So Ludwig
If you're not 'taking from the rich to give to the poor' how else do you propose the wealth be 'better distributed'?

Now there is a safety net in our country, one that if often abused and it's called 'personal bankrupts'.

David F, an interesting thread, one that is sure to lure the 'tall poppies'

I agree with others, you must first define 'poor'.

Rehctub, I think you have misread my post. The essence of a more socialistic regime would be to take more money off the rich and give it to the poor, to the extent of balancing it all out a bit, but not to the extent of dragging the rich down to the same level as the poor or the ‘middle class’. In fact, you could argue that the protection of the poor is not really socialistic at all, but should be seen as a fundamental principle of democracy.

There is something very sick about our ‘pseudodemocracy’ when some people can become absolutely obscenely rich or be on incomes that are a hundred times greater than people who have university qualifications and have worked their way up into reasonable positions over many years for example, such as myself, while there is a significant portion of the population that is battling to survive day to day.

I agree; the poor need to be defined. There are indeed many aspects to poorness, including those with money but poor health and/or a poor quality of life.

grim, thanks for your post to this thread. It opened the topic right up.

Much of this gets away from the excellent point made in the original post but still seems relevant to the discussion (in my view).

Things which might go into the mix when considering wealth and poverty.
- Assets/debts at a point in time
- Income - non-discretionary outgoings
- Skill set (personal and professional)
- Support available (family/friends able and willing to help can create a safety buffer that someone else may not have)
- Where they live - a poor person living somewhere where they can grow much of their own food is in a better position than a poor person who does not, someone with ready access to services is in a better position than someone isolated from them, aspects of the cost of living vary depending on where you live as well)
- Relative wealth of peers and community ( better or worse off than those around you)
- Physical and mental health
- The level of choice a person has about their situation.

R0bert

Antonios asked about defining poor?

I would not use poor health or a poor quality of life as a descriptor. Kerry Packer died at 68 having had many health problems. He probably had much better medical care than I have had.

I am 83, besides hay fever have no health problems, have no false teeth and can read and drive without grasses and enjoy nature, literature and music.

Possibly my life is richer in enjoyment than Packer’s because I probably appreciate life in ways that were unavailable to him.

However, is my life really richer than Packer’s was? He had the thrill of being able to stake large sums at the gambling table. That does not appeal to me, but what I have done would probably not appeal to him.

I didn’t start this string to compare debts and assets or to define gradations of well-being among those not at the bottom.

In talking about the very poor I think there are simple criteria by which we can make that judgement. They don’t have a bed to sleep in, are insecure in safety of life and limb, don’t have a disease free source of water to drink and don’t have a roof over their heads. They may be in the cities or in the bush.

There are people like in this country, and I have seen them on the streets. How did they get that way? What can be done about it? If it is a genuine matter of choice nothing should be done about it. I think it is rarely or never a matter of choice. How can we keep this from happening to others?

On Sunday I saw a man sitting on a ledge at Anzac Square. He was next to a little portable radio tuned low. Beside him was a shopping cart with what I assumed were the sum of his worldly possessions. His eyes were red-rimmed. His grimy sweater and trousers were raggedy, and he seemed oblivious to the world. I am posting about him.

There is no problem in defining very poor. He was it.

One is often consoled with the thought that there are others who are worse off but what off the poor bastard who cannot take comfort in that? the person who is genuinely worst off?
So how would you define such a person?
We all have lifeplans, some are better formulated than others but each and everyone of us has some of idea of what we need for our life plan.
A rational plan is one that one can have some realistic hope of achieving. For example a person who is blind would not rationally have a plan that requires the ability to see.
In a just society people have the means to implement their rational plans of life. That requirement is only tempered by the reality that your plan cannot be achieved at the expense of someone else's plan.
When we look at our society we see that there are a great number of people who are incapable of implementing their rational life plan because of the way the goods needed to achieve your plan are distributed.
I am not referring to wealth as such but even in affluent Australia there are people who do not have access to quality education, quality health care - access to the sort of public infrastructure that is essential to execute one's rational plan of life.
Part of the reason for this lies in the way we distribute our wealth. In Australia as in most other western democracies about 10% of the population control 90% of the wealth - if that imbalance was addressed then even the very worst off in our society would have a chance to execute their rational plan of life - at very least we would give them reason to hope.

Davidf “I would like to see a feature telling about 100 of the poorest people. I don’t know about them, but I would like to find out.”

Why?

Poverty is hardly something to aspire to –

unless you are a socialist, who thinks we should all be reduced to poverty and destitution, through the relentless leveling of everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

Some folks feel "poor" and demand the state provide for their every whim, before considering the value to be gained from their own efforts.

Conversely:

If some of us were to lose all that we do possess overnight, we would not feel “poor” because such feelings are alien to our “attitude”

In short, whilst I can still hear Mozart being played on a public broadcasting system, or see the works of Canaletto and Cellini in library books -

I will never be “poor”.