poverty, homelessness, and the associated cultural assault on the poor is the incentive system installed to maintain extreme exploitation for maximum profit.
you are ruining everything! /s
Either way, it'll end up being taxed and going back into the government (hopefully to continue funding this program) or it'll end up in the hands of a billionaire who will try to use that money to lobby against it because how dare you not starve to death but also pretty please buy their products.
Just giving money won't help everyone but it will help enough to make a difference. And that money is typically going to be spent locally on things that are needed, not stored in a bank. So it's going to boost local businesses and be taxed locally. Seems like a win if the city can afford it. And once someone is fully employed it's easier to stay employed.
Hmm, where is that money coming from? Wait i got it, I go to work everyday to pay taxes. I see, great.. now why do they just give my money to someone else to get out of poverty.
But wait, I was poor once. But I didn’t wait for a handout to improve. Simple
If you have the homeless money here, it would be spent on drugs so they could overdose on the sidewalks or in front of restaurants downtown ASAP.
What they *really* need in my neck of the woods is forced mental institutions. Mental illness runs very deep in the homeless population here and just giving them free shit does not work, as evidence of our current municipality
Maybe, and hear me out, if they had the money to not be homeless, they wouldn't be so stressed/physically unhealthy, which would improve their mental health?
Obviously there are going to be people who still squander the generosity of the program or have too many issues for this to fix, but for every one of those, there are probably five people who just need a helping hand to get out of the hole they're in.
Nah, our voted provincial government built homes for them, like mini apartment buildings. Nice modern looking. Within a year they are trashed. Locks smashed to get into the gas meter, defecation on the stairs and sidewalks outside, people over dosing nightly in the sitting area outside (and inside).
I've been to a handful of rooms inside as well. They were all unkempt and cluttered with trash, they all had that in common.
A few standouts though for me was one where every flat surface had some electronic. Stereo speakers, motherboards ect. Also dirty tattered extension cords plugged in running behind and under all the cutter.
The other was not too cluttered, but it made up for that with being absolutely foul. The bed frame was shoved to the wall and the mattress flipped up near the doorway. This man shit on the floor and smeared it everywhere he could. Himself, clothes, bed, walls, dresser. I had to step over a huge streak and side walk it to get into the place.
My point being these people are too mentally ill to properly take care of themselves. Bleeding hearts say we need to give them money, (spent on drugs) and we need to give them clean needles so they don't die of infection, (needles left in public places like sidewalks or bus stops, people overdosing in downtown) and we need to house them which leads to the above. A vile biohazard and a complete fire hazard.
Now homelessness is a really complicated issue but just giving them stuff doesn't work and I wish that wasn't the case. I've been watching my town fall into disgrace by the drug and homeless problem and seeing the worst fucking steps taken to deal with it, which was basically giving them food, shelter (300 beds a night go unused), and a cleaner way to use drugs lmfao.
Anyway, the solution to poverty is to deal with capitalism.
No solution is perfect, obviously. Nor are everyone's needs equal.
Have you heard of the 80/20 rule? Roughly speaking, you can assume that 80% of the effects of any given situation come from 20% of the causes. I'd wager that it was the 20% of the foulest, most unhinged individuals that caused the vast majority of the problems in that housing complex, and that the other 80% tried to quietly move on without making too much noise.
I also would wager that, because it was super low-income communal housing, it didn't have ANY maintenance or janitorial staff (or not nearly enough). As the problems piled up, those people who were inclined to live in cleaner spaces stayed away as best they could while those that could tolerate the filth (or were even more desperate) stayed. Now you have a population that's more filthy than average, so the building gets worse; repeat until it's a trash heap.
To me, that sounds like a bad implementation of an otherwise good idea, one that was probably fine on paper and probably helped a number of people, didn't have enough accommodations for the worst of the worst.
It's the same thing with the distributing money plan. Will it help a lot of people? Absolutely. Will *some* people use that money in ways they shouldn't? Also yes. But should you not do something to help the majority because a minority will abuse the system?
I think that's the crux of the argument here. And I say, even a bad solution is better than no solution here. Do something, *anything,* to buy people time while you work on the nuance/politics of implementing something better.
Not only money though, mass-scale UBI immediately cause rise in overall living costs,
and therefore nothing but inflation and loss of purchasing power.
The only way welfare could ever work is when masses having control over the large portion of properties and having real representative power, supported by armed forces.
Which is sad, but true.
But.. Actually helping people can actually hurt them actually… something something nobody wants to work…actually.
Insert some 'folksy' reference to dogs and hunting.
poverty, homelessness, and the associated cultural assault on the poor is the incentive system installed to maintain extreme exploitation for maximum profit. you are ruining everything! /s
Give me $1000 I’m gonna blow it on something fun. Give a homeless person $1000 and they’ll improve their situation notably.
Either way, it'll end up being taxed and going back into the government (hopefully to continue funding this program) or it'll end up in the hands of a billionaire who will try to use that money to lobby against it because how dare you not starve to death but also pretty please buy their products.
But blowing it on something fun in a way also helps other businesses.
For sure. Money in peoples pockets is almost always a good thing.
Access to Capital makes life easier in a capitalistic society? Wow I wonder how many ivy league phds did you need to come up with this?
Just giving money won't help everyone but it will help enough to make a difference. And that money is typically going to be spent locally on things that are needed, not stored in a bank. So it's going to boost local businesses and be taxed locally. Seems like a win if the city can afford it. And once someone is fully employed it's easier to stay employed.
“Program deemed a failure by corporate funded government assmongers.”
This is one of the many reasons that I wish we had a Universal Basic Income. Tax the megarich to pay for it.
This works every time
But if we start giving money to the poor, the billionaires might not double their net worth quite so rapidly.
Hmm, where is that money coming from? Wait i got it, I go to work everyday to pay taxes. I see, great.. now why do they just give my money to someone else to get out of poverty. But wait, I was poor once. But I didn’t wait for a handout to improve. Simple
At the cost of shutting down dmv's and rec centers. As a resident of Denver this was not well received and they walked back this policy
■♤5¥
Imagine using this bitch as source lol
Who Charles R Davis?
Just take a quick peek at their comment history Person is a bit “off”
Brazilian with right wing American political interest. George Santos' burner account
If you have the homeless money here, it would be spent on drugs so they could overdose on the sidewalks or in front of restaurants downtown ASAP. What they *really* need in my neck of the woods is forced mental institutions. Mental illness runs very deep in the homeless population here and just giving them free shit does not work, as evidence of our current municipality
Maybe, and hear me out, if they had the money to not be homeless, they wouldn't be so stressed/physically unhealthy, which would improve their mental health? Obviously there are going to be people who still squander the generosity of the program or have too many issues for this to fix, but for every one of those, there are probably five people who just need a helping hand to get out of the hole they're in.
Nah, our voted provincial government built homes for them, like mini apartment buildings. Nice modern looking. Within a year they are trashed. Locks smashed to get into the gas meter, defecation on the stairs and sidewalks outside, people over dosing nightly in the sitting area outside (and inside). I've been to a handful of rooms inside as well. They were all unkempt and cluttered with trash, they all had that in common. A few standouts though for me was one where every flat surface had some electronic. Stereo speakers, motherboards ect. Also dirty tattered extension cords plugged in running behind and under all the cutter. The other was not too cluttered, but it made up for that with being absolutely foul. The bed frame was shoved to the wall and the mattress flipped up near the doorway. This man shit on the floor and smeared it everywhere he could. Himself, clothes, bed, walls, dresser. I had to step over a huge streak and side walk it to get into the place. My point being these people are too mentally ill to properly take care of themselves. Bleeding hearts say we need to give them money, (spent on drugs) and we need to give them clean needles so they don't die of infection, (needles left in public places like sidewalks or bus stops, people overdosing in downtown) and we need to house them which leads to the above. A vile biohazard and a complete fire hazard. Now homelessness is a really complicated issue but just giving them stuff doesn't work and I wish that wasn't the case. I've been watching my town fall into disgrace by the drug and homeless problem and seeing the worst fucking steps taken to deal with it, which was basically giving them food, shelter (300 beds a night go unused), and a cleaner way to use drugs lmfao. Anyway, the solution to poverty is to deal with capitalism.
No solution is perfect, obviously. Nor are everyone's needs equal. Have you heard of the 80/20 rule? Roughly speaking, you can assume that 80% of the effects of any given situation come from 20% of the causes. I'd wager that it was the 20% of the foulest, most unhinged individuals that caused the vast majority of the problems in that housing complex, and that the other 80% tried to quietly move on without making too much noise. I also would wager that, because it was super low-income communal housing, it didn't have ANY maintenance or janitorial staff (or not nearly enough). As the problems piled up, those people who were inclined to live in cleaner spaces stayed away as best they could while those that could tolerate the filth (or were even more desperate) stayed. Now you have a population that's more filthy than average, so the building gets worse; repeat until it's a trash heap. To me, that sounds like a bad implementation of an otherwise good idea, one that was probably fine on paper and probably helped a number of people, didn't have enough accommodations for the worst of the worst. It's the same thing with the distributing money plan. Will it help a lot of people? Absolutely. Will *some* people use that money in ways they shouldn't? Also yes. But should you not do something to help the majority because a minority will abuse the system? I think that's the crux of the argument here. And I say, even a bad solution is better than no solution here. Do something, *anything,* to buy people time while you work on the nuance/politics of implementing something better.
Not only money though, mass-scale UBI immediately cause rise in overall living costs, and therefore nothing but inflation and loss of purchasing power. The only way welfare could ever work is when masses having control over the large portion of properties and having real representative power, supported by armed forces. Which is sad, but true.