Giving to the poor is good?....right?

[Asder Miller The Second]

Me and my friend were having a conversation about socialism and its pros and cons,this resulted in us talking about my current money situation which i will not describe here, what i can say that is revelvent to this conversation i will say

My parents spend frivolously, there religious and they like to do good things! Great! thats good for some, were low on money and they decided we should go to give out meals to homeless people, we will pay 75$ each for 3 of us, then spend 3 hours passing out meals, so about 100$ each if u think about it

Me and my friend talked more, i said that my parents are retarded, why spend money for others when you cant even take care of yourself, Makes sense right? why would you, my friend came back with "i know u dont like to be a good person Tristan" i said well you should take care of yourself before others,besides most of those homeless people are in the situation themselves

This conversation means a lot more to what it sounds like, you should not worry about others, worry about yourself, while it sounds selfish it makes sense,in this world its a every man for himself situation, and at the end of the convo he said "Ya know you make sense" while its never good to enforce your thoughts on someone, it feels good to persuade someone to your point of view, as long as its rightfull and they ACTUALLY agree

[brainiac3397]

Its a question of personal preference. I have no qualms of giving money when I WANT to give it. If I arbitrarily feel like giving a homeless man a hundred dollar bill, I will. If I decide to give a tip thats more than how much my table spent(when with friends), I will. Im not from a rich family, so I know giving money just takes whatever we might have left. However, I find it personally satisfying and thus consider it worthwhile. The money is mine and I shall spend as I want.

Its just a quirk of mine. I dont always donate, because I dont feel a need to and feel forced by society to. Many people however do, not because it satisfies them but because they believe they must. The only times I NEED to donate is religious purposes but those are few and far apart(and not that expensive, so it isnt exactly something that bothers me. And if I feel in a giving mood, even better)

[Ky]

Charity is giving money to those less fortunate.

Socialism is picking a rich person's pocket and handing the money to the first person who asks for it.

[brainiac3397]

I was a socialist once...

[Asder Miller The Second]

Socialism is taking the money from overly rich bastards from sports players for example and giving it to familys like me who can barely scrape up 25k a year

[Ky]

(11-19-2013 08:12 AM)CyricDamascus Wrote:  Socialism is taking the money from overly rich bastards from sports players for example and giving it to familys like me who can barely scrape up 25k a year

Yet just as often it takes the money from CEO's and investors and gives it to people who choose not to work. This is not always the case, but the same can be said for your argument.

My main problem with socialism is that it completely deincentivizes hard work. When the prices are fixed and the wages are equal, what reason is there to go above and beyond?

[brainiac3397]

None. But if they dont care about going beyond, life is great for them.

[Asder Miller The Second]

I agree on that DoA also with brainiac

[James Comey]

(11-19-2013 09:01 AM)DoA Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 08:12 AM)CyricDamascus Wrote:  Socialism is taking the money from overly rich bastards from sports players for example and giving it to familys like me who can barely scrape up 25k a year

Yet just as often it takes the money from CEO's and investors and gives it to people who choose not to work.

That final statement, "people who choose not to work", is inaccurate. I'm not sure where you are getting this from, DoA, but a majority of welfare benefits (91%) go to elderly, disabled, or working households.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677
(Though, to be fair, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that statement)

I think that the whole "equal income for everyone" brings up somewhat of a human morality issue. We could take away money from someone who is snobbish and doesn't want to work themselves because they've been so brought up highly and give that to a poor working family. However, I myself am not too high on income redistribution as well. There are better alternatives, like, you know, changing the education system.

[Ky]

(11-20-2013 09:57 AM)Hansgrohe Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 09:01 AM)DoA Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 08:12 AM)CyricDamascus Wrote:  Socialism is taking the money from overly rich bastards from sports players for example and giving it to familys like me who can barely scrape up 25k a year

Yet just as often it takes the money from CEO's and investors and gives it to people who choose not to work.

That final statement, "people who choose not to work", is inaccurate. I'm not sure where you are getting this from, DoA, but a majority of welfare benefits (91%) go to elderly, disabled, or working households.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677
(Though, to be fair, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that statement)

I think that the whole "equal income for everyone" brings up somewhat of a human morality issue. We could take away money from someone who is snobbish and doesn't want to work themselves because they've been so brought up highly and give that to a poor working family. However, I myself am not too high on income redistribution as well. There are better alternatives, like, you know, changing the education system.

I was referring to socialism, not welfare. I'm well aware that most welfare benefits are well-placed (though some forms are more abused than others, for instance food stamps).

Redistributing income achieves a temporary result at a negative outcome. Redistributing information, on the other hand, can give the lower class the leverage they need to escape a destiny of poverty.

[Sunbourn]

(11-19-2013 08:12 AM)CyricDamascus Wrote:  Socialism is taking the money from overly rich bastards from sports players for example and giving it to familys like me who can barely scrape up 25k a year

Socialism is, to put it bluntly but accurately, organized theft. What they receive is theirs to keep and spend as they see fit. Charity is one thing, but when everybody is forced to give to others it is no longer charity as the threat of force is used to separate people from their money.

Not only that, but socialism isn't sustainable. What will happen when there is nothing left to distribute? Resources are finite, and when incentive is taken away they will become all the more precious. You're a lot better off with the 25k a year than you would be in a socialist society. I live the same way, as my household earns a mere 30k a year while my dad, a dialysis patient, busts his ass running his tire business. We are responsible for our own income and will not be accepting money stolen from others.

[brainiac3397]

Id accept money stolen from others, especially if its legal.

[Smudge]

Lol people living in a dying capitalist society saying socialism isn't sustainable.

[brainiac3397]

Looks like the commies won after all.