Why are the poor, poor?

[Shakesthecoffecan]

(I'm sorry I am more of a smart ass than usual today)

Because they don't have money?

 

[Jeff Wrangler]

(I'm sorry I am more of a smart ass than usual today)

Because they don't have money?

 

Sorta like why what's-his-name robbed banks? 'Cause that's where the money is? 

[serious crayons]

I notice that a lot of people who criticize the poor and say they should work harder and be more responsible seem to assume that middle- and upper-class people are where they are because they work hard and are responsible. The fact is, many middle- and upper-middle class people are there for the same reason the poor are: because that's where they were born. And middle- and upper-middle-class lives come with privileges we often don't notice.

Take me, for example. Both my parents majored in journalism and became advertising writers. My grandfather was the editor of a medium-sized newspaper. So I became ... a writer! Based on a journalism degree ... that my dad paid for!

I grew up in a nice safe pleasant neighborhood, ate reasonably healthy food, was raised by college-educated parents who weren't unduly stressed, had free time to care for me, could afford to take me on trips and buy me books and art supplies. I attended some of the country's best public schools, was expected to go on to college and get a good job because ... well, because in my family and my community that's just what you did.

There was also room for error. In high school, a nearby teen clinic dispensed birth control to girls my age. We got there by driving there in our parents' cars that they let us use. Some girls got pregnant anyway, but I don't remember anyone in high school carrying a baby to term. They got abortions, I guess, because having babies would have interfered with their plans to graduate and, in most cases, go on to college and get good jobs. In high school and college, I partied and took drugs and skipped school and bad stuff like that. I could afford to break some rules, because I had the safety net of money and security and high expectations.


So suppose my background had been different. Suppose instead of being surrounded by educated middle-class people, I grew up surrounded by undereducated people who didn't work, had babies as teenagers, sold drugs, etc. Well, then I'd probably do all those things.

Of course, there are people who transcend such hardships and go on to great achievements. But many, perhaps most, people are simply not that ambitious or smart or strong-willed or confident or rebellious or whatever it would take to rise above the environment in which they're immersed. I don't think I necessarily would have.

[Kelda]

Do you know what broketrash - I come from a single parent family.

My mother was married twice - my elder sister has a different dad from me.

My mum was for a while on welfare. She was a school cook but did her back in, so couldn't lift the pots.

She went to college and became a nursery nurse (a pre school kids teacher). She worked harder than a lot of 'real' teachers I know.

And she still was on almost minimum wage, earning less than many on wlefare.

My mum was medicaly retired a few ywars before her real retiral date due to M.E.

She relies on the state pension to get by now.


You know what - I'm proud of where I come from.

[serious crayons]

While the rich pay little and the poor pay nothing into the system.

Which means the rich are getting welfare, too. They may not need help paying for their food and medical care and education. But the rest of us are paying disproportionately for the roads, bridges, parks, beaches, lakes, police, military and fire protection that they use.

You consistently reject church and private charities and do not acknowledge the inequity of making middle class families pay to feed, clothe, medicate, and educate the poor.

All this blaming poor people seems a little silly, to me. Whether or not they should work harder and lift themselves out of poverty, whether they should have fewer children or not watch Oprah or whatever ... it's all moot. They do what they do because the majority of people stay in the class they were born into and behave the way the people around them behave. Simple as that. You can tsk-tsk all you want, but that's basic sociology.

But working to change their situation isn't just about feeling sorry for them. Even if you don't feel any sympathy for poor people, you have an interest in helping them. Society is better functioning with citizens who are productive and self-supporting. Not to mention safer.

That's why I'm curious, broketrash, why you would include education among the things you object to the poor getting help paying for. Education would seem to me to be the most effective way -- heck, almost the only way these days -- to turn poor people into middle-class or upper-class people. All those hypothetical poor people who could be pulling themselves up by their bootstraps can't do it without education. So to eliminate their financial aid (which of course middle-class students also receive) seems counter-productive.

To me, this isn't about pity or blame. It's about finding solutions that benefit everyone.

[Clyde-B]

Telling the poor to pull themselves up by their bootstraps reminds me very much of telling depressed people to "just get over it."

I think both suffer from hopelessness, and that's hard to overcome by sheer force of will.

Mentoring programs seem highly successful in overcoming poverty.  They provide the teaching that people didn't get at home while growing up and they provide ongoing advice from someone who knows how.  Mentoring is expensive, but it pays off because it gives people something they pass on to their own kids.

[brokeplex]

And who do you suppose supports the churches? The rich? I doubt it. Talking about shifting the responsibility from the government to private charities is just Conservative code for eliminating help for the poor, because the government can compel support--through taxation--and private charities cannot.

Eliminating the system is not the answer. We need to fix it, plug the loopholes, so that the rich pay their fair share.

that extortive compelling you have mentioned above is exactly why the welfare state no longer has the unqualified support of the overwhelming mass of the votes, who are mostly middle class.

I am all in favor of the rich, the middle class, and the poor all paying an EQUAL share. The term "fair" as applied to a tax is subjective. In reality the only "fair" tax is one which has EQUAL rates for everyone. This can be accomplished by a consumption tax which has no exceptions, no exemptions, and no refunds. If you and I walk into a store and buy a diet soda, we both should pay a fed tax on that item at the same rate, regardless of any similarities or disparities in our incomes. And this type of tax should apply to all of our consumption purchases in our lives. This tax will rid of the IRS and the unfairness that everyone agrees exists. The only fair system is an equal system. The present system of both social engineering welfare and IRS enforced taxation are unsustainable politically, and in my opinion unsustainable morally. The grasping hand of gov is robbing one section of the population in order to keep another section breeding and idle.

"we need to fix it" we hear that again and again about the welfare system, OK what are your fixes? 

[brokeplex]

And tax the damn churches! Talk about welfare, the churches are all welfare cases as are many corporations and even whole industries.  Here in 'socialist' Canada,  up to 50% of the biofuel industry is funded by government subsidies.  That's the same industry that's being held responsible for the worldwide food shortages.  (Like that was unexpected, lol!)

I agree! TAX the churches! Churches make income off of their investments, their real property not only makes them income but should be on the local tax rolls just like your home or mine. If we are going to keep the present extortive IRS system, we must tax the churches, in fact any "body" that brings in an income.

The biofuel industry is a major scam here in the US. I am all in favor of withdrawing the unconscionable tax subsidies which are going to multimillionaire farmers and land owners. The biofuel industry has become a disaster, it can't remain competitive without subsidies that we all pay for, and the industry has taken so much corn out of food production that there are shortages of corn world wide, driving up the prices of just about every food product. We all pay for the biofuel industry that way too.

[brokeplex]

Sorta like why what's-his-name robbed banks? 'Cause that's where the money is? 

Dellinger?

[brokeplex]

Which means the rich are getting welfare, too. They may not need help paying for their food and medical care and education. But the rest of us are paying disproportionately for the roads, bridges, parks, beaches, lakes, police, military and fire protection that they use.

I agree, that is why I am in favor of abolishing the present system of taxation, which allows the rich to pay proportionately little, and the poor to pay nothing. In fact the poor pay at a negative rate, the present US taxation system in effect transfers income from the families of working middle class people into the hands of the mostly idle poor.