Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Gaza assault
by zeca
November 27, 2024, 07:13 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM

New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM

Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Charity or Welfare?

 (Read 4236 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Charity or Welfare?
     OP - August 31, 2011, 06:45 PM

    Charity - donating money on your whim to the needy

    Welfare- ensuring needy are cared for.

    (these are my definition for now...)

    Discuss

    Little Fly, Thy summer's play
    My thoughtless hand has brushed away.

    I too dance and drink, and sing,
    Till some blind hand shall brush my wing.

    Therefore I am a happy fly,
    If I live or if I die.
  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #1 - August 31, 2011, 06:58 PM

    They're not mutually exclusive.
  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #2 - August 31, 2011, 07:07 PM

    Charity - donating to the needy usually by individuals, social or religious groups.

    Welfare - governmental support of the needy

  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #3 - August 31, 2011, 07:09 PM

    Thanks azure that is what had in my mind...

    Little Fly, Thy summer's play
    My thoughtless hand has brushed away.

    I too dance and drink, and sing,
    Till some blind hand shall brush my wing.

    Therefore I am a happy fly,
    If I live or if I die.
  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #4 - August 31, 2011, 07:55 PM

    Charity- someone doing you a favour by helping for which you should be grateful
    Welfare- Your right

    People forget that welfare is a form of charity. The government is not giving the money, they are distributing the money of tax payers. The tax payers are giving the welfare and it's fine, I like supporting people who are down on their luck, need a hand, etc but welfare IS NOT a right, it's a favour that you should be grateful for and something to fall back on, not a lifestyle choice!
  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #5 - August 31, 2011, 08:10 PM

    Welfare is a right. We live in a society, we have an obligation to help others. If you don't want to give to welfare, go be a hermit.
  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #6 - August 31, 2011, 08:15 PM

    You ignored that I said I agree with welfare to halp those who are in a bad place- those who are unexpectedly unemplyed/really can't find work, children, people with disabilities.

    I disagree that welfare is a life choice. In the UK there are many who lie and cheat, live on welfare even though they're able! My sis worked for the council and she told me how these assholes got welfare but a severely (mentally) disabled guy wouldn't becasue he could do things like pick up a pen, ignoring the fact that his severe autism or whatever made it nigh on impossible for him to work.

    The welafre system is a humane system of charity to help people when they can't help themselves, It is not a right

    And hermit? I am a hermit- I live in the country with sheep as my neighbours. I'm self emplyed and FYI my partner and I pay 40-50% of our income in tax so  Tongue
  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #7 - August 31, 2011, 10:40 PM

    Who was it that said charity is an evil because it's effectively buying the 'right' not to care about the underlying issues which cause the problem in the first place (to put it bluntly)?
  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #8 - August 31, 2011, 10:52 PM

    Who was it that said charity is an evil because it's effectively buying the 'right' not to care about the underlying issues which cause the problem in the first place (to put it bluntly)?


    I always felt the same as that to some extent.
    alot of charity seems to be 1 part admirable and 1 part nonsensical to equal extents.

    To take Africa for example:
    Feed 1 woman and 1 man = Admirable
    However
    1 woman and 1 man then have 3 children
    = more people need to be fed.

    As admirable as it is to feed people, it doesn't deal with the issues as to why people are starving and often increases it significantly with every passing generation.

    It always angers me when I see the commercials for dying children in Africa, the cameras always on the child but never on the irresponsible parent that had them knowing they would end up in that situation.
    Its not too dissimilar to sitting back for hours and watching a tower collapse, only then to try and salvage some of the people it landed on.
  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #9 - August 31, 2011, 11:06 PM

    Charity- someone doing you a favour by helping for which you should be grateful
    Welfare- Your right

    People forget that welfare is a form of charity. The government is not giving the money, they are distributing the money of tax payers. The tax payers are giving the welfare and it's fine, I like supporting people who are down on their luck, need a hand, etc but welfare IS NOT a right, it's a favour that you should be grateful for and something to fall back on, not a lifestyle choice!


    Welfare is a right. We live in a society, we have an obligation to help others. If you don't want to give to welfare, go be a hermit.


    Welfare is neither a favor or a right-- it is a public good and when administered properly a small measure of social justice.

    Specifically as to it being a "favor"-- I've been working for the last two decades of my life having my labor exploited by the ruling class (though thankfully not for the last several years of those two decades as I now work for a labor union) and being forced to pay taxes into programs that mostly benefit that ruling class, if tomorrow I find myself out of a job, I'm supposed to consider it a fuckin favor that the same government that has been bleeding me dry to benefit the capitalists and other members of the ruling class is taking a very small portion of tax money from the capitalists who have gotten rich by exploiting me and millions of other working people? Um, no-- fuck that. If I was paid the value of my full labor power in every job I ever had and I never paid taxes then it would be a favor. But those things are true for very, very few people.

    fuck you
  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #10 - September 01, 2011, 12:55 AM

    I like the way you put that colonel but, again, I must point out that I fully support welfare for those who deserve it.

    People who work, pay taxes and then lose their job- not a favour
    People unable to work due to ill health, disability- not a favour
    People who can't be bothered to work- not charity or a favour, more akin to THEFT!

    I'm not villifying people who take welfare. I fully support the system that we all take care of each other. Unfortunately a large number of people in this country (UK) believe that getting free money is their right, why should they work? SO many sit on their asses having babies to get more money and are snobs towards working. They don't want to do this or that as it's beneath them. While I am able physically and mentally I will work or at least try hard to get a job if none are available. I will take welfare only as a last resort, which is what it's there for. I would even clean toilets for a living (which I have done!) rather than be too proud to do honest work and instead sit at home and moan and take money from a system that's not designed to sooth my ego!

    Also, please explain how the taxes help the ruling classes mostly- I'm not being facetious, I honestly am clueless about this sort of thing. What is the 'ruling class'? In my experience I've found that people hate 'rich' people, those who earn over a certain amount. The general population think the rich should be taxed more but I fail to see how this would help OR be fair. Over a certain income the tax is 50%! Large companies have to do all sorts to avoid these huge taxes. Can you imagine paying 50% tax? That's not fair. That means for every 1 hour you work you're working another hour for other people. This is unfair. I work my ass off to get what I have, as does my partner.. Why should we be the villains cos we don't want to pay so much tax that we are effectively better off NOT working our asses off? As for large corporations, if they paid the tax they should they would lose half a mill for every mill they make, this isn't fair and is a sure fire way to halt progress!

    The government would probably get more money through taxes if it reduced the taxes of the rich instead of increasing them to make them look like they're on the side of the 'working class'- this reduction should be accompanied by a zero loop hole policy. This way, even if the tax for the rich was 10% the rich would be OK with it and the government would get money. As it stands, the huge tax just means the rich/high earners have to loop hole to prevent paying the large amount of taxes.

    Correct me if I'm wrong- as I said I'm not v. knowledgable on this sort of thing
  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #11 - September 01, 2011, 05:58 AM

    Daffi i did not believe you had it in you! - social justice i think i like that.

    Little Fly, Thy summer's play
    My thoughtless hand has brushed away.

    I too dance and drink, and sing,
    Till some blind hand shall brush my wing.

    Therefore I am a happy fly,
    If I live or if I die.
  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #12 - September 01, 2011, 06:15 AM

    money doesn't make sense tbh....it's like an 'iou' paper being passed around.

    Physical possessions is the good stuff....then a gain without....


    hmmm,....this money system is needed to keep society in line maybe...just a social control system

    "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor E. Frankl

    'Life is just the extreme expression of complex chemistry' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #13 - September 01, 2011, 02:09 PM

    Also, please explain how the taxes help the ruling classes mostly- I'm not being facetious, I honestly am clueless about this sort of thing. What is the 'ruling class'?


    1. Ruling class = (a) the people who control capital, (b) the political class that operates in their interests.

    2. A large amount of taxes go to supporting your military which is used to secure the interests of the capitalists globally by ensuring the superexploitation of Third World labor and natural resources-- the military-industrial complex (military contractors, etc) also profits from this. Taxes also go to supporting laws (particularly those limiting strike activity) designed to protect the property interests of the wealthy. And a large portion of taxes goes to financing the police, unjust drug laws, prisons, and other forms of social control used sometimes legitimately but often to keep the lower classes in line.

    Quote
    In my experience I've found that people hate 'rich' people, those who earn over a certain amount.


     eusa_boohoo

    Quote
    The general population think the rich should be taxed more but I fail to see how this would help OR be fair.


    Then they are right and you are wrong.

    Quote
    Over a certain income the tax is 50%! Large companies have to do all sorts to avoid these huge taxes.


    Well I don't know how it works in your country, but in mine, large corporations have all kinds of tricks for avoiding taxes-- some of the largest manage to rake in billions in profits without paying hardly any taxes on their earnings. General Electric for example.

    Quote
    Can you imagine paying 50% tax?


    No, but then again I don't earn a lot.

    Quote
    That's not fair. That means for every 1 hour you work you're working another hour for other people. This is unfair. I work my ass off to get what I have, as does my partner..


    I don't know what your particular income situation is but your definition of "fair" seems subjective at best and arbitrary at worst.
    Quote
    Why should we be the villains cos we don't want to pay so much tax that we are effectively better off NOT working our asses off?


    You certain you'd earn more on welfare than you do now?

    Quote
    As for large corporations, if they paid the tax they should they would lose half a mill for every mill they make, this isn't fair


    Why isn't it fair? Please explain to me why I should feel sorry for a large corporation who's sole purpose is to create profit and will do absolutely anything to that end, including--

    a) Paying their employees the bare minimum they can while working them as hard as possible to ensure "high productivity"
    b) Frustrating the efforts of their employees to organize to demand better pay, benefits, working conditions and fair treatment, using everything from lies and intimidation to outright violence
    c) Encouraging invasions, civil wars, government corruption, and coups in other countries to assure their interests and access to cheap natural resources and cheap labor is protected
    d) Manipulating the political process in their own countries by pouring billions into political campaigns to ensure their cronies get elected
    e) Routinely ignoring the health and safety of their employees in the interest of profit
    f) Routinely polluting and poisoning entire communities

    Quote
    and is a sure fire way to halt progress!


    The common refrain of the capitalist and free-marketeer. What progress are you talking about?

    Quote
    The government would probably get more money through taxes if it reduced the taxes of the rich instead of increasing them to make them look like they're on the side of the 'working class'-


    See above.

    Quote
    this reduction should be accompanied by a zero loop hole policy. This way, even if the tax for the rich was 10% the rich would be OK with it and the government would get money. As it stands, the huge tax just means the rich/high earners have to loop hole to prevent paying the large amount of taxes.


    Uh-huh, and why not have a zero loop-hole policy anyways?

    fuck you
  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #14 - September 01, 2011, 02:21 PM

    The notion of poor people manipulating the welfare system to avoid work is by and large a right-wing myth. Sure there are some people who do it, but it pales in comparison to the manipulation by the rich financiers. And if you're really interested in poor people not manipulating the system, how about increasing minimum wages? That would be an "incentive" (the word capitalists love throwing around).

    And the only people who have to pay 50% in taxes are those who make over £150,000. Not even the highest paid, most experienced doctor makes that much (link). So you really have to wonder how someone can make over £150,000 a year through their own labour.
  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #15 - September 01, 2011, 02:27 PM

    The notion of poor people manipulating the welfare system to avoid work is by and large a right-wing myth. Sure there are some people who do it, but it pales in comparison to the manipulation by the rich financiers.


    Well, I've actually personally known some straight-up welfare cheats in my time, but it's worth noting that at least in the United States that welfare fraud is rampant primarily due to the fact that welfare doesn't pay enough so recipients need to find some other form of income-- there was a pretty exhaustive study of Cook County (Chicago-area) welfare recipients that led to that conclusion.

    And if you're really interested in poor people not manipulating the system, how about increasing minimum wages? That would be an "incentive" (the word capitalists love throwing around).


    Excellent point, and I notice that those who bitch about welfare cheats the most NEVER raise it.

    fuck you
  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #16 - September 01, 2011, 08:45 PM

    And the only people who have to pay 50% in taxes are those who make over £150,000. Not even the highest paid, most experienced doctor makes that much (link). So you really have to wonder how someone can make over £150,000 a year through their own labour.


    My partner and I do ( Tongue) and through our own hard work, not through exploitation. We both work all day, every day. I can't remember the last time I had a day to myself! The only free time I have I'm usually online on this forum (it's my hobby  grin12 )
    Why is it impossible that a person can earn through their own labour? You disagree that a person has staff? My bf has staff in a way (he's a property developer so he has people developing property)- pays well too for a good job. His business provides jobs for others. I work as a writer so in a way I don't have staff, but in a way I do since I write film scripts so the labour in this case would be the studio and actors, you think it's wrong of me to do this? I don't know where you're coming from? How is a person going to make money without the work of others? Entrepreneurship is a skill that rewards the possessor. To villify a business person for having staff, earning millions and paying the staff minimum wage is as foolish as villyfying more intelligent/educated people for getting higher pay. Why should a doctor get more than a till operator when they work the same hours? This sort of thinking is foolish

    Neither my partner or I were born with money. We both work hard to acquire it. My partner in particular has worked many years tirelessly, taken great risks, etc. Good for him that he's succeeded. Why is this a bad thing? Some people scrape by and never try, but there are some who strive to succeed. I'm intelligent but I never achieved my true potential in academics, but I've met people who are less intelligent than me who have far exceeded me due to hard work, diligence and sacrifices of their free time and fun. Should I hate them for getting a 1st class honours degree? No, good for them. It's good when people work hard- why work hard? To get more. My dad worked as a bus driver all his life working over 60 hours a week, my mum worked too really hard- they sacrificed a lot and managaged to buy a great house and pay the mortgage off really quick- my family hate my mum for this because they're jealous esp. since my mum didn't crumble after my dad's death and lose everything. Why do people hate it when others do well? This is one quality I don't have thankfully- when someone's beautiful, talented, intelligent etc I feel pleased for them.
  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #17 - September 02, 2011, 01:36 AM

    My bf has staff in a way (he's a property developer so he has people developing property)- pays well too for a good job. His business provides jobs for others.


    Property developers make money by exploiting the labor of others.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#Exploitation

    Quote
    I work as a writer so in a way I don't have staff, but in a way I do since I write film scripts so the labour in this case would be the studio and actors, you think it's wrong of me to do this?


    You are not an employer, capitalist or manager of capital/labor-- you are an independent contractor who is paid solely for their intellectual labor. Your bf, however, is not-- he is an exploiter of labor.

    Quote
    To villify a business person for having staff, earning millions and paying the staff minimum wage is as foolish as villyfying more intelligent/educated people for getting higher pay.


    Nope. Making millions by exploiting cheap labor is not the same as making more money due to higher skill level.

    Quote
    Neither my partner or I were born with money. We both work hard to acquire it.


    Same goes for John Rockefeller

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

    And Andrew Carnegie

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike

    Bully for you. That you weren't born with money does not mean you aren't willing to harm others to get wealth or retain it. It's not really a moral judgment either way.

    fuck you
  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #18 - September 02, 2011, 01:40 AM

    Your staff's labour is not yours, sorry. Whether you worked hard to climb the ladder or not doesn't make it just. My father has this middle class mentality where he keeps telling me to aim high to climb the social ladder. Fuck that. I don't have the amorality in me to be an employer.
  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #19 - September 02, 2011, 06:44 PM

    How do property developers exploit labour? FYI my bf buys a property, then with solicitors etc for the most part he is involved with splitting the property, acquiring the planning permission etc and selling the seperated buildings. Who does he exploit? He shouldn't hire a solicitor or accountant or architect or surveyor? If there was no boss there would be no jobs- you guys are just moaning against 'the man' cos you can't accept others having more than you- you jealously apply some loose ideas to making money that make no sense and are only there to appease you!

    To be an employer is wrong? This isn't India/china- there are no children working, minimum wage is adhered to. People are paid what people will accept. You can't pay a solicitor minimum wage cos they wouldn't accept it, you would never find a solicitor for min wage/hour. Why can you find a cashier/cleaner/etc for minimum wage? No education or special skills= saturated field

    TO employ people is wrong?  Cheesy WTF are you talking about? that's so thick. Maybe they shouldn't be employed, they should all be made partners with you and each partner (inc you) should split the profit equally... there's a word for this- communism

    Foolish ideas/thoughts from jealous underachievers

    P.S I also have a business so I do hire staff  Roll Eyes
  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #20 - September 02, 2011, 09:17 PM

    How do property developers exploit labour? FYI my bf buys a property, then with solicitors etc for the most part he is involved with splitting the property, acquiring the planning permission etc and selling the seperated buildings. Who does he exploit? He shouldn't hire a solicitor or accountant or architect or surveyor?


    Property developers are parasites who produce no value of their own but rather make money by artificially manipulating the price of a natural commodity (land) and leech off the labor of others (construction companies, etc). Like financiers they are the worst kind of capitalists because they don't create any real value themselves and have very little role in production other than being a middleman/trader.

    Also they tend to artificially inflate the value of property and push working people out of communities, and destroy local businesses. I've seen entire neighborhoods in Boston and New York destroyed by property developers-- local businesses gone to make way for high-end condos or upscale corporate chains. Working-class people priced out of their own communities, the independent character of the neighborhood destroyed. For what? A place for yuppie drones to play and shop?

    Quote
    If there was no boss there would be no jobs


    Yeah, never heard that fallacy before.

    Quote
    To be an employer is wrong?


    Who said that?

    Quote
    This isn't India/china- there are no children working, minimum wage is adhered to.


    Uh-huh, and why do you think that is? Your answer to this question will be very telling of your level of knowledge on this topic.

    Quote
    People are paid what people will accept.


    And what they have the ability to demand.

    Quote
    TO employ people is wrong? 


    Who said that?

    Quote
    WTF are you talking about? that's so thick.


    WTF are YOU talking about? Who said employing people is wrong? I said it was exploiting labor.

    Quote
    Maybe they shouldn't be employed, they should all be made partners with you and each partner (inc you) should split the profit equally... there's a word for this- communism


    And what's wrong with that?

    Quote
    you guys are just moaning against 'the man' cos you can't accept others having more than you- you jealously apply some loose ideas to making money that make no sense and are only there to appease you!


    Quote
    Foolish ideas/thoughts from jealous underachievers


    You have no idea why I have the opinions I do, and my personal reasons for them are entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Same goes for Abood. And as far as your assumptions about me are concerned, apparently conjured up by you as the only possible explanation for why someone could disagree with you on this topic, well...fuck you.

    fuck you
  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #21 - September 02, 2011, 09:30 PM

    Now it's getting personal 'cause she's offended. Cute.
  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #22 - September 02, 2011, 09:32 PM

    Charity - donating money on your whim to the needy

    Welfare- ensuring needy are cared for.

    (these are my definition for now...)

    Discuss

    What do you expect people to use in the discussion? What have YOU used to determine the differences between the two? Not the Ph— word by any chance…
  • Re: Charity or Welfare?
     Reply #23 - September 03, 2011, 07:00 PM

    I'm not offended- as i mentioned before I don't know much about all this stuff. All I have is loosely formed opinions. I never claimed to possess the truth or facts. I'm telling you what I think, that's all. I'm also telling you that to judge all people is flawed. To say all property developers... is wrong because there are many types. As far as I know my bf does none of the things mentioned. He buys farms with outbuildings, then splits them and sells them individually for homes or holiday homes, sometimes he doesn't develop them at all and leaves this for the new owners, sometimes he does develop them (barn conversions)- how is this bad/exploiting? Anybody can do this if they have the capital. When my bf started he had nothing, he borrowed from bank, bought crappy houses and let them out, then moved up by making money and using it to buy more, sell more etc.

    How is this wrong> This is how business works- when you bulk buy it's cheaper- many companies function by bulk buy then splitting to smaller portions, adding a bit on and selling to individuals in small amounts. I don't understand how/why this is wrong and who this damages. If I sell you 1000 units for £200 each you will sell them individually to consumers for "£250 each- this is wrong? If it is then any shop is wrong, any business is wrong. To buy a property for a million, split it to 5 houses/properties, then sell each house for £250, 000 is wrong? I honestly don't see your point

    Finally, I don't understand why people get so emotional in these sorts of discussions or accuse the other of emotions/feelings which are not present. I'm not bothered in the slightest what your ideas are. In fact, I'm on the fence about a lot of things because I don't research every single thing in the world ever. Many of my ideas are loose and not firmly set so if a person discusses with me and makes sense, shows logical reasons why they're right then I'll change my view to theirs until another may come along and show it's wrong. THis is the way I am so be factual, be logical and don't get emotional. If you make sense that is undeniable then I'll say you're right, otherwise I will disagree.
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »