I don't get the point of your link - someone didn't have (or wasn't willing to provide) a means to access a building... I'm pretty sure most places with "controlled access" get pretty vocal about their policy on not allowing "tailgating" - especially if you don't know the person. We've got stupid key cards where I work, and cameras watching the door - if you let someone in (whether you know them or not - after all they might have been fired!) without making them swipe their card (this is stupid btw since the reader makes the same "beep" whether a card is valid or not) and anyone notices it's a written warning (unless you've already got a written warning for something or are on an improvement plan - then it's termination baby.) I'd say the guy is 100% playing the victim, especially since he pushed his way into the building. He's lucky there wasn't someone armed watching, seems like a great way to get shot - belligerent and forcing your way into a building. Grow up and swipe your keyfob - or call the office and tell them you lost it (and pay your fine)... Either way I don't get why you posted that link, that's the most blatant case of "playing the victim" I've seen in a while. Now the guy calling the cops on a black kid mowing the neighbor's lawn after mowing slightly onto his yard... Yeah. The asshat in your link? Nope.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Homelessness Tax Would Target Rich Tech Sector in San Francisco
- Thread starter cageymaru
- Start date
This is why I brought the city of Detroit up. It was a great city that fell after decades of mismanagement by the left. I'm from Michigan but not Detroit which is why I'm not defending it. I grew up in the northern lower peninsula so have a the opposite attitude of those claiming victimhood in that city. Michigan would always have the occasional Republican governor that woudn't pump an endless amount of money into Detroit that would be stolen by the corrupt politicians there. California is one party rule and I suspect they'll let the entire state fall before SF. The current Democrat candidate for governor is bragging that he'll do to the state what he did for SF -- I"m not sure why anybody would want that but he appears to be winning. This state is nuts.
Crying foul? That guy, in that clip (I watched it) was "tailgating" into a restricted area. She, rightfully, requested to see his key fob: he refused. He was clearly in the wrong. Oh, wait: the liberal says the black man is always right and it's racism when he is blocked from entering? Again, liberalism = racism. The woman did not want ANYONE unknown to tailgate into the apartment on her key.
I don't know what happened to you and your wife. If you don't know the person who is opening the door, then they should not let you in. Even if you show a photo ID and proof of address: how does she know a restraining order hasn't been given and the individual's keys have been revoked?
Seriously, stop playing the victim card. Stop playing the race card.
So we agree and just didn't realize it. Chasing our own tails around a tree?
BTW, why do you think being white in some way precludes experience of poverty?
cdr_74_premium
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,577
Same rule applied where I live. That doesn't mean everybody enforces it equally.
The door that required a keyfob was PAST us.
Not at all. Where I come from, there's poverty for everyone.
But up here things are quite different. I don't expect anyone who hasn't experienced it to understand any of that, though. I know I didn't.
theBrownLlama
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2017
- Messages
- 794
you didn't even answer my basic question.
i am certainly sure the rich not only do not want to do anything about it, but also want to squirrel out of any deal to make them pay for it.
- Richest 1,409 taxpayers pay more income tax than bottom 70 Million.
- The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).
- The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of total individual income taxes.
- In other words, the bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent. Which small percentile of tax payers also paid 3 percent or more? You might have guessed it. It is the top 0.001%, or about 1,400 taxpayers. That group alone paid 3.25 percent of all income taxes. In 2001, the bottom 50 percent paid nearly 5 percent whereas the top 0.001 percent of filers paid 2.3 percent of income taxes.
Anyone telling you the rich don't pay their fair share is either lying through their teeth or regurgitating talking points by mainstream media or corrupt politicians and not looking at the real numbers. Stop with the envy and work harder if you don't like your lot in life. If you aren't going to work harder then stop trying to bring others down to feel better about yourself or at the very least, educate yourself with some facts and keep your mouth shut when it comes to the topic of the ultra rich and fair taxes.
Last edited:
The rich are paying a higher percentage because they have all the wealth. The top 20% have 80% of ALL financial assets. The top 1% own 35% of ALL financial assets. When you own that much of course your percentage of taxes paid will be greater. The bottom 80% own 14% of the countries wealth ... I think I see the problem.
Very rarely is "working hard" the reason why the super-rich are rich. These are people who are born into wealth and make their money off the backs of the poor.
Krenum
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 19,193
These sound very much like talking points of indoctrination. For decades certain politicians have been slamming what you just said into people's minds. Its a shame that its starting to stick. I've known & know many wealthy (not rich, big difference) people, and they all worked their ass off to get where they are. Its less of a rarity than you might think.
These are cold hard statistics and facts ... not talking points. The only ones who have been indoctrinated are those who believe they actually have a shot at making it into the top percentiles. Pro-Tip ... you won't.
Krenum
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 19,193
That's not a very good way to look at life. The question is, do I want to? And does it matter? Pro-Tip ...Don't live your life through others.
Those are actually not talking points. Draax is correct its actual hard numbers. its actually 38% in the US. But its even worst at the world level. Top 1% in the world control over 50% of the wealth lol.
To me it doesn't matter though. People that believe governments run the show! nope! Its this top 1% lol!
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/14/richest-1-percent-now-own-half-the-worlds-wealth.html
"The top fifth (quintile) of US households saw a $4 trillion increase in combined pretax income in the years between 1979 and 2013. The combined rise for the bottom 80%, by comparison, was just over $3 trillion. The gap between the bottom fifth and the middle fifth has not widened at all. In fact there has been no increase in inequality among the bottom 80%."
" According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000)"
I mean there are so many statistics to back up what I am saying. People need to wake up.
cdr_74_premium
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,577
The US is a heaven of wealth distribution for any Latin American.
Wouldn't it be amazing?
All I gotta say is when Trump and Kushner pay no taxes and I owe at the end of the year. Thats a mother fuckin roberry! Bahahahaha
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
Not surprised this is happening in SF, California in general.
That State is filled with wackos in the government, creating new laws and taxes for everything.
No real government solution to the problem, just grab money from companies when ever they can.
No punishment for real estate investors artificially driving up the cost of living that is making people homeless.
Lower property taxes, sales tax, state income tax etc. and cap rental housing rates and the problem will solve itself.
The most liberal states have the least value to live. Miami, where I live, it slowly turning to a place where the average person can't live on 50K.
That State is filled with wackos in the government, creating new laws and taxes for everything.
No real government solution to the problem, just grab money from companies when ever they can.
No punishment for real estate investors artificially driving up the cost of living that is making people homeless.
Lower property taxes, sales tax, state income tax etc. and cap rental housing rates and the problem will solve itself.
The most liberal states have the least value to live. Miami, where I live, it slowly turning to a place where the average person can't live on 50K.
Last edited:
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 34,162
when I was young, police were 4 deep in a squad, now you cannot even find a squad car....
Lets be fair, california has the largest population out of any state. They have the largest economy, 5th largest in the world. Problem is you can't really stop homeless from coming here. This notion that people don't make enough to afford homes is non sense. Average income in california has gone up compared to last housing bubble. My house was worth 499k in 2006 and average household income was 45k during that time, not its in the 70k range and my house is still appraised around 380 ish. So buyers are more qualified and in better position to own. There were a lot of shady lenders that approved people that normally wouldn't qualify for loans during the late 90s and early 2000s.
Rental housing and other home rates are only issue in bigger urban cities. Like SF and LA. Thats if you want the city life and live in that mess. Most people I know commute to SF or take the train that takes them to downtown SF and they live outside the city, thats if they work in SF. SF just has no more space to build so you can't really blame them. Also people making over 100k aren't really homeless, not sure why everyone keeps assuming that. That is just a stat saying if you make 117k you can't really live in SF that has no inventory and demand is high which is driving up prices. Someone must be buying cuz prices aren't really going down.
Lot of people come out of state here expecting they can live the SF life no matter what the consequences. See the people with bags traveling with no car lol, hitching a ride to SF. I am like that's a homeless waiting to happen. IDK California generally attracts a lot of people and going homeless is not really their primary concern I guess. I guess if you are homeless, there is no place better than SF. I feel like all homeless from my city vanished, maybe they all went to SF. Cuz I haven't seen one around my area for a while.
You have some links for us to read these facts?
Add in some other facts from that article to give people the whole picture please.
The world's millionaires are expected to do the best in the coming years. There are now 36 million millionaires in the world, and their numbers are expected to grow to 44 million by 2022.
The U.S. still leads the world in millionaires, with 15.3 million people worth $1 million or more.
Is someone with a medium size business that pulls in $2 million a year stealing your life out from under you? They are part of the 1% too.
And if you truly believe corporations are running the show, why aren't you watching what laws, regulations, etc, they are lobbying your government politicians to enact? Why did google, facebook and Amazon want Net Neutrality? You think Jeff Bezos is the exception to your tirade against the 1%? To me, the same people that argued for Net Neutrality are many of the same people that argue the 1% don't pay their fair share yet don't realize they are putting some of the biggest 1 per centers on a pedestal. So, either be consistent or provide an exact list of which 1% are evil and which are not when arguing the topic of what they should be paying for.
https://www.cnet.com/news/groups-ba...azon-push-for-return-of-net-neutrality-rules/
Last edited:
You think there is a constitutionality issue with the States providing support to the homeless through the Churches? You are not alone, but it already is being done and has been done for decades.
Over half of what the Salvation Army receives is from the US Federal Government.
https://bizfluent.com/how-does-5134745-salvation-army-funded.html
I don't think the Salvation Army is the only Faith-Based support organization receiving federal funds. Must I look further?
https://www.hrsa.gov/grants/apply/eligibility/faith-and-community-organizations.html
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
What is the point you are trying to make with this data?
The man said a white person couldn't possible understand anything about being homeless?
I thought the quote made it clear enough.
Look, my problem isn't that we are helping homeless people, it's how we are going about it. I think it's wasteful and that the money and the effort should be pushed down to local levels and organizations. In many cases that is what is happening so it's not like it's not a proven concept.
There are homeless throughout the country, always have been some, but it's worse now. I believe that raising tax revenues to fund federal assistance programs is less efficient than doing so at State and City. And if any city already has civic/faith based organizations capable of handling the burden, I say let them, and pony up some local and if needed, state taxes to do so.
Last edited:
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,689
If I were a rich dude in SanFran, I'd be 100% for this. If I could pay a little more $$ to not have to look at and see those gross homeless people on my streets, I'd be up for it.
At least that's the attitude I'd have if I were a rich dude in SanFran. Or a suburbanite white chick in the area... I don't see it as wanting to help the homeless problem. It's to make it less visible and not so much a problem they have to look at all the time.
At least that's the attitude I'd have if I were a rich dude in SanFran. Or a suburbanite white chick in the area... I don't see it as wanting to help the homeless problem. It's to make it less visible and not so much a problem they have to look at all the time.
cdr_74_premium
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,577
I was talking about racism. Sorry if it wasn't clear.
I agree with that 100%. I don't think more money per se will solve anything.
I am not aiming this at you or anyone else in particular, it's just something that pops up on this kind of discussion, so please beat that in mind when reading what follows.
The problem - and I said that before on this thread - is the all or nothing knee-jerk reaction. Things such as "THEY'RE ALL ANGELS AND DESERVE ALL THE HELP IN THE WORLD, MOAR MONEY!" help just as much as "BUNCH OF LAZY BUMS, KILL 'EM ALL": nothing.
That's exactly why, just like you pointed out, it's something that should be dealt with on the local level. Each person has his/her own situation, and each community have their own contributing factors. It's insanely complex.
Just like racism, it's natural for us to revert to binary thinking: whoever complains is an angel that can do no wrong -- vs. --- they're all a bunch of whiny sobs. Both are wrong.
It would help everyone if public policy was smarter, and had people able to grasp the nuances of each person's situation, and adapt accordingly. That may be a little utopic I am afraid, but I hope that if we aim for it we may eventually get closer to it. As it is right now, we spend more time undoing whatever the other side did than making any sustainable effort that would be able to solve the problems in the long term.
Hurst p.34, Forbes Nov 1 2011, Recent Trends in Household wealth in the US: Rising debt and the middle-class squeeze. A simple search will find thousands or articles are illustrating the same thing.
Do you have any links to contradict these facts?
Separate wealth from income. They are separate items. The income I save becomes part of my wealth. As I accrue wealth, it is worthless...until I spend it. At which point sales tax takes a bite.
Look at the income and tax rates: the top pay MORE than their "share". Libs don't see that. They want it. All.
Look at the income and tax rates: the top pay MORE than their "share". Libs don't see that. They want it. All.
It's a huge problem in LA too, and I just can't be bothered to ever support any stupid homeless initiative this city comes up with. The last two I read, maybe in 2016... talked about units for homeless that cost $350K each. The blue collar workers here can't afford those yet, yet they were being offered to the homeless population for free? Then I read about some development for K-Town, and the citizens there rioted because they didn't want the riffraff associated with bringing in homeless. I agreed with them, because there's so much industrial junk land in the LA metro - decently displaced from major population centers that could be used for homeless projects. But even then, what's the point? It's going to turn into a slum anyway because they can't even take care of themselves, let alone their property. In the end it's all a waste of money. There's a deeper problem and putting up camps or units or whatever isn't going to solve it.
This is a complex, emotionally-charged issue, even here on this [H]ighly rational tech forum. With the combined brainpower [H]ere, hidden solutions will be found in unexpected places.
For example, despite the insane real estate costs in the Bay area, there are deals to be found with a little effort. Here's a nice one - just $200 for a building complex that could house thousands of homeless. Believe it's currently being used to dupe the clueless, so... possible synergies all round.
For example, despite the insane real estate costs in the Bay area, there are deals to be found with a little effort. Here's a nice one - just $200 for a building complex that could house thousands of homeless. Believe it's currently being used to dupe the clueless, so... possible synergies all round.
Highly rational? Are you new to these forums?
And what percentage of those people do you think are illegal immigrants? I'm guessing it's far far lower than most people expect. Most of them don't come here to live on the street and mooch, even though certain outlets are trying desperately to make it seem like that's always the case. The homeless population from LA seems to be growing and spreading into areas near me. Every single one I see is an older white person with either a drug or mental issue. I almost never see anyone that could be confused an illegal immigrant from south of the border.
Also, how many of those people that you know would be willing to do agricultural work, even at 20$+/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.
Krenum
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 19,193
The reason why companies hire immigrants to do back breaking work is that its cheaper for them. Which is a problem in itself. And no, immigrants don't come here to live on the streets, but having no skills documentation or the use of a business language hinders their advancement and many of them do end up on the street regardless.
We are quickly coming to a boiling point here in the US. Too many people not enough land. It also doesn't help that these people come from countries that are failing. But again, we have our laws, every other country has theirs too & would expect us to abide by them as we do.
No, but seems you're new to my [H] sarcasm... should be a sarcasm font here. Oh wait...it's the default. ;-)
gwarren007
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,912
Lets deport the homeless to mexico where they can live on 10.17 dollars per day. Problem solved. They can live like kings!!
/s
/s
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,689
I did it for $7 an hour in the 90's. It's not that people are lazy. It's that it's hard work but for 3-5 months of the year. Temp work. Granted, it's 16 hours a day, 7 days a week and wages are $14+/hour now. American's can and do this work. It's just that it's very easy to get a few busses of Mexican's to do the work. You ever see Mexican's work? Get a group of them together and they will get shit done. They are non-stop hard workers. But, American's aren't lazy as fuck. We just have higher aspirations than just a farm worker year after year with 6-7 months of unemployment. It's not a bad thing for either party. They want seasonal work, they get it. We want a long term career and we can get it. Unless you're homeless, then you're really not getting much of either....
If you take a myopic view of things, I suppose you can say you are worse off than, what, when you were born? Where is your baseline of comparison?
- The number of people living in extreme poverty worldwide declined by 80 percent from 1970 to 2006.
https://www.aei.org/publication/cha...man-history-thanks-to-free-market-capitalism/
- Poverty worldwide included 94 percent of the world's population in 1820. In 2011, it was only 17 percent.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...obal-poverty-is-at-its-lowest-rate-in-history
-Globally, those in the lower and middle income brackets saw increases in pay of 40 percent from 1988 to 2008.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/oxfam-wont-tell-capitalism-poverty/#
-The world is 120 times better off today than in 1800 as a result of capitalism.
https://fee.org/articles/capitalism-is-good-for-the-poor/
-Mortality rates for children under the age of five declined by 49 percent from 1990 to 2013.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/child_mortality_estimates/en/
How about we look at it over a longer period of time and compared to other countries.
So, you are most likely posting from your laptop inside an apartment or house where you are paying for electricity and internet, internet not necessarily being a human need so you obviously have some disposable income after your basic needs of food, shelter and water are met. Did you have many children die at birth? Did someone in your family or someone you know die after stepping on a nail and could not be treated for staph? How many people do you know that are living on the street? Insert any hardship that people had to deal with just a 100 years ago that no longer exist today while ignoring that a third of the country is obese and suffering from diabetes because they are so well-fed but because you are uncomfortable in your short life, you deem there is an unprecedented amount of unfairness.
What I'm seeing is your argument is that unless you can afford a Lamborghini, have a couple personal servants or afford 3 houses, there is a problem with how the rich are paid and that your quality of life is not high enough. Your solution would be the government mandate a CEO distribute his wealth to his employees when in reality that may give a company of 2000 people an extra $20. Have some perspective. In sum, the wealth and innovation spurred by capitalism has done more to help the poor than any government program ever could.
Krenum
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 19,193
Agreed, in a less sugar coated fashion, The people who bitch about income inequality are jealous , living though other people on social media & spend all day wondering "why not me". Why not you? Well because you have your priorities all wrong, rather than worrying about what other people are and have, focus on yourself. I'm not a good example, I have made some very bad mistakes in my life, but I don't sit around all day feeling sorry for myself or have the mindset of "Those rich people keep getting ritcher, we should knock them down a notch, they're riding on the backs of us poor folk!". That's a defeatist attitude & on that they are counting on you to have, that doesn't help me or anyone else.