lovehatethings

Presumption One: Poverty can be ended. I personally believe so, but it's going to take a whole lot more than throwing money at it.

Presumption Two: You want to end poverty. I know that this may be a given for most people, much like a "world peace" statement, but just like there are plenty of people who profit on war, there are also plenty who profit on poverty.

Presumption Three: The organization you'd be giving your earnings to could be entrusted to do the job.

So, presumptions aside, I'll lift the question back up from the table: How much of your earnings would you give to end poverty?

If I came up to you and said "If everyone in the country, on top of their existing taxes, gives 10% of their net earnings, in five years we WILL eliminate poverty from the country," what would it take for you to buy in?

Let me preface the rest of the argument by saying that I haven't done any math and do not have any anti-poverty group stats in front of me. I'm simply asking the question.

I'm positive that I could afford at least 10% of my net earnings to devote to such a worthwhile endeavour, but my participation would not come without questions.

1) Why would you believe a single person coming to your door to ask you to do this? What the hell is one person going to do to initiate this?

2) Why would I believe any corporation or arm's-length corporation? Can't do it. Corporations are obligated to make profit.

3) Would I believe the church down the street that I don't attend or particularly share the dogma?

4) Would I believe my government? Should it matter what party is in power?

And so we talk about ending poverty without sacrifice. Sure there can be legislation that helps people when their unemployed, or ensures social programs for children, or provides supports for a stream of ideas, but these are stop gaps. Poverty doesn't end with a handout.

Consider that, while certainly not eliminating many negative social conditions that come with poverty, meaningful employment and a living wage can impact much of the following:

Crime: I don't know about you, but I come up with my stupidest ideas when I have too much time to think about nothing. A good job means I'm thinking about the job and not about how I'm going to feed myself or my family by ripping off my neighbour.

Education: Although many of the "No Child Left Behind" and "Failure is Not an Option" proponents will tell you "every child can learn", they certainly learn a whole lot better with healthy food on the table every morning and heat in the house the night before. If you don't believe socio-economics are a strong determinant of test scores, explain why low test scores (a vile substitute for assessing a child's education anyway) most often occur in areas of dense poverty.

Health: Families and individuals who can maintain a healthy diet and stay educated about hygiene become less dependent on healthcare packages (socialized medicine or otherwise).

As I said earlier, these aforementioned problems don't get nullified when poverty is eliminated, but they certainly get alleviated. Within this new context, crime is radically reduced, education is radically enhanced, and health is improved greatly for everyone. I get to feel more secure about my safety and walking down the street at night. I get to know that when my children are going to school, resources are being used to enhance education instead of worrying about improving test scores in a ward where impoverished children often stand little hope of success without massive supports just to help equalize the playing field. I get to know that when I feel good about my parents or grandparents being able to live their retirement years out, healthy, on a pension that was earned through hard work, most other people are in the same boat and not scrambling to subsidize three generations of their family with one job.

If someone could assure you all these things if everyone in you country participated, would you be willing to kick in 10, 20 or 30% of your earnings? As much as we love our money (and our things) what prevents this from being a viable consideration for most people? How about giving up half a work day a week (10% of earnings) and thus eliminating a 10% unemployment rate. (I know, a bit naive economically, but still...)

Is it simply a matter of trust? Let's face it, who are you willing to believe could achieve this even with a seemingly viable plan in place? In the US the polarization of Red and Blue states would make any suggestion by the "other" party anathema to half the country. In Canada, would I believe my fiscally Conservative Party Prime Minister is actually asking for a "donation" from everyone to help end poverty? Would I believe my fiscally conservative Liberal Party leader? Without trust is an end to poverty doomed?

I'm just a guy who writes a lot and doesn't end up making much sense. I'm not claiming to have answers. I'm just at a point where I'm asking more questions. But I think the pondering, in this case, is worthwhile. Because while I have some trust issues, I'm getting more ready to believe someone with a good idea than good PR.