6 ms·

San Francisco should do something too. I'd love pay an extra tax to fund solutions to this massive problem.

jakeogh 11y ago
I donate to people, but is forcing (violently if necessary) other people to do the same ethical? Aren't there better ways?
- tormeh 11y ago
  Yes.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  > .. is forcing [...] ethical? In a democracy taxes would be considered ethical, by most. Even for redistribution. > Aren't there better ways? There could be. Do you know any? Use your vote.
  - jakeogh 11y ago
    There's not much to be changed, just make donations voluntary. People are better off deciding where to spend their money. Politicians can ask for it, and spend what they get. Obviously (judging from approval ratings) they will need to make more articulate arguments. Resources would be better spent.
    - alkonaut 11y ago
      I don't think you could find democratic support for replacing taxes with voluntary donations... Everyone has an Ayn Rand period, almost everyone grows out of it. Don't worry.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - jakeogh 11y ago
        Is it ethical to put people in cadges who don't agree with you (or your group) on property redistribution? If you get enough people together can they own the minority's things? Does bringing up a controversial author mean anything?
        alkonaut 11y ago
        > Is it ethical to put people in cages who don't agree with you (or your group) on property redistribution? (Fixed some typos ^) Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: Tax law is just like any other law. The fact that it affects property ownership doesn't make it different in any way than, say, differing views on spanking children or driving without a seat belt. Person A doesn't go to jail because he doesn't agree with persons B and C. Person A goes to jail if he breaks a law he agreed on together with B and C. Who among A, B and C actually voted for or against the law is irrelevant. 2 or 3 of them did. 0 or 1 did not. > If you get enough people together, can they own the minority's property? Not sure what you mean by that. A majority can decide what the laws should be. Exactly what laws are possible is possible depends on the legal framework, such as constitutions and international conventions. Most countries have constitutions that in turn are based on international conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that individual is entitled to "peaceful enjoyment of his possessions", subject to the "general interest or to secure the payment of taxes". Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others" and "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property". This means that tax law basically has to conform to this: it can't be arbitrary. It applies to everyone. Could all the right handed people in a society decide that the income tax for left handed people is 100% and the income tax rate for right handed people is 0%? most likely not. Could 60% of the population decide that the taxes for the 40% with incomes over $100k is 100%? Probably, yes.
        schoen 11y ago
        Your account is very clear, but "a law he agreed on together with B and C" is doing a lot of work here in terms of smuggling in assumptions, or conclusions, about political authority (since in your account people "agreed on" policies they explicitly object to, so long as those policies were created in particular participatory ways).
      - icebraining 11y ago
        FYI, I downvoted you for your condescending second line.
        alkonaut 11y ago
        No worries, I couldn't help it.
        dang 11y ago
        Please only post civilly and substantively to HN. You can always help it, because you can always edit out the uncivil bits after you post them. That's what most of us do. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - eivarv 11y ago
      Why do you assume that people would be "better off deciding where to spend their money", and that "resources would be better spent"?
      - spikels 11y ago
        Because 3rd parties generally lack both the information and incentives to do as good a job as you would. This is usually known as the "principal-agent problem"[1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem
        eivarv 11y ago
        I'm not talking about 3rd parties spending people's money as the people wish. People are better off spending their own money in the sense that they get to choose how their money is spent – but their lack of competence/expertise can for instance make them make bad choices (as in choices that don't lead to the desired goal), and resources will thus not be better spent. Don't get me wrong, though – it's not like politicians are experts either. Things are seldom as simple as ideological hardliners claim that they are.
- vacri 11y ago
  No. This libertarian idea that people would give more if they weren't taxed is utter bullshit. As is the idea that every human is an island. We're all in this together. The charities people give to? For the most part, it's acute and visible charities. Very few people give to the same charity again and again, over the course of decades. People also give to attractive charities - kids with terminal diseases is a much easier charity to raise money for than mental health in young adults. Same with animals - people care about cruelty to dogs, but they don't care about cruelty to voles. And while you haven't said it, another libertarian refrain is that people would donate more than they get taxed, which is obvious nonsense, because nothing is stopping them from disposing of that extra money. Anyway, if you don't want "violent" (stupid bloody redefining, that) taxes, then move to Vanuatu. It has good weather, happy people, a small government, and the army is so small it's also the police force (fewer than a thousand people). There's no income tax. Of course, there's little comparable in the way of infrastructure or services, but you'll get to live the libertarian dream of hiring your own garbage collector instead of having one violently forced on you by the incompetant apparatus of the overbearing state.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - winter_blue 11y ago
    > This libertarian idea that people would give more if they weren't taxed is utter bullshit. This. Libertarians live in some sort of idealistic fantasy, where most humans are intrinsically good, and inclined to do good, like help the poor and needy around them. That is emphatically not the nature of the average human. We absolutely need to force and coerce people to do good, under the threat of violence (for non-payment of taxes).
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
      - tdylan 11y ago
        There's no such thing as 'trickle down'. Cite me one serious economic paper which has referenced it. It's one of those things that through shear force of repetition people believe that it is a real theorem.
- winter_blue 11y ago
  I don't mind paying higher taxes to support the poor. Only a minority of the population will voluntarily support the poor, and even if they do, only a tiny fraction of their income would go toward it. Forcing everyone to "donate" a more-than-tiny chunk of their income to help those less fortunate than them, is the ethical thing to do.
  - tdylan 11y ago
    Do you have any evidence to support that?
- gozo 11y ago
  You are already being forced to pay for homelessness. Directly in the form of things like hospital bills, but also indirectly in terms of inefficiency. Less workforce, public safety, progress etc.
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    Part of the objection is about tax rates, sure. But there can be ethical questions about forcing people to pay for things. The government could be funding churches. Or, in a dystopia, using the money to sterilize the mentally ill. Moral objection to spending is what what the defunding of Planned Parenthood and the boycotts of Chik-Fil-A are about. I don't think there will be controversy around treating suffering people, though.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      > Moral objection to spending is what what the defunding of Planned Parenthood... Which is both sad and hilarious, since only 3 percent of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are abortions, yet they provide an overwhelming amount of non-abortion services to women across the country. And there's moral objection. To paying for health services for women who can't afford it. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641...
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Yes there is a better way - we don't treat any form of involuntarily property exchange as a crime, and let the market see what the natural rate of redistribution is. /sarcasm
Shivetya 11y ago
Well SPLOST (Special Purpose Local Option Sales Taxes) exist in many areas for roads and schools. Why not put it to a vote. However before succumbing to yet another tax why not have the current expenditures of the local government examined to insure the money they currently get is not wasted, especially on pet projects.
geebee 11y ago
For a bit of background, here's a link to an sfgate column: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/S-F-spending-on-homeless-exceeds-many-5416839.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/S-F-spendi... "The annual $167 million price tag is $20 million more than the operations budget for the Children, Youth and Family Services department, $6.3 million more than for Public Works and $3.8 million more than for Recreation and Park." My guess is that in such a politically charged issue, people play games with the numbers, which you can always do with budgets (how do you allocate the fixed cost of maintaining a fleet of ambulances, does an ambulance trip to the ER count as a "homelessness" cost in the first place simply because the person is homeless, should it only show up as a cost if it is related to the condition of being homeless, how would you measure this…). But however you measure it, SF does spend a tremendous amount of money on homelessness. My personal feeling is that this problem is unsolvable at a local level, because homeless people come from all over the US (and beyond). SF has a large budget for such a small city, but SF just can't solve this problem for the nation at large. People who are frustrated with these efforts argue that our services will never make things better because we simply attract more homeless people by offering them. I've read that overwhelming majority of the homeless population in SF did not grow up in SF, but then again, you could say the same for the non-homeless residents. I do see this as a national scale problem. Maybe a state of emergency, qualifying for federal funds, will be a good strategy...

I donate to people, but is forcing (violently if necessary) other people to do the same ethical? Aren't there better ways?

tormeh 11y ago
Yes.
alkonaut 11y ago
> .. is forcing [...] ethical? In a democracy taxes would be considered ethical, by most. Even for redistribution. > Aren't there better ways? There could be. Do you know any? Use your vote.
- jakeogh 11y ago
  There's not much to be changed, just make donations voluntary. People are better off deciding where to spend their money. Politicians can ask for it, and spend what they get. Obviously (judging from approval ratings) they will need to make more articulate arguments. Resources would be better spent.
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    I don't think you could find democratic support for replacing taxes with voluntary donations... Everyone has an Ayn Rand period, almost everyone grows out of it. Don't worry.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - jakeogh 11y ago
      Is it ethical to put people in cadges who don't agree with you (or your group) on property redistribution? If you get enough people together can they own the minority's things? Does bringing up a controversial author mean anything?
      - alkonaut 11y ago
        > Is it ethical to put people in cages who don't agree with you (or your group) on property redistribution? (Fixed some typos ^) Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: Tax law is just like any other law. The fact that it affects property ownership doesn't make it different in any way than, say, differing views on spanking children or driving without a seat belt. Person A doesn't go to jail because he doesn't agree with persons B and C. Person A goes to jail if he breaks a law he agreed on together with B and C. Who among A, B and C actually voted for or against the law is irrelevant. 2 or 3 of them did. 0 or 1 did not. > If you get enough people together, can they own the minority's property? Not sure what you mean by that. A majority can decide what the laws should be. Exactly what laws are possible is possible depends on the legal framework, such as constitutions and international conventions. Most countries have constitutions that in turn are based on international conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that individual is entitled to "peaceful enjoyment of his possessions", subject to the "general interest or to secure the payment of taxes". Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others" and "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property". This means that tax law basically has to conform to this: it can't be arbitrary. It applies to everyone. Could all the right handed people in a society decide that the income tax for left handed people is 100% and the income tax rate for right handed people is 0%? most likely not. Could 60% of the population decide that the taxes for the 40% with incomes over $100k is 100%? Probably, yes.
        schoen 11y ago
        Your account is very clear, but "a law he agreed on together with B and C" is doing a lot of work here in terms of smuggling in assumptions, or conclusions, about political authority (since in your account people "agreed on" policies they explicitly object to, so long as those policies were created in particular participatory ways).
    - icebraining 11y ago
      FYI, I downvoted you for your condescending second line.
      - alkonaut 11y ago
        No worries, I couldn't help it.
        dang 11y ago
        Please only post civilly and substantively to HN. You can always help it, because you can always edit out the uncivil bits after you post them. That's what most of us do. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - eivarv 11y ago
    Why do you assume that people would be "better off deciding where to spend their money", and that "resources would be better spent"?
    - spikels 11y ago
      Because 3rd parties generally lack both the information and incentives to do as good a job as you would. This is usually known as the "principal-agent problem"[1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem
      - eivarv 11y ago
        I'm not talking about 3rd parties spending people's money as the people wish. People are better off spending their own money in the sense that they get to choose how their money is spent – but their lack of competence/expertise can for instance make them make bad choices (as in choices that don't lead to the desired goal), and resources will thus not be better spent. Don't get me wrong, though – it's not like politicians are experts either. Things are seldom as simple as ideological hardliners claim that they are.
vacri 11y ago
No. This libertarian idea that people would give more if they weren't taxed is utter bullshit. As is the idea that every human is an island. We're all in this together. The charities people give to? For the most part, it's acute and visible charities. Very few people give to the same charity again and again, over the course of decades. People also give to attractive charities - kids with terminal diseases is a much easier charity to raise money for than mental health in young adults. Same with animals - people care about cruelty to dogs, but they don't care about cruelty to voles. And while you haven't said it, another libertarian refrain is that people would donate more than they get taxed, which is obvious nonsense, because nothing is stopping them from disposing of that extra money. Anyway, if you don't want "violent" (stupid bloody redefining, that) taxes, then move to Vanuatu. It has good weather, happy people, a small government, and the army is so small it's also the police force (fewer than a thousand people). There's no income tax. Of course, there's little comparable in the way of infrastructure or services, but you'll get to live the libertarian dream of hiring your own garbage collector instead of having one violently forced on you by the incompetant apparatus of the overbearing state.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- winter_blue 11y ago
  > This libertarian idea that people would give more if they weren't taxed is utter bullshit. This. Libertarians live in some sort of idealistic fantasy, where most humans are intrinsically good, and inclined to do good, like help the poor and needy around them. That is emphatically not the nature of the average human. We absolutely need to force and coerce people to do good, under the threat of violence (for non-payment of taxes).
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - tdylan 11y ago
      There's no such thing as 'trickle down'. Cite me one serious economic paper which has referenced it. It's one of those things that through shear force of repetition people believe that it is a real theorem.
winter_blue 11y ago
I don't mind paying higher taxes to support the poor. Only a minority of the population will voluntarily support the poor, and even if they do, only a tiny fraction of their income would go toward it. Forcing everyone to "donate" a more-than-tiny chunk of their income to help those less fortunate than them, is the ethical thing to do.
- tdylan 11y ago
  Do you have any evidence to support that?
gozo 11y ago
You are already being forced to pay for homelessness. Directly in the form of things like hospital bills, but also indirectly in terms of inefficiency. Less workforce, public safety, progress etc.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  Part of the objection is about tax rates, sure. But there can be ethical questions about forcing people to pay for things. The government could be funding churches. Or, in a dystopia, using the money to sterilize the mentally ill. Moral objection to spending is what what the defunding of Planned Parenthood and the boycotts of Chik-Fil-A are about. I don't think there will be controversy around treating suffering people, though.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > Moral objection to spending is what what the defunding of Planned Parenthood... Which is both sad and hilarious, since only 3 percent of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are abortions, yet they provide an overwhelming amount of non-abortion services to women across the country. And there's moral objection. To paying for health services for women who can't afford it. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641...
venomsnake 11y ago
Yes there is a better way - we don't treat any form of involuntarily property exchange as a crime, and let the market see what the natural rate of redistribution is. /sarcasm

Shivetya 11y ago

Well SPLOST (Special Purpose Local Option Sales Taxes) exist in many areas for roads and schools. Why not put it to a vote. However before succumbing to yet another tax why not have the current expenditures of the local government examined to insure the money they currently get is not wasted, especially on pet projects.

geebee 11y ago

For a bit of background, here's a link to an sfgate column: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/S-F-spending-on-homeless-exceeds-many-5416839.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/S-F-spendi... "The annual $167 million price tag is $20 million more than the operations budget for the Children, Youth and Family Services department, $6.3 million more than for Public Works and $3.8 million more than for Recreation and Park." My guess is that in such a politically charged issue, people play games with the numbers, which you can always do with budgets (how do you allocate the fixed cost of maintaining a fleet of ambulances, does an ambulance trip to the ER count as a "homelessness" cost in the first place simply because the person is homeless, should it only show up as a cost if it is related to the condition of being homeless, how would you measure this…). But however you measure it, SF does spend a tremendous amount of money on homelessness. My personal feeling is that this problem is unsolvable at a local level, because homeless people come from all over the US (and beyond). SF has a large budget for such a small city, but SF just can't solve this problem for the nation at large. People who are frustrated with these efforts argue that our services will never make things better because we simply attract more homeless people by offering them. I've read that overwhelming majority of the homeless population in SF did not grow up in SF, but then again, you could say the same for the non-homeless residents. I do see this as a national scale problem. Maybe a state of emergency, qualifying for federal funds, will be a good strategy...