Western Standard Of Living.

[sevenOP]

Would you be prepared to take a decrease in your standard of living if doing so ended world poverty ?

[Svejk]

its a worthwhile question, imo, regardless of who asked it.

[Baldric]

Hi Kermit, did I say it made a difference?

[Svejk]

why mention it?

[kvalidir]

I can live quite simply quite happily so yes in theory.

[FrogNog]

No Baldic, you implied it.

[Baldric]

No I didn't!

[wildwood]

I am not sure that this would decrease world poverty to any noticeable degree. If you take an unpleasant view of the problem you'll realise that the poverty is caused by too many people for the land available. One way to minimise poverty is too convince the poor peeps to restrict their family size and overflow those countries with condoms. Another big aid is to somehow persuade the developed countries to pay a fair price for the commodities produced in the poverty stricken lands.

The harsh reality is that feeding these people is feeding the problem. Building them water wells and teaching skills is more effective.

[Deskdiary]

No.

I work hard to maintain my current standard of living and already pay too much in taxes to fund free money for those at home and abroad and therefore I wouldn't want to be squeezed anymore.

The problems other countries face are not our problems.

[naomi24]

If it really ended world poverty for all time, yes, I would – but it wouldn’t work. If you distributed all the money in the world equally between all the inhabitants we would, within a very short time, end up with the rich and the poor again because some would use the money wisely and others wouldn’t.

[Old_Geezer]

Depends on how much of a decrease and whether is solved the issue permanently or "they'd" be back again asking for another decrease on a regular basis.

I suspect if you ended world poverty loads of folk would then decide they can afford umpteen kids to carry on the family name, and soon many would be in it again.

[sevenOP]

Some encouraging responses but quantifying has quite reasonably been asked for.

Let us say, No car unless employment necessitates it, one TV, one computer, one sound system and £40 per person maximum per week.

[Old_Geezer]

Not sure I could save up for a TV on £40 a week (whatever that is to cover). But no. Not at that level. Especially since I'm unconvinced it would be permanent anyway.

[shoota]

That's not a 'decrease', that's a decimation.
In that case 'no'!

[Baldric]

My Council Tax is more than that ^^^ !!!

[ChillDoubt]

Nope. There's more than enough wealth in the world to go around.

[naomi24]

So the idea is to forcibly impose a lower standard of living? In that case, no, I wouldn't. Imposing blanket restrictions across the board removes the incentive to work hard.

[woofgang]

Nope. Where I live I need a car and I am retired so the employment allowance wouldn't cover me. The 40 quid a week wouldn't begin to cover my necessary expenditure especially if you include the TV licence and broadband subscription.

Actually I am not sure that this is a worthwhile question....It doesn't seem to be rooted in what is reasonable or doable.

[sevenOP]

Sorry, that should have read

"Let us say, No car unless employment necessitates it, one TV, one computer, one sound system and £40 per person maximum per week on food per person".

[Baldric]

Did I just see the Goalposts moving?

[douglas9401]

Another idea would be for those with their hand out to sheath the pork sword, literally and metaphorically.