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

[The Brain]

I would grab everything I'm eligible for.

Well you'd try, but you wouldn't reach the stuff on the top shelf.

[Ed Anger]

I would grab everything I'm eligible for.

Even the government 'cheese' ?

Yes. That shit was good back in the day. You could make fantastic Mac and Cheese out of it.

[Ed Anger]

I would grab everything I'm eligible for.

Well you'd try, but you wouldn't reach the stuff on the top shelf.

I am a fantastic 6 feet tall.

[The Brain]

Sitting in a wheelchair?

[The Brain]

I would grab everything I'm eligible for.

Even the government 'cheese' ?

Yes. That shit was good back in the day. You could make fantastic Mac and Cheese out of it.

10 or regular?

[Ed Anger]

Sitting in a wheelchair?

Find a new joke please.

[alfred russel]

Lying on a gurney?

[Ed Anger]

I am gonna turn the other cheek today since it is Easter.

[The Brain]

Sitting in a wheelchair?

Find a new joke please.

OMG you really are in a wheelchair. I'm so sorry man.

[sbr]

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

I guess I am not familiar enough with the process, but how are all of these people legally and honestly applying for and getting need based money they don't need?  In my experience it is tough to get need based money when you do need it.

[Sheilbh]

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?

This reminds me of the leftie groups in the UK who get very angry about companies and people legally reducing their tax bill.

[Admiral Yi]

A classmate of my brother was  given an academic free ride at Swarthmore, so he turned down the Merit Scholarship money, which is not need based.  That's the only real world example I know of someone turning down legal free money.

[garbon]

If they showed up in all their affluent privilege

How does one do that?

[Jacob]

I guess I am not familiar enough with the process, but how are all of these people legally and honestly applying for and getting need based money they don't need?  In my experience it is tough to get need based money when you do need it.

As I understand "need based" programs there are criteria and metrics in place to determine of someone qualifies. As you say, it can sometimes be very difficult to qualify, even if it seems pretty clear that you are in need.

Which is why I don't see why people expect others to apply a nebulous secondary set of morality based criteria and reject money they're entitled to of they otherwise qualify. To me it seems a rhetorical red herring relying in outliers and anecdotes to paint those who receive need-based help as "immoral".

If there's a scenario where plenty of people who don't need the money are getting need-based help, reform the criteria; don't impugn the morals of the people who qualify. And as you say, it's often pretty difficult to qualify for help when you need it.

[Jacob]

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?

This reminds me of the leftie groups in the UK who get very angry about companies and people legally reducing their tax bill.

Yeah exactly. The only difference is whether the bugaboo is "lazy poor people" or "evil corporations".

Personally, I'm not fond of big corporations paying zero tax through various clever schemes, but I don't blame them for doing so if it's possible. What those solutions should lead to is reform, rather than appeals to the morals of the corporations.