- Joined
- Nov 20, 2013
- Messages
- 65,407
- Reaction score
- 49,429
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Why don't we give every man, woman, and child 1.5x the poverty rate and let them do as they will? Then, if someone wants better they can go get a job. But those who don't care have the means to have the basics, and it's fair because everybody has the means to have the basics. It'd be only the extras you work for.
There. Problem solved.
Free societies don't operate that way. The essence of freedom is the ability to say "no." People should not have the power to force their neighbors to fund the welfare of others. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happens here.
Your solution sounds like the slums of Rio ...Meh. Give 'em a 6x10' hut each with a futon, toilet and sink. No electricity, no comms, no A/C, but some kind of heat in the winter sure. Stack 'em ten stories high in a fenced complex and try to keep 'em away from the regular folks somewhat.
Give 'em a block of generic nutrient paste every day that will keep starvation at bay, a bar of soap once a month, and a couple blankets.
That's enough. For those with a speck of ambition, put a branch Employment Office nearby...
If you were able to opt out of paying taxes... which it sounds you would like to do... would you also opt out of public services, i.e. police services, fire protection, public roads, etc.?
Governments do not possess 'rights' only individuals do. Government has powers, and just powers are those delegated to it by the citizens. Since you have no just power to take my property for your purposes, you cannot rightly delegate a power you lack to the state.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is robbing Peter. The moral stand I choose to take is the one that opposes theft by the state for any purpose. The supposed 'goodness' of the ends do not justify the use of evil means.
In other words, it's just a nebulous :2mad: concept to bitch about.There are other ways of paying for those things other than direct taxation. What is being discussed here is wealth transfers--the concept of taxing Peter for no other purpose than to provide Paul with an unearned benefit. Get rid of those and we can figure out how to fund the police, courts, etc.
In other words, it's just a nebulous :2mad: concept to bitch about.
Not at all. I made a very clear distinction. There is nothing nebulous in the least in what I wrote.
There are other ways of paying for those things other than direct taxation. What is being discussed here is wealth transfers--the concept of taxing Peter for no other purpose than to provide Paul with an unearned benefit. Get rid of those and we can figure out how to fund the police, courts, etc.
Zero detail and "we can figure out" = nebulous.
That's how it should work.Why should I have to fund courts I don't use? Let people who need the courts and judges to enforce contracts pay all those bills.
I pay police to protect my rights. Investigating crimes is part of that.We can theoretically eliminate all government and pay for it all as we go. Heck, if my wife is murdered and I care who did it, I can fund a police investigation - they can charge me by the hour. Why should you have to pay for investigating a crime against ME???!!!
You see no difference between police and SS. That is part of the reason this conversation is going nowhere, A free society forces nothing upon you. Your society forces a great deal upon me.All you're doing is stating your priorities - police, but not SS - and would if possible force YOUR priorities on me. You don't have that right, as I don't have that right. We both get a vote, and the ability to influence the government's priorities in other ways if we are so moved - protest, donate money, lobby, write letters, give speeches....
The distinction I made was between what was being discussed (wealth transfer schemes) and what you introduced (Police, fire, etc) As to how the latter would be paid in absence of direct taxation is not exactly a mystery.
That's how it should work.
I pay police to protect my rights. Investigating crimes is part of that.
You see no difference between police and SS. That is part of the reason this conversation is going nowhere, A free society forces nothing upon you. Your society forces a great deal upon me.
It is a mystery to me. And who determines the "etc."? And at what levels those mystery services should be funded?
Why don't we give every man, woman, and child 1.5x the poverty rate and let them do as they will? Then, if someone wants better they can go get a job. But those who don't care have the means to have the basics, and it's fair because everybody has the means to have the basics. It'd be only the extras you work for.
There. Problem solved.
If it is shown that it costs less in taxpayer dollars to provide apartments for the homeless than it would be to just let them remain homeless in the streets, would you support using taxpayer dollars to pay for apartments for the homeless?
Why or why not?
Probably would be cheaper... right now. It would also provide incentive for people currently on the edge to just give up and join the ranks of the homeless.
This is a "be careful what you wish for" solution.
IIRC there are several nations that have a guaranteed income for their citizens...and these nations are for the most part still doing very well, thank you very much.
I think we often approach the homeless problem from the wrong direction. Many homeless have underlying issues that have led to their homelessness such as mental illness or addiction. It is not simply a case of them being to lazy to work as I believe many people perceive them to be. Due to their conditions many cannot maintain gainful employment. We to often put programs into place to provide housing while simply ignoring the causes of their homelessness and expect the problem to be solved. I believe we are putting the cart before the horse.
I also believe we spend more money on the housing side of things than we should (this goes for all publicly assisted housing) and I believe this wasted money could be better used providing programs to help them treat their mental illnesses and addictions.
I personally do not agree with the notion that people that cannot do for themselves should have the same standard of living as those that do and all of it being provided by the taxpayer. However I do think it is in all our best interests to provide them with the most basic of services and the treatment they need so that they can hopefully one day better their own lives.
No that's too cruel. We cant expect our homeless to live like some lowly private. They need a place of their own, with three meals a day, a tv, internet, job training, transportation, leisure time, and a wardrobe that wont stigmatize them. You know, all those things that the rest of us actually have to get up every morning and bust our asses to achieve...apartments? .. no way.... you're talking about giving away, for free, that which everybody else works very hard and pays big money for.
I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of living quarters, though...something like old school Marine Squad bays.
something that provides the very basics in shelter and hygiene facilities, at minimal cost to taxpayers.
I also wouldn't be opposed to a chow hall, if staffed by the residents themselves.
View attachment 67185434
Eliminate all wealth transfer welfare schemes and funding what is left amounts to mere pennies on the dollar. As for how it could be funded, you answered that yourself in the very first line of your last response to me. People who use the courts and the legal system pay for it. For example, Lebron James negotiates a new contract with the Cavs for $100,000,000. If there was a fee of 1% per dollar value of every contract, Lebron and the Cavs would cough up a million dollars. I buy your car for $10,000 and we cough up $100. That way people who use the legal system pay for it.
Harsh. :shock:
If everyone in this country waited until they had a quarter of a mil invested, the population would die out pretty quickly. That's a lot of money for people just starting out, and that's when most of the women are having children.
If the state is spending less on the homeless than they were prior to the program then why would it need to cut other social services or law enforcement to fund it?
You use the court system whether you realize it or not. Decisions from other people's cases affect you, even if you were not a direct participant.That's how it should work. I pay police to protect my rights. Investigating crimes is part of that.
Now you're cherry-picking.I pay police to protect my rights. Investigating crimes is part of that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?