My sincere apologies, David. It was never my intent to 'cheapen' your post with obfuscations and hair splitting. My point was in purely dollar terms, a person in debt could be defined as poorer than someone who has nothing.
In our society, it is almost always better to be in debt.
As to the poor bloke you describe, it is circumstances such as these that are gradually converting me from atheist to anti theist.
My sister and I once had a discussion about why we are who we are. She believed we all have choices, and ultimately, we are defined by those choices. I -naturally- took the opposite view.
Some people are quite obviously capable of making better choices than others. My sister has always chosen fairly wisely, while me, not so much.
Clearly, intelligence has a lot to do with our decision making abilities, but also our background and beliefs must play a big part. You probably wouldn't go to a Palestinian born and raised on the Gaza Strip for an unbiased and objective decision on how to deal with Jews, to use an extreme example.
The point is, I know of no one who 'earned' their intelligence, or had any say in their background or the way they were brought up. Yes, we do have choices, but the decisions we make are often governed by circumstances beyond our control.
And it appears there are a number of theists who justify leaving poor sods in the street, by ascribing it to 'God's Will'.
In fact, how else can millionaire Christians (surely an oxymoron) like say, Kevin Rudd, justify the egregious and growing gap between haves, and have nots?
I have seen very little evidence that the richest members of our society are the best and brightest, or even the most productive; although this may be due to change. I have heard complaints that some of our brightest students are ignoring the sciences, in favour of business studies.
Undeniably the smartest thing they could do for themselves, but of dubious benefit to society.

Dear Col,

Your post expresses the attitude: "If you're poor it's your own fault." I sincerely hope you will never be poor. However, you cannot control all the circumstances in your life and may wind up being poor even though you can hear Mozart being played on a public broadcasting system or see the works of Canaletto and Cellini in library books. The fellow I saw in Anzac Square may not be able to go into a library to look at art books because he would not know what to do with his shopping cart.

You questioned why I would like to find out about what has happened to those people. I am a human being who is troubled by the suffering of other human beings. I don't appreciate the sarcasm of your remark "Poverty is hardly something to aspire to" It is also something not to turn one's eyes away from.

Why does my concern bother you?

I know of no socialist who thinks we should all be reduced to poverty and destitution. That is your definition of socialism.

We have different attitudes towards life. I believe that much of our life is beyond our control. I was fortunate enough to have a good set of genes. I didn’t pick my parents. I was fortunate enough to get a very good education. I went to a public school in the United States during the depression years when people were lucky to get any sort of job. My teachers were people who could have had very lucrative jobs in a time of prosperity. Instead they wound up teaching. Doc Poland, my chemistry teacher, was a brilliant man and a brilliant teacher. Many of my teachers had PhDs in the fields they taught.

As a veteran of the US army in WW2 the government paid for my university education. I have led a good life but recognize that the good life was largely a matter of circumstance.

Had I been born in Europe in 1925 instead of in the US the Nazis probably would have put me to death.

Davidf " Your post expresses the attitude: If you're poor it's your own fault."

Not at all. My post expresses the attitude “poverty” is

as much a state of mind

as it is a state of material paucity.

“I sincerely hope you will never be poor.”

I am the son of a UK railway worker. I did not arrive with a silver spoon in my mouth.

So there is little you could teach me about being “poor”.

“because he would not know what to do with his shopping cart.”

Oh so he needed a security guard to stand over his wealth?

“Why does my concern bother you”

It does not. Asking the question “why”? is an open question and alludes to no “bothersome” concern.

“I know of no socialist who thinks we should all be reduced to poverty and destitution. That is your definition of socialism.”

I was not attempting a “definition of ” socialism,

I was observing the inevitable “consequences” of it.

“We have different attitudes towards life. I believe that much of our life is beyond our control.”

Too right, I believe we control what we want to and those who aspire to or use the excuse they have no “control” end up broke and in the gutter or the beneficiaries of state leveler benevolence (which is, invariably, less than one could achieve if one took control and applied even a modest effort).

“Had I been born in Europe in 1925 instead of in the US the Nazis probably would have put me to death.”

And it would have been my family members who would have tried to save you:

because we believe in the sanctity and worth of the individual

and not the crushing authority of the state.

A list of the 100 poorest people is a great idea david and would go some way in understanding nature of poverty. Like others who have posted the 100 Rich List is enough to bring on a yawn.

Why are we so titillated by the rich and by celebrity? They are generally an unhappy lot in my experience far removed from the real world. There are of course some exceptions.

Rather a rich list of those who made their money via ethical means - without exploitation, price fixing, anti-competition activities, fraud, corruption, planned obsolecence etc - you can fill in the gaps.

For me, distribution of wealth is about reducing the gap between rich and poor. And about valuing those important unsung roles in society that often receive poor recompense but give heaps in value to us all.

Take about fifty five Federal Court Judges, including the seven Judges on the High Court and add the forty five odd Members of the House of Representatives who are legally trained, and you have the 100 poorest people in Australia. They are not money poor, but intellectually and morally as poor as church mice.

Their addiction to money, is the source of their abject poverty. They are poor because the wealth they have cannot be taken with them, and the evil that they do lives after them. To live a rich and fulfilling life, and be a top 100 person, is far more rewarding that to accumulate enormous wealth, and every one dies sooner or later.

There is nothing warms the heart more than a man or woman, quietly going to meet his or her maker, in his or her own good time, having lived a good life, surrounded by admiring and loving relatives, who respect their right to die peacefully. Eventually every organism dies to be reduced to the dust from which it arose.

Sixty five percent of those 100, if statistics have any meaning, will be Christians, and some will even go to Church sometimes or often, but that is not enough. They may talk the talk but the real job is to walk the walk.

Unless the 100 poorest people in Australia realize that the Australian Constitution incorporates the principles of the New Testament and that Matthew 7 Verses 7-12 should govern all their conduct, in all courts, including Parliament, they will remain poor in spirit, and a burden on the rest of us.

The symptoms of their moral poverty are clear to see on many street corners in the three main Capital Cities in Australia. Just look at the poor homeless men and women, sleeping rough either drunk or drugged out of their minds, and there go the 100 poorest people in Australia after they cross the great divide. The Devil tried to tempt Jesus Christ, in Matthew 4:8-10. Jesus answer was complete, and when the accounting is done, their balance may be very poor indeed

You have a remarkable mind, Col Rouge.
It's fascinating to see a statement like:

"My post expresses the attitude “poverty” is as much a state of mind as it is a state of material paucity"

So closely followed by:

"'because he would not know what to do with his shopping cart.'
Oh so he needed a security guard to stand over his wealth?"