Poll: Do you think stealing from the poor is worst than stealing from the rich?

[Mid Boss]

It depends. How much are you stealing? If you're stealing the amount a rich person makes in a day from a poor person that's pretty freakin bad. CEOs in America make over 300 hundred times more than the average workers of their company. So while he could make back that amount in a day, you've just stolen a year's wage from a poor person. Probably his entire life savings if somehow even manages to have that much money. It all comes down to how easy it would be for either of them to replace the amount you've stolen. Stealing that amount from a rich person is bad. Stealing that same amount from a poor person is fucking monstrous.

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

To beastro

For some reason, the system didn't notify me that I had been quoted. Weird.

At any rate, if a wealthy person gave the same proportion of their wealth to charity as the poor person, then their donation would hold the same level of respect to my perspective. The problem is the idea of being able to give a proportion of one's wealth that really equates to couch change for someone else and demanding that their donation be considered something saintly. It isn't.

Sacrifice is required for it to merit respect in my personal view. Giving the equivalent of >o.oo1% of one's wealth isn't a sacrifice.

Of course, this is all personal opinion and I do not doubt that there are many who disagree with these notions.

Captcha: it is enough
Ok, this isn't funny anymore captcha. Stop scaring me like this.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

From a legal stand point, no, you've stolen and the wealthy will still feel violated if you take their money or property, though I suspect they guard information far more jealously than cash.

I would simply consider the thief a much bigger bastard for stealing from someone already in poverty.

 

[JohnZ117]

In reply to JohnZ117

For some reason, my ability to quote people is broken.

At any rate, according to the religious upbringing I had as a youth, the poor person has donated more.

Mark 12:41-44
Taking a seat opposite the treasury, he observed the crowd putting money into the collection box. Many of the wealthy put in sizable amounts; but one poor widow came and put in two small copper coins worth a few cents. He called his disciples over and told them: "I want you to observe that this poor widow contributed more than all the others who donated to the treasury. They gave from their surplus wealth, but she gave from her want, all that she had to live on."

More directly, it ties back to the same sense of proportion that lies in the idea of theft from the poor or the rich: what portion of the means of the individuals is involved. Donation without real sacrifice is pretty meaningless from my personal point of view.

I know of that passage, as well. I wanted to adapt it for the modern audience, but use an amount equal on the surface, yet a disproportionate sacrifice for each. I believed it would reflect and emphasize who would be losing more in the o.p.'s proposed situation.

 

[Dimitriov]

Key word here is worst

No, the keyword is 'worsE'. As in "better or worsE", as opposed to "best or worst".

And, it depends on what you're stealing... If you're stealing a loaf of bread, then it doesn't really matter who you steal it from. Sure, the "rich" might have a better quality bread, but at the end of the day you don't starve.

Beat me to it. But you almost have to admire someone who takes their mistake, and then repeats it in bold.

Anyhoo, back to the topic at hand.

It's equally bad. Stealing is stealing.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

While stealing from anyone is bad, Yes it is much worse to steal from the poor due to how their ability to survive is impacted. The wealthy have more resources to fall back on, where the poor would not be able to provide basic necessities to survive.

For example, someone steals a wealthy mans car. He is wealthy, he can afford to call a cab, and afford another car. You steal a poor mans car, he cannot afford a cab home, he cannot afford another car, he can lose his job since he cannot get to work. He can die in the elements trying to walk to safety somewhere, he can die from starvation not being able to get food or even go to the office to even apply for food stamps. He cannot feed himself or his family without transportation, and in many areas there is no such thing as public transportation it doesn't exist at all.

The poor survive on everything they have to survive, the wealthy do not, and more often than not the wealthy cannot understand what it is like to not be able to afford food, shelter, transportation, electricity, water or sanitation services. You cannot compare the tow equally.

I disagree that stealing is stealing. For example, a guy who is stealing baby food to feed his child because he has no money is stealing out of desperation to care for his family, that is not the same as a teenager stealing a Ferrari for a joyride. Those cannot be compared.

 

[Dimitriov]

While stealing from anyone is bad, Yes it is much worse to steal from the poor due to how their ability to survive is impacted. The wealthy have more resources to fall back on, where the poor would not be able to provide basic necessities to survive.

For example, someone steals a wealthy mans car. He is wealthy, he can afford to call a cab, and afford another car. You steal a poor mans car, he cannot afford a cab home, he cannot afford another car, he can lose his job since he cannot get to work. He can die in the elements trying to walk to safety somewhere, he can die from starvation not being able to get food or even go to the office to even apply for food stamps. He cannot feed himself or his family without transportation, and in many areas there is no such thing as public transportation it doesn't exist at all.

The poor survive on everything they have to survive, the wealthy do not, and more often than not the wealthy cannot understand what it is like to not be able to afford food, shelter, transportation, electricity, water or sanitation services. You cannot compare the tow equally.

I disagree that stealing is stealing. For example, a guy who is stealing baby food to feed his child because he has no money is stealing out of desperation to care for his family, that is not the same as a teenager stealing a Ferrari for a joyride. Those cannot be compared.

Sure they can. They're not the same, but they can be compared. The baby food? Maybe $1.50. A Ferrari? Probably around $200,000 minimum. So yeah, stealing the Ferrari is worse in this case.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

While stealing from anyone is bad, Yes it is much worse to steal from the poor due to how their ability to survive is impacted. The wealthy have more resources to fall back on, where the poor would not be able to provide basic necessities to survive.

For example, someone steals a wealthy mans car. He is wealthy, he can afford to call a cab, and afford another car. You steal a poor mans car, he cannot afford a cab home, he cannot afford another car, he can lose his job since he cannot get to work. He can die in the elements trying to walk to safety somewhere, he can die from starvation not being able to get food or even go to the office to even apply for food stamps. He cannot feed himself or his family without transportation, and in many areas there is no such thing as public transportation it doesn't exist at all.

The poor survive on everything they have to survive, the wealthy do not, and more often than not the wealthy cannot understand what it is like to not be able to afford food, shelter, transportation, electricity, water or sanitation services. You cannot compare the tow equally.

I disagree that stealing is stealing. For example, a guy who is stealing baby food to feed his child because he has no money is stealing out of desperation to care for his family, that is not the same as a teenager stealing a Ferrari for a joyride. Those cannot be compared.

Sure they can. They're not the same, but they can be compared. The baby food? Maybe $1.50. A Ferrari? Probably around $200,000 minimum. So yeah, stealing the Ferrari is worse in this case.

It being more money doesn't make it worse. Someone starving to death > money. The amount isn't what makes it more severe, it is the amount of suffering involved. You do not die not having a Ferrari, you die without food. The amount of what is stolen is irrelevant to it being wrong. Needs and wants are not equal.

 

[Fishyash]

It depends really. The value of something (even money) depends on the individual. They are certainly not equal though. With both rich and poor people if you steal from them you have violated and taken away the sacrifices they've made to get where they are. Generally for rich people they've sacrificed more (or their parents or ancestors have) but on the other hand a poor person could have their chances of survival ruined by petty thievery. As I said, definitely not equal, but they are different.

Also I generally have more respect (probably not the right word) for organised crime or heists than petty thievery. The media and arts definitely do as well with their heist documentaries, robin hood, Catwoman, the GTA video games, etc.. Stealing from the poor via petty theft doesn't have that same effort involved, and you don't get anywhere near as much from it, and you've possibly put a family out of a job or a home.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Its equally as bad, but it just happens that when you steal from the poor you tend to take a larger portion of what they have.

For example, if you steal 10k from Bill Gates he probably wouldn't notice, or waste the energy in recovering it.
You steal 10 bucks from a homeless guy and you just took everything.
Its no worse than taking everything Bill Gates owns, its just more realistic.

 

[Zhukov]

Also, consider if you were rich and you faced this scenario, would you somehow feel less violated and upset over having your things stolen and society looking down their nose at you and saying you're somehow deserving of less because of how much you own?

Actually, yeah, I'm pretty sure a millionaire who had $500 stolen from them would feel significantly less violated and upset than a poor person who had $500 stolen from them and as a consequence could not pay for food or rent.

The former situation would be a great deal less upsetting than the latter.

 

[visiblenoise]

It's better to steal from the rich because they have so much stuff that they're less likely to notice

You obviously do not understand why the rich remain rich. They are pretty much universally by habit misers that squeeze and keep track of every penny they have.

Also, consider if you were rich and you faced this scenario, would you somehow feel less violated and upset over having your things stolen and society looking down their nose at you and saying you're somehow deserving of less because of how much you own?

I was just trying to joke that whether you get caught or not is way more important than the question. Though upon rereading it, I see that it wasn't obvious. Anyway, I meant something like breaking into their mansion at night and taking something shiny from a remote corner.

 

[Sanderpower]

Equal.

I know it's unpopular, but I dislike this recent "All rich people are evil and if something bad happens to them, they shall be fine" narrative.

They got the money fair and square (generally), and just because they are worth more to society and so get more money doesn't mean they don't also deserve that money.

It really isn't about "The rich are evil!" It's more that "The rich can survive taking more financial damage!". The very core concept of being rich is that your ability to survive is not at as high a risk as a poor person. A multi-millionaire who loses a thousand dollars would suffer far less then a single mother struggling with poverty. The Multi-millionaire will still be comfortable, still be warm, still have food. The single mother may end getting evicted and her children might starve. The level of suffering is what makes one better or one worse. Sure stealing in general is wrong, but stealing from the poor is especially wrong because they would suffer more.

 

[SweetShark]

Oh, this is rich.
So now we must think a crime is lighter in our consciousness just because a thief stole from a rich man/woman/family/whatever?
NOPE
A crime is a f*cking crime and the thief must be equally get punished.

Yes, the logic say that a rich person will not get affect by this, but don't we act to think this is just a simple matter.

 

[CaitSeith]

It depends. Am I rich or poor on this scenario?

 

[CaitSeith]

If you want to look at it in terms of the crime, "aka stealing is stealing no matter who from" then they're equally bad, however...


IMO It's worse to steal from the poor because if you steal from the rich, they become less rich, but have more cushion to absorb the blow. If you steal from the poor, depending on exactly how poor they are, you have a very likely chance of ruining their entire life.

I am probably also biased.

And if the crime is about stealing it all (no penny left behind)? To which one would be worse?

 

[Nimmermehr]

Oh, this is rich.
So now we must think a crime is lighter in our consciousness just because a thief stole from a rich man/woman/family/whatever?
NOPE
A crime is a f*cking crime and the thief must be equally get punished.

Yes, the logic say that a rich person will not get affect by this, but don't we act to think this is just a simple matter.

When judging a crime, the intention and information available to the criminal matters, too. That's why we don't call people who accidentally got someone killed murderers.

So in this case, let's accept that stealing from a poor person causes greater damage to their life, compared to a rich person. Now, the one thing that is important here, is whether or not this information was available to the thief. If said thief steals from a random bank account, then the fact that it happened to belong to a rich person should - as you said - in no way be used to defend that crime in court.

However: If said thief knowingly stole from someone struggling to make a living, fully aware of the fact that this action would ruin that person's life, then this should definitely be used to demand a harsher sentence for them (compared to "standard" punishment for theft). It shows that the criminal does not only not care about other people's property, but that he/she also does not care about endangering their existence even when the result of their actions is very clear. And that is clearly more morally reprehensible than mere theft.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Seriously?

From a legal point of view they're equal, of course. But when you steal $1000 from a guy with $100,000 in his bank, he'll still have $99,000 to buy food, clothes, pay bills and rent, and whatever else necessities they might have. Steal $1000 from a guy with $1000 in his bank, he'll have nothing. Which one potentially causes greater harm? Of course rich people don't deserve to get robbed (unless we're talking Jordan Belfort levels of scamming here) but they can obviously sustain greater economic damage than the poor.

 

[Lightknight]

If you're stealing the same amount from both then yes, you are causing more harm to a poor person then you are to a rich person.

If the amount varies then it depends on the amount of harm you are causing. The money really isn't the key here. It's the damage you're doing. A poor person may go homeless or go hungry if you steal a hundred bucks at the wrong time. A rich person may not even notice if they are, by definition, rich.

In both circumstances they are both evil actions and punishable by law. But one does carry with it an additional moral evil of harming the poor.