Mirror uses stock image of American child for front page UK foodbanks story

[Jacob]

Is there a moral element in taking advantage of tax breaks and rebates? Is there a moral element I taking advantage of government programs like healthcare (where available)? Or is the moral element present only if tax money is funnelled to you in specific ways?

I don't think there's a moral element to any of it.

I don't think there's a moral element to taking welfare to which you are legally entitled.

Yeah, I concur.

[MadImmortalMan]

As I see it, both tax rebates and welfare are ways to spend public money to incentivize certain behaviour or provide social goods. There is no difference, and no moral dimension to either.

Yeah that's essentially what I'm trying to say too.

Another dimension being that a government (or any collective entity) is incapable of agency of its own, so it's actions are always amoral. IMO, morality requires a single will making a decision to which the individual making it ascribes positive or negative moral value.

[LaCroix]

so, for the "no moral component to welfare" crowd - say a student is awarded federal pell grants every semester of college, even though he can pay for college without taking on any debt if he refused the grants. there is no moral component in the student's choice to either accept or refuse those grants?

[sbr]

so, for the "no moral component to welfare" crowd - say a student is awarded federal pell grants every semester of college, even though he can pay for college without taking on any debt if he refused the grants. there is no moral component in the student's choice to either accept or refuse those grants?

Aren't Pell Grants need based?  If they were dishonest to get them, then yes there is a moral component.

[LaCroix]

Aren't Pell Grants need based?  If they were dishonest to get them, then yes there is a moral component.

yes, pell grants are need based. for the scenario i'm familiar with, the student obtained the grants legally. but according to some views in this thread, so long as welfare is obtained legally, there is no moral component attached

[Jacob]

so, for the "no moral component to welfare" crowd - say a student is awarded federal pell grants every semester of college, even though he can pay for college without taking on any debt if he refused the grants. there is no moral component in the student's choice to either accept or refuse those grants?

Who the hell turns down money they're legally entitled to?

I don't see what's immoral about accepting the grant money, unless it was fraudulently obtained. Is there some sort of moral imperative that states that the ideal for students is to be as poor as possible without accumulating debt?

[LaCroix]

Who the hell turns down money they're legally entitled to?

I don't see what's immoral about accepting the grant money, unless it was fraudulently obtained. Is there some sort of moral imperative that states that the ideal for students is to be as poor as possible without accumulating debt?

would you think there's a moral component to someone with money going down to homeless shelters every week for a free meal?

[Razgovory]

so, for the "no moral component to welfare" crowd - say a student is awarded federal pell grants every semester of college, even though he can pay for college without taking on any debt if he refused the grants. there is no moral component in the student's choice to either accept or refuse those grants?

Who the hell turns down money they're legally entitled to?

I don't see what's immoral about accepting the grant money, unless it was fraudulently obtained. Is there some sort of moral imperative that states that the ideal for students is to be as poor as possible without accumulating debt?

It's not uncommon.  I've seen it here.

[Jacob]

would you think there's a moral component to someone with money going down to homeless shelters every week for a free meal?

If they misrepresented themselves to obtain the free meal, I would think there was something morally dubious about it.

If they showed up in all their affluent privilege and still got a free meal, I wouldn't think there was anything particularly amiss morally. I'd expect that if the meal in question made a difference to the shelter's program, that the administrators would not serve the wealthy; but if they do I expect the program could manage. Honestly, though, I don't think anyone would regularly dine at a homeless shelter without a compelling reason.

But to take your scenarios and posit a yes (as that seems to be the answer you would give). Is it similarly immoral for a university to accept a research grant, if they could afford to pay for the project anyhow? Is it immoral for a farmer to accept a subsidy for crop, even if they could afford to grow it without the subsidy? Is it immoral for a company to accept tax breaks to open a plant, even if they could in fact build and operate the plant at a profit without getting the subsidy? Is it immoral for a homeowner to write off their mortgage payments, even if they could afford to mortgage without the tax deduction?

[Jacob]

It's not uncommon.  I've seen it here.

That's just daft.

[LaCroix]

But to take your scenarios and posit a yes (as that seems to be the answer you would give). Is it similarly immoral for a university to accept a research grant, if they could afford to pay for the project anyhow? Is it immoral for a farmer to accept a subsidy for crop, even if they could afford to grow it without the subsidy? Is it immoral for a company to accept tax breaks to open a plant, even if they could in fact build and operate the plant at a profit without getting the subsidy? Is it immoral for a homeowner to write off their mortgage payments, even if they could afford to mortgage without the tax deduction?

in each of your scenarios there is a purpose to the subsidy. that purpose was not violated

pell grants are awarded to those students with financial need. that is the purpose of the program. the student in this scenario is aware of the social program's purpose, acknowledges his situation does not fit under that purpose, yet accepts the money regardless

if the financially secure universities, farmers, companies, and homeowners were all (legally) applying to programs and accepting money from those programs whose stated purpose was to assist financially insecure universities, farmers, companies, and homeowners, then, yes, i would say that would be immoral

[Razgovory]

It's not uncommon.  I've seen it here.

That's just daft.

Of course it is.  Back in 1993, we had a flood here.  A really, really, big flood.  My mom was a council woman representing in those days and her ward encompassed an area that was completely destroyed by the flood.  I remember watching whole houses get picked up and washed away.  Anyway, FEMA came in and offered a buy out.  They would pay the price of the house that was lost and their belongings with the promise they would settle somewhere else (so we wouldn't have this problem in the future).  Many people didn't want to take it.  They didn't want to take government money, cause that's bad.  Of course these people had absolutely nothing now, they had been tax payers before but the areas was never wealthy, but they still didn't want it.  Eventually they were convinced to take the cash and leave.

[The Brain]

Who the hell turns down money they're legally entitled to?

Many people do this.

[Ed Anger]

I would grab everything I'm eligible for.

[mongers]

I would grab everything I'm eligible for.

Even the government 'cheese' ?