too rich?

[CapnAwesome]

Not as an adult, the council tax is a compulsary charge for an occupied house/flat and it pretty much costs over a grand anywhere in the country. A loaf of bread here costs about a £1 on average where a year or so ago it would have been about 60p, the same almost for everything. The only thing that seems to be coming down in price is tablet computers.

Under my scenario you aren't paying rent or living indoors. I don't pay rent. I live in my girlfriends mini-van. I did a little this summer when I was working but normally I try to avoid it. Most people just have no focus in their life, or their job is their focus, so they just go along with the system and get a job and live in an apartment and swallow up anti-depressants.

[Mister Agenda]

I'm not entirely sure of the Math that they are using for this article. If you taxed an extra 25% on the 240bn, you'd have 60 billion dollars. That is not even close to enough to end poverty. There are around 1.29 billion people living in extreme poverty. So you'd have around 50 extra dollars a year for all of them. In other words about 30 cents a day. That's with a 100% efficient distribution system, which obviously isn't possible. So I'm fairly baffled where they are getting their math from.

Also the old axiom of the rich getting richer and the poor getting isn't true. In fact the poor are getting richer as well, and huge numbers of people are coming out of extreme poverty.

http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/0...worldwide/

In the 'for what it's worth' department, extreme poverty has declined to under a billion over the last 20 years, primarily due to economic growth in China and India. 'Africa next' he says, crossing his fingers.

[Tiberius]

Or preferably taken by a government agency to help where it is really needed.

Charity by itself, does not really work.

Only when governments get involved does real change occur.

I disagree. Charity can make real change; there are a number of them out there today doing just that, and to dismiss them like you just did is quite frankly appalling. The problem with government is it often sets out to do the right thing, but gets distracted by bureaucracy and its own corruption, creating a flawed system which helps some people, whilst allowing others to just take advantage of it. Look at the welfare system in the UK; plenty of people are helped through it, yes, but plenty others now depend on it, and have no interest in finding work because it is easier (and sometimes more prosperous) to live off the state.

Not to mention the amount of money that just gets wasted and forgotten about. You see, governments don't tend to worry about the money they spend, because they know for a fact that they will get roughly the same amount each year...in fact it's written into law that they do. Charities on the other hand, do not have a guaranteed supply of income, and so much prove themselves in order to obtain it. A charity that does fuck all will not survive, simply because people won't be encouraged to donate to it. Soup kitchens and other charities which aid the poor are still open because they work.

In the victorian era there was the tradition of the rich people to give money to help the poor.
The result. The poor still starved and froze. Only when a real solution like unemployment benefit came in did the poor people have a relatively decent existence.

One can hardly compare the Victorian era with how things are today. Unemployment benefit is both a good and a bad thing. If you are down on your luck and actively seeking a job, it is a well deserved relief measure. If you are simply lazy or trying to game the system, it isn't solving the problem, but adding to one.

There isn't one perfect solution for all this. It's ridiculous to say that government is the answer when it has failed so much.

[jonb]

There is no perfect system, one can try to adapt a system to run more efficiently, But if a system has built into it parameters that cannot be altered then it is limited by those parameters.
Governmental delivery has a problem that it is controlled by the class who run it. As such any system under government control will always be more responsive to the needs and/or desires of the controllers than those who are superficially supposed to benefit from that system. But at least in a democracy those in control can be held a bit accountable.
A Charitable system is just as bad if not worse, because the limiting factor is not those in receipt of its help, but those giving. But those giving have no responsibility to those they give to as such, the problem with a reliance on charitable giving is that it may deliver for appealing causes like dogs for the blind, and ill kitties, but has no facility to deal with mass underemployment, or to those who could be said to be external to the community of those giving.
It is worth noting that almost every society has had a means of delivery of aid to those in need as central pillar of state. It could be argued that some of these systems were very inefficient, but not that they were not there.

[downbeatplumb]

I disagree. Charity can make real change; there are a number of them out there today doing just that, and to dismiss them like you just did is quite frankly appalling.

Don't get me wrong there are some charities that do good work. I have a direct debit to oxfam and have a soft spot for medicine sans frontier. But many charities are set up in competition with each other and many are just there so that people have an excuse to leap out of a plane. But for REAL change to occur you need the intervention at a governmental level be it legislation or benefits.

The problem with government is it often sets out to do the right thing, but gets distracted by bureaucracy and its own corruption, creating a flawed system which helps some people, whilst allowing others to just take advantage of it. Look at the welfare system in the UK; plenty of people are helped through it, yes, but plenty others now depend on it, and have no interest in finding work because it is easier (and sometimes more prosperous) to live off the state.

That some people misuse it is not a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. The process might need improvement but it is madness to suggest that charities would somehow do it better and laughably suggest that they would be less corrupt.
Charities would use their own agendas and prejudices.

Not to mention the amount of money that just gets wasted and forgotten about. You see, governments don't tend to worry about the money they spend, because they know for a fact that they will get roughly the same amount each year...in fact it's written into law that they do.

I work for the government, what you have written is so incorrect that I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Government departments spending is very tightly controlled. My department has been told to reduce staffing by 20% to reduce spending and our pay has been frozen this year and will not rise by more than 1% the next two.

Charities on the other hand, do not have a guaranteed supply of income, and so much prove themselves in order to obtain it. A charity that does fuck all will not survive, simply because people won't be encouraged to donate to it. Soup kitchens and other charities which aid the poor are still open because they work.

And I lament the need for soup kitchens in a country like the UK our safety net should be the government.

In the victorian era there was the tradition of the rich people to give money to help the poor.
The result. The poor still starved and froze. Only when a real solution like unemployment benefit came in did the poor people have a relatively decent existence.

One can hardly compare the Victorian era with how things are today. Unemployment benefit is both a good and a bad thing. If you are down on your luck and actively seeking a job, it is a well deserved relief measure. If you are simply lazy or trying to game the system, it isn't solving the problem, but adding to one.
[/quote]

The "charitable" solution was tried and failed harder.

There isn't one perfect solution for all this. It's ridiculous to say that government is the answer when it has failed so much.

I maintain that only government intervention solves problems in the long term. Charities can offer band aid solutions but ultimatly come short because they don't have the resources or influence of a government.