"Overcharging" the rich to offer subsidy to the poor and needy, How moral?

[Kelvinid]

I have read alot of post and I still don't understand why we support and moralize business that steals from the rich, we talk like they overcharge the rich to provide for the poor whilst they sell the actual market price which already contains a sizable gain and they collect more from the rich through appearances to make more, it's not moral if this accept from the both economic parties.

These rich people shouldn't be the one being taken advantage and help the poor ones. The government is responsible for that, not the people. So if we are seeing stores that operate like this, I can tell that the government is biased. That's because they use the rich people only as tools to extend their help to the poor ones, when they can treat both the rich and the poor equally and fairly. No one should be taken advantaged or compromised just because they are rich, and just because the government is obviously favoring the poor.

[goldkingcoiner]

In certain countries it's normal for businesses to charge customers based on their economic status. If a customer look wealthy or rich, he's charged higher than normal. If he looks poor, and possibly bargains really hard, he could end up getting a fair deal, sometimes below the cost price or eiven free of charge, typically for beggars who have nothing atall to pay... yet such model remains profitable.
Customers who don't get the idea may feel cheated and probably warn others to avoid such places. Others are understanding enough and happy to pay especially since the goods and services are relatively cheap compared to wealthy places. In Rwanda for example, I watched a foreigner trying to persuade fellow visitors to consider this fact, and for the sake of the poor.  
I believe the model is what sustains the poor... businesses are willing to keep price extremely low because of poverty. If some end up not being profitable, they are still able to survive from other people's helps.


I'm considering this topic because of the poor and needy. When we propose ideas that can help keep businesses profitable, we are burdened by the fact that they are probably going to be at the detriment of the poor and needy. So, for conscience sake, we focus on workable ideas that support the poor without affecting businesses negatively.

I think you are wrong in the context that this is what keeps the poor in poverty. That reminds me of the issue of stores throwing food away instead of giving it away because it is not profitable. But lets be honest, anyone who has the money for fresh bread is not going to take free, old bread.

But greed blinds businesses due to their fear of losing out on profit. They no longer operate in reality but rather the fantasy they themselves have dreamt up.

Charging someone based on their economic status seems fair, but in practice unrealistic because you cannot really accurately guess anybody's economic status, especially not from looking at the person.

[m2017]

In certain countries it's normal for businesses to charge customers based on their economic status.

Think of it as a "hidden" tax on stupidity wealth.

If a customer look wealthy or rich, he's charged higher than normal.

As if a buyer couldn’t just turn around and go to another seller with reasonable prices? This is a free market involving two parties, not a situation where one side can unilaterally dictate unfavorable terms.

In this situation, the "king of the hill" is the person who has the least need for what the other party possesses (whether it be a good \ service or money).

If he looks poor, and possibly bargains really hard, he could end up getting a fair deal, sometimes below the cost price or eiven free of charge, typically for beggars who have nothing atall to pay... yet such model remains profitable.

So, you’ve uncovered the magic formula for success in the marketplace: trying to haggle to secure a better price. And this approach is open to everyone, regardless of the size of their wallet.

Customers who don't get the idea may feel cheated and probably warn others to avoid such places.

If you don’t like it, don’t "eat" it. No one is forcing you to buy at inflated prices (other than your own inner idiocy).

Others are understanding enough and happy to pay especially since the goods and services are relatively cheap compared to wealthy places.

Of course, markets differ, but it is one’s personal income level that has a greater influence on "understanding". It is highly unlikely that an impoverished person would "understand" an approach where they are charged three times as much, simply because the seller deemed it an acceptable solution for them at that particular moment.

In Rwanda for example, I watched a foreigner trying to persuade fellow visitors to consider this fact, and for the sake of the poor.  

If you want to help, just give money directly to the poor. Why complicate things?

I believe the model is what sustains the poor... businesses are willing to keep price extremely low because of poverty.

The only thing business cares about is profit (it is precisely for this reason that any business comes into existence). Everything else is just fairy tales.

If some end up not being profitable, they are still able to survive from other people's helps.

Well, then the business simply closes down. Get rid of any illusions: business is an extremely aggressive environment (it is difficult to compete) with no room for charity.

I'm considering this topic because of the poor and needy. When we propose ideas that can help keep businesses profitable, we are burdened by the fact that they are probably going to be at the detriment of the poor and needy. So, for conscience sake, we focus on workable ideas that support the poor without affecting businesses negatively.

Do you own a business? I’m certain that once your family’s well-being and your children’s future depend on your own business, you’ll start to view the idea of ​​"supporting the poor" at the expense of that business in a very different light.

You’re just a poor person who wants to "survive" without doing any work, by living off someone else’s business - is that it?

[tugba]

I think it’s unreasonable to charge someone higher than the normal price just because you “feel” like they are rich. I might dress good, and smell like a million bucks but that doesn’t mean I am wealthy. So my question to you OP is what exactly is the metric that you use to determine who is a rich customer? Because if I wanted expensive I would go to the big brands and shop.

Yes man. Most of the times, those that looks rich are actually the ones that are poor. While those that are looking poor or simple, are actually the ones that are the real rich. It is possible to notice this. It was like rich people don't need to prove anything anymore. They already confident with what they have in mind and on their homes. Plus it also helps them being to avoid being robbed or being bullied/teased by middle/low-class individuals.

my question to you OP is what exactly is the metric that you use to determine who is a rich customer?

I think mannerism of being rich can be learned even by the poor but true rich must act naturally. This should be the main basis. But if we focus on physical appearance like what they wear. There should be a sign to tell if a fake rich also wear fake items.

if I wanted expensive I would go to the big brands and shop.

In addition to what I said earlier, not just by presenting or looking simple, but rich are literally very frugal. But this is why they achieve their current status. They prioritize saving and investment more than the non-essential stuff.

[YUriy1991]

These rich people shouldn't be the one being taken advantage and help the poor ones. The government is responsible for that, not the people. So if we are seeing stores that operate like this, I can tell that the government is biased. That's because they use the rich people only as tools to extend their help to the poor ones, when they can treat both the rich and the poor equally and fairly. No one should be taken advantaged or compromised just because they are rich, and just because the government is obviously favoring the poor.

I agree with your point, the government must act impartially to protect the interests of both groups the wealthy and the poor ensuring that both are treated equally and without discrimination. Furthermore, I believe the government should implement regulations to oversee commerce, ensuring that no party is unfairly harmed. The government can collect tax from the wealthy to fund high quality national infrastructure, this in turn fosters a favorable investment climate. Such infrastructure would also enable the poor to access opportunities and pursue their own economic endeavors as they would have the same high quality facilities available to them as the wealthy free from discrimination.

[Leahized]

If you want to build a business, focus on profit so it can continue to run. If it's about humanity, don't do business because that won't be aligned. Business is still a business that seeks profit, no matter which group of people buy from. An idea I suggest trying is donating profits to charity. I believe that this way the business will continue to run and we will continue to help people.

Helping poor individuals from any business institution, even by reducing the price of products, solely depends on conscience. Yes, we are aware that business institutions are operated solely for the purpose of making a profit. But in some cases, the situation is created differently from a humanitarian standpoint. Helping orphans and needy individuals does not significantly impact the business. In my city, many restaurant owners provide free food to such impoverished individuals.

However, your suggestion is reasonable. This way, it does not greatly affect the business and financial assistance can be provided without wasting time. The authority controlling charity performs all responsibilities.

[Sarah Jordan]

Your aim is a favorable business for both the poor and rich that won't affect ones business profits negatively.

As a business owner focusing on both poor and rich to sell. You can set your prices in a way both the poor and rich can buy from you without you running on a loss. For instance if you buy a bag of crayfish for 10000 and you're getting 6 custard rubbers from a bag and selling 2500 each you aren't running on a loss. Both can still purchase without breaking the bank.
And there's no one been cheated. Everyone is buying at same price and the rich can buy as much as he or she can buy as prices are fair.

[slapper]

In certain countries it's normal for businesses to charge customers based on their economic status. If a customer look wealthy or rich, he's charged higher than normal. If he looks poor, and possibly bargains really hard, he could end up getting a fair deal, sometimes below the cost price or eiven free of charge, typically for beggars who have nothing atall to pay... yet such model remains profitable.
Customers who don't get the idea may feel cheated and probably warn others to avoid such places. Others are understanding enough and happy to pay especially since the goods and services are relatively cheap compared to wealthy places. In Rwanda for example, I watched a foreigner trying to persuade fellow visitors to consider this fact, and for the sake of the poor.  
I believe the model is what sustains the poor... businesses are willing to keep price extremely low because of poverty. If some end up not being profitable, they are still able to survive from other people's helps.


I'm considering this topic because of the poor and needy. When we propose ideas that can help keep businesses profitable, we are burdened by the fact that they are probably going to be at the detriment of the poor and needy. So, for conscience sake, we focus on workable ideas that support the poor without affecting businesses negatively.

I think you are wrong in the context that this is what keeps the poor in poverty. That reminds me of the issue of stores throwing food away instead of giving it away because it is not profitable. But lets be honest, anyone who has the money for fresh bread is not going to take free, old bread.

But greed blinds businesses due to their fear of losing out on profit. They no longer operate in reality but rather the fantasy they themselves have dreamt up.

Charging someone based on their economic status seems fair, but in practice unrealistic because you cannot really accurately guess anybody's economic status, especially not from looking at the person.

@Ucy describes haggling as the poorer folks' model. It's actually the older one. Fixed price tags are pretty new. Old isn't necessarily bad. It's just that old models have costs attached to them that we'd rather forget. To get the budget rates, you have to look and act poor. Maybe beg a little. That wears people down. Fixed rates allow a down-and-out to walk into a shop and buy something without having to justify themselves. We take that for granted. We don't realize how great it is until it's taken away.
And who pays the higher rates? Foreigners, mostly. Rich locals know the game and dress down. So guessing someone's wealth from how they look does not really work anyway.

You say this model keeps the poor in poverty. I think it works the other way round, though. Poverty breeds the haggling economy, not the reverse. In places where there is little welfare and low incomes in general, you get cash-only economies and very active haggling. In fact, the shopkeeper often has to step in and do the job of the social worker.
If you eradicate haggling tomorrow, you won't get richer customers. You'll get hungrier ones.

You're right about one thing. When prices are just guesswork, nobody keeps records. Well, guess what? No records means no credit history. No credit history means no loans. So small businesses stay small, and their customers stay exactly where they are. Keeping prices low out of sympathy may keep everyone jolly for now. But is it realy helping anyone get ahead? Or just helping them stay stuck a bit more comfortably?

[Cheema02]

For an open market all including the rich, wealthy and the poor operates in same price tag but off general market price tags are always different. Talking of price difference between different classes of individuals,  it can only depend on where the commodity is gotten from, for example the rich do prefer going to a rich and nice shops for there shopping with reasons of getting quality products there the prices maybe very different from that of those getting it from a flat market where prices are normal to all. Apart from this situation,  it will be difficult identifying classes while purchasing any commodity.

As in markets prices of the same products are the same in every shop and anybody who wants to purchase the products regardless of whether he is poor or rich The main difference is the resources and choices. Obviously, when you have wealth, your preferences automatically move toward expensive and quality products. On the other hand, middle-class people buy according to their resources.

It's a myth that expensive things are best in quality. I have seen many products that are at very reasonable prices and in quality they beat the best brands. So, in terms of brands, local staff are also present; it depends on the strategy of the purchaser. If the purchaser is wise and has money, he buys quality products, and it doesn't matter how much he spends. But for the middle class, it's difficult to maintain quality. He just prefers to meet the need

[hafiztalha]

If I discover that you are charging me high for patronizing you, because you want to sell low to people you consider poor I will stop patronizing you. If I decide to dress well doesn’t mean that I should be over charged for what I’m buying. If you want to run a charity home for the poor in your business, make it known to people so that any one who want to donate to that course will support willing. I didn’t steal the money you think I have. I worked hard for it. The government are holding the resources of the people. Such idea will crumble your business. I don’t think I can ever do that if I’m a business owner.

For some businesses, selling at different prices is not always bad idea. Sometimes those businesses increase their prices for some people they are just trying to adjust prices of essential courses and services to make them more accessible for people who are not financially stable or who cannot afford normal prices. But there must indeed be clear difference between helping someone in need and also taking advantage of people who have financial stability. Is unfair if business honours charges someone is they are looking good or the dress will but if they have proper transparency pricing policy that give a chance to the people who are wealthy to volunterally sport the ones who are in need then it is going to get benefit to the society.

[ovcijisir]

In certain countries it's normal for businesses to charge customers based on their economic status. If a customer look wealthy or rich, he's charged higher than normal. If he looks poor, and possibly bargains really hard, he could end up getting a fair deal, sometimes below the cost price or eiven free of charge, typically for beggars who have nothing atall to pay... yet such model remains profitable.
Customers who don't get the idea may feel cheated and probably warn others to avoid such places. Others are understanding enough and happy to pay especially since the goods and services are relatively cheap compared to wealthy places. In Rwanda for example, I watched a foreigner trying to persuade fellow visitors to consider this fact, and for the sake of the poor.  
I believe the model is what sustains the poor... businesses are willing to keep price extremely low because of poverty. If some end up not being profitable, they are still able to survive from other people's helps.


I'm considering this topic because of the poor and needy. When we propose ideas that can help keep businesses profitable, we are burdened by the fact that they are probably going to be at the detriment of the poor and needy. So, for conscience sake, we focus on workable ideas that support the poor without affecting businesses negatively.

To be honest this is the first time I hear for such a business model. I wouldnt say that this is fair, as so called "rich" people are not aware that they are being "taxed" by the way they look. Also how is shop keeper deciding who is rich and who is poor? Only by their clothing? There are some rich people who are stingy and walk around in old clothing, and also there are poor people who can barely afford to pay the bills, but walk around in designer clothing.

In my opinion the fairest would be to discreetly ask people to donate money by free will, so someone who cant afford it can buy something from the store. But to secretly "tax" people by the way they look is just not fair.

[Agathamay]

In certain countries it's normal for businesses to charge customers based on their economic status. If a customer look wealthy or rich, he's charged higher than normal. If he looks poor, and possibly bargains really hard, he could end up getting a fair deal, sometimes below the cost price or eiven free of charge, typically for beggars who have nothing atall to pay... yet such model remains profitable.
Customers who don't get the idea may feel cheated and probably warn others to avoid such places. Others are understanding enough and happy to pay especially since the goods and services are relatively cheap compared to wealthy places. In Rwanda for example, I watched a foreigner trying to persuade fellow visitors to consider this fact, and for the sake of the poor.  
I believe the model is what sustains the poor... businesses are willing to keep price extremely low because of poverty. If some end up not being profitable, they are still able to survive from other people's helps.


I'm considering this topic because of the poor and needy. When we propose ideas that can help keep businesses profitable, we are burdened by the fact that they are probably going to be at the detriment of the poor and needy. So, for conscience sake, we focus on workable ideas that support the poor without affecting businesses negatively.

I don't see this your idea holding any weight because there are already a lot of loopholes in the model you are proposing and this your model doesn't give any room for those who are truly poor to look decent and clean because the moment you do such, you might be seen as a rich or comfortable person and the price of what you want to buy might be hiked for you simply because you weren't looking poor.

[perfect999]

Or much better, separate the items, this lane is for rich buyers, while the other lane intended for the unfortunate ones. That way, rich buyers will no longer be confused that you are offering higher prices for them with the same, exact item.

I don't find this acceptable. On the contrary, this is actually revolting.

I don't think something like this will work, at least as far as my country's context is concerned. Imagine working hard, and living a better life as a result, but you're barred from picking items from a specific lane in a grocery store simply because you're supposed to get them at a higher price from a different lane. That seems insulting. Am I being punished for succeeding in life?

I think Fortify is correct. Let there be different brands and prices, and let customers buy what they can afford.

This is exactly how it is, though? You are allowed to shop from the poor section if you are rich, but there are higher-quality products out there for you too if you want. Even the higher quality is questionable; sometimes they just package it better, and you get something better in terms of how it looks, but the item is not that much better.

Just give you the simplest best example, you could buy a 100-dollar phone or even lesser maybe, but definitely 100 dollar phone, it would be some Huawei or whatever shitty brand name, and would be bad, or you could buy the new iPhone duo. Rich vs poor. Doesn't mean that the cheaper phone won't work; it does. You can still call, text; most things are the same. So as you can see, there is already a "rich option" and a "poor option" for items. The same goes for everything; there are cheap breads and expensive breads.

[Cointxz]

To be honest this is the first time I hear for such a business model. I wouldnt say that this is fair, as so called "rich" people are not aware that they are being "taxed" by the way they look. Also how is shop keeper deciding who is rich and who is poor? Only by their clothing? There are some rich people who are stingy and walk around in old clothing, and also there are poor people who can barely afford to pay the bills, but walk around in designer clothing.

In my opinion the fairest would be to discreetly ask people to donate money by free will, so someone who cant afford it can buy something from the store. But to secretly "tax" people by the way they look is just not fair.

Not trying to support this idea but there’s a way to determine if someone is poor through the ID system. Government does a family background to determine whether they are poor or not so that they can qualify for aid/assistance given to poor Family.

This program ended badly in the end since most of the poor family doesn’t even make an effort to find jobs and relied already solely on the assistance.

This poor and rich discussion will never end unless there will be a good government that will implement a law that will balance both sides in a proper way.

[ovcijisir]

To be honest this is the first time I hear for such a business model. I wouldnt say that this is fair, as so called "rich" people are not aware that they are being "taxed" by the way they look. Also how is shop keeper deciding who is rich and who is poor? Only by their clothing? There are some rich people who are stingy and walk around in old clothing, and also there are poor people who can barely afford to pay the bills, but walk around in designer clothing.

In my opinion the fairest would be to discreetly ask people to donate money by free will, so someone who cant afford it can buy something from the store. But to secretly "tax" people by the way they look is just not fair.

Not trying to support this idea but there’s a way to determine if someone is poor through the ID system. Government does a family background to determine whether they are poor or not so that they can qualify for aid/assistance given to poor Family.

This program ended badly in the end since most of the poor family doesn’t even make an effort to find jobs and relied already solely on the assistance.

This poor and rich discussion will never end unless there will be a good government that will implement a law that will balance both sides in a proper way.

That reminds me on China's social credit system... I am not a fan of that big government control, but maybe a lot of people wouldn't object as long as they get "free" money.

In my opinion government should penalize abuse of social rights, but also ensure good quality of life for all the citizens without privacy intrusion. That way store owners wouldn't have to "tax" people they deem rich, and also poor people would have enough to satisfy all the needs.

[angrybirdy]

If you want to build a business, focus on profit so it can continue to run. If it's about humanity, don't do business because that won't be aligned. Business is still a business that seeks profit, no matter which group of people buy from. An idea I suggest trying is donating profits to charity. I believe that this way the business will continue to run and we will continue to help people.

Helping poor individuals from any business institution, even by reducing the price of products, solely depends on conscience. Yes, we are aware that business institutions are operated solely for the purpose of making a profit. But in some cases, the situation is created differently from a humanitarian standpoint. Helping orphans and needy individuals does not significantly impact the business. In my city, many restaurant owners provide free food to such impoverished individuals.

However, your suggestion is reasonable. This way, it does not greatly affect the business and financial assistance can be provided without wasting time. The authority controlling charity performs all responsibilities.

It can be said that I share the opinion that being generous to the people in need is not at all a case where this will turn out to be bad for one’s own business. Little acts like providing free food and offering lower prices to the people who are needy can play an important role in society. What is really necessary here is that the businessmen should know what they should do and what are their obligations. However, on the other hand, it has to be kept in mind that a business should be financially sound before helping others. One way of doing this is that the businessman gives a part of his earnings to charitable institutions. It is necessary that these institutions know how to find the needy and help them.

[Bryan jessy]

It can be said that I share the opinion that being generous to the people in need is not at all a case where this will turn out to be bad for one’s own business. Little acts like providing free food and offering lower prices to the people who are needy can play an important role in society. What is really necessary here is that the businessmen should know what they should do and what are their obligations. However, on the other hand, it has to be kept in mind that a business should be financially sound before helping others. One way of doing this is that the businessman gives a part of his earnings to charitable institutions. It is necessary that these institutions know how to find the needy and help them.

I do not know if there is a place where people make such sacrifice for the less privilege nowadays and if a place like this existed then they must be truly generous and considerate to the poor, there are places where cost of items are made so expensive that the less privilege could barely afford to buy things, but only the rich can afford, at times it feel like some of this business owners intensional increase the price of goods just to make more profit for themselves while people who can not afford them suffer, charity organizations are focused on helping the needy, I do think other businesses who are not into charity services will want to make this sacrifice because of the effect it will have in the profit making and the business entirely.

[hafiztalha]

Well, no matter how noble that practice may seem to you and to whoever does it, it simply isn't morally right. Also, if that's your business model, I find it hard to see how you'll make a profit. Supposing word gets out on how you sell your products at a higher price to people who seem/looks loaded to you to subsidize it supposedly for people who are poor, what do you think would happen? You're likely going to lose some, if not most of your rich customers while acquiring a lot of new customers that are seemingly poor. Your business would end up going under.
As a business, your primary aim should be on how to make profit. Following this proposed idea, I struggle to see just how you'll do that. As your idea is all about helping the poor and needy, Isn't it better to set up a non profit organization that helps just the poor and needy in the society. That way,  you'll be helping just the people who need some help while still relying on the good graces of others.

I wouldn't say that it is always immoral to charge wealthy customers in order to help the poor ones. It is not a bad business strategy. There are businesses who are using multiple pricing models depending on the beauty of their customers to pay but the real issue is: are the pricing fair and transparent just based on the someone's wealth assumption. I agree that business should be profitable to survive in the market. If there are people who are wealthy enough and they feel exploited, they might leave and business has to face the struggle in order to survive.

I think the better way is to offer good and affordable options to people who earn a low income and also have equal pricing for everyone else. The method to help the poor must be sustainable. Having social responsibility and making a profit do not have to conflict with each other