Homelessness Tax Would Target Rich Tech Sector in San Francisco

ep0x73

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
2,569
Ya it’s just terrible here in Canada and all the other countries with socialist programs. Great education systems, universal healthcare, higher minimum wages, higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality rates ... it’s a damn travesty.

You failed to mention to get those benefits you need to give up about 50% of your paycheck too.
I knew a guy who had medical issues from Vancouver, sure they paid for everything but he paid deeply into that to get those benefits.

you can't have your cake and eat it too
 

cdr_74_premium

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
1,578
Struck a nerve did I? I must have hit pretty close to the mark to get you so riled up. I’m sorry I don’t categorize Canadians into subgroups such as natives or “euro-Canadians”. We are all Canadian.

That answers everything I need to know about your ethnic background, thank you.

I lived in Canada’s most multicultural city for a decade and I never saw this thinly veiled racism you speak of. When the 2003 blackout hit, when I was in College, it was a newly immigrated Canadian family who took my 2 roommates and I in and made sure we were fed. I have had newly immigrated Canadians as bosses, worked and lived beside them with no problems to speak of.

First, the most multicultural city would be breeding grounds for the opposite of what I am describing. It wouldn't dismiss the idea that outside of the big metropolitan areas things aren't so nice, or even nice at all.

There's a reason why Ontario - not Toronto - elected Doug Ford.


The United States shouldn’t be surprised by Canada’s stance on Trump. When 9/11 happened and US airspace was closed Canada took in and housed displaced Americans. We supported / fought beside the US in every armed conflict except for Vietnam and Iraq and Trump turned around and put tariffs on our steel and aluminum calling Canada a “national security threat”. We simply don’t put up with that shit. We know why the world laughed at Trump when he spoke at the UN. It wasnt nervous or anxious laughter ... it was dismissive laughter.

Seems that you do put up with it yes, considering nothing major has changed except for the constant virtue signaling of Canadians. Trump got everything he wanted, except raping the Canadian pharma industry, which is in itself a huge victory for Canada. American pharma can go to hell.


You failed to mention to get those benefits you need to give up about 50% of your paycheck too.
I knew a guy who had medical issues from Vancouver, sure they paid for everything but he paid deeply into that to get those benefits.

you can't have your cake and eat it too

So what?

You have to be selfish beyond measure to care that others will get help if they need it - especially for a life and death situation - and you'll get help if you need as well. I will gladly pay for that, even if I don't use it, thank you very much. Helping another human being in times of need seems a lot more reasonable and compassionate than lining up the pockets of some health insurance company shareholder.
 
Last edited:

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
14,742
His video was not meant to offer solutions to a difficult problem, nor to address all of the varying factors that contribute to the issue. I think his biggest concern is that simply throwing more money at something won't fix it and the city proves it with their own numbers. As he said, in SF they already pay nearly 40k per homeless person and this new plan would bump it to something like 75k. Homelessness has not decreased while spending has already increased by 40% in the past 5 years. It's at 280million/year. That's a considerable amount of money and that money does not come from thin air. If spending has increased but there are no positive results to show for it they're pissing money away. And he's right...in a few years they'll likely come looking for more money again. And again.
Well one of the LARGEST issues is that it's not giving 40k to each homeless person, it's putting together a system where various "groups" will vie for funding, and much like other charitable organizations a LOT of that money goes to running the system, which includes of course the cost of the land/building/whatever for building "help", and being in one of the most expensive cities in the world does not make that cheap. I agree, simply throwing money at the problem is not the solution, it requires money to be certain, but my view on homelessness is that it can not be fixed in this city, the only thing you can do is help people get a step up more often than not in other cities where the cost of living is a fraction of what it costs here.


I really don't know what to suggest for the mentally ill on the streets. I'm conflicted. I'm inclined to want some kind of forced hospitalization to get some of the more dangerous or vulnerable off the streets but I don't like the idea of anything being forced upon citizens. I'm not sure that saying "it's for their own good" is enough as that becomes wide open to abuse. One thing for sure is that what they're doing in SF, is not the right thing.
Yeah, well one thing that a lot of people don't realize when getting into these arguments is that larger cities are where the largest homeless problems are simply because they are the only ones who throw budget money of any extent at them. There's a reason why there's a lot of homeless in San Francisco, because there are areas that they can get "help" (handouts), NYC, easily has 10x the homelessness as SF, but they also have 10x the population as well, LA has so many more homeless than SF it's not funny... but again larger populations. Seattle has more, San Diego has more, all of these areas are rather large population centers. Meanwhile little suburb doesn't have much, as a result the church having food and temporary housing is more than enough.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
14,742
You failed to mention to get those benefits you need to give up about 50% of your paycheck too.
Maybe not as much as you think, Canada has a sliding scale too, and while sure you can get up to 50% of your paycheck, same can be said in some parts of the US. Looking at your California.
 

NKD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
8,738
You failed to mention to get those benefits you need to give up about 50% of your paycheck too.
I knew a guy who had medical issues from Vancouver, sure they paid for everything but he paid deeply into that to get those benefits.

you can't have your cake and eat it too


Its amazing to me that how people think tax payers don't pay for anything only if some how healthcare was free then yea its you paying for it lol. You really think tax payers don't pay for stuff anyways? lol! Where the hell do you think the money comes from anyways? lol!

Jails, Healthcare, all that shit, its taxpayers. Hospitals get funds towards helping those that dont have insurance. It went down when ACA was in effect, but after Trump made changes to it those payments were reinstated. So yea tax payers do pay for it. Also jails, you and I pay 50k and above taking care of each inmate in jail for one year! Yea one year, per inmate. lol! U.S jails more people than anyone in the entire f'in world. Who pays for it? We do! However I do feel they are making some improvements here. But its still 80 billion per year.

And I agree with sfsuphysics homeless go where they know they are going to get the most help. I live in central valley like 90 miles from SF. When I started living here 7 years ago I used see them in places. I feel like they are all gone, i am not even kidding. Either my city has done an epic job or they all went to SF. I do think it has to do with both but they all didn't just disappear. I get it too, good weather and more chances of getting more help.

To me I want my tax money going to improve people's lives so I don't have to keep wasting it over and over. We all should realize we pay in to this stuff already one way or another.
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
7,898
Its amazing to me that how people think tax payers don't pay for anything only if some how healthcare was free then yea its you paying for it lol. You really think tax payers don't pay for stuff anyways? lol! Where the hell do you think the money comes from anyways? lol!

Jails, Healthcare, all that shit, its taxpayers. Hospitals get funds towards helping those that dont have insurance. It went down when ACA was in effect, but after Trump made changes to it those payments were reinstated. So yea tax payers do pay for it. Also jails, you and I pay 50k and above taking care of each inmate in jail for one year! Yea one year, per inmate. lol! U.S jails more people than anyone in the entire f'in world. Who pays for it? We do! However I do feel they are making some improvements here. But its still 80 billion per year.

And I agree with sfsuphysics homeless go where they know they are going to get the most help. I live in central valley like 90 miles from SF. When I started living here 7 years ago I used see them in places. I feel like they are all gone, i am not even kidding. Either my city has done an epic job or they all went to SF. I do think it has to do with both but they all didn't just disappear. I get it too, good weather and more chances of getting more help.

To me I want my tax money going to improve people's lives so I don't have to keep wasting it over and over. We all should realize we pay in to this stuff already one way or another.


My premiums doubled under Obamacare due to the Cadillac tax. Weird how there was a tax on top of other taxes that applied to insurance plans offered by company's who actually gave a damn about their employees.
 

NKD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
8,738
My premiums doubled under Obamacare due to the Cadillac tax. Weird how there was a tax on top of other taxes that applied to insurance plans offered by company's who actually gave a damn about their employees.

I think it just boils down to company and providers in the State. I pay 213 for me, my wife and my son, that’s with 2700 out of pocket maximum for the year.
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
7,898
I think it just boils down to company and providers in the State. I pay 213 for me, my wife and my son, that’s with 2700 out of pocket maximum for the year.

90 every two weeks(used to be 45 before ACA) for my wife and me, 1500 plan max out of pocket
 

NKD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
8,738
90 every two weeks(used to be 45 before ACA) for my wife and me, 1500 plan max out of pocket

Sucks but I came from paying 300 for just myself when I wasn’t with the company. With higher deductibles. So for me 200 a month for me, my wife and son was a steal.
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
Well one of the LARGEST issues is that it's not giving 40k to each homeless person, it's putting together a system where various "groups" will vie for funding, and much like other charitable organizations a LOT of that money goes to running the system, which includes of course the cost of the land/building/whatever for building "help", and being in one of the most expensive cities in the world does not make that cheap. I agree, simply throwing money at the problem is not the solution, it requires money to be certain, but my view on homelessness is that it can not be fixed in this city, the only thing you can do is help people get a step up more often than not in other cities where the cost of living is a fraction of what it costs here.



Yeah, well one thing that a lot of people don't realize when getting into these arguments is that larger cities are where the largest homeless problems are simply because they are the only ones who throw budget money of any extent at them. There's a reason why there's a lot of homeless in San Francisco, because there are areas that they can get "help" (handouts), NYC, easily has 10x the homelessness as SF, but they also have 10x the population as well, LA has so many more homeless than SF it's not funny... but again larger populations. Seattle has more, San Diego has more, all of these areas are rather large population centers. Meanwhile little suburb doesn't have much, as a result the church having food and temporary housing is more than enough.
I don't disagree. Perhaps steps could be taken to make the cities where homeless seem to flock to a bit less attractive. It would be ideal if they could be taken care of by their local communities instead of clustering in certain locales. This was also touched on in the video. Homeless folks are in general transient and will go to wherever it suits them the best. I don't think the sole reason that some cities have more homeless people is simply because they're larger cities. There are other benefits to going to certain cities. Without looking into the numbers, I can almost promise you that cities controlled by democrats have more homeless people, probably by a wide margin.
 

EchoWars

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
497
This is kind of an aside, but revamping construction methods to make houses cheaper would help a lot. We're building houses pretty much the same way we were 100+ years ago. Imagine how much your new car would cost (and how crappy it would be) if we were still building them the way we did in 1915.

There's no excuse why a signal family home of maybe 2500sf costs 10x the annual household income.
 

NKD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
8,738
I don't disagree. Perhaps steps could be taken to make the cities where homeless seem to flock to a bit less attractive. It would be ideal if they could be taken care of by their local communities instead of clustering in certain locales. This was also touched on in the video. Homeless folks are in general transient and will go to wherever it suits them the best. I don't think the sole reason that some cities have more homeless people is simply because they're larger cities. There are other benefits to going to certain cities. Without looking into the numbers, I can almost promise you that cities controlled by democrats have more homeless people, probably by a wide margin.

Lets make it about democrats vs republicans. Couldn't help it could you? lol. It has nothing to do with democrats vs republicans. Most of bigger cities are urban! That is likely where you will see more homeless. I am totally not sure what you mean by that. You think Democrats want homeless people? or are you saying if we sent Homeless people to Republican run cities they will all of sudden not be homeless?

or let me put it this way. Lets turn everything in to Republican run. Now where would all the homeless go? Disappear to an island? No they would still be there and it would still be a problem. LOL
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
7,898
Can't shelter/help the homeless because the majority of them don't want it.

Source: I have volunteered more hours than I can count feeding the homeless and have had so many eye opening conversations with them.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,700
This is kind of an aside, but revamping construction methods to make houses cheaper would help a lot. We're building houses pretty much the same way we were 100+ years ago. Imagine how much your new car would cost (and how crappy it would be) if we were still building them the way we did in 1915.

There's no excuse why a signal family home of maybe 2500sf costs 10x the annual household income.

It's not the building cost it's the restrictions on new building and the extreme demand for the areas. It doesnt cost 1 million for an average house build anywhere in the nation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NKD
like this

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
14,742
I don't disagree. Perhaps steps could be taken to make the cities where homeless seem to flock to a bit less attractive. It would be ideal if they could be taken care of by their local communities instead of clustering in certain locales. This was also touched on in the video. Homeless folks are in general transient and will go to wherever it suits them the best. I don't think the sole reason that some cities have more homeless people is simply because they're larger cities. There are other benefits to going to certain cities. Without looking into the numbers, I can almost promise you that cities controlled by democrats have more homeless people, probably by a wide margin.
Well the only way you're going to make things less attractive is to completely cut off care, much of which isn't actually run by the city, and/or run them out, but good look doing the later. Make a rule about sitting on the sidewalk some judge comes around says its unconstitutional, make a rule about not being able to camp on the street some judge comes around and says if there's no room in shelters it's unconstitutional. Other than that lots of homeless on the west coast is less to do with democrats, and more to do with the factor that it's temperate there, no one is freezing to death in San Francisco, LA or San Diego. That said New York and DC are two other big hot beds of homelessness, and their weather is most definitely not west coast weather, and to throw a monkey wrench in the plans, hasn't NYC been run by a republican for 20 years? Guiliani was like 8 years, Bloomberg was 12. Please don't fireback with RINO either. Now what isn't there more homeless in say Houston? Well probably because many might die from exposure there, but homelessness is growing there.

Ultimately I think homelessness is due to large populations, with enough people you're bound to get someone who's "crazy", an addict, down on hard times, etc, and with larger cities those "large numbers" simply start to add up. If you look at a list of largest cities you're usually see a direct correlation with population of homeless except maybe Texas, not sure if it's weather, not caring enough to get an accurate census, or they run them out of the state. And yes large cities have in the past given homeless people tickets to wherever they want to go. You don't think all the homeless in Hawaii are all native Hawaiians do you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NKD
like this

NKD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
8,738
Well the only way you're going to make things less attractive is to completely cut off care, much of which isn't actually run by the city, and/or run them out, but good look doing the later. Make a rule about sitting on the sidewalk some judge comes around says its unconstitutional, make a rule about not being able to camp on the street some judge comes around and says if there's no room in shelters it's unconstitutional. Other than that lots of homeless on the west coast is less to do with democrats, and more to do with the factor that it's temperate there, no one is freezing to death in San Francisco, LA or San Diego. That said New York and DC are two other big hot beds of homelessness, and their weather is most definitely not west coast weather, and to throw a monkey wrench in the plans, hasn't NYC been run by a republican for 20 years? Guiliani was like 8 years, Bloomberg was 12. Please don't fireback with RINO either. Now what isn't there more homeless in say Houston? Well probably because many might die from exposure there, but homelessness is growing there.

Ultimately I think homelessness is due to large populations, with enough people you're bound to get someone who's "crazy", an addict, down on hard times, etc, and with larger cities those "large numbers" simply start to add up. If you look at a list of largest cities you're usually see a direct correlation with population of homeless except maybe Texas, not sure if it's weather, not caring enough to get an accurate census, or they run them out of the state. And yes large cities have in the past given homeless people tickets to wherever they want to go. You don't think all the homeless in Hawaii are all native Hawaiians do you?

This, lol! Like you said, west coast will have homeless more than any other state. No hurricanes, not freeze your ass off weather, no extreme weather scenarios, other than wildfires, but rarely you get those in coastal cities. Its pretty much the best place you can be if you were homeless. No question about it. I mean the coast has the best weather year around. Its just a popular choice, I mean if you were going to be homeless by choice. California is the place to be.
 

capt_cope

Gawd
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
945
Well the only way you're going to make things less attractive is to completely cut off care, much of which isn't actually run by the city, and/or run them out, but good look doing the later. Make a rule about sitting on the sidewalk some judge comes around says its unconstitutional, make a rule about not being able to camp on the street some judge comes around and says if there's no room in shelters it's unconstitutional. Other than that lots of homeless on the west coast is less to do with democrats, and more to do with the factor that it's temperate there, no one is freezing to death in San Francisco, LA or San Diego. That said New York and DC are two other big hot beds of homelessness, and their weather is most definitely not west coast weather, and to throw a monkey wrench in the plans, hasn't NYC been run by a republican for 20 years? Guiliani was like 8 years, Bloomberg was 12. Please don't fireback with RINO either. Now what isn't there more homeless in say Houston? Well probably because many might die from exposure there, but homelessness is growing there.

Ultimately I think homelessness is due to large populations, with enough people you're bound to get someone who's "crazy", an addict, down on hard times, etc, and with larger cities those "large numbers" simply start to add up. If you look at a list of largest cities you're usually see a direct correlation with population of homeless except maybe Texas, not sure if it's weather, not caring enough to get an accurate census, or they run them out of the state. And yes large cities have in the past given homeless people tickets to wherever they want to go. You don't think all the homeless in Hawaii are all native Hawaiians do you?
While that would make it less attractive, I really don't think the chronically homeless are that concerned with that. It's anecdotal since I've only had one long conversation with a homeless guy (granted I've worked with the people who run two of the major homeless shelters in my area - and they've come to the same conclusion) - but the people who aren't just down on their luck and in need of some help are pretty resistant to help. The guy I chatted with wasn't un-educated, he just didn't want to keep going. Give that man a shower and clean clothes and he could have gotten (at the very least) an entry level job at any company I've ever worked for. He was well aware of all the safety nets he could take advantage of, but wasn't interested since it wasn't cold enough yet that he really "needed" a place to stay at night (and they'd make him go to a church service to spend the night.) I'm not sure what drove him to give up, but I do know he had a family before he chose that life, so I'm kind of assuming that fell through for some reason and caused him to give up. According to him (and backed up by personal experience) the homeless in my area tend to panhandle for enough change to spend most of the next day or so in the casino playing penny slots and drinking free soda. When they run out of money they head back out and do it again. Less hassle than dealing with the rescue missions which forced them to attend church services or try to "better" themselves. That's not to say the only people in the casino are homeless, since the people running the casino were more than willing to point out that their biggest days were when the social security checks and EBT money came in. Apparently those were their big days each month. It's been at least a decade since that job, so I'm hoping they've at least closed off the EBT loophole.
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
hasn't NYC been run by a republican for 20 years? Guiliani was like 8 years, Bloomberg was 12. Please don't fireback with RINO either.
I will fire back with RINO because you know you're being disingenuous by mentioning Bloomberg. It's not a secret that New York is strongly controlled by Democrats. Going back to the 30's you'll find only one Mayor (LaGuardia) of NYC besides Guiliani who was a Republican their entire time in office.

Look, I think we're in general agreement though we weigh certain factors differently. I only quoted the small bit from your post because I don't strongly disagree with the rest. Sure, weather plays a part. I don't think it plays a greater part than who is giving out more free shit but it's certainly a factor.
 
Last edited:

NKD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
8,738
While that would make it less attractive, I really don't think the chronically homeless are that concerned with that. It's anecdotal since I've only had one long conversation with a homeless guy (granted I've worked with the people who run two of the major homeless shelters in my area - and they've come to the same conclusion) - but the people who aren't just down on their luck and in need of some help are pretty resistant to help. The guy I chatted with wasn't un-educated, he just didn't want to keep going. Give that man a shower and clean clothes and he could have gotten (at the very least) an entry level job at any company I've ever worked for. He was well aware of all the safety nets he could take advantage of, but wasn't interested since it wasn't cold enough yet that he really "needed" a place to stay at night (and they'd make him go to a church service to spend the night.) I'm not sure what drove him to give up, but I do know he had a family before he chose that life, so I'm kind of assuming that fell through for some reason and caused him to give up. According to him (and backed up by personal experience) the homeless in my area tend to panhandle for enough change to spend most of the next day or so in the casino playing penny slots and drinking free soda. When they run out of money they head back out and do it again. Less hassle than dealing with the rescue missions which forced them to attend church services or try to "better" themselves. That's not to say the only people in the casino are homeless, since the people running the casino were more than willing to point out that their biggest days were when the social security checks and EBT money came in. Apparently those were their big days each month. It's been at least a decade since that job, so I'm hoping they've at least closed off the EBT loophole.

it takes a lot to hit the reset switch sir. Trust me. I was severely depressed in my late teens. I know, god knows where I would have ended up if I didn't have a family. Just because we think, they should just clean up and go get a job is not that simple. Its the mindset, mind can play some games with you. Its real shit, and take you in a dark place. I won't go in to my details but its real shit. One of the signs of mental struggle is the willingness to do anything. I know I was there. That's why they need mental help more than anything. Once your will do anything is gone you don't even know you are depressed as hell.

Its the mindset that they should just get up and go find a job because everyone thinks they can is the problem. They don't have that mindset, they have to be brought up to that, aka changing their mindset. You can't just go hey homeless guy, here you can get a job. Its the reset they have to hit, that is exactly why I think its more mental than physical.
 

NKD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
8,738
I will fire back with RINO because you know you're being disingenuous by mentioning Bloomberg. It's not a secret that New York is strongly controlled by Democrats. Going back to the 30's you'll find only one Mayor (LaGuardia) of NYC besides Guiliani who was a Republican their entire time in office.

Look, I think we're in general agreement though we weigh certain factors differently. I only quoted the small bit from your post because I don't strongly disagree with the rest. Sure, weather plays a part. I don't think it plays a greater part than who is giving out more free shit but it's certainly a factor.

Actually I don't know how it says my name on their but It wasn't my post you were quoting. lol. But if it was a problem created by Democrats and everyone was getting freeshit, I guess half the country will be homeless right? Oh wait since its not most democrats must work hard, no?

Like I said only time we fail to fix a problem is when we make it democrats vs republican. There are more ways to address a problem then turning it in to political crap. The reason this country can't get shit done is because people bitch across their political lines even if it means they are hurting themselves. Politicians got those people by the balls fighting for them lol.
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
Actually I don't know how it says my name on their but It wasn't my post you were quoting. lol. But if it was a problem created by Democrats and everyone was getting freeshit, I guess half the country will be homeless right? Oh wait since its not most democrats must work hard, no?

Like I said only time we fail to fix a problem is when we make it democrats vs republican. There are more ways to address a problem then turning it in to political crap. The reason this country can't get shit done is because people bitch across their political lines even if it means they are hurting themselves. Politicians got those people by the balls fighting for them lol.
Yeah, not sure why your name was there, I didn't intend to reply to you. I hit a wrong button or three somewhere.

While I agree, polarization has become problematic that does not somehow make facts into something else. Arguing around an issue is another problem. Take your reply to me as an example, I never said or implied democrats don't work hard and I don't believe many people would have taken my earlier post as suggesting people choose homelessness for free shit from whatever city they migrate to. But let's move on instead of focusing on that.

If we can agree on the problem, we can try to agree on a solution. However, policies that fail and have failed time and time again need to be dropped. Not only democratic policies but any shitty policies. Feelings don't matter, results do.
I'm not a Republican and have no loyalty to any party. I lean Libertarian because I think the more gov't gets involved, the more things get screwed up. History shows me I'm not wrong. That does not mean I'm for everything to be unregulated though. Not by a long-shot.

At the end of the day, the city of SF can enact whatever policies it chooses. Businesses and individuals can relocate if they have a problem with it. That's the kind of freedom I am a fan of but it does not get us any closer to reducing homelessness. I don't think for a second that homelessness is something we can get rid of but I do think we need to have better options for those who are on the streets through no fault of their own. That mostly narrows down the field to those with serious mental issues.

Let's deal with facts.
Fact - Spending on the homeless population in SF has increased 40% in 5 years to where it is now at $37,000 per homeless person. (from the video I linked earlier...he uses SF's own numbers in his calculation)
Fact - Homeless population has not gone down in that time. (also from SF's own numbers)

If we can agree on those facts, we can likely agree that spending more will probably not reduce the homeless population in SF.
Perhaps we need to come up with a different approach from just spending more money on policies that seem to be ineffective. I give not one shit if a different approach is suggested by Democrats, Republicans, or Pastafarians....I only care if it's effective and offers value for taxpayer dollars.
 
Last edited:

Kinestron

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 21, 2018
Messages
101
so the gov. That's what i have been saying, and you were saying no.

and i was saying it's a money thing, and you were saying no too.

my point is that the rich gets away with what they rightfully owe to the country because loopholes are huge. (tax havens , one of the examples for which i mentioned before)

not only that, but the rich perpetuates a dysfunctional, severely unequal society , for their own profit and ego. ( buying properties around their domicile because of 'privacy' being one of the examples i mentioned earlier )

btw, the millionaires (small business owners for example) of the 1% are shrimps compared to the whales whom owns entire media enterprises which sets the narrative to whatever they want. This being a tech site, take Facebook for example. Even the stocks which these 1% owns in diversified funds are owned by these 2000 billionaires or so.

Big difference from what you are advocating and making sure a business runs morally and legally instead of just take X% more of their money and give it X% of the 'poor' population and everything is now fine. And congratulations on giving the government a pass for taking your money without your consent. So, assuming you are younger, you will inherit an insolvent Social Security and Medicare system. I suppose that is the fault of the rich as well.

As mentioned in the video(which I doubt you watched), I firmly believe Ben Shapiro when he says capitalism even without morals is inherently a better system than communism, socialism or any dictatorial state. All you are promoting is giving the government even more control over our lives which never ends well.
 
Last edited:

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Also, how many of those people that you know would be willing to do agricultural work, even at 20$+/hour? I'm going to guess zero.... There's a reason they hire immigrants to do that back breaking work. Us murcan's are lazy as fuck. Companies have tried raising the wages and cannot find/keep Murcans more than a few days. So what do you think will happen if we deport all immigrants? Our produce costs are going to skyrocket, if they can even find enough help to farm before it all goes bad.

Worked in fields myself when I was young. Cleared fields with weeds so high I had to use an irrigation hoe to cut them down. Back breaking hard assed sweaty bug cursed work indeed. There's a few reasons I moved on and it's not just because I was lazy. There were simply better jobs that I could get.

You can trumpet how lazy "Murcans" as you call them, may be. But how many migrant farm agriculture workers would be doing that work if it wasn't the best that they could get? You figure any of them just have a really nice MBA tucked away in their resume but prefer honest labor? Right.

And the costs for produce can go up. It's doing shading things and government subsidization that has kept those wages low for an artificial price point. If a tomato costs $15 dollars then fine, let it cost $15. You are paying it anyway, through taxes to farm subsidies etc, we are all still paying it. Paying real wages to farm laborers will surely raise the prices of produce, etc. Fine, let the prices climb, we'll all pay what it costs to get that produce to market, there'll be enough money in the work to do two things, make the jobs worthwhile for people other than just immigrant workers, and it's push innovation.

Look at these two images and see where I'm going with it.

12600979-rows-of-tomatoes-in-a-greenhouse.jpg


pods.gif



Use those robots for something better than playing cop.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
14,742
Worked in fields myself when I was young. Cleared fields with weeds so high I had to use an irrigation hoe to cut them down. Back breaking hard assed sweaty bug cursed work indeed. There's a few reasons I moved on and it's not just because I was lazy. There were simply better jobs that I could get.
Well like any industry it also depends upon your skill level too, if you are classified as "dumb labor" where you need zero skills other than "cut here, not here, you only get paid for good ones" then yeah you're not making much money. Now my father in law, when he was buying a new farm and there was a period of financial instability between new and old farm he actually worked as a farm manager for another person at I want to say $65k a year, but he knows how to run a farm, which is good salary for central valley California. Another issue is weather, in the huge hot bed of growing that is the central valley that also translates to very hot temperatures which makes working in those conditions down right hellish. So yeah making $15-20/hr you can usually do better with less strain on your body, that includes any potential chemicals and crap you ingest from simply being right in the middle of where they're sprayed.

And the costs for produce can go up. It's doing shading things and government subsidization that has kept those wages low for an artificial price point. If a tomato costs $15 dollars then fine, let it cost $15. You are paying it anyway, through taxes to farm subsidies etc, we are all still paying it. Paying real wages to farm laborers will surely raise the prices of produce, etc. Fine, let the prices climb, we'll all pay what it costs to get that produce to market, there'll be enough money in the work to do two things, make the jobs worthwhile for people other than just immigrant workers, and it's push innovation.
The thing most government subsidies go towards big agribusiness farms, and usually those that grow food that has less nutrition but stores/ships well, your grains like corn, wheat, soy, etc. Not saying nothing goes to fruit & vegetable farmers that produce food that actually has more than just calories in it, but by and large that's where most of the money goes, and these big business have the lobbying clout to make sure that well doesn't dry up. Also another factor to combine with why farm labor is so cheap, is that it has to be cheap, you talk about the $15 tomato, who's going to pay $15 when you can get them from south of the border (America's "China" for food production) for a fraction of the cost? Sure they're picked green, artificially ripened with ethylene gas, and have no flavor but I wouldn't be surprised if most people haven't eaten a truly ripe tomato in their lifetimes. So how do you combat cheap South/Central American labor ... that's actually in another country? You need to try to go cheap too, and unfortunately that's where it stands today. You pay a premium for "farm fresh" stuff at a farmer's market*, or you go to the supermarket like Safeway and end up seeing all the perfectly shaped and colored fruits and vegetables that taste like crap but hey that's what you grew up with so you don't know any better.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Well like any industry it also depends upon your skill level too, if you are classified as "dumb labor" where you need zero skills other than "cut here, not here, you only get paid for good ones" then yeah you're not making much money. Now my father in law, when he was buying a new farm and there was a period of financial instability between new and old farm he actually worked as a farm manager for another person at I want to say $65k a year, but he knows how to run a farm, which is good salary for central valley California. Another issue is weather, in the huge hot bed of growing that is the central valley that also translates to very hot temperatures which makes working in those conditions down right hellish. So yeah making $15-20/hr you can usually do better with less strain on your body, that includes any potential chemicals and crap you ingest from simply being right in the middle of where they're sprayed.


The thing most government subsidies go towards big agribusiness farms, and usually those that grow food that has less nutrition but stores/ships well, your grains like corn, wheat, soy, etc. Not saying nothing goes to fruit & vegetable farmers that produce food that actually has more than just calories in it, but by and large that's where most of the money goes, and these big business have the lobbying clout to make sure that well doesn't dry up. Also another factor to combine with why farm labor is so cheap, is that it has to be cheap, you talk about the $15 tomato, who's going to pay $15 when you can get them from south of the border (America's "China" for food production) for a fraction of the cost? Sure they're picked green, artificially ripened with ethylene gas, and have no flavor but I wouldn't be surprised if most people haven't eaten a truly ripe tomato in their lifetimes. So how do you combat cheap South/Central American labor ... that's actually in another country? You need to try to go cheap too, and unfortunately that's where it stands today. You pay a premium for "farm fresh" stuff at a farmer's market*, or you go to the supermarket like Safeway and end up seeing all the perfectly shaped and colored fruits and vegetables that taste like crap but hey that's what you grew up with so you don't know any better.


Cheaper produce from Mexico ?..... That's what trade tariffs are for ;)

They can either run their prices up, or we can, it's up to them. Either way, no country should be undercutting US markets with foreign goods.

I know I know, with this kind of thinking, we wouldn't have Walmart today ...... :sneaky:

I understand, and you do have more knowledge of this subject than I do, it's obvious to me. I just think the US took a short sighted path long ago and it's lead us down a crooked road for too long. Because of this we have kludge upon kludge in our policies and foreign dealings that have made it "too hard to fix", so we might as well just make our profit where we can make it, and keep the people in their comfort level the best we can. But it means we have to keep doing screwed up shit, all backwards, and hope it all doesn't fall down.
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
794
Big difference from what you are advocating and making sure a business runs morally and legally instead of just take X% more of their money and give it X% of the 'poor' population and everything is now fine. And congratulations on giving the government a pass for taking your money without your consent. So, assuming you are younger, you will inherit an insolvent Social Security and Medicare system. I suppose that is the fault of the rich as well.

As mentioned in the video(which I doubt you watched), I firmly believe Ben Shapiro when he says capitalism even without morals is inherently a better system than communism, socialism or any dictatorial state. All you are promoting is giving the government even more control over our lives which never ends well.

i do not believe that any pure political or economic system works, neither pure capitalism nor communism. Any attempts to make it so has ended in failure, and for that there is no reason for me to watch any video that says any one system is better than the rest.

as to why social security and other insurance schemes fail, it is because of irrational inflation driven by pure greed of the very rich.
 

Kinestron

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 21, 2018
Messages
101
i do not believe that any pure political or economic system works, neither pure capitalism nor communism. Any attempts to make it so has ended in failure, and for that there is no reason for me to watch any video that says any one system is better than the rest.

as to why social security and other insurance schemes fail, it is because of irrational inflation driven by pure greed of the very rich.

No, capitalism doesn't work. It only made the U.S. the economic power of the world and created a middle class unlike socialist and communist countries where there is only the poor and the elite. /s

Yes, it does work. Ben does not believe capitalism to be perfect but if a binary choice had to be made, it would be capitalism every time. Of course you don't want to watch the video as you reduce your argument to "rich folk, bad people". The amazing leap of rationalization to keep your rich people diatribe is astounding as you somehow conflate rich people to a government run program that can't deliver what it promised. If it were pure capitalism you would keep the money to do with as you wish. At least at that point, if you had to pay $20 for a gallon of milk then you might have the argument of blaming the rich but as with any of your arguments, I doubt it as they are lacking in any nuance or proper context.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
794
No, capitalism doesn't work. It only made the U.S. the economic power of the world and created a middle class unlike socialist and communist countries where there is only the poor and the elite. /s

Yes, it does work. Ben does not believe capitalism to be perfect but if a binary choice had to be made, it would be capitalism every time. Of course you don't want to watch the video as you reduce your argument to "rich folk, bad people". The amazing leap of rationalization to keep your rich people diatribe is astounding as you somehow conflate rich people to a government run program that can't deliver what it promised. If it were pure capitalism you would keep the money to do with as you wish. At least at that point, if you had to pay $20 for a gallon of milk then you might have the argument of blaming the rich but as with any of your arguments, I doubt it as they are lacking in any nuance or proper context.


this article itself ( and countless other on real issues America is facing at home ) clearly shows that Capitalism did not work. Capitalism SURE did work for the 1% as they now owns half the world's wealth.Moving towards even stronger towards the tenants of Capitalism will only makes things worse.

And we must be idiots if we sit and allow Ben to discuss politics and economy in Binary terms. What is this , a term paper?

The rationalization is that rich people prevents an effective government by lobbying (in layman's term, bribes in form of funds/gifts/benefits/access/advise ) for

1. massive billions+ tax loop holes every year for themselves and the companies they own by stock or proxy (more than hundred years of that already. Imagine that. And the deeds , grants and special licenses in the early 18-1940s are even more egregious, creating dynasties and ultra rich institutions which operates to this day.)

2. chronic under funding of public services ,which causes the problems as described in article, but a continued imbalance in sectors which they can benefit from easily ( prime example = military. Lots of money to be made there. Recently made clear for all, by Trump and Theresa when confronted with talks of sanctioning the Saudis

3. steering media ( which they owns for as long as i can remember) to prevent all talk of the rich's exploitation of a system they have developed hand-in-hand with the political elite

4. and of course non-culpability and impunity. ( as long as you don;t steal from the ultra rich like Madoff) Not just the 07 crash, but also the 97, 86/87 . every 10 years or so, and that is just for the money markets.
 
Last edited:

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,648
So what?

You have to be selfish beyond measure to care that others will get help if they need it - especially for a life and death situation - and you'll get help if you need as well. I will gladly pay for that, even if I don't use it, thank you very much. Helping another human being in times of need seems a lot more reasonable and compassionate than lining up the pockets of some health insurance company shareholder.
Nice strawman response. The Point is that its not free. And its fine for you to be charitable. Nothing stopping you from donating as much money as you can afford out of your own pocket. But when you advocate for high taxes, for the most part, you are being charitable with other people's money. There's a name for that.
 

cdr_74_premium

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
1,578
Nice strawman response. The Point is that its not free. And its fine for you to be charitable. Nothing stopping you from donating as much money as you can afford out of your own pocket. But when you advocate for high taxes, for the most part, you are being charitable with other people's money. There's a name for that.

Yep, it's called being part of a society.

If anyone tries to invade your house, you call the police. We all pay for police service. Not free as well, buddy.

By the same token, if someone is sick, the person goes to the hospital. But have to pay for it, right? Yep, so we all pay to make sure nobody steals a Ferrari, but we can go and rot away if we ever get sick. Neat!

So yeah, I am fine with what you're advocating, just as long as you're totally responsible for your own safety as well. Bums can die in a fire, or they gang up and go after the ones who are too sucessful to care, and those won't be able to summon the protection that's paid for by everyone. Team deathmatch, I hope you're filthy rich and can employ an army. And I suggest you treat your soldiers really well, you know...

The beautiful people LOVE to dismantle basic societal guarantees whenever it suits them, but beg for lawfulness whenever their ass is on the line. I would love to see them go ALL IN on that crap, pure entertainment that would be.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
11
Please read this post entirely.

Please.


I am Canadian, I live in a socialist system and I need to warn you all what this means.


I get it. This "harmless" effort to simply help your homeless is for the "greater good". Take some from the rich to help the poor. It just makes sense. Right?

WRONG.

It seems like a good idea at first but it ultimately leads to disaster. By disaster, I mean it in the worst way: hyper taxation, invasion of all privacy, removal of basic rights and freedoms, mob mentality, control of the media and reliance on the government for the entire populace.

Of course, if you aren't with the socialist movement, well, then you are an enemy. A racist. A homophobe. Ignorant. Dangerous. You should be silenced, slandered or attacked.

Sound familiar yet?

Youth today have been programmed by our educators and politicians to think socialism is the next "logical step" for society. But the truth is these same influencers have never, ever, done anything but live off of government tax dollars. They don't fundamentally understand every cent they earn comes from you and me, our wallets. If people aren't contributing to the economy, they are in fact draining it. Everyone can't live off of the government. A socialist system is inherently unsustainable. It's a long, slow, painful dead end.

Which leads to open borders, a welfare state, gun control, censorship of free speech, and minority groups using victim status to bully and control the greater population for personal gain. The next step is division and violence. Millions died for our freedoms in North America today in a fight against these sort of political systems. Don't take it for granted. Everything you now enjoy can dissapear, much faster than you think. Twitter just lost millions. Literally overnight. Despite what your media may tell you about how "wonderful" the system is in Canada...we have serious division brewing across our nation right now, mostly due to our socialist leader Justin Trudeau.

So how socialist is he?

Well, when Fidel Castro died he proudly announced:

"Fidel Castro was a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century. A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation." - Link

Riiiight. A murdering slime bag who almost started world war 3.

There is a massive anti-socialist movement building across Canada right now because bit by bit the government is pushing things too far. Our two largest provinces have now completely flipped to conservative in their last election. It is the first time in 50 years the Liberal party has lost control of Quebec. In Ontario, the liberals no longer even hold official party status anymore, it was the most devastating loss in Canadian politics of all time.

The reasons for this are complex, but ultimately...socialism is a slippery slope and bit by bit, it seeks to infringe your rights and freedoms. Since Trudeau took control in the last 3 years, here are some of the highlights:
  • they are seeking to ban the words "mother and father" from public services Link
  • Illegal immigration has become rampant. Despite this, the police have literally been ordered to carrying their luggage across the border, instead of defending it. Link
  • We are literally paying for them stay in hotels plus stipends and healthcare. It has cost 140 million so far this year alone. Link
  • they have changed our national anthem, banning the words "sons" from it despite Canadians not wanting it. Link
  • They are trying to change the word mankind to "peoplekind' Link
  • They have passed a law Bill C-16 that makes failing to use a transgender pronoun a "hate crime" punishable by prison. Link
  • They are passing bill C-75, which reduces prison sentences for all sorts of heinous crimes, includubg child abuse and terrorism to a maximum of 2 years. Link
  • They have passed C-71 which reintroduces a gun registry Link
  • The liberal govt now requires signed ideological contracts for funding, saying your business wont use funding for anything our government disagrees with Link
  • Censorship and control of the media, including the fact our federally funded media tried to cover up for 4 months that the Prime Minister assaulted a 20 years ago Link
  • Allowing ISIS members to return to the country after fighting abroad. Link
  • One member of al-queda got 10.5 million pay for his rights being violated because we threw him in Gitmo. Google Omar Khadr payout. Link
  • Now they are proposing gun control consisting of an outright hand gun and semi automatic ban Link
  • Now they are trying to rig the electoral process so a permanent socialist system remains in control. Worse, its being proposed by a tiny poltical party that won the last election through a technicality, not a majority vote. It's complete BULLSHIT, but if this vote passes we are totally screwed. Link
  • They are giving voter registration forms to illegal immigrants to cheat the next election Link
  • They passed allow that allows former residents, who are mostly asian living in China the ability to vote again Link
  • Now, unbelievably the government is trying to sieze bank information without consent for "statistical purposes" Link

Bottom line: Anger is growing in Canada, big time.



We have had several public shootings and mass murder events in the last 3 years since a socialist government took control:
  • Shooting on danforth - ISIS terrorism- Link
  • Van attack edmonton -ISIS terrorism- Link
  • Mosque shooting - anti muslim hate crime - Link
  • Van attack toronto - domestic nut job - Link
  • Attempted bombing in Sherwood Park - domestic nut job - Link
  • Violent gang activity and murder - Link

Division is growing because Canadians feel helpless towards government control because they are FORCING IDEOLOGY on us we DO NOT WANT.

Trudeau is using identity politics and it has become an all out propaganda war. I am not exaggerating here. America needs to shut down socialism in politics right now....this seemingly harmless tax will lead to the eventual destruction of your country.

The people behind this movement wont stop with this tax, you'll see.

You Americans need to SHUT IT DOWN with an iron fist, right here, right now.
 
Last edited:
Top