> Could you explain why that is?

Easy by the rest of my comment maybe I didn't illustrate it enough but a lot of people share ideas on how to fix it without truly understand it. Poverty is easy to fix. It's the giving up personal wealth to prevent it that's the hard part. As per the link it basically says the same crap everyone says, the "Helping the homeless is hopeless" narrative. Now saying that once you're screwed you'll never be able to think 'normal' again... c'mon man.

> Poverty is easy to fix. It's the giving up personal wealth to prevent it that's the hard part.

how does giving up personal wealth fix poverty?

It's hard to get people out of poverty than enrich people before that happens. It's easier to bring the extremely wealthy down to a certain level to accommodate for those that don't have the ability to get unlimited tries.

See perspective:: http://www.templetons.com/brad/billg.html

Wealth and safety nets give families chances where those in poverty can't afford to take. "Move across the country and change jobs or risk dying of starvation with your family in the car because once you got there the job's gone" "Spend all your savings going to college at the expense of your kids when there are no jobs right now" "It'll cost hundreds of thousands for chemotherapy but on average patients with your diagnosis get 3 more years typically of life"... these are called risks. The wealthy get more rewards because they can afford more risks. Most who are in poverty are in poverty because they themselves or their family could not afford the risk. If those who are high lend a hand it could help immensely.

you listed a bunch of advantages of wealth that I dont think anyone would dispute. and you talk about taking that away. how is this supposed to help people who are already impoverished? it seems like you want there to be more people in poverty, not fewer.

> http://www.templetons.com/brad/billg.html

riddled with fallacies and calculated to produce envy. totally irrelevant to our discussion.

> and you talk about taking that away. how is this supposed to help people who are already impoverished? it seems like you want there to be more people in poverty, not fewer.

It's about income distribution.

It's true that the economy is not a cake you can split in several parts, so it's not a zero sum game, but I think that inequalities should be reduced, and that means taking from the ones who have, to give to those who have less.

And if you take from the ones who have the most, you are not creating poor people, you are just improving the balance.

And again, it's about the extremes, there is less need to touch the incomes of those in the middle.

I don't understand how taking from the rich to give to the poor would be a bad thing.

> It's about income distribution.

so you've got some people who (for whatever reason) are prevented from making a decent income. how are you proposing to solve that problem by routing an income that is contingent on their inability to generate their own? We have tried that for 3 generations and poverty is worse than ever, inequality is worse than ever, the food stamps go to buy drugs, and the only solution you people have is to take more money from "the rich" and pour it into the same failed social programs.

> I think that inequalities should be reduced, and that means taking from the ones who have, to give to those who have less.

people who generate their own income are going to have whatever they generate less whatever you take. people who cannot generate their own income are going to have whatever you take less your operating costs, and spend it on non-discretionary consumption items like food, rent, healthcare. which are provided by people who don't need your welfare. so you're simultaneously creating a dependent class or poor people and a guaranteed income stream for the wealthy. this is why your idea has always failed.

>And if you take from the ones who have the most, you are not creating poor people, you are just improving the balance.

you'll observe that the ones who have the most are the ones who write the tax code. good luck taking from them.

>I don't understand how taking from the rich to give to the poor would be a bad thing.

1. creates a class of poor people who are dependent on social programs for survival.

2. "Taking from the rich" happens through a political system that is designed to protect the interests of a subset of rich people. so the rules are manipulated to take a lot from rich people without political connections, and route money towards rich people with political connections.

> you listed a bunch of advantages of wealth that I dont think anyone would dispute. and you talk about taking that away.

That is a non sequitur.

I don't understand what you mean.

GP suggested that a redistribution of resources could allow the poorer section of society to engage in the type of risky behaviour that often results in financial success. You then assumed that this means depriving wealthier people of the ability to engage in that sort of behaviour. That isn't a logical consequence. You seem to be assuming that any redistribution will deprive wealthier people of these opportunities which is obviously not true. For instance, GP might be suggesting that only the wealthiest 1% should be required to make a sacrifice for the benefit of the poor.

> As per the link it basically says the same crap everyone says, the "Helping the homeless is hopeless" narrative.

Is that really how you interpreted TFA?

I read it entirely opposite to that interpretation. It explained why helping those suffering scarcity is necessary and why society needs to revisit attitudes and mechanisms to do so.

I read the article and yes indeed got the opposite impression. That's what poverty does though.. makes you see the glass half empty perhaps as per the article implies.

I don't think this adds anything to the discussion except for a facetious tone. The OP explained exactly why he doesn't like reading the comments literally in the next breath from what you selectively quoted.

Not being facetious.

I can't see the explanation you say exists.

I suspect that there's a missing qualifier to parent's comment --something like 'from people who haven't lived what I have lived' -- but absent that it sounds like other people's experiences are of no or negative value.

I find it hard to believe that you are unintentionally missing the context behind the original post, but so be it

As parent post observed in a sibling comment back to me, he/she interpreted the original article at about 180 degrees to how I read it.

I'm curious which way you interpreted TFA, as it may inform why you believe I'm missing the point of the parent post.