You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: On Poverty, Gentrification, Addiction, & Homelessness

in #politics7 years ago

Don't go around justifying your lack of charity as if not giving money to homeless people is morally superior.

Giving money to people does not make you morally superior either.

1- The issue of universal basic income

As you may know, I have already discussed this issue with you, and I was rethinking the matter. Why not provide unemployment insurance and fulfill the role of universal basic income? in this way the minimum wage is eliminated, and then companies must pay a better salary if they decide to hire them.

2-The issue of land tax

This point also I think I have dealt with you. What makes you believe that the land sellers did not charge the buyer of the land tax to insure their profit? In any case, would it not increase the costs of those people who are using the land productively?

3-Poverty

There are many poor people who deserve to be poor, and there are many rich people who do not deserve to be rich. Most of the rich do not deserve to be, and most of the poor deserve to be, but the world is not fair, and redistributing wealth will not make it more fair. I have been at the bottom of the social ladder, I have seen how many people benefited from social medicine programs, direct income, education among many others, and anyway, all that is achieved is that they become dependent on that assistance Social.

Sort:  

"Giving money to people does not make you morally superior either."
Maybe not in certain instances, but generally it does. Minimizing suffering is the good. If you give a poor person some money and alleviate their suffering a little, that's morally superior to turning your back and refusing to help them. There might be cases where you can't afford to help, so you have an excuse, or whatever, but that's the exception.

"redistributing wealth will not make it more fair"
Actually, yes it will...by definition.

"What makes you believe that the land sellers did not charge the buyer of the land tax to insure their profit?"
Under land value tax, proprietors/sellers can't just raise the price in order to ensure their profits. If they raise the price, the taxes also go up. Higher land prices equals higher taxes, so it incentivizes people to sell the land for less.

Giving money is sometimes worse than turning your back on those people., the easiest thing is to give money and forget about them, give money will not solve the problem, the problem is that they are in a condition of poverty, that is what you have to change, how ? creating wealth, those same poor people that you give a few dollars to, then they go to a commercial and they buy anything and you know something? they probably end up buying something at a price higher than what it should cost, simply because the government has a tax on that product, just as it devours money with inflation, the best way to help someone is to make that person productive, Give him a job or create a system so they can get one. The State must lower taxes to increase the purchasing power of people, and so they will no longer have to live on paycheck-to-paycheck, taxes are currently paid to maintain the welfare state that does not work, and to pay an illegitimately contracted debt by the State, which keeps the bankers gaining fortunes and enslaving the people.

They would still live better with having much more money and a bit higher cost of goods compared to basically not having money at all. Just giving them money is naturally not enough, but it's still better than leaving people to starve, suffer, or die.

Ideally, we need to create a system that ensures that everyone has a stable footing in the world, where everyone could be secure enough economically/physically/free-time wise/psychologically/educationally, that they could participate in giving back to the society through the various type of labors that society truly needs.

We also need to make sure that the money doesn't accumulate in a way that it ends up just traded between a few powerful organizations/individuals that control society at large because that would be feudalism all over again, where the general economy either stagnate or people are severely exploited... as the few own the world that others have to pay a fortune to live in.

Basic income is a good step towards a more productive and happier society, as evidenced by the results from basic income pilots around the world:

"The experience of this Namibian project fed into the preparatory work for two basic income pilots in India in Madhya Pradesh, one of the worst performing states on socio-economic indicators. In partnership with UNICEF, researchers distributed unconditional monthly payments of an amount just above the official poverty line to over 6000 individuals over 18 months. Results – in comparison with a ‘control’ group of 6000 other individuals who received no such income – were evaluated through modified Random Control Trial (RCT) methodology via three rounds of statistical surveys and case studies. By the end of the pilots, households receiving basic income were found to have significantly lower indebtedness (14% of BI households had reduced debt compared to only 3% of ‘control’ households), higher food sufficiency (up from 50% to 82%), lower incidence of common illnesses (attributed to varied reasons, from regular medical attention to improved diets, reduced anxiety, improved sanitation facilities) and better schooling indicators. Income grants were also associated with an improvement in children’s weight-for-age, especially among young girls. Contrary to commonly held fears, cash grants were associated with an increase in labour and work, especially own-account work." ~ Amiya Sharma - Can Basic Income Work? Evidence from around the world