How rich are you on a global scale?

[luiz]

Exactly. And this is one of the reasons I absolutely despise charities. They rely on guilt and shaming tactics to bully people into parting with their hard-earned money for whatever lost cause they are advocating. Sorry, but all my money goes to providing the absolute best life I can for my two daughters. You know, the only two people in this world I have any real obligation to provide for.

Not all charities are like that. If you go to a poor country and look for it, you'll have the chance to see many charities doing fantastic work with very little overhead and zero publicity.

The "problem" with some of the major charities we see in Europe and the US is that they are essentially "charity investment funds" that is, they do nothing themselves but rather distribute their funds, after subtracting overhead, to charities they deem worthy. If donors did more research they could reach the worthy charities directly.

 

[haanuman]

Rent is 95% of my monthly allowance. Sure, website, I'll donate 10% of my money.

lol

 

[aelf]

Exactly. And this is one of the reasons I absolutely despise charities. They rely on guilt and shaming tactics to bully people into parting with their hard-earned money for whatever lost cause they are advocating. Sorry, but all my money goes to providing the absolute best life I can for my two daughters. You know, the only two people in this world I have any real obligation to provide for.

Calm down, John Galt.

 

[riddleofsteel]

Ouch, am I the only one who voted bottom 25th percentile?

Your website says I'm in the richest 0.7% in the world, but I was skeptical because this site's trying to convince me to give them money. So I also tried http://www.globalrichlist.com/ which says I'm at 0.15% and I'm ranked 9,213,818th in world income, which I just can't believe is true considering how many people in wealthy countries just have to be earning more than me, you know? I also tried https://politicalcalculations.blogs...our-world-income-percentile.html#.W4ae3OhKj4Y which says I'm at 99.3 percentile, which matches your first quiz, so those two at least agree. I thought this was rather an interesting idea. I also used payscale to compare my salary, and I make 90% of the average for my industry and title, which probably isn't surprising, but I really seriously doubt less than 10 million people earn more than I do.

That http://www.globalrichlist.com/wealth also has a wealth calculator, and that says I'm at 5.94% of wealth, or the 267,418,222nd richest person, lol.

Dios mio!

 

[Tee Kay]

I feel like this would be more useful if it's about disposable income.

 

[Mouthwash]

Calm down, John Galt.

I don't think real objectivists would acknowledge any obligation to feed your children.

 

[aelf]

Based on Atlas Shrugged and stuff, I don't think so. In fact, those literature don't seem to suggest that charity is illogical or can't ever be marketed to people either, even with rational self-interest and all. They merely assert that charity, social spending or whatever should not be coerced.

So the neckbeard level of that post exceeds even Ayn Rand's writings.

 

[Mouthwash]

I'm not sure what you're arguing?

 

[El_Machinae]

An objectivist case can be made for many of the charities. Spending on Alzheimer's R&D could end up being cheaper than providing for your parents when they have dementia. Paying for education elsewhere can prevent the refugee migration that bothers some people. Me buying polio vaccine efforts is clearly enlightened self-interest. Etc.

But Commodore is incorrect, we actually have an obligation towards charity. He disagrees, obviously, and natural selection advantages people who take care of kin (obviously), so his belief will persist. But it's still incorrect.

I feel like this would be more useful if it's about disposable income.

True, but a lot of people feel like they have a lot less disposable income than they do. As well, people tend to remove their 'fixed' spending, (e.g., rent). When you're 100x richer than someone living under a thatched roof, it's still true that you're richer than them even if you have very little money after rent. It's just been spent on things they cannot buy.

 

[Commodore]

But Commodore is incorrect, we actually have an obligation towards charity. He disagrees, obviously, and natural selection advantages people who take care of kin (obviously), so his belief will persist. But it's still incorrect.

You can't just say something is incorrect without elaborating on why. Because then it just comes off as you saying "you're wrong because I say so."

 

[Akka]

You know, the only two people in this world I have any real obligation to provide for.

No, there is also your parents and your partner. And yes, you have a REAL obligation toward them (save maybe if your parents were abusive).

But Commodore is incorrect, we actually have an obligation towards charity. He disagrees, obviously, and natural selection advantages people who take care of kin (obviously), so his belief will persist. But it's still incorrect.

No. I would argue there is a moral imperative about solidarity, but there is not about charity.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

No, there is also your parents and your partner. And yes, you have a REAL obligation toward them (save maybe if your parents were abusive).

Yes, legally there is a maintenance obligation towards your partner, descendents (children and nephews),ascendents (parents and grandparents) and brothers ans sisters (only in extreme cases)

In case of criminal abuse or violence this obligation disappear as does the right to inheritance.

 

[Farm Boy]

natural selection advantages

Parasites?

 

[AmazonQueen]

Apparently I'm in the top 26.9% in the world although I'd think I'm in the bottom 25% in the UK.
Income and wealth are as others have pointed out not the same thing.
In the UK the top 10% have an income of 6.8 times the lowest 10%. The wealth of the top 10% is 315 times that of the poorest 10%. These are figures for households which are IMO a better measure than individuals.
Income and wealth are heavily concentrated in the south east but it costs a lot more to live there than here in Wales, 2nd poorest region in the UK.

 

[El_Machinae]

You can't just say something is incorrect without elaborating on why. Because then it just comes off as you saying "you're wrong because I say so."

Sure. I don't expect to convince you. You've long stood by your position. You don't feel the obligation. It's your position, but that's all it is.

Very simply, people who participate in charity have superior societies than to people that don't. Same with people who choose certain forms of collective governance. It's obviously possible to have too much charity. It's also possible to have too little government or too much. In the long-run, the fact that the universe is deterministic will show that your behaviour merely free-rides off of the correct choices of others. Your choice was not the correct choice, because it's not replicable. If I act like you, we can wait for a few more cycles, and it turns out that everyone is worse off than if I didn't. Both me and you. Whereas, if you change, you (and yours) are better off.

Additionally, it's also contained within the definition of 'obligation'. It's a moral onus. The moral onus exists within its definition. It is, by definition, "good" to be charitable. It is, by definition, 'circular' to have no angles within the line. If someone says that their square is circular, and who am I to disagree, they're just being nonsensical.

It's akin to someone insisting that overeating bacon is healthy, and then quibbling about what the word 'healthy' means. "I like it, and I don't mind having cardiovascular issues later, and thus it's healthy" is their argument. Sure. But, they're wrong. And they're just wrong cuz they're wrong. They're just using the wrong word.

No. I would argue there is a moral imperative about solidarity, but there is not about charity.

There is certainly a practical imperative towards solidarity. The family that saves the kids when the house is on fire will do better than the family who ignores the kids because they can carry more of the pets.

But if I see someone drop a twenty while they're walking, there is no ethicist on earth that says that I should watch the bill fall, scoop it up, and put it into my kid's educational fund. Everyone, even Commodore, knows I should inform them that their twenty is on the ground behind them.

 

[Akka]

But if I see someone drop a twenty while they're walking, there is no ethicist on earth that says that I should watch the bill fall, scoop it up, and put it into my kid's educational fund. Everyone, even Commodore, knows I should inform them that their twenty is on the ground behind them.

I don't see how being honest relates with charity or solidarity.

My point is that society's inequalities shouldn't rely on people being generous or sensitive or compensating for a failed state. Society's inequalities should be addressed by a state system, to which everyone would participate and which would draw its legitimacy from an ethical imperative.
Relying on charity means two things :

1) It's up to individuals people to carry duties that are relevant to society. It means a dysfunctional society which problems are hidden instead of fixed.

2) It means that generous people lose more and selfish people keep more. That's basically ethical blackmail of which the ones who pay are the ones who shouldn't. That's, again, a sign of a dysfunctional society.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't see how being honest relates with charity or solidarity.

Telling them about their dropped money is charity. Taking the money for your kids is solidarity. Taking no action regarding that twenty is the neutral action. For the person who dropped it, your neutral action and your 'taking' action have the same effect. For your kids, the neutral action or the 'telling' option have the same outcome. But everyone knows the onus towards your kids is less than the onus towards the person who dropped the money.

The state will never be wise enough to deal with inequities such that charity becomes a non-imperative. Additionally, the moral onus towards charity crosses state boundaries. Your system requires sequentially voting for the right thing, knowing 'the right thing' will never be done. It also allows you to not give money, when giving money would actually help.

"I'm willing to pay in taxes, but not before." is how liberals pretend they're helping while not actually helping, because it absolves them of the moral responsibility.

And yes, 2) is correct. There is no reason why morality creates the materially superior outcome for the individual who's being moral. If it was the strategically-advantageous choice, ethical leaders wouldn't be asking us to do it.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

If I subtract my rent from my fixed income (I have 2 flatmates and 1 roommate), I move to the 25.1-50% bracket.

I fall below the poverty line for my state and for the USA. There are people better off than me who have a lower income because the poverty line in other countries is lower.

 

[Akka]

Telling them about their dropped money is charity. Taking the money for your kids is solidarity. Taking no action regarding that twenty is the neutral action.

Wut ?

"I'm willing to pay in taxes, but not before." is how liberals pretend they're helping while not actually helping, because it absolves them of the moral responsibility.

It's more of a philosophical position : it's a job for society, not for unrelated individuals. Charity is to welfare state what vigilantes are to law enforcement.

 

[Lexicus]

According to the website I'm in the top 1.3% globally. That is definitely not actually true though given I have almost no assets.