Why Don't You Give Cash to Homeless People?

[Saiwania]

Because no one owes anyone else a stable living just because they make bad decisions or have bad circumstances for whatever reason that may be, especially not if they're lazy or incompetent. If someone wants money, they should try their hand at going out and earning it.

People work hard for their own success or economic progress/pursuits, so they're more likely inclined to say "No!" to just giving away money for nothing in return, if scarcity is at play. No one but the richest has more money than they could ever use or want, wealth is usually all relative.

[Forsher]

I think all three of those points are idiotic ones at best. If a homeless person asks me for money and I have a few bucks to spare I'll give it to them. Not to make them do anything, I don't really care what they do with the money, but they asked and I know that since they're homeless the probably do need money for something.

I didn't ask you what you think in the situation, did I? Answer the questions as posed. Not the ones you want them to be. Though, yes, I forgot the "generally" in "that charitable giving is generally conceptualised as buying", as I have throughout. Didn't think it needed stating, frankly.

Let's put it another way... do you think people continue to treat donated money as their own money but don't treat spent money as being their own money? If so, why?

It's exactly as analogues as any point you've made.

Read: you caught me talking out my arse so rather than try and justify why I, Heloin, thought I'd said something relevant I will try and bluster my way out of the situation and hope no-one noticed.

Mate, it is obvious what you're doing. Basically everyone does it.

Once again... why do you think there is merit to (a) the claim that I, Forsher, assume people are trying to control other peoples' lives when they donate money (rather than making a claim about a specific situation) and (b) the comparison between donating money to an individual and buying food for another party?

[The Blaatschapen]

I don't give them cash, because I don't carry any.

[Forsher]

I don't give them cash, because I don't carry any.

Now that's just woolly thinking.

[Dangine]

I would if I had a job and money on me (I'm in high school). I do not see homeless people much where I live, but I know they're there.

[Ethel mermania]

I don't give them cash, because I don't carry any.

Do you them a blanket if they are cold?

[Heloin]

I think all three of those points are idiotic ones at best. If a homeless person asks me for money and I have a few bucks to spare I'll give it to them. Not to make them do anything, I don't really care what they do with the money, but they asked and I know that since they're homeless the probably do need money for something.

I didn't ask you what you think in the situation, did I? Answer the questions as posed. Not the ones you want them to be. Though, yes, I forgot the "generally" in "that charitable giving is generally conceptualised as buying", as I have throughout. Didn't think it needed stating, frankly.

Let's put it another way... do you think people continue to treat donated money as their own money but don't treat spent money as being their own money? If so, why?

No. I think you've drunk whatever kool aid Xero has drunk and have come out with a wild idea of what donations are.

It's exactly as analogues as any point you've made.

Read: you caught me talking out my arse so rather than try and justify why I, Heloin, thought I'd said something relevant I will try and bluster my way out of the situation and hope no-one noticed.

Mate, it is obvious what you're doing. Basically everyone does it.

Once again... why do you think there is merit to (a) the claim that I, Forsher, assume people are trying to control other peoples' lives when they donate money (rather than making a claim about a specific situation) and (b) the comparison between donating money to an individual and buying food for another party?

The analogy I made is dumb because your analogy is really dumb and I think it's really strange your doubling down on it so hard. The only difference here is I made the comparison because it's stupid and I know it, you're the one who thinks they've made a good analogy. If you're the one who continues to make their point poorly then that's not my fault, I'm not the only person who looked at your comparison of donating to the homeless and slavery and thought "man, that's fucked up", and not for the reason you probably meant

[Grinning Dragon]

Just like a few others here. I don't carry cash, of the times I do it's usually when I'm on my way to buy firearms.
Then there is the issue of it being difficult to claim at tax time.

[Saiwania]

Because for some reason our society likes to scrutinise how the poor spend their money, but not the rich. Lots of people I know wouldn't care if some billionaire contributing nothing to society bought a private yacht, yet they are whipped into frenzies when they suspect homeless people are buying drugs (which is actually not that prevalent and yet another example of anti-poor propaganda we're all exposed to.)

The difference is that a rich person earned their own money and doesn't require any charity, nor are they a tax burden. The other main reason is probably that people aren't convinced that the homeless in general, are a good investment or use of public funds; in that little if any return will result from giving resources of any sort to them. And this is usually borne out from previous experience.

Its all too common for homelessness to persist, because fundamentally- there are always at least some people in life who do fail economically more than others for various reasons. An individual's personal flaws/shortcomings might just so happen to outweigh the value they're able to bring as human capital or as manual labor. Also because housing/land is finite.

[Tosanchi]

No, why should I? I don't condone alcohol and drug consumption, so, no. Besides, they are none of my concern.

I once heard from a family friend that they once gave food to a homeless person. What does said homeless person do? They attempt to return it for money, probably to buy drugs or something. Where I live, drug use amongst the homeless is notoriously prevalent, so, no. I'm not going to solve their problems, so I won't give them money. It'll be a temporary respite (if you can even call drug use that) to a perennial problem that is not even related or relevant to me and my concerns. I'd rather keep to myself and my problems. Unless they provide me with a legitimate good or service, why should I give my limited amount of money away for nothing at all? I don't know if this person was homeless, but I once gave a dollar to an aging accordion player begging for money. Since he provided a service to society (and me by proxy) in the form of a basic amenity instead of just begging around, I admired his hard-working spirit and contribution despite his age and precarious financial situation. I gave him the money because he earned it, and I wish I could've given him more.

[Kernen]

Because that's my cash. I want that cash. I can't have it if I give it away.

[Forsher]

I didn't ask you what you think in the situation, did I? Answer the questions as posed. Not the ones you want them to be. Though, yes, I forgot the "generally" in "that charitable giving is generally conceptualised as buying", as I have throughout. Didn't think it needed stating, frankly.

Let's put it another way... do you think people continue to treat donated money as their own money but don't treat spent money as being their own money? If so, why?

No. I think you've drunk whatever kool aid Xero has drunk and have come out with a wild idea of what donations are.

Do you understand the difference between "I think people think" and "I think..." because it really doesn't seem like it?

When people donate in general, they want their donations to be used for the intended charitable purpose... see why a lot of charities have optics problems around marketing budgets (emphasis mine):

Sadly, charity goes without this function with respect to the mass market; in part because of a reactionary disdain for anything that smacks of commercialism, but mostly because of public pressure to maximize short-term program spending without regard for building scale or long-term problem-solving. Donors consider paid advertising wasteful. “It’s OK if you can get advertising donated, but I don’t want my donations spent to buy advertising.” (Imagine if we told Coca-Cola it could advertise, but only if it could get the ads donated — ads that would run at 2 in the morning.) The donor prejudice is that advertising spending steals from “the cause,” so charities are loathe to do it, for fear of donor reprisal. Meanwhile, Coca-Cola, which understands the power of advertising, is spending to indoctrinate us for life.

Or compare the necessity of:

A gift, once given, cannot be revoked because ownership has passed to the recipient. The courts can only set aside a gift in limited circumstances which include fraud, undue influence and duress, mistake or lack of mental capacity.

from here. Read the whole thing but think about why that first sentence is necessary and also why it is necessary in the wider context of the article.

Let's try this again. Please, tell me more about how people think about donating. Not what your thoughts are, but what people as a whole and who are not you. In particular, do you think people have double standards about how they perceive money they've donated versus money they've spent?

Try and remember what we're trying to explain:

It's a bit strange that when it comes to giving cash to the homeless people are very concerned with what ends that cash will be put towards, but when it comes to everything else we do with our money we tend not to think like that. I bought some Steam games, and I didn't give a moment's thought towards whether that money might be used to buy drugs or booze.

Has Iffy also drunk Xero's Kool-Aid?

What's your explanation for this double standard?

The analogy I made is dumb because your analogy is really dumb

Alternatively: you don't understand what you're trying to criticise, just as you haven't understood the questions you've been asked or the context of this conversation.

The only difference here is I made the comparison because it's stupid and I know it,

I don't believe you. It's framed as a gotcha. You think it has merit:

That you seem to assume that giving someone money must always be an attempt to force someone to live a life other then what they live I can only assume that your point will continue to be less connected to any reality the longer you're going to insist on making it. Do you consider parents buying food for their kids to be "like" slavery?

Be more convincing.

you're the one who thinks they've made a good analogy. If you're the one who continues to make their point poorly then that's not my fault, I'm not the only person who looked at your comparison of donating to the homeless and slavery and thought "man, that's fucked up", and not for the reason you probably meant

Once again... is someone who expects a donatee to spend money on particular things expecting the donatee to set aside their own considerations of what they'd like to spend that money on?

Just answer the questions, Heloin. Not the ones you want to answer but the ones you're asked.

And maybe give answering Iffy's implicit question a go while you're at it.

[Heloin]

It's a bit strange that when it comes to giving cash to the homeless people are very concerned with what ends that cash will be put towards, but when it comes to everything else we do with our money we tend not to think like that. I bought some Steam games, and I didn't give a moment's thought towards whether that money might be used to buy drugs or booze.

Has Iffy also drunk Xero's Kool-Aid?

What's your explanation for this double standard?

You read this as an endorsement for that line of thinking as far as I can tell.

I'll speak plainly since that's what you really want. Your analogy was awful and it takes away any real point you could be making. The answer to every question you've asked to try and prove how the analogy was good actually will be a flat no, they were bad points made poorly in service to an analogy you really should drop. My entire issue with any point you are making is your analogy to slavery because it's an awful one.

We will disagree with the idea of giving money to the homeless, that's fine, but if you insist that you need to compare a charitable act to slavery then you're only hurting your own point.

[Forsher]

Note... it may be, perhaps is necessary, to consider a distinction between how people who do give and how people who don't give think about charitable giving. Either way, it's not the same question as "why do people give?" That's just stuff like this and doesn't tell you anything particularly interesting about what they think they're doing or why they think what they do about what they think they're doing. It just tells you why they think they're donating. Though there are some gems in that list...

3. Trust. One of the reasons that people don’t give is that they believe their gift won’t really help or that the money won’t be used wisely. We’ve all read news stories about national charities that mismanage funds. Those stories hurt every nonprofit because it erodes the public’s trust in our sector. That means a lot of potential donors are now suspicious of every nonprofit and may approach giving with cynicism. They may worry that nonprofits aren’t effective or efficient with donated funds.

The implications are twofold:

• firstly, is this proof of the difference between not givers and givers?
• secondly, why would trust matter to, for example, someone who is altruistic?

Maybe you're thinking "oh, okay, that's obvious... an altruist wants people to be helped, so it matters that they can trust it actually helps". Well, compare:

4. Impact. People are easily overwhelmed by large numbers. Psychologists talk about something called “the identifiable victim effect.” While the logical portions of our brains may be able to take in large numbers, our emotions have a harder time. If we think for very long about the huge numbers of people in the world who are hungry or need medical attention, we may start to zone out or feel small and helpless. We see this a lot after natural disasters. But if you can help donors see that their donation will make a real difference to one actual person, telling their story, it can help your donor understand the situation and they can understand how their donation will make a difference.

And, sure, you can think "well, hey, they're struggling to tell if they've helped or not" but that's not really relevant, is it? All they need to know is that they have... if they can trust the answer, to the altruist that should be enough. But, perhaps, it isn't... and the question is "why isn't it enough?" And that's why we want to know:

• what they think they're doing, and
• why they think what they do about what they think they're doing

more than "why they think they're donating".

[Forsher]

Has Iffy also drunk Xero's Kool-Aid?

What's your explanation for this double standard?

You read this as an endorsement for that line of thinking as far as I can tell.

I'll speak plainly since that's what you really want. Your analogy was awful and it takes away any real point you could be making. The answer to every question you've asked to try and prove how the analogy was good actually will be a flat no, they were bad points made poorly in service to an analogy you really should drop. My entire issue with any point you are making is your analogy to slavery because it's an awful one.

We will disagree with the idea of giving money to the homeless, that's fine, but if you insist that you need to compare a charitable act to slavery then you're only hurting your own point.

So... Iffy's statement is complete bullshit?

Iffy's statement isn't an endorsement of my position. It's not a position. It's a phenomenon that you are apparently rejecting the existence of. And a phenomenon I am trying to explain.

[The Black Forrest]

Wait, don't people already pay taxes for welfare?

also, giving people something without any obligations is ripe for making someone have a parasitic relationship.

Welfare is something different. Parasites? Heh. Are you a high schooler or just starting college?

[The Black Forrest]

Since we are talking about homeless issues, I will leave this here

https://nypost.com/2021/04/05/survey-fi ... ss-people/

Can’t speak for New York. I have seen a couple around my way and they were pretty crappy. Bare minimum basically having them just to say see we are trying and they really weren’t.

[Intaglio]

I don't really encounter homeless people a lot, so the opportunity has never presented itself; if it did, I probably give if I had some to spare.

[Ethel mermania]

Wait, don't people already pay taxes for welfare?

also, giving people something without any obligations is ripe for making someone have a parasitic relationship.

Welfare is something different. Parasites? Heh. Are you a high schooler or just starting college?

I really didn't think this was all that complicated. Granted I am in nyc, and dealing with these folks is a daily occurrence. I just seems that quite a few posters probably have never taken to time to interact with homeless folks.

[Intaglio]

Because for some reason our society likes to scrutinise how the poor spend their money, but not the rich. Lots of people I know wouldn't care if some billionaire contributing nothing to society bought a private yacht, yet they are whipped into frenzies when they suspect homeless people are buying drugs (which is actually not that prevalent and yet another example of anti-poor propaganda we're all exposed to.)

The difference is that a rich person earned their own money.

Unless, of course, they inherited their money

[The Black Forrest]

No, why should I? I don't condone alcohol and drug consumption, so, no. Besides, they are none of my concern.

I once heard from a family friend that they once gave food to a homeless person. What does said homeless person do? They attempt to return it for money, probably to buy drugs or something. Where I live, drug use amongst the homeless is notoriously prevalent, so, no. I'm not going to solve their problems, so I won't give them money. It'll be a temporary respite (if you can even call drug use that) to a perennial problem that is not even related or relevant to me and my concerns. I'd rather keep to myself and my problems. Unless they provide me with a legitimate good or service, why should I give my limited amount of money away for nothing at all? I don't know if this person was homeless, but I once gave a dollar to an aging accordion player begging for money. Since he provided a service to society (and me by proxy) in the form of a basic amenity instead of just begging around, I admired his hard-working spirit and contribution despite his age and precarious financial situation. I gave him the money because he earned it, and I wish I could've given him more.

I once heard......is kind of a warning flag for bullshit. I have heard versions of that one through the years. Notice they rarely mention the store name and I don’t know where you live; food which is prepared is not returnable. The homeless people know that.....

Part of the homeless problem is the legacy of St. Reagan. Mental facilities Pffft. We can better direct that money. We had a state facilities where I lived and they closed. I once did a psyc project there and remember seeing a few of the inhabitants become homeless. They needed extra help and simply tossing them in a group is not going to provide it.

Drug issues as well.

[Kernen]

The difference is that a rich person earned their own money.

Unless, of course, they inherited their money

Enduring family long enough to stay in the will is itself work.

[Ethel mermania]

Since we are talking about homeless issues, I will leave this here

https://nypost.com/2021/04/05/survey-fi ... ss-people/

Can’t speak for New York. I have seen a couple around my way and they were pretty crappy. Bare minimum basically having them just to say see we are trying and they really weren’t.

The amazing thing is how much we spend on homeless services for the piss poor quality of service we deliver. I dont blame people, particularly single males for doing everything they can to stay out of the system.

[Saiwania]

Unless, of course, they inherited their money

The money was fairly acquired even in such a situation if taxes have already been paid on it. A person is entitled to use their money/net worth however they see fit assuming its not illegal, which includes leaving it to someone else if they die or are ready to divest from everything.

Why shouldn't my middle class dad for example, not be able to transfer the $700,000+ in assets that was slowly built up over 40+ years of working and investing to his family or something else he chooses for when he dies? The rich are only being afforded the same rights as other people have, with regards to managing their own financial affairs.

Why should the state/government get any more beyond their share from taxation?

[Loeje]

Because no one owes anyone else a stable living just because they make bad decisions or have bad circumstances for whatever reason that may be, especially not if they're lazy or incompetent. If someone wants money, they should try their hand at going out and earning it.

People work hard for their own success or economic progress/pursuits, so they're more likely inclined to say "No!" to just giving away money for nothing in return, if scarcity is at play. No one but the richest has more money than they could ever use or want, wealth is usually all relative.

But homeless people are people too, and they should be treated with the same respect.