Lessons of the cat commune

Much to my unhappiness I discovered yesterday that the fluffy-scruffy-looking cat in my block of flats is just skin and bones. I had noticed a while ago that this once much-protected luxurious cat was no longer anything special to its owners. It now shuffles around outside and has serious problems trying to fit in with the other cats who only remember seeing it as kitten being walked on a lead.

This cat Pippa, is starving. And as any concerned citizen of this local community I simply cannot let it starve. So it's going to get food from me as long as I live there. What choice do I have? How could I carry on living there with my cats all fat and happy and this unfortuante creature dying a slow death?

This makes me think of all the unhappy people out there suffering the same fate. Surely it is the responsibility of those who have food to help those who don't?
Yet I know I would struggle to become so personally involved. Perhaps it's because cats' problems are much simpler to fix than people's? Perhaps it's because the situation of poverty is so overwhelming and much too large for one person to tackle?

My ration of food for Pippa however could be compared to a minimum income given to all people no matter who they are or what their circumstances. (Stuart enlightned me to this idea.) Why should a person have to prove that they are unemployed and cannot find work before being given much needed money? The beaurocracy behind this is often so intense, demanding and time-consuming that the poor don't get their money before they are already on their hands and knees, if at all. The minimum income would come from taxes and not really make a difference to the rich, but to the poor it would. I don't know about the financial and logistical issues surrounding this, but it could be a good idea. What do you think?