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

[garbon]

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.

I recall my sister getting pretty steamed at a former classmate who was receiving foodstamps as she couldn't be bothered to take on a job that would fully cover her living expenses. Of course, fast forward several years and my sister just signed up for medicare under similar circumstances.

[garbon]

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.

Ugh. More legislation for all?

[sbr]

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.

Ugh. More legislation for all?

If the laws are no good, what is wrong with a law to change it?  Or should we be stuck with bad laws because we have hit some sort of cap on the number we can/should have?

[Jacob]

Ugh. More legislation for all?

I expect some of this could be achieved with less and different legislation. Generally, the more complex the system the easier it is to find loopholes to exploit.

The main point, however, is that it is foolish to expect people and corporations both to leave money lying on the table if it's legally available to them.

[Jacob]

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.

I recall my sister getting pretty steamed at a former classmate who was receiving foodstamps as she couldn't be bothered to take on a job that would fully cover her living expenses. Of course, fast forward several years and my sister just signed up for medicare under similar circumstances.

And I'd think your sister was being silly getting steamed like that.

[garbon]

The main point, however, is that it is foolish to expect people and corporations both to leave money lying on the table if it's legally available to them.

That seems like a different discussion than the one being had.

[garbon]

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.

I recall my sister getting pretty steamed at a former classmate who was receiving foodstamps as she couldn't be bothered to take on a job that would fully cover her living expenses. Of course, fast forward several years and my sister just signed up for medicare under similar circumstances.

And I'd think your sister was being silly getting steamed like that.

Oh certainly - though at the same time, I do have a bit of for such layabouts.

[Admiral Yi]

And I'd think your sister was being silly getting steamed like that.

Disagree.  Food stamps should be for people who are unable to afford food, not for those who are not in the mood to work.

[LaCroix]

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.

woah, woah. hold up a second. there are views discussed in this thread saying that there can never be any moral component to legal acts related to welfare. i pointed out a scenario where there can be a moral component attached to a legal act regarding welfare. that's my only point. suggesting that i'm attempting to "paint those who receive need-based help as 'immoral'" is a very gross and unfair assumption

if the rule is there can never be moral component attached to welfare, and there's one instance where that's incorrect, then the rule is wrong

[grumbler]

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?

These are arguments that there may be circumstances under which it is moral to accept government money or welfare.  I don't think that this is in contention.

If you are arguing (as you seem to be elsewhere, and as Sheilb is explicitly stating) that it is always moral to accept welfare, so long as it is legal, then I posit you this situation:  a person graduates from school, and decides that welfare provides him or her enough to live on, and so decides to become a permanent welfare recipient, without ever working a day in their lives.  Moral, or not?

[Josquius]

Its just common sense to accept money you're entitled to; unless it involves a lot of work to get it for very little reward.

Is it immoral...perhaps so....when other people are doing it.
But when its you, why shouldn't you get to take a little from the system you've given so much to?
The problem is with the system in leaving so much available to people who don't need it, not the people who actually do the natural thing and take it.

[grumbler]

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.

woah, woah. hold up a second. there are views discussed in this thread saying that there can never be any moral component to legal acts related to welfare. i pointed out a scenario where there can be a moral component attached to a legal act regarding welfare. that's my only point. suggesting that i'm attempting to "paint those who receive need-based help as 'immoral'" is a very gross and unfair assumption

if the rule is there can never be moral component attached to welfare, and there's one instance where that's incorrect, then the rule is wrong

It is ironic, is it not, to see someone write and complain about "red herrings" by employing strawman arguments?

I don't know of anyone who is arguing that there is always a moral component to accepting government money, but Jacob seems determined to defeat that argument anyway.

[Sheilbh]

If you are arguing (as you seem to be elsewhere, and as Sheilb is explicitly stating) that it is always moral to accept welfare, so long as it is legal, then I posit you this situation:  a person graduates from school, and decides that welfare provides him or her enough to live on, and so decides to become a permanent welfare recipient, without ever working a day in their lives.  Moral, or not?

Moral. I sort-of actually think this may be the future. I'm beginning to think we should just move to a minimum basic income and do away with the rest of the welfare state.

But I think in that situation you could question the morality of the system but not the individual. Off the top of my head I can't think of any situations where we owe the state more than legal requirements. Whether that's paying more tax than we have to by abstaining from taking advantage of tax credits or legal tax avoidance, or receiving fewer benefits than we're entitled to.

[LaCroix]

But I think in that situation you could question the morality of the system but not the individual. Off the top of my head I can't think of any situations where we owe the state more than legal requirements. Whether that's paying more tax than we have to by abstaining from taking advantage of tax credits or legal tax avoidance, or receiving fewer benefits than we're entitled to.

middle of winter, pipe bursts. fuel reserves will only last until the pipe is fixed if the local population complies with requests to lower their thermostats to 55 to 60F. temperatures outside are roughly -20 to -40F (-28 to -40C). there is no moral component if one family responds by purposely raises their heat usage while the rest of the community complies and lowers their heat usage?

correct me if i'm wrong, but you, jacob, and madimmortal are all essentially saying that people should never pass up an opportunity to (legally) benefit themselves. since there is no moral component to these acts, it is not even a question of "right or wrong," but merely something people should do automatically. you are saying we have no duty to society (which the government is essentially is) beyond legal duties

take that logic to its extreme

let's say i make a girl fall in love with me and have her move in. she agrees to pay half of my rent, along with half utilities and the grocery bill. i have no interest in marrying her or staying with her longer than is necessary - using her for the financial benefit. she thinks i'm the one. i put up with her for the rest of my schooling, then break up with her. overall net gain is, say, $25,000, which means less debt for me. there is no moral component to my actions because i was legally entitled to act the way i did, since i pay taxes and therefore am benefited by the laws of the US which allowed me to exploit this poor girl

correct?

[MadImmortalMan]

society (which the government is essentially is)

Do you really believe that?