Can I have a dollar and your email address so I can easily send you a request every day?
I do essentially the same thing.
What this fellow said.
A lot of financial experts thought like you do. It was as arrogant and wrong as you are. A lot of what happens to you in life is beyond your control and fine plans.
Warm beds in often awful conditions. Shelters are no paradise. Many homeless people don’t even want to go there.
As for accepting menial jobs : how would you know? And I’m not their caseworker, anyway.
Same response as above. Plus, just having a warm bed isn’t enough to live an acceptable life.
And there are also people who end up in the street by no fault of their own, and can’t extract themselves from this situation. And the odds are stacked against them. I doubt you’d fare so well if you ended up homeless. There used to be a poster on this board who had been a homeless. His accounts of what it is like were quite enlightening.
Maybe I’m contributing to their addiction. That’s not my job to tell them what they should do with the money I give them. And maybe I’m contributing towards food, or towards a cup of coffee, or towards a bed in a hotel (some poor people do live in hotels because they can’t find a place to rent, and some of them ask for money because they can’t afford the hotel with whatever income they have. I’ve known two people like that.)
It’s possible to do both (Though I personally only give to charities operating in developing countries). If I was following your reasoning, would I keep the change I intended to hand to some panhandler and send €1 to a charity instead? I doubt it. I wouldn’t give more money to charities if I abstained from handing it out on a street corner. That’s just not the same kind of action.
Such very remote and abstract consequences, even if you’re right, really aren’t the kind of things I have in mind when I hand out some money.
(And actually, I doubt your reasoning is correct. I don’t think people spend less money overall, hence destroy jobs, because there are panhandlers in the streets. Plus, the panhandlers spend their money, so it creates jobs, right?)
Yes, sure. Try to live in the real world, someday.
I used to own a small business in the retail core and I know that you are incorrect. We had many potential customers who simply refused to come downtown because they were intimidated by transients and pan-handlers. Instead they went to the suburban strip malls. The irony, is that it is liberal cities like Portland that provide support for social services for the homeless, not the suburbs. If you have a store in the downtown core you pay additional taxes for the privelege. In return we have large areas of the historical downtown in which many people are afraid to walk and a disproportionate amont of resources are spend by the police to re-arrest the same people for drug trafficing, public intoxication, and shoplifting.
I grew up poor and I relied on “the commons” for recreation, transportation, and education. I could go to the excellent libraries and museums in Boston, ride the T, and hang out in the Boston Common and enjoy the trees and grass.
When you have a large population of people who are some combination of foul-mouthed, smelly, drunken, insane, criminal, beggars it makes it difficult for families to make use of “the commons” and instead retreat to the strip malled suburbs.
Allowing people to live on the streets and beg for money is not good for them directly as they are prone to disease, exposure, and being victims of crime. It is not good for them indirectly because it reduces the tax base on which they rely for social services, and it is not good for the rest of the public because it interferes with their use of the parks, libraries, and transportation systems that make urban living such a rich experience.
>>Plus, just having a warm bed isn’t enough to live an acceptable life.
“Acceptable” isn’t the point. What’s “acceptable” to one person is “deplorable” to another, and yet could be “kingly” to yet another person.
Fact: Nobody in America has to sleep outside if they don’t want to. In any part of the country it’s easy to find a charity or organization that will put them safely in a warm bed and feed them a hot meal every night.
To you and me, this kind of life style described above would be “deplorable”
To someone from a third-world country (have you seen Slum Dog Millionaire?) this would be “kingly”
To someone who last night refused any help, the near-guarantee in America of finding a safe warm bed and hot meal every night you want one would be “acceptable.” It’s up to them to work towards a higher lifestyle if they want it. And if they can’t achieve more because of a mental condition or disability, well we have social organizations to help them with that, too. Again, more progress is achieved donating to charity than to giving someone a direct handout.
I’m not telling anyone what to do with anyone’s money. But if you’re reading this, you’re nevertheless interested. (Or else you wouldn’t be reading this!)
I live, shop, and hang out in a “bad” part of my city (Fort Worth). My experiences echo this post. I see a lot of repeat panhandlers when I go about my business. And I hear a lot of repeat stories from the regulars, too. Usually they have a heartrending story. They are on their way to the hospital, and need a few bucks to get gas. They need a few bucks to eat. Whatever. I might accept that story once, but when I hear it again and again from the same people, I start to believe that it’s just a story, intended to part soft-hearted fools from their money. I DO have sympathy for people who have had Life kick them in the teeth. However, I don’t have much sympathy for people who play on the generosity of others simply to slide through this life without working.
I will continue to donate to my own causes. However, I won’t put money directly into a panhandler’s pocket.
I was once very good friends with an alcoholic drug abuser. I’d buy him a meal or food any time. I’d give his landlord a few bucks, even. But I’d never give him money, and he knew perfectly well why I wouldn’t.
I limit it to in-person requests only, but if I saw you on the street every day and you asked me for a dollar, I would give you one if I had it to spare, which I usually would. If it went on too long, and too many other people wanted dollars too, then I wouldn’t be able to do it anymore. Somehow in decades of giving people what I could manage to spare, I’ve yet to find myself beleaguered to that extent. I live in New York City.
I believe you have every right to approve or deny any requests for your money on any grounds, so I’m not asking this because I want to change your mind or criticize your response. I’m just curious what personal guidelines you (and others) set about when to give money in general, not just to the homeless. Clearly for you and many other people, one is that the person must not be any kind of addict, but what other rules do you follow? (Maybe this should be another thread…)
Yeah, that’s how I do it too. It’s only a couple of bucks a day, and not even every day.
From now on, I’m going to go around asking people for a dollar.
I bet I could make upwards of 300 bucks a day, just asking people in the street for some spare change.
Odd conclusion to reach in a thread where the vast majority of people say they don’t give. Also, can you explain why that would be bad?
Even if the majority don’t give, the minority that do can still earn me a decent living.
Lets assume I could go to work, and make 320 Dollars a week, that’s 8 dollars an hour, times 40 hours a week – not great money, but above minimum wage. Even if we say I pay Zero in taxes, I can either beg for money at 300 dollars a day, or I can work for money at 320 dollars a week.
Honestly… which do you think I’m going to do?
And yet the incredibly vast majority of people do not. Panhandling wasn’t just invented, you know.
Mel Brooks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYqF_BtIwAU
I usually give them money unless they are agressive…
I didn’t say that the vast majority would.
However, there is economic incentive to panhandle. You get a tax free, easy income situation that requires no skill at all.
I don’t give to those begging on the street and here is why:
I give at least 3% of my paycheck to Red Cross disaster assistance. My wife volunteers 40+ hours a week to the Red Cross to help people that have lost their homes do to floods, fires, etc. I can give a lot more to the Red Cross than I could ever give to these people directly. In fact, according to my wife, people can give to the Red Cross and have the Red Cross make the donation directly to that person in need. If you do it this way, your donation is even tax deductible. Also, you know that these people need the money to get them through a temporary tough time.
A homeless shelter here in Paris recently burned down, displacing the 20 of the 25 residents. (The other five were killed in the fire.) Donations to Christians in Action and the local Red Cross have been steady, but nowhere near enough. Those twenty men will be evicted from the hotel room that has been provided and there is nowhere else in town for them to go to. I would ask that if you have a dollar and are thinking of giving it to someone in need, the Lamar County Chapter of the American Red Cross could use the help, as could Christians in Action.
It is possible to give to charity as well as your fellow stranger personally. Or to spend the same amount of money on a candy bar and also give to charity.
For me (and perhaps mswas), the difference is that we’re not invested in the idea that we must, in this very small and specific instance, either redeem or reprove the beggar. Instead, we feel that allowing those who live in more or less perpetual indignity the same right we grant ourselves to sin but still accept the pleasures life brings us is at most morally neutral.