Making the poor better off

[Cyclone]

It's not though.

If you define poor as anybody receiving less than 80% of the average, you can eliminate such "poorness" by giving benefits to those on less than 80% of the average to bring them up to 80% of the average.

 

I'm not supporting this, but it is certainly possible.

 

By giving them benefits you alter the average, and there are still people who against the new average only have 80% of the average.

Unless you ensure that everybody receives an identical amount there will always be those who have less than the average (by definition).

[unbeliever]

By giving them benefits you alter the average, and there are still people who against the new average only have 80% of the average.

Unless you ensure that everybody receives an identical amount there will always be those who have less than the average (by definition).

 

It cannot work on percentages of an average. Simple maths proves this point.

 

You can only use real values to determine those in poverty as we do when looking outside of our boarders.

 

Obviously some people will always be over the average and some under.

But that doesn't mean that anybody has to be below say 80% of an average.

 

Imagine a society with 3 people. A, B and C.

 

A makes £10k, B makes £20k and C makes £30k

The total is £60k and the average is £20k. A is on 50% of the average.

You now order C to give £8k/year to A. Or just change the pay accordingly by law.

 

Now A gets £18k, B gets £20k and C gets £22k.

The total is still £60k, and the average is still £20k, but now A is on 90% of the average and "relative poverty" has been eliminated.

 

Maths permits for this. Real society may react badly, but maths has no issue with it.

[Cyclone]

Relative poverty is nonsensical, you cannot eliminate what is a percentage of the mean average.

 

You can ensure that the gap doesn't become extremely large though.

 

---------- Post added 07-09-2015 at 11:58 ----------

 

Obviously some people will always be over the average and some under.

But that doesn't mean that anybody has to be below say 80% of an average.

 

Imagine a society with 3 people. A, B and C.

 

A makes £10k, B makes £20k and C makes £30k

The total is £60k and the average is £20k. A is on 50% of the average.

You now order C to give £8k/year to A. Or just change the pay accordingly by law.

 

Now A gets £18k, B gets £20k and C gets £22k.

The total is still £60k, and the average is still £20k, but now A is on 90% of the average and "relative poverty" has been eliminated.

 

Maths permits for this. Real society may react badly, but maths has no issue with it.

 

Yes, if you redistribute enough I suppose.

 

Is that a good idea though, not necessarily.

[unbeliever]

You can ensure that the gap doesn't become extremely large though.

 

---------- Post added 07-09-2015 at 11:58 ----------

 

 

Yes, if you redistribute enough I suppose.

 

Is that a good idea though, not necessarily.

 

I didn't say it was a good idea.

I just wanted to challenge the idea that it was impossible.

[Cyclone]

Not realistically practical, but not theoretically impossible.

[unbeliever]

Not realistically practical, but not theoretically impossible.

 

Couldn't agree more.

[RickyM]

Couldn't agree more.

 

Looks like this Tory isn't for turning!

[unbeliever]

Looks like this Tory isn't for turning!

 

 

I understand that the ideas which you support are idealistically appealing.

 

How do you get past the fact that when implemented they always fail?

[RickyM]

I understand that the ideas which you support are idealistically appealing.

 

How do you get past the fact that when implemented they always fail?

 

Because capitalism is more ruthless.

[unbeliever]

Because capitalism is more ruthless.

 

Yes it is.

The idea of communism is more caring, more cooperative, more compassionate and in many ways more fair.

But it doesn't work.

 

It was right to think about it. It was probably reasonable to try it, although it was expensive in both blood and treasure. But it's been tried multiple times and it fails.

How many more lives will be lost if we try it again? How much absolute abject poverty will be caused?

I'm not going to support trying yet again ideas which have failed so devastatingly and catastrophically before.

The moral case is reasonable, the pragmatic case is abysmal.