Homelessness Tax Would Target Rich Tech Sector in San Francisco

Unbridled capitalism is what gave us this problem. We need to operate our society on something other than greed. As long as we worship the almighty dollar as our God, this will continue to be a problem.
 
More like a brainfart.
Well it would give the best minds a chance to come up with a solution that doesn't involve them getting taxed. But you're right. I doubt if many would want to be bothered and would just pay higher taxes.
 
Unbridled capitalism is what gave us this problem. We need to operate our society on something other than greed. As long as we worship the almighty dollar as our God, this will continue to be a problem.

Mental illness is giving us almost all of this problem.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", comrade?
 
Mental illness is giving us almost all of this problem.

Yes, and us deciding we don't want any infrastructure to help / house them could save some money. Thus, they're out peeing on businesses.

What did we expect?
 
Let's start with you, since you would then be directly affected by your moral decision. How much are you willing to forego out of your weekly pay, assuming you work, but if you don't...how many of your benefits would you give up to help a stranger.

Or would you only select people "who make more than you".

Now, understand....on the surface I'm with you. If Apple can spend billions making a campus, they should be able to make an annual contribution to fund the Steve JObs ReEducation Camp dorm for the underemployed, homeless, whatever...you tell me who you want to help. I agree, this makes sense.

But I'm also looking at the slippery slope: And then when that facility is full....then what. You'd demand Apple build another one, right? Or do you say no, that's enough. Because if you say that....don't those businesses you want to add taxes to or the rich people who own them, don't they ALREADY pay
taxes...and those taxes go to things like...homeless shelters and roads and stuff? So now you're saying "Let's add a rich person/company tax"........ok, and then watch as businesses and individuals change their tax statuses to avoid your new taxes.....an individual might not do this, but a corporation's shareholders
will go "Um, fuck that, move this company to Ohio".

TLDR - Screw every one else but me!!

You're over paranoid.. enough said.

Instead of talking about it, do something.

As I don't like to boast, fuck it...
I donate over 100 hours a year of my time to feeding those in need of food. The biggest day coming up is on Thanksgiving where I donate a 8a to 11p shift in one of the local soup kitchens. I always throw a good grand or so on this day as it feeds roughly 700-800 people. How about you? Be a keyboard warrior all you want, it isn't doing anything in the real world.

Roughly 8-10% of my income goes to charitable causes, specifically to those relating to homeless shelters. How about yours?

And none of this goes on my taxes for write off purposes.

I've been very blessed with my life out in California and I've never taken it for granted. Don't assume shit until you know the facts.

If I can do it, many others can too.

Oh the horror! One less 1080ti a year to buy, just to place food on someone elses plate..

Please....
 
Is this thread really devolving into arguing whether it is worth helping the homeless with a 0.5% tax on extremely profitable businesses in Silicon Valley?

Anyone ever play the arm wrestling exercise in grade school? The teacher offers an M&M to the student each time they win, attempting to win as many times as in 1-minute. Yeah, the stronger student will get more M&Ms than the weaker student. But, if the stronger student is willing to work with the weaker student, they both get a bunch of M&Ms by knocking their arms back and forth. Until students "got it", winners were averaging like 4 M&Ms. Pairs of students who "got it", averaged 20-25 M&Ms each. Hopefully that grade school lesson helps someone "get it".


Ridiculous, right?
 
TLDR - Screw every one else but me!!

You're over paranoid.. enough said.

Instead of talking about it, do something.


I donate over 100 hours a year of my time to feeding those in need of food. The biggest day coming up is on Thanksgiving where I donate a 8a to 11p shift in one of the local soup kitchens. I always throw a good grand or so on this day as it feeds roughly 700-800 people. How about you? Be a keyboard warrior all you want, it isn't doing anything in the real world.

Roughly 8-10% of my income goes to charitable causes, specifically to those relating to homeless shelters. How about yours?

And none of this goes on my taxes for write off purposes.

I've been very blessed with my life out in California and I've never taken it for granted. Don't assume shit until you know the facts.

If I can do it, many others can too.

Oh the horror! One less 1080ti a year to buy, just to place food on someone elses plate..

Please....

That's how it should be. Quit trying to take money from people to give to others at the end of a gun and we'll all be better off.
 
Yes, and us deciding we don't want any infrastructure to help / house them could save some money. Thus, they're out peeing on businesses.

What did we expect?

I've decided I don't want to work and take care of myself... Why don't you come to my house and take care of me.

Oh wait... You want me to take care of myself and take care of all of the homeless too... That way you can feel good about yourself. I get it... You want to fix the problem by putting it on my shoulders!

Hey, you want to fix the problem... GO THERE AND FIX IT! STOP trying to make it my problem.
 
Taxing the rich a bit more is bad, how?

Because it's never "a bit more". Next year, they'll want another slice, and the year after, a little on top of that.

What percent of a person's income should they be able to keep? Are you willing to draw a line in the sand and say "nobody should be taxed at all levels to a total of more than 50% of their gross income?" What about 60%? 70%?

A person like Nancy Pelosi, if asked that question, would just blink owlishly and say she doesn't understand the question.
 
Because it's never "a bit more". Next year, they'll want another slice, and the year after, a little on top of that.

What percent of a person's income should they be able to keep? Are you willing to draw a line in the sand and say "nobody should be taxed at all levels to a total of more than 50% of their gross income?" What about 60%? 70%?

A person like Nancy Pelosi, if asked that question, would just blink owlishly and say she doesn't understand the question.


Okay so maybe keep giving until you're no longer able to? /Discussion
 
Because it's never "a bit more". Next year, they'll want another slice, and the year after, a little on top of that.

What percent of a person's income should they be able to keep? Are you willing to draw a line in the sand and say "nobody should be taxed at all levels to a total of more than 50% of their gross income?" What about 60%? 70%?

A person like Nancy Pelosi, if asked that question, would just blink owlishly and say she doesn't understand the question.

Those kind of people don't think it through and want to tax "rich" people more and more. What they don't realize is the truly rich aren't wage earners. They live on dividends and already established wealth. The truly rich don't pay taxes like the wage earning "rich" do. That's why people like Buffet, Steyer, Gates, Soros, etc. are all about raising the income tax rate.
 
Those kind of people don't think it through and want to tax "rich" people more and more. What they don't realize is the truly rich aren't wage earners. They live on dividends and already established wealth. The truly rich don't pay taxes like the wage earning "rich" do. That's why people like Buffet, Steyer, Gates, Soros, etc. are all about raising the income tax rate.


The hilarity of nit picking how/what makes us wealthy/rich.... at the end of the day, you're still wealthy/rich.
 
Let's see now. No money to retain. No computer to write up a new resume. No printer to print resumes with. No home address to receive mail to, or put on applications. No phone to receive calls for interviews. No appropriate attire to interview in. No showers to wash in. No ability to get a haircut or shave. No recent work to show.

Are you seriously so out of touch with poverty that that is your first, and only question? Get with the times.

How about the homeless get jobs?
 
Basic economics will give you the answer.
If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something tax it.

So, raise taxes on rich businesses and you will have less businesses or less taxable income as companies try to avoid the tax.

Subsidize the homeless, and you will have more homeless.

Came to say, "this is how you get more homeless".

Not the people that are just down on their luck that are from San Francisco- no, we're talking about even more homeless migrating to San Francisco to soak up them bennies.
 
I don't think this would even work. These people are not homeless because they can't afford "a home". They are homeless because they are competing for houses with people who can pay stratospheric prices. So the San Franciscans will get the new tax money and be able to pay current rents and the high-paid techies will still want those homes so they will pay more to to compete with them for rent. And we're creating a tax that will take money from the rich who are at least creating high technology and high paying jobs, give it to the rich who are just sitting back, gouging on the insane rents, make the high tech employees spend an even greater percentage of their income on rent, and leave the San Franciscans exactly as they were before.

And all the while, these San Franciscans do have the money to afford a home. Just not in San Francisco. I do believe that people have a right to be able to have a home. But that doesn't mean that they have the right to have a home in Beverly Hills, or to live in Neverland Ranch. Living in San Francisco is a luxury now. I fully support the creation of taxes to provide people with necessities. But you can't create taxes to give people luxuries. These people can have a great home in any of the 3rd world US states and even in most of New England. They could even get a great home in most of California.

The high paying companies have to settle somewhere. Wherever people are highly paid, the prices will be high. This is not a bad thing. It is good that companies where employees create a lot of wealth will give their employees a lot of wealth too. And by supply and demand, it is also normal that the area where these highly paid people live will be expensive. For the people who used to live there, that creates lots of opportunities. But if they plan to continue living and earning as they did before the high-paying companies arrived, they will have to do it elsewhere.
 
Let's see now. No money to retain. No computer to write up a new resume. No printer to print resumes with. No home address to receive mail to, or put on applications. No phone to receive calls for interviews. No appropriate attire to interview in. No showers to wash in. No ability to get a haircut or shave. No recent work to show.

Are you seriously so out of touch with poverty that that is your first, and only question? Get with the times.

I've worked on the streets, with the purpose being to figure out how to help people bridge that gap, and the answer 'get a job' is still the same. It's harder, but it's right.
 
Came to say, "this is how you get more homeless".

Not the people that are just down on their luck that are from San Francisco- no, we're talking about even more homeless migrating to San Francisco to soak up them bennies.

Yep, Seattle is a case in point. More money for homeless means more homeless migrate there. I think SF has the right idea for them. Before you know it every street will be littered with shit.
 
Unbridled capitalism is what gave us this problem. We need to operate our society on something other than greed. As long as we worship the almighty dollar as our God, this will continue to be a problem.

If it is why don't I have shit in my city streets? I was in San Fransisco like 5 years ago, it was a really nice place, now you got shit on the streets, drug addicts, and mentally ill every where. What changed in 5 years, from what i understand it is the administration there and their dumb fucking ideas, and they elected these fucks again.
 
Honestly I see all of these people that are choosing to live on the streets and work for pennies rather than move somewhere they can afford as the largest part of the problem.

As long as these rich companies can get people to work for unlivable wages doing all the things that need to be done, they will. When they run out of people, they'll have to raise wages!

Move out of San Fran if you can't afford to live there!
 
No doubt, our country has an issue with homeless people. It's not a black and white issue. Not all of the people are lazy bums or drunks. Some have mental health issues. Some just hit hard times and didn't have a safety net.
I don't have answers. However, an immediate demand of take money from the rich to feed the poor doesn't sit right with me. If there was a plan that had some good structure to it, maybe. I'd be afraid the government would just piss it away and not do a damn thing with the cash.
 
Well it would give the best minds a chance to come up with a solution that doesn't involve them getting taxed. But you're right. I doubt if many would want to be bothered and would just pay higher taxes.
The rich and people who work are already paying for people who do not want to work. Why would anybody want to pay more? Form a brute squad and tell them to get a job or get out. :)
 
I know lets define rich to mean anyone who makes as much money as you do! Then we can freely just take all of your money. After all, if we define you as rich then you have too much and we can take it and just give it to someone else. And, if you don't want to give up all of your money then we will show up with guns and take it from you!

its really funny! Corporations aren't people. IF they were they should go to jail for fraud not be fined? You see what I am saying? When the banking meltdown happened did they go to jail? Nope, not really! instead they got a mother fuckin bailout from the people! No one was bitching back then about taking money from the people.

I don't think this is about taking money from the rich! Corporation is not people when they are we can start bitching. They never said tax the rich, they said tax corporations that are booming and making so much! That amount ain't nothing though. 350 million over a year? Drop in the bucket for what these corporations make in the bay area. It doesn't say hey if you are making over 200k you pay more tax.
 
No doubt, our country has an issue with homeless people. It's not a black and white issue. Not all of the people are lazy bums or drunks. Some have mental health issues. Some just hit hard times and didn't have a safety net.
I don't have answers. However, an immediate demand of take money from the rich to feed the poor doesn't sit right with me. If there was a plan that had some good structure to it, maybe. I'd be afraid the government would just piss it away and not do a damn thing with the cash.

This really isn't about taxing the rich though. They are taxing the rich corporations, so there is not really a tax lets say hey you make 200k you pay more tax.
 
Honestly I see all of these people that are choosing to live on the streets and work for pennies rather than move somewhere they can afford as the largest part of the problem.

As long as these rich companies can get people to work for unlivable wages doing all the things that need to be done, they will. When they run out of people, they'll have to raise wages!

Move out of San Fran if you can't afford to live there!

Overwhelmingly, the homeless have mental disorders. The people who are working but not quite cutting it DO live in other cities.

There are two issues being mixed up here.

Or do we think Twitter web-script-jockeys are shitting in the streets? Maybe they are - I hate that site. :)
 
its really funny! Corporations aren't people. IF they were they should go to jail for fraud not be fined? You see what I am saying? When the banking meltdown happened did they go to jail? Nope, not really! instead they got a mother fuckin bailout from the people! No one was bitching back then about taking money from the people.

I don't think this is about taking money from the rich! Corporation is not people when they are we can start bitching. They never said tax the rich, they said tax corporations that are booming and making so much! That amount ain't nothing though. 350 million over a year? Drop in the bucket for what these corporations make in the bay area. It doesn't say hey if you are making over 200k you pay more tax.

Corporations don't pay taxes. Their customers pay it for them.
 
Ding ding ding!

Now, how do we address this without harming individual liberty and without allowing ultra-progressives to over-define 'mentally ill' so that their ideological opponents get locked up for 'wrong think'?

I replied to your other post before this.

This is the real question which needs to be asked. I am fine, to some degree, at paying to help out our civilization. In fact I am. I'm paying ASSLOADS of money.

But there is a real question of what is too much at some point. As we know, the rich have options. Tax too much - they leave, you get zero.
 
Basic economics will give you the answer.
If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something tax it.

So, raise taxes on rich businesses and you will have less businesses or less taxable income as companies try to avoid the tax.

Subsidize the homeless, and you will have more homeless.

So... tax the homeless? LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: nimer
like this
Yes, and us deciding we don't want any infrastructure to help / house them could save some money. Thus, they're out peeing on businesses.

What did we expect?

No, it was because some judge decide that these people could no longer be committed unless they were a "danger to others".
Then other judges deciding that "danger to others" is almost impossible to prove.
 
The more comfortable you make being homeless, the more folks will just say screw it and become homeless. The homeless lifestyle may have a higher risk but responsibility for anything goes way down. My guess is only a small percent of the homeless in SF are homeless because of mental issues. I think most chose the lifestyle because free food, mostly temperate climate and a city that pretty much tolerates anything they do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DocNo
like this
So... tax the homeless? LOL

You laugh, but that would actually get them off the streets (or at least cause them to move elsewhere).

Just think about it. What happens if you don't pay your taxes? Eventually people with guns show up and take you to jail.
If they where all sitting in jail for not paying a homeless tax, they would no longer be homeless :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: nimer
like this
The problem is it is difficult to get a job of you don't have a phone number, and address and a place to shower and clean up for an interview.

Oh please, don't go around making sense like that, you're killiing the "they're all lazy bums anyway" squad!

People here act as if the homeless are there because they don't want to work.

I've lived on my car for a few days. And trust me, it snowballs. Shit happens, you have nowhere to go. Then, you stink and your clothes are dirty and beaten. If you have a job, it's in danger; if you don't, how are you getting one?

But it's always easier to just dismiss every single one of them as "lazy" and keep going through life pretending you're the hot shot that has all figured out... you guys have absolutely no clue at all.

You laugh, but that would actually get them off the streets (or at least cause them to move elsewhere).

Well, we can also go Stalin style.
Q: How to make everybody happy?
A: Just kill everybody that's not happy!

Just think about it. What happens if you don't pay your taxes? Eventually people with guns show up and take you to jail.
If they where all sitting in jail for not paying a homeless tax, they would no longer be homeless :p

Well, at least they won't have to kill someone to get there and have a roof over their head and a meal, now matter how crappy. But that won't stop others from complaining that the homeless are still leeching from their pockets. For those, good old Stalin knew it all!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top