I totally agree, and I wish more people thought this way. I currently have the good fortune of having more than I need, through both hard work and luck. If someone asks me for help, I have an obligation as a fellow human and neighbor to help without judgement.

>> if they want to eat then I can buy something

The reason for this one is that in the US some of the "beggars" aren't really struggling at all. When offered food or whatever else they claim on their placard they're lacking, they will decline. Where I live we have a beggar woman standing on the corner with a placard. Behind that placard, though, she's watching YouTube on her iPhone XS. She's been doing this for at least 5 years now, swapping phones more often than I do. Nearly all of those guys who "ran out of cash to get home" will decline an offer to pay their fare, too.

It's a given that the rate of success for beggars would plummet if they asked money for anything else than food or transportation anyway.

Iphone of unknown origins ? Free WiFi around ? That could explain it.

Honestly, 90% of homeless people have psychological problems so I take the iphone lady over the grumpy drunkard any day :). Everyone has a different coping mechanism :/.

Now, "some beggars" is likely not "the majority".

Anyway, there are many different ways to help others (giving money to the lady so she can keep being by herself without annoying anyone, giving the social workers or ngo that will try to get to her through other means, etc.). I believe what is important is that we try do something from time to time and we don't forget these are humane beings.

It costs me less than $1 USD per day to get unlimited, high quality 4G data. $0.83/day to be precise.

My high-end Samsung phone to watch things on comes to $0.91/day. That's because I bought new. If bought second hand I'd expect to pay closer to $0.50/day.

So for $1.74/day, I can watch YouTube all day, on one of the most expensive devices, with a screen so high-end you can't see the pixels. It also gives me communication for free with anyone all around the world, real-time access to financial services, unlimited games, and access to various kinds of work.

It would be very difficult to eat or drink on $1.74/day, and it's vastly less than the cost of renting a home.

Does it really make sense to conclude the beggar women standing on the corner isn't struggling, because she can afford to watch YouTube on a nice phone?

This is the paradox of cheap technology next to expensive housing.

People who are struggling typically don't have $1K to drop on a phone, or $30/mo to spend on the data plan. If you believe the news, most people in this country can't scrounge up $400 in case of an emergency, let alone to buy the most expensive phone available. I used to struggle myself when I was a student (not in the US), and it not even in my wildest dreams would I think of spending my food money on overpriced electronics.

Nobody I know has to pay $1k up front to get a good quality device these days.

People who are struggling tend to get the hand-me-down previous-generation devices for nothing or next to nothing, and you don't really need the $30/mo data plan. Older devices are also quite cheap when bought incrementally as part of a phone plan.

For example, I know someone with an iPhone 6 that cost them nothing, and a USD $12.50/mo plan, with unlimited calls and several gigabytes of data allowance.

I agree with you that not everyone who is struggling is able to allocate $30/mo, or even $12.50/mo, but it's low enough that if it's a very justifiable expense (and I would argue that communication and internet when you have to sit or walk every day on the street is extremely justifiable), that level does not impact someone's food consumption enough to justify a random passerby judging they are secretly faking povery.

Spending $1.00/day or $0.40/day on something you'd consider a luxury item, does not mean that person is faking poverty, at least in the US.

This is definitely true in many cases, but I'd wager that it's the exception, not the rule. (It also probably depends on location.)

It makes sense to me to refuse to help individuals who seem to be abusing goodwill, but I think this is a poor excuse to refuse helping anyone who asks. I always give the benefit of the doubt to those in need.

If you don't want to give, that's your prerogative, but I don't think this is a good justification for that decision.

I disagree. If I can

- give $10 to the person on the corner who has a 20% chance to waste it on alcohol or drugs, or

- give it to a charity that I know does good work

then the second option seems better to me; and that 20% is part of the (reasonable) justification why.

>Likewise, in Europe, I also hear a lot of "I don't give money to beggars but if they want to eat then I can buy something". I disagree because to me it's part of a larger dehumanization process: who are we to tell people what they should spend their money on ? If the guy wants to drink it or buy a night in a cheap hotel or buy a blanket or food or whatever... it's still up to him. I don't have the `right` to control what his priorities should be.

If someone is living off a welfare check, I do not want them using that money to buy things I consider luxury goods with the money I worked to earn (tax dollars).

This is more a comment to your 'drink it' part, but also applies to people who buy soda/candy bars/junk food on food stamps. When I was working minimum wage I didn't buy that stuff because it was a waste of money that I couldn't afford.

> using that money to buy things I consider luxury goods

It always pains me to see people convey that attitude. We spend on luxury items because they make us feel good, they give us a little endorphine hit when we buy / use / consume them.

I grew up in a poor family of four, like my first real job out of high school in the mid-90s at $20K was more than my step-father ever brought home. Having that "luxury" chocolate bar, or being able to save enough for a brand-new bicycle or Nintendo... that was a huge deal. Saying that poor people shouldn't have access to "luxuries" is saying that they shouldn't be allowed to spend money to feel good.

> Likewise, in Europe, I also hear a lot of "I don't give money to beggars but if they want to eat then I can buy something". I disagree because to me it's part of a larger dehumanization process: who are we to tell people what they should spend their money on ?

I would never tell someone what to spend their money on. if I'm going to spend my money to help them out, I'd prefer it not go straight to a pint of liquor. is that unreasonable?

Hi, my answer is just food for thought:

I was having a conversation with a friend of a mine who happens to be a doctor and she works for the red cross some days of the week. I happen to have another friend who works as a social worker in a refugee centre so we traded stories and impressions.

She told me that there were a lot of tensions between people and electricity in the air as time goes by.

Now, every few months workers there organize a party where refugees cook typical dishes to share with everyone. It does a lot for easing the tension and the weeks after those parties are easier on everyone, staff and refugees.

Now those parties have a lot of desserts (easier to bake and to store) which are for all intents and purposes a bit of luxury. I think there could be a bit of alcohol but don't quote me on that.

Would you say that was not money well spent in the end (the red cross is supported through donations and the government adds some at some point) ?

> I would never tell someone what to spend their money on. if I'm going to spend my money to help them out, I'd prefer it not go straight to a pint of liquor. is that unreasonable?

It really does depend upon your values. What if - alcoholism excluded - that money is going to buy a 15ç can of bad beer but it'd be only one beer. What if this is the alcohol in that can of beer that'll help the guy to muster the courage to spend all of his days panhandling so he can get food or pay for his spot under the bridge for the night ?

My point is that I don't believe that because I gave them some money I should have some control on them, or restrict the use of that money to my liking (shelters do that, with contracts and agreement put in place with the objective to lift people out of the street but that's another debate). Either that gift is free or it's not a gift, it's a salary for a behaviour I want the beggar to have. If I give money it becomes their money, if he can't dispose of it then it wasn't given.

I often wonder what would happen if I just said : "OK, I'll give you ten bucks if you help me move some stuff for an hour or help me with the garden". Then, what if he spend that money on booze, girls or WoW pre paid card ? At least he didn't mug anyone.

Anecdote: where I live, people on social welfare can get some small jobs (lawn mowing, paint jobs, that kind of things). They aren't paid in money. People give them some kind of social paper that is the equivalent of money and then they have to go the administration to get that turned into money into their account. Here's the catch: only people on welfare can get these jobs. And they are basically given monopoly money by people buying their services (who first bought these cheques from the government). These papers have validity dates, can't be used on the spot to buy something. Some money get lost this way. Why should people on welfare be paid with fake money ?

It reminds me of this news about beggars getting a qr code or a RFID chip. Mobile payments would go to the shelter they are affiliated with and that would be converted into housing and food.

> is that unreasonable?

To each its own, it just means we have different outlook and a different set of values (and by that I don't mean to imply I am better than you or correct).

edit: and of course, we live in many different cultures that have different subsets of values and people in it so what might be the righteous and the practical way to help beggars/homeless people might be different on a different continent... or over in the next town.

> Anecdote: where I live, people on social welfare can get some small jobs (lawn mowing, paint jobs, that kind of things). They aren't paid in money. People give them some kind of social paper that is the equivalent of money and then they have to go the administration to get that turned into money into their account. Here's the catch: only people on welfare can get these jobs. And they are basically given monopoly money by people buying their services (who first bought these cheques from the government). These papers have validity dates, can't be used on the spot to buy something. Some money get lost this way. Why should people on welfare be paid with fake money ?

Sorry to probe, but what country do you live in? I'd like to do some further reading

Belgium. Here's an official explanation of the system: http://www.werk.belgie.be/defaultTab.aspx?id=42422# Unfortunately there isn't an English version (but you can toggle between dutch, french and german).

Also a wikipedia entry https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titre-service and a google search https://www.google.com/search?q=explication+titre-services

first of all, thank you for the thoughtful reply.

let me address your point about welfare first. in the US, we really don't like the idea of tax dollars going towards drugs, alcohol, etc., so the federal and most state governments generally don't just give cash to poor people. they either give food stamps (to be redeemed at grocery stores) or even drug test people to make sure they are not misusing the funds. some research (I don't have time to get a citation, sorry) has found that the government spends more money to make sure that people don't buy drugs than they would actually waste on drugs in the first place! I don't love the idea of my tax dollars going to feed an addiction, but it's silly to spend more money to prevent them from doing it. so I say if someone is legally entitled to get some money from the government, just give it to them as cash if it's more efficient. they can decide what to do with it.

to be clear, I don't think alcohol is evil, and I think the parties your friend organizes sound great! consumed in moderation, alcohol can certainly help people form important bonds, and a good meal shared with other people can be worth a lot more than its nutritional value.

all I'm saying is that I don't like to give cash directly to a person whom I suspect is going to spend all of it on their addiction. if someone is holding a sign saying "hungry, need help" and they refuse anything but cash, that's kind of suspicious. if, like you said, I could pay them $10-20 to help with a small task, I would consider the money fairly earned and I would be fine with whatever the person spent it on.

Im totally shocked that someone who doesnt give to those in need is okay with them using panhandling money for alcohol or drugs. Its always okay when its not your own money.

I haven't been clear. I used to give money in the street, I did some volunteering and now choose to give to some specific charities regularly. I still give a coin every three months but way less more than before. I am still okay with this coin being used for whatever purposes though.

> Its always okay when its not your own money.

Are you trying to build an anti-socialist argument ?

I am anything but anti-socialist. Just pointing out that i can see why you dont care about what these poor, usually mentally ill people do with money given to them out of good will, since its not your money and you have no stake.

Edit: Wanted to add something. People usually donate or offer help to those who need because they want to see their lives improve or to make them happy. And that makes you feel bad because they dont wish their money or help end up causing harm.