StarDestroyer.Net BBS

How much of your luxury spending do you, personally, feel would be approrpiate to donate per year to those who are in great need. This need be from a reasonable perspective or whatever you could spare while maintaining equilibrium between luxuries and a good life, and the necessities.


In this endeavour, you would remain reasonably happy, the economy wouldn't suffer, and youcould do the greatest good you could reasonably achieve for others.

I would probably donate about 5-8% of my luxury income. Peter Singer, for example, donates 10%.

Crap. I hit news instead of off-topic.... damn it.

Moved.

I thought I recalled that Singer donated 10% of his total income.

The problem with the idea that people have an obligation to spent their money above that required for essentials towards helping the poor, saving lifves and so forth is that while that concept is fine if a few people do it, the more people within a developed western nation that do it, the less capacity they will have to do it.

If luxury purchases decrease and those businesses fail, huge numbers of people will become unemployed. There's only so much a nation can do to maximise its production of essentials, the excess of which it could donate to the poor. If there's no luxury spending, there'll be a very poor economy, huge numbers of unemployed who must be supported, and the capacity of the nation or people within the nation to donate excess wealth will be reduced dramatically.

That said, there is a huge amount of wasteful and frivolous spending, and while I think there's a balance that needs to be met in how much a nation donates in aid or how much the people of the nation donate, we're all still on the less generous side of that ideal balance.

And of course, mental health requires that you indulge yourself a little bit. Unless your feeling of warm fuzzyness from donating all your luxury spending is enough to offset the discomfort of living a bare-essentials lifestyle - and it's not likely to be for most - you've got to ensure that you're living a pleasant enough lifestyle to be productive enough to have the capacity for excess wealth you could donate.

Right now, I'm not that generous, because I'm not that wealthy. I'm in debt actually. I've got to look out for myself in the short term in the hope of one day having the capacity to help others.

I thought I recalled that Singer donated 10% of his total income.

He does, but I don't think everyone would do that, so I am limiting it to juse a percentage of luxuries.

That's where I disagreed with Singe. You are right. IF people don't buy luxuries at all, the ecomomy will suffer and people will be out of jobs.


I always feel bad that I spend too much on nonsense stuff, like games, computer hardware/software and my car. I really am a bad person. I should give more to the poor.

I was thinking that if people just stopped buying luxury items, due to lack of want, would the same thing happen to the economy? I always hear how commericals mind-colonize people into buying shit they really don't want. How woudl teh economy survive without suckers?

I give spare change to the homeless. Does that count?

Honestly, though, I prefer to donate time, rather than money, to charities. As a poor college student (don't cry for me, Academia!) I am strapped for cash. The words "luxury income" illicit from me the same response that the word "penis" illicits from third-graders.

Because so many needy charities are undermanned (and because my pesky Christian upbringing keeps compelling me to do good works), I feel that often times a strong back is needed more than a strong financial portfolio. In that spirit I like to volunteer at places like the Mustard Seed, and at various other charity events, not to mention the Cheers for Children auctions held to benefit the Jimmy Fund.

So I never feel bad about the lack of money I put into charity. I feel that I put in something just as valuable.

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:I was thinking that if people just stopped buying luxury items, due to lack of want, would the same thing happen to the economy? I always hear how commericals mind-colonize people into buying shit they really don't want. How woudl teh economy survive without suckers?

I think there's an extent to which industries current producing crap could be replaced by industries producing worthwhile things. If people would stop buying fake pink flamingos for their front lawns, the people currently employed making that crap could theoretically work making condoms or producing food or something like that.

Greater food or essentials production will benefit the poor either through a nation donating some of the goods, or lowered food prices for example. The problem is, only so many people can be employed producing food or other essentials, if too many luxury producing businesses go under there wont be enough capacity for them to work producing worthwhile goods. It's better that they at least be producing luxuries and supporting themselves, and that we continue to purchase luxuries for our own pleasure and their benefit, or they'll just be more dead weight unemployed. That's why I think there has to be a balance - we've got plenty of room to improve efficiency and stop producing crap and wasting resources, but we cant go overboard or it all falls apart.

I think the minimum obligation is for developed nations to meet the 0.7% of GNP aid spending recommendation of the UN. As Singer mentions in Practical Ethics, which I'm sure is what you're working from, only a few nations -mostly European, meet this figure, the US donating something like 0.1% of GNP - and a good portion of that is spent in the wrong countries (Israel, Egypt, etc) or donated with specific conditions and so forth.

Oh, and Queeb's idea is a good one for those not financially able to throw money around to charities. I volunteered a couple of hours every week or two through most of this year to a problem that society largely ignores - the neglected, abandoned, and often presumed senile elderly that fill our resthomes. Working with the diversional therapy department, I did things like reminisce with them, read to them, run quizzes, and other activities, and contrary to what most think when they see a still, quiet, and seemingly absent elderly person, a lot of them are yearning for some interaction and discussion and intellectual activity. I recommend it - these people have great stories to tell and they're not just knowledgeable with age, many of them are still intelligent and insightful.

I think the minimum obligation is for developed nations to meet the 0.7% of GNP aid spending recommendation of the UN. As Singer mentions in Practical Ethics, which I'm sure is what you're working from, only a few nations -mostly European, meet this figure, the US donating something like 0.1% of GNP - and a good portion of that is spent in the wrong countries (Israel, Egypt, etc) or donated with specific conditions and so forth.

Yea. I was using his "solution to poverty" and practical ethics as the source. I just don't get how someone so smart could have not forseen the problem with having zero luxury spending. This guy's a harvard professor of ethics. It just doesn't seem fitting that someone would miss something so obvious.

A lot of nations barely meet the recomendations. It's sad.

Oh, and Queeb's idea is a good one for those not financially able to throw money around to charities. I volunteered a couple of hours every week or two through most of this year to a problem that society largely ignores - the neglected, abandoned, and often presumed senile elderly that fill our resthomes.

Oh yea. They need a lot of help as well. I think i worked at an old folks home for a little while.