In Canada, as well as who knows where else ---- we sometimes hear a lot about the "wage gap" or "economic inequality".
Being on a provincial disability payment gives me a certain perspective.
I am paid more or less the same amount of money as anyone else on my same disability program. But our disability program pays us "typically less" than most people who live in our province would "typically" make.
so:::: I heard somewhere that 7/10 Americans are supposedly "broke", while only 3/10 actually have some cash.
In Latter-Day Saint or Ex-Latter-Day Saint circles, there's this viewpoint that might go around that it's a great sin not to take care of the poor.
So:: I was thinking::: does this mean that 30% of the USA population should somehow try to "take care" of 70% of the population?
Like, how would that work?
I then took the example or idea or anecdotal thought of two people who receive the same income every month, much like my disability program:::
They have an equal beginning I'll say. Say they both make $1000 a month.
The first might pay for his essentials, and lives with his parents. Saves the rest.
The second might pay for essentials lives with his parents but spends the rest on cigarettes and alcohol.
Now::: There's obviously going to be a difference of outcome for these two people.
The first will have a big pile of savings, and better health.
The second will have no savings, maybe some debt, and not as good health.
Heck, I could add in a third person on the same payment system::
Pays for essentials lives in a rental home, and buys lots of junk.
One has no stuff, good health, and lots of savings.
One has no stuff, bad health, and no savings.
One has lots of stuff, good health, and no savings.
The point I'm trying to illustrate here is this::::: The people might have the same income all their lives -------- but their economic outcomes are vastly different based on WHAT THEY CHOOSE TO DO WITH THEIR MONEY.
It's about the habits they develop and the choices they make.
So:::: Let's say the one with all the savings is "the rich one" ------ and the other two think they need his help because they don't have as much money.
How exactly would equalizing these people economically work anyway?
Like::: why should I give my savings to a person who has lots of stuff? I have no stuff, so how would this be considered somehow equal?
If I have no stuff but lots of saved money, and that saved money earns interest ---- I might have and make a tonne of money, but I have no stuff. And I'm supposed to give my money to a person who has lots of stuff? Why what for? Why would that be equality? All of the sudden I have less money and no stuff, while he has my money and has all his stuff.
In the end, the search or quest to somehow economically equalize the human race might be entirely in vain.
Oh ---- I'm sure circumstance might play some role in a person's economic situation ------ but in the end, at some point, what it really comes down to is making choices and making habits. Make good chioces and habits and you'll prosper, make bad choices or habits and you won't.
It doesn't matter how you cut it:::: how you end up, in the end, is up to you and your choices and your behavior ---- you can't really rely on someone else to take care of you necessarily, nor would this reliance necessarily be moral either.
These are just my thoughts after pondering the question of how the rich are supposed to take care of the poor.
How are the rich supposed to actually take care of the poor anyway? Why does 30% of the population somehow have to take care of or pander to 70%?
Sure, democracy might be a thing ------ but what about personal habits and choices? Wouldn't 70% of the population demanding help or assistance from 30% over a lifetime somehow be considered immoral? Like slavery maybe?
It's really just up to personal choices and habits in the end. If I'm wrong please show me how.
Trying to economically equalize the world might be a really hard thing to do and here are some reasons why:::: not everybody wants the same thing. If everyone all had the same stuff, there would be no variety. No choices being made.
You could give everyone equal opportunity, but it wouldn't translate into an equal outcome.
Equal outcome would basically mean that everyone got the same stuff regardless of choices. In an equal outcome world:::: it doesn't matter what you choose to do ----- it doesn't matter what you really want ----- you'll just get the same as everyone else.
So Yeah. Maybe what I believe in is equality of opportunity.
But equality of outcome is different.
Somehow making equality of opportunity a thing might be OK --- that might make sense --- or maybe not ever necessarily pure equality but just trying to equalize opportunity ---- that might be OK.
But everybody is different, and even right from the day, you are born different children are not all the same as each other. It really depends on their choices, habits, health, and circumstances at that young age.
But eventually, assuming they aren't disabled, and even if they are disabled, it might really come down just to habits and choices.
It just doesn't completely make sense that rich people have to somehow pander to or take care of poor people.
Developing good habits, making good choices ---- personal development is what matters.