• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Black people afraid to call the police because of fear of police brutality?

Yes, so I'd be poor and comfortable, rather than poor and uncomfortable.

You said it yourself that injections of money do not lift people out of poverty and you are basically correct; even giving poor people free cars and houses probably wouldn't do that, unless it also gave them an opportunity to increase their income. In my case: if I was able to buy a house closer to work so I could work longer hours, or if I got married to a woman who makes more money than I do and added income to our household, that would DRAMATICALLY increase my family's standing.

You are measuring poor based on gross income rather than net income.

If we were measuring by net income, then you'd be wrong anyway: yes, financial windfalls DO get you out of poverty -- for the year that it happens -- in which case the real answer is to give people the same amount of money every year.

But that's not what we were talking about, is it? You were talking about poverty as a self-perpetuating state of continuing economic stagnation that limits a person's social, economic and geographic mobility and their capacity to invest in their own future. THAT form of poverty is alleviated by increasing income. If you don't think giving poor people a million dollars every year would solve that problem, I don't know what to tell you.
 
You are measuring poor based on gross income rather than net income.

If we were measuring by net income, then you'd be wrong anyway: yes, financial windfalls DO get you out of poverty -- for the year that it happens -- in which case the real answer is to give people the same amount of money every year.

But that's not what we were talking about, is it? You were talking about poverty as a self-perpetuating state of continuing economic stagnation that limits a person's social, economic and geographic mobility and their capacity to invest in their own future. THAT form of poverty is alleviated by increasing income. If you don't think giving poor people a million dollars every year would solve that problem, I don't know what to tell you.

When people get a windfall that should keep them out of poverty for life it still doesn't help. Most major lottery winners are soon back where they started. An awful lot of athletes are back in poverty not too long after retirement.
 
Most major lottery winners are soon back where they started.

This sort of claim is "untrue" by omission. The WHOLE truth is that is that most major lottery winners end up BROKE, which isn't necessarily where they started. And a lot of that has to do with people around them being greedy and manipulative, including those around them killing them or trying to kill them.

I am not sure what this has to do with the thread, though.
 
If we were measuring by net income, then you'd be wrong anyway: yes, financial windfalls DO get you out of poverty -- for the year that it happens -- in which case the real answer is to give people the same amount of money every year.

But that's not what we were talking about, is it? You were talking about poverty as a self-perpetuating state of continuing economic stagnation that limits a person's social, economic and geographic mobility and their capacity to invest in their own future. THAT form of poverty is alleviated by increasing income. If you don't think giving poor people a million dollars every year would solve that problem, I don't know what to tell you.

When people get a windfall that should keep them out of poverty for life it still doesn't help.
Where are you getting the "should" in that sentence? A one-time windfall isn't BY ITSELF enough to completely change a person's economic status.

That would be like saying a one-time victory will automatically make you unbeatable. That's a silly thing to assume, let alone argue for.

Most major lottery winners are soon back where they started.
Which is not the same thing as "financial windfall for poor people." Since most major lottery winners aren't actually poor.

OTOH, if you had spent literally ANY amount of time investigating the cause, you would have your own answer. This is from the VERY FIRST result in a five second google search:

"People who were little, ordinary people all of a sudden become extraordinary," said Steve Lewit, CEO of Wealth Financial Group in Chicago. "They're euphoric. They lose all sense of reality. They think they're invincible and powerful. They think they're Superman."

​The biggest problem, several finance advisers agreed, is that lottery winners give away too much money to family and friends.

"Once family and friends learn of the windfall, they have expectations of what they should be entitled to, and many of these expectations are not rational," said Charles Conrad, senior financial planner with Szarka Financial in North Olmsted. "It can be very difficult to say no."

The easy solution would be to rely on a third party to act as a gatekeeper, Conrad said, but many lottery winners don't turn to anyone to intercept the flood of requests from all of those "close" friends and relatives. The same thing often applies to professional athletes who get huge contracts, he said.

Once new millionaires start giving money away, "it's difficult to reverse course and turn off the spigot," agreed Westlake financial planner Scott Snow, who had a South Euclid client who won more than $100 million in the Mega Millions lottery a decade ago.

Kevin Myeroff, a certified financial planner and CEO of NCA Financial in Mayfield Heights, said a shocking number of lottery winners don't get help from professionals such as a financial adviser or attorney. Or they surround themselves with the wrong people. And then they up giving too much money away and squandering too much on depreciating assets such as cars, vacations and gifts.

It's compounded because, when you're talking about hundreds of millions or more than $1 billion -- what? -- it's virtually impossible to wrap your mind around what that amount means. You've heard the TV reports that you could stack $1.5 billion worth of $1 bills and it would reach 100 miles high. Or you could spend $30,000 a day and never run out of money.

When someone has hit a jackpot or received a big inheritance, "the recipient has no idea what that amount of money means to them," Myeroff said. "If someone had $20 million and I asked them, 'Could you safely take out $10,000 per month or $200,000 per month to live on?' They wouldn't have a clue."

Snow said newly wealthy people also often invest in businesses without scrutinizing them.

Conrad said lottery winners may not pay enough attention to anything they put money into. "They can invest in things that they don't understand and they do so without understanding the real risks involved," he said.

"If an investment has a lot of moving parts or can't be explained in simple terms, it probably isn't something they should be doing," Conrad said. "Just because they now have a significant amount of money doesn't mean that they automatically become a sophisticated investor."

To avoid financial woes and other problems, Snow said, lottery winners should surround themselves with a team of trusted advisers who can "act as a sounding board."

It also bears repeating that bankruptcy is not the same thing as poverty. Most big-time lottery winners declared bankruptcy because they have accumulated too much debt in poorly-planned attempts to do exactly what you simplistically suggested they do: throw it at some investment deals and try to live off the returns. They're hardly "back where they started" at that point since in most cases they have accumulated quite a few assets at that point, but do not remain wealthy because they are back to their original income source.
 
If we were measuring by net income, then you'd be wrong anyway: yes, financial windfalls DO get you out of poverty -- for the year that it happens -- in which case the real answer is to give people the same amount of money every year.

But that's not what we were talking about, is it? You were talking about poverty as a self-perpetuating state of continuing economic stagnation that limits a person's social, economic and geographic mobility and their capacity to invest in their own future. THAT form of poverty is alleviated by increasing income. If you don't think giving poor people a million dollars every year would solve that problem, I don't know what to tell you.

When people get a windfall that should keep them out of poverty for life it still doesn't help. Most major lottery winners are soon back where they started. An awful lot of athletes are back in poverty not too long after retirement.

The fallacy of your comments are pointed out in irrefutable terms, so you just start all over at the beginning with your bogus premise. :shrug:
 
(lots of stuff snipped, stuff on the alleged depravity of poor people)
I am not sure what this has to do with the thread, though.
Yes, returning to the subject of my OP, I note about certain people here, people who defend police brutality and police murders, that they have been unwilling to consider the unintended consequences of the policies that they favor. What might be going on here?
 
(lots of stuff snipped, stuff on the alleged depravity of poor people)
I am not sure what this has to do with the thread, though.
Yes, returning to the subject of my OP, I note about certain people here, people who defend police brutality and police murders, that they have been unwilling to consider the unintended consequences of the policies that they favor. What might be going on here?

Demonizing the weak, because the ideology of the tough guy in the US is "might is right," not "might is smart and courageous and aware of its surroundings."
 
When people get a windfall that should keep them out of poverty for life it still doesn't help. Most major lottery winners are soon back where they started. An awful lot of athletes are back in poverty not too long after retirement.
You keep repeating this without producing one shred of actual evidence to support your claims. Produce a study of lottery winners (not anecdotes from newspapers) that shows the outcomes by initial income levels. Otherwise, your claims represent wishful thinking on your part.
 
When people get a windfall that should keep them out of poverty for life it still doesn't help. Most major lottery winners are soon back where they started. An awful lot of athletes are back in poverty not too long after retirement.
You keep repeating this without producing one shred of actual evidence to support your claims. Produce a study of lottery winners (not anecdotes from newspapers) that shows the outcomes by initial income levels. Otherwise, your claims represent wishful thinking on your part.

Even that wouldn't show much of anything. People who play the lottery are not a random sample of the population but a self selected sample.
 
You keep repeating this without producing one shred of actual evidence to support your claims. Produce a study of lottery winners (not anecdotes from newspapers) that shows the outcomes by initial income levels. Otherwise, your claims represent wishful thinking on your part.

Even that wouldn't show much of anything. People who play the lottery are not a random sample of the population but a self selected sample.
True dat, but at least it would provide a temporary fig leaf on the naked body of bias masquerading as fact.
 
Back
Top Bottom