poverty

[Idaho]

Your question assumes that we should give something for people to overcome poverty, when what we really need to do is stop taking and making ourselves richer. Our wealth is the product of people's poverty.

[The Stranger]

Your question assumes that we should give something for people to overcome poverty, when what we really need to do is stop taking and making ourselves richer. Our wealth is the product of people's poverty.

No it doesnt, i'm not asking for solutions, just asking if we have an obligation. And if it is established that we do have that obligation then we can discuss how best to fullfill it. Whether that is by stop getting richer or making other people richer that is for then for that discussion. (although i do agree with you, we can only be as rich in the west because other people are as poor somewhere else)

[rory_20_uk]

I'd go with no.

Enlightened self interest is the best place to start. Sure, it doesn't work in all cases, but it is a good place to start.

[HoreTore]

I'd go with no.

Enlightened self interest is the best place to start. Sure, it doesn't work in all cases, but it is a good place to start.

And as it is in our own self-interest to get people out of poverty, we should.

The richer they become, the richer we become.

[rory_20_uk]

And as it is in our own self-interest to get people out of poverty, we should.

The richer they become, the richer we become.

Based upon what exactly?

[Vladimir]

Based upon what exactly?

Ideology.

[Papewaio]

Define: Poverty
Define: not-poverty
Define: middle class, rich and wealthy.

Then you can debate the morality once you are in agreement of the definitions.

For starters are we debating absolute or relative poverty. Is that inter or intra country relative poverty.

In short your question needs to decide is it an African or European Swallow.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Based upon what exactly?

Well once people get to have a little disposable income and surplus time to kill all sorts of profitable avenues open up. You can't have much of an economy if nobody can afford to spend time to figure it out.

Ideology.

Not really, if for no other reason that poverty creates its own specific kind of problems which tend to come at a cost for a wider society. (I.e. the cost of extreme poverty in Africa is millions of immigrants for some regions and an active slave trade in the world...)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As a Catholic, I believe that I have a moral obligation to help others in need. Scripture suggests this, and I view such good works as an expression of faith.

I personally prefer to focus most of my charitable efforts locally -- it is good for myself and my children to help out others in our own region (and the reminder that other's have it worse than I and that I should be thankful isn't a bad thing to remember either).

I disagree more or less completely with the means suggested explicitly above by Horetore and implicitly by Idaho.



There are approximately 114,500,000 households in the USA; with a total wealth of roughly $58 trillion. By household that would be a robust average of a little over $506k.

Per person, however, that's $186,500 or so. Such a per person nest egg would generate an annuitized income of 17,471.09 per person per annum from age 62 to 87 presuming an 8% return on the principal during the annuity payout. This is sufficient for one person to survive at about the 19th income percentile.

Full wealth distribution should allow everyone to subsist at a lifestyle equivalent to the highest rungs of the lower class/lowest rungs of the middle class by current definitions.

These numbers are, of course, for the relatively wealthy United States. Figures such as these would vary around the world, as would the poverty "line."