Grim, we have pople who bought a block of land in the 50's, on the beach, where nobody wanted to live back then, so why do they have to pay tens of tousands each year in rates simply because they made a choice that turned out to be very wise some 50+ years later. Remember, most of these people don't have huge incomes, they are simply assett rich and cash flow poor and, they are being forced to sell thier homes due to the increased values. It stinks!

Now as for things being right as they are, I was reffering to the way banks lend, or don't lend to certain people.

Just remember, we are all given an equal opportunity to be poor. Some of us just prefer to defy the odds and step out of our comfort zone.

I could sell my business, my houses etc, withdraw all my cash and waste it, then I to would be poor. There's nobody stopping me!

There are also people who were poor but took risks and today are on the rich lists. The guy who designed the 'attitude' logo comes to mind.

He had an equal opportunity to fail and remain poor. So what's the problem?

rehctub,

I don't think too many people have a problem with others who take a risk and work hard having more wealth. The problem really comes when the split in society between the rich and the rest gets so large that people who are otherwise healthy become deadened - simply because they cannot compete with the fastest runners in society. That's at one end of the spectrum.

At the other end, I don't believe one should help people who aren't interested in being helped - ie, casting pearls before the swine as Jesus put it. However, it is fair enough to help those that can be helped (so long as they don't throw it back in your face). This is one reason why getting Government to dole out welfare (rather than leaving it up to individuals as Col might have it) is a good thing. Can you imagine how chaotic and fragmented things would be if it was all left up to individuals?

Would your friends with the block of land on the beach be prepared to sell that land for the same money they paid for it, in return for lower rates?
If they wanted a block in a small, uncrowded fishing village, I'm surprised they didn't sell up and move on years ago.
I have paid rates on a few houses, in a few different areas, but the rateable value of the property was never even close to the market value.
Your friends are going to make a huge capital gain on their property.
Why are you talking about them on a thread about the 100 poorest people?
We're talking about people who can't afford to eat. You're talking about people who can't afford a new Mercedes every year.

Very early on in this thread I argued for the proposition that poverty means not being able to implement your ratiional life plan due to systemic problems. In other words your lifestyle and income were not a product of your own doing but the way in which the system put road blocks in the way. My reason for this argument is that by defining poverty in this manner we take out of the equation natural advantages or disadvantages and focus purely on the way our society is organized. The exampple of people being forced out of their homes because of rising land values is a good example of this. In the 1960ties the South East Corner of Adelaide was an area of social disadvantage. People who bought homes there were your typical battlers. Over the years the area has become gentrified - the result is that the few remaining battlers have now lived in the area for close on 50 years - they are retired and are making ends meet on their pension. Their homes have increased in value as have their rates. Why should they in their old age leave their familiar environment because they cannot afford the rates? This scenario is played out all over Australia; in many instances their homes will be advertised with slogan renovate or detonate which is an other way of saying that their ratable value is in the land rather than the house. These people are given the choice to sell up and move into an unfamiliar neighbourhood or stay put and attempt to pay the rates. Some councils offer a rate holiday in return for equity in the property but that too hardly seems fair.
If people's poverty or straitened circumstances can be attributed to factors outside of their control, to the way our system is organized we have to ask the question whether or not we have a good system.

BAYGON “In other words your lifestyle and income were not a product of your own doing but the way in which the system put road blocks in the way”

Why should you see the ”system” as putting road blocks in anyone’s way?

Perhaps some folk feel poor because their “aspirations” or “sense of entitlement” exceed the value of they can produce from the deployment of their natural ability.

As for battlers buying cheap.. when their area is “gentrified” I assume those battlers who had bought their houses cheaply walked away with a fine tax free capital gain.

“If people's poverty or straitened circumstances can be attributed to factors outside of their control”

But those factors are often indeterminable and inseparable from the factors which are “within” their control

Some folk just do not make good life choices… from deciding to take drugs to running up credit card debt…. People can never be protected from the outcomes of their own stupidity.

“to the way our system is organized we have to ask the question whether or not we have a good system.”

A system which allows everyone to aspire to the maximum of their own potential is the best “system”

It may not be “good” by your definition but it is better than any other “system” which works to ensure they all end up “equal”.

Equal opportunity does not presume equal outcomes,

Quite the opposite when we consider that everyone is an individual, each with individual strengths and weaknesses, abilities and limits.

Doubtless the distribution of those “strengths and weaknesses, abilities and limits” will not be “equal”

So if "Equal outcomes" ever became the "goal"

Since we cannot make the deficient and defective “better”, the only alternative would be to make the strong and able weaker, which will hardly produce a practical or productive outcome or anythiing which I would ever support.

Col Rouge
A system which allows everyone to aspire to the maximum of their own potential is the best “system”

This is precisely what was the intent of my post. No doubt I expressed myself badly.

In determining how well society does at achieving that we cannot extrapolate from particular examples.

Equal opportunity does not presume equal outcomes,

Quite the opposite when we consider that everyone is an individual, each with individual strengths and weaknesses, abilities and limits.

True, I do not disagree BUT if in looking at society you can see one group consistently at the bottom of the heap then you have to question whether or not that is a product of natural diversity or artificially created by the way society is organized.

Simple example here relates to female income. It stretches the bond of credulity to breaking point to accept that the reason that women on the whole earn about 20% less than men is due to their individual strengths and weaknesses, abilities and limits. That suggests to me that as a society we make it more difficult for an individual woman to get due recognition for their contribution.

The same argument applies to poverty. Brian Barry (Why Social justice Matters) makes the point that if the USA system was a genuine meritocracy than on the basis of George W Bush's business dealings he should be "holding out a paper cup on Broadway and begging for small change" (p143) The Bush example on its own does not prove anything. But if we go on to look at the family history of the poorest people - we find that if your parents were poor the odds are that you will be poor. This confirms my position that we live in a society that has entrenched structural inequalities, a society that only has a veneer of equality of opportunity.

But I repeat this does not mean that there are no poor people who would not be poor regardless of what system is in place.