Is poverty a moral failing...

[Brian Peacock]

Judaism has a similar obligation to give 1/10th of one's income to the poor: 'Tzedakah'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzedakah

[Hermit]

And then there are the Church taxes levied by a bunch of European governments on behalf of officially recognised religious denominations. Only registered adherents pay it, and they are not specifically tied to helping the poor.

[Svartalf]

those church taxes are a heir to the chretinous tithes levied so the church could maintain itself in style

[Jason]

It is a religious obligation if you're a Muslim. If you opt out of it you're not a Muslim.

Fine, but again: Name one predominantly Muslim nation where it actually works.

If by "actually works" you mean eliminating poverty altogether, no it doesn't seem to. But it does work to feed, clothe, and house the needy. You won't starve to death in the street if you're a Muslim in India or Egypt. There may be some issue getting assistance if you're a Shiite living in a Sunni area (or vice versa) though.

[Hermit]

It is a religious obligation if you're a Muslim. If you opt out of it you're not a Muslim.

Fine, but again: Name one predominantly Muslim nation where it actually works.

If by "actually works" you mean eliminating poverty altogether, no it doesn't seem to. But it does work to feed, clothe, and house the needy. You won't starve to death in the street if you're a Muslim in India or Egypt. There may be some issue getting assistance if you're a Shiite living in a Sunni area (or vice versa) though.

You'd think that with all the oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia, where the zakat is compulsory and pegged at 2.5%, it would work at least in that nation. Yet a quarter of its population lives in poverty. The unfortunate situation is that the zakat is not at all exclusively intended to help the poor. Much, perhaps most of it goes to pay the clerics, maintain the mosques et cetera. As far as the zakat is concerned Islam is no more civilised than other religions.

[Brian Peacock]

But nonetheless, the three Abrahamic monotheisms posit a religious obligation to help the poor. However, this obligation does not seem to transfer goods to society in a way their holy text might imply, or demand.

Hinduism, traditionally beset by a rigid caste system, views things a little differently.

Hinduism on Wealth and Poverty

On the Indian subcontinent wealth, poverty, and charity have been governed by the overarching social values of the caste system. Within Hinduism, wealth is regarded as a beneficial and positive value, just like love and morality—if pursued within limits. Social rank in ancient India was dominated by religious prestige while economic success and the accumulation of wealth did not lead to a higher social standing. Still, especially for those engaged in commerce, generosity and hospitality were also highly regarded. Traditionally, these are not only private values. Among the roles of the state, embodied in the office of the king, was the social mandate to feed the poor and support religious institutions. Today Hindu temples continue to promote charitable and community activities. Still, the highest praise in Hindu history is not reserved for the generous but for those who regard wealth with indifference and are able, when the proper stage of life arrives, to renounce all their belongings.

https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/es ... nd-poverty

Clearly one doesn't need to adhere to the precepts of a religion to understand that empathy can be a powerful and beneficial motive force for both individuals and for society at large. One might even argue that the founding principle of morality and ethics, the idea embodied in the golden rule, depends entirely on our innate, evolved capacity to empathise. It is a great wonder therefore that so many people seem to apply so much energy to discounting and discrediting an empathetic reaction to the dire needs and desperate situations of others.

[Hermit]

But nonetheless, the three Abrahamic monotheisms posit a religious obligation to help the poor. However, this obligation does not seem to transfer goods to society in a way their holy text might imply, or demand.

Quite.

[Brian Peacock]

Welfare shakeup 'will push a quarter of a million children into poverty'

A government shakeup of welfare payments being introduced on Thursday will push a quarter of a million children into poverty while wiping thousands of pounds off payments for bereaved families, according to research.

Analysis for the Guardian reveals that a family whose third child is born before midnight on Wednesday could be up to £50,000 better off over 18 years than one whose child is born on Thursday.

...

Policy in Practice found that more than 600,000 families – championed as the “just about managing” households, which the prime minister vowed to protect on her first day in government – would be hit by the child welfare cuts, while many more could be affected by other cuts.

An expected 8,000 third or additional children are expected to miss out on support of up to £2,780 a year in April, a figure that could climb to 104,000 over the next 12 months, said the authors of the study.
...
Ministers have argued a two-child limit will act as a “behaviour change” incentive to persuade poorer families to have fewer children, although the government’s own impact assessment says there is no evidence to suggest this is likely. They claim the policy will “enhance the life chances of children” because it will ensure that parents “make choices based on their circumstances rather than on taxpayer subsidies”.

But the Child Poverty Action Group charity (CPAG), whose own estimates predict the policy will put an extra 200,000 children into poverty by 2020, said it would damage children’s life chances.

Alison Garnham, CPAG’s chief executive, said: “This is a particularly pernicious cut because it suggests some children matter more than others. It’s also illogical because no parent has a crystal ball. Families that can comfortably support a third child today could struggle tomorrow and have to claim universal credit because, sadly, health, jobs and relationships can fail.”

More...

It strikes me that the government is making a series of sly moral judgement here, ones about the kind of people who are both poor and who have three or more children. Firstly they presume that having children is a financial matter, not a biological imperative. Then they presume that poor people are making decisions to have children as a form of income generating scam; the wealth are free to have as many children as they like--because they're clearly no 'gaming' the system--but the fecundity of the poor is to be discouraged on the basis of cost.

The thing is, neither the children of the rich or the poor asked to be born, and driving more of the children who have already been born into deeper poverty is not going to retrospectively 'encourage behavioural change' of their parents or enhance their 'life chances.'

[cronus]

I think there is no moral judgement going on. This has nudge unit, written all over it. It is 'kill the poor'-lite....about as far as morality goes.

[pErvinalia]

The evil morality of the Tories and their attacks on the poor and disabled is unconscionable. It is class war of horrific proportions. And it deserves a commensurate response. Some people are going to have to get off their fat arse in the UK. This shit has been going on for too long.

[Brian Peacock]

It's all summed up by that that phrase which equates the social safety net as a 'taxpayer subsidy'.

[laklak]

Just ban kids. What good are they? Once they knock this old age thing on the head there's no reason for the smelly little buggers.

[cronus]

The problem with inherited wealth is it ultimately is based on bullsh*t rather than expertise. Eventually the bull runs out of steam and you are left with either no currency or no palace or both...poverty on the other hand is simply the lack stuff. Adam Smith was right - international trade is the way out of poverty, and smuggling works too...

[pErvinalia]

I like it when you post music videos. That way I know I can just ignore your post. It's like an informal 'ignore' feature..

[Brian Peacock]

In an interview released Wednesday, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson said that a "certain mindset" contributes to people living in poverty, pointing to habits and a "state of mind" that children take from their parents at a young age.

"I think poverty to a large extent is also a state of mind. You take somebody that has the right mindset, you can take everything from them and put them on the street, and I guarantee in a little while they'll be right back up there," he said during an interview on SiriusXM Radio with Armstrong Williams, a longtime friend...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... f8a1b96ae5

Hmm. This fact-free assertion doesn't really give the how-many-children-are-in-poverty-in-the-US much to be cheerful about, particularly as the budget is set to dismantle a great deal of the social safety net.