[micahbright]

I like how you turn a voluntary charitable contribution into forcing other people to pay. If you aren't poor, you should already be making contributions to the poor since you have such high moral standards.

[Applejinx]

That would be the most efficient mechanism for ensuring the money is re-spent, locally, supporting local small businesses and entrepreneurs. Starving people really never have Swiss bank accounts, and rarely outsource. Whatever your morals, and whatever the morals of 'the poor' as you see them, there is a pragmatic argument here that is absolutely worth forcing people to pay, much like you're forced to pay taxes: you're directly subsidizing people who are almost compelled to spend their money inside their local communities, allowing others who are more enterprising to prosper.

That's just math. Your moral feelings may have to take a back seat to pragmatism, here.

[boyce]

Yeah exactly. The not-poor should already be making contributions to the poor. Maybe we should have an elected body to manage the collection and distribution of these contributions. We could make it income related so those who can are able to contribute more. It could be universal so there's already a safety net there if people lose their jobs or become ill without paperwork or delays, also so that no one is poorer for accepting work. Seems reasonable.

[fweespeech]

We are all in this world together and some of us do make those contributions.

You are just angry we want you to contribute at all and I feel bad for you. It must hurt going through life thinking no one cares if you suffer or die.

[micahbright]

I'm angry you want to force me to contribute - you douche. I've been contributing to the poor my whole life