the OP phrased the question incorrectly. The social programs listed were originally intended to improve our society as a whole. Reducing the crime rate benefits everyone, better education leads to better paying jobs which leads to a higher tax base which (should) lead to lower taxes for everyone.
Better questions to be asked are how effective are these programs, are there better alternitives and so forth. When people stop looking at these programs as ways to "help the poor" and start looking at them as ways to build and strengthen a society as a whole then we will make more progress. (almost) Everyone should benefit in the long run from the majority of social programs, when that is the goal things ought to improve.

[ACPlayer]

When people stop looking at these programs as ways to "help the poor" and start looking at them as ways to build and strengthen a society as a whole then we will make more progress.

One of ther reasons for this is that the programs have been taken out of the community and moved to the federal level. If it were was the local community deciding to provide assistance to the needy there is likely to be more buy in.

I for one want to see less federal dollars and programs in the community. I also want to see less tax money going to the feds. I dont particularly mind the tax rate but want to keep the moeny in the community.

A side benefit of keeping the tax dollars local is to reduce the power in Washington, always a good thing.,

[tolbiny]

I agree totally, one of the major failings of NCLB (and there are many) is the continued localization of power for the government. I would perfer a system of "advisors" who would work with failing/at risk schools to develop plans unique to each situation, and a recomendation for more $ sepnd on them.

[cornell2005]

[ QUOTE ]
Mind recommending one to us? Hopefully we can find it, and it doesn't break our banks.

[/ QUOTE ]

hey. here are a couple resources that might be interesting.

to understand why free trade is beneficial to a nation's overall economy, you would have to read up on international trade theory. There are numerous really good books out there, and I would recommend the one by Markusen. This website also does a pretty good job at covering the bases: http://internationalecon.com/.

To learn how free trade impacts individual classes in a particular country, why a certain level of distribution will always make everyone better off, and what the different possible approaches to distribution are, this book is pretty good: http://titles.cambridge.org/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521497698.

A macroeconomics text it also useful to understand how little alterations in govermental policy can have huge consequences on the overall economic health of the country. I think people too often assume that a drastic change in a specific arena (i.e. welfare) will not have drastic effects on the rest of the economy.

[cornell2005]

[ QUOTE ]

Better questions to be asked are how effective are these programs, are there better alternitives and so forth. When people stop looking at these programs as ways to "help the poor" and start looking at them as ways to build and strengthen a society as a whole then we will make more progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good point.
IMO the best economic policy decisions rarely have to do with ideaology. It is the general public, and consequently the politicians, that loves to attach these policies to matters of things like "morals." Take for example the difference between the republicans and democrats with respect to tax structure. It just so happens that there is a legitamite divergence of opinion between economists on whether taxing the rich heavily hurts or helps an economy. This is a VERY complicated issue that at this point is impossible to resolve. But when the tax issue is presented to the public, politicians must of course "dumb it down" and appeal to our feelings of "right and wrong."

As a side point, I think the more educated you are about how economic decisions should be made, the less partisan you are with respect to economic policy. Even if a new peice of legislation could be proven to be a pareto improvement (make some better off while making noone worse off), it is fairly likely that an entire group would oppose it for idealogical/partisan reasons.