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

[Agathamay]

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.

You are correct and also the poor people are at a disadvantage in all the strategy that I can think about because they are really poor and when they come poor, the market sellers will be thinking that they are pretending to be poor not knowing that is their real status because they do not have money. It will just be better when things are being sold for what it is worth and not increase price because of how people are looking. A businesses man knows how much they bought what ever they are trying to sell to you and knows the amount to add to make a profit and that should be what everybody should be doing, put your price to give you profits and not look to make more money on people you think can afford paying more money.

There's absolutely no way for poor people in this world and it seems everything and all odds are always against the poor.
I get the point and idea of what op is trying to say but at some point all of these things will still directly or indirectly affect the poor in one way or the other and instead of finding way to over charge a particular class of people to appeal another class isn't a good idea for me, so I prefer things to just be done the right way at the right time, maybe things might just work out just fine.

[Hamza2424]

Unfortunately the modern youth is completely misguided, you can see actually many forum members with old accounts being anti corporation and thinking that businesses owe them something.

Haha bro, old accounts or old members have nothing to do with this. It's all about mindset, and every individual has a different mindset. Now, if a poor person is reading this post, which I am also, I don't have savings, so don't get the idea that if I am old here, I might be super rich, haha, or that I would have hundreds of BTC. I don't even have 0.01 BTC or even less.

You don't get to criticize anyone based on their time on the forum! I said something that is up to my standard. Now, I was saying if a poor person reads a post like this, they would definitely say businesses should help the poor. But did I say they should not?

I did not say that, right? I said if businesses can really afford it, then they should. Otherwise, they don't. Now, if you start a business, I am sure you won't even give them a discount, let alone helping them! I am not judging you, I don't know you, but see how it feels when someone is like this to you!

So be neutral and do what you can in your capacity. Don't be fictional, be real.

[Iroh]

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

Just because some customers are wealthy, it doesn't mean they should be exploited. I perfectly understand the righteous aim of wanting to help the poor in the society but it shouldn't be done on the ignorance of the people being exploited. It may not seem like a bad business strategy to you at first, but what happens when the number of poor customers skyrocket(as it's to be expected due to your good hearted ambition of subsidizing the cost for them)? What do you do? Do you offload the difference on the first person you assume to be wealthy? Or do you bear the loss yourself? Either way, there is a good chance of having your business go under.

Social responsibility on the other hand is a safer way to go about helping the poor and needy in the locale where you do business. There are several other means which you can go about in trying to subsidize products for people. Having a pricing technique that allows you to assume how deep a customers pockets are before you decide on the price tag shouldn't be one of them as it's simply not right.

[Felicity_Tide]

There's absolutely no way for poor people in this world and it seems everything and all odds are always against the poor.
I get the point and idea of what op is trying to say but at some point all of these things will still directly or indirectly affect the poor in one way or the other and instead of finding way to over charge a particular class of people to appeal another class isn't a good idea for me, so I prefer things to just be done the right way at the right time, maybe things might just work out just fine.

I don't think things are ever going to be fine. Society has always been imbalanced, and I think it will probably continue that way until the end of the world. Wether we like it or not, we're always going to have different classes of people, and I don't think taking for the rich to sort out the poor is ever going to be a long lasting solution to what they're going through. Like I pointed out the other day, there are quite a number of wealthy people who are actually smart. They know when certain items are being overpriced, and I doubt if they're ever going to go along with such an idea unless they're willing to do so themselves.

[Agathamay]

There's absolutely no way for poor people in this world and it seems everything and all odds are always against the poor.
I get the point and idea of what op is trying to say but at some point all of these things will still directly or indirectly affect the poor in one way or the other and instead of finding way to over charge a particular class of people to appeal another class isn't a good idea for me, so I prefer things to just be done the right way at the right time, maybe things might just work out just fine.

I don't think things are ever going to be fine. Society has always been imbalanced, and I think it will probably continue that way until the end of the world. Wether we like it or not, we're always going to have different classes of people, and I don't think taking for the rich to sort out the poor is ever going to be a long lasting solution to what they're going through. Like I pointed out the other day, there are quite a number of wealthy people who are actually smart. They know when certain items are being overpriced, and I doubt if they're ever going to go along with such an idea unless they're willing to do so themselves.

There is no doubt about how life is supposed to be but I'm sure you got me wrong but it me explain a little more better and what I mean is that, instead of increasing or over hiking the price of commodities for a certain class of people to ease life for another set, the government should rather do the right thing and provide job for its citizens and  by so doing, the people would have enough for themselves and even to pay their taxes thereby also generating revenue for the government.

[Richbased]

Robin Hood.
From my understanding its just business strategy that they don't sell with a single price
They try to make more profit from one and normal from others
It's rare for them to sell below net cost so not really that chivalrous but just business.
It has it perks when they come across people that can't haggle prices.

If that's what you call a business strategy then it is wrong. You can be considerate to someone who isn't financially buoyant but it doesn't mean you should sell below the cost price to them and sell higher than what it should be to someone who is financially capable. It's a wrong mentality in my opinion and not any business strategy. If you want to practice a business strategy where you can charge higher than the price it should be then you will need to equip your business in such a way that it will look attractive and luxurious so that only people who can afford it will come to patronise you.

[Miles2006]

This pattern is not the best way to go about helping the poor or needy as mentioned, this pattern rather will only chase the wealthy people. I know this pattern is common, I always view this as being greedy when taking extra money from wealthy customers and still sell goods same price for the poor, so the little difference is the wealthy gets to buy using a high amount while they don’t even consider the poor by reducing the cost rather they sell to the poor with the initial price.
From my observation, what I just explained is known by many though op is trying to state a different point by saying this pattern is used to help the poor, I doubt if this is the kind of help poor citizens need and how sure they’re charged less for products? Well, things are done differently in other region.

[Smartvirus]

There is no doubt about how life is supposed to be but I'm sure you got me wrong but it me explain a little more better and what I mean is that, instead of increasing or over hiking the price of commodities for a certain class of people to ease life for another set, the government should rather do the right thing and provide job for its citizens and  by so doing, the people would have enough for themselves and even to pay their taxes thereby also generating revenue for the government.

Life isn’t supposed to be in no particular way and the government can’t provide all you need. They can only do so much to make life a little stable in terms of amenities but, they fail in even these sadly, especially for the developing nations.

However, it wouldn’t make any sense to increase the price of any particular commodity. The poor would also need to buy these commodities and what happens when the rich find out it’s cheap elsewhere, you certainly wouldn’t keep them away from purchasing it, there would always be ways around these kind of things and discrimination. It’s just not ideal.

[abhiseshakana]

There is no doubt about how life is supposed to be but I'm sure you got me wrong but it me explain a little more better and what I mean is that, instead of increasing or over hiking the price of commodities for a certain class of people to ease life for another set, the government should rather do the right thing and provide job for its citizens and  by so doing, the people would have enough for themselves and even to pay their taxes thereby also generating revenue for the government.

Life isn’t supposed to be in no particular way and the government can’t provide all you need. They can only do so much to make life a little stable in terms of amenities but, they fail in even these sadly, especially for the developing nations.

However, it wouldn’t make any sense to increase the price of any particular commodity. The poor would also need to buy these commodities and what happens when the rich find out it’s cheap elsewhere, you certainly wouldn’t keep them away from purchasing it, there would always be ways around these kind of things and discrimination. It’s just not ideal.

Yes, I think the most ideal local market dynamics, such as the Nordic model, what OP mechanism explained functions exactly like the progressive tax system found in the Nordic models, the difference is that, rather than being managed by government bureaucrats, it is executed directly by traders in the marketplace through face to face interaction. On the state level, Nordic countries succeeded in getting the wealthy to willingly pay high taxes because they receive indirect compensation dor premium public facility. Rich people don't mind because they view paying taxes as an investment to secure stability, legal certainty, and infrastructure.

On market level, the higher prices charged to wealthy customers act as a voluntary social tax, collected directly at the point of sale, like tax. Social assistance can take the form of low cost or free goods for beggars, provided without any bureaucracy. The wealthy view this as a direct contribution to social stability, or as a moral responsibility on their part to support their community. Concept buy one get one for hunger can be applied or business entity can provide two product, one is basic product and second are premium product witch additional facility and value. The profit from premium products subsidizes the low cost of the basic products.

[Agathamay]

There is no doubt about how life is supposed to be but I'm sure you got me wrong but it me explain a little more better and what I mean is that, instead of increasing or over hiking the price of commodities for a certain class of people to ease life for another set, the government should rather do the right thing and provide job for its citizens and  by so doing, the people would have enough for themselves and even to pay their taxes thereby also generating revenue for the government.

Life isn’t supposed to be in no particular way and the government can’t provide all you need. They can only do so much to make life a little stable in terms of amenities but, they fail in even these sadly, especially for the developing nations.

However, it wouldn’t make any sense to increase the price of any particular commodity. The poor would also need to buy these commodities and what happens when the rich find out it’s cheap elsewhere, you certainly wouldn’t keep them away from purchasing it, there would always be ways around these kind of things and discrimination. It’s just not ideal.

Yes it's true that the government can not provide everything for us but providing the basic amenities which includes good road, electricity and lesser tax would help make life much more easier for the beverage citizen and mind you, I'm using my country Nigerian as a case study because I know the kind of people that we are, and if the government can provide security, good road, and just electricity( we are not even asking for water because everyone is becoming responsible for their water) such government will be highly rated but no, the human greed in these government officials can't just be satisfied.
The government has a major role in the wellbeing of the common citizen and if they're doing the right thing, it will reflect on its citizens as well.