4 ms·

"I’m confounded how to explain to my two children why a wealthy society allows its most vulnerable citizens to languish on the streets." Well, here is part of

"I’m confounded how to explain to my two children why a wealthy society allows its most vulnerable citizens to languish on the streets." Well, here is part of the problem. You are asking what your society can do, not what YOU can do. Meanwhile you are busy racking up your credit card on consumer goods you don't really need (yes, he does admit this - read the article). Nothing would prevent people from pooling their money for a cause. And this does indeed exist - it is called a charity. Many charities exist to aid the homeless, and if none of them suit your needs you can start a new one with a new goal. The good thing about charities is that they compete with each other. If a charity is corrupt (like the Red Cross? [1]) you do not have to donate to it. Tax dollars, on the other hand - you realistically have little choice where they are going in spite of whatever guise of democracy you think you are operating under. [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-...

M_Grey 10y ago
Charity is a nice idea, but when people are paying their taxes, and seeing trillions wasted in Afghanistan and Iraq, boondoggles like the F-35 and the LCS, and even to an extent the Zumwalt, they might have a right to speculate that their charity or lack thereof is not the primary issue. Then they might look at the state of healthcare in this country, and how a combination of bought politicians, insurance, and some particularly greedy pharmaceutical companies cough albuterol cough Mylan cough and realize that the problem is bigger than a spirit of pooling resources. We already pool our resources, then those resources are wasted. That's the problem.
- gavanwoolery 10y ago
  good points :)
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    Thanks, I respect the points you're making about charity, and especially about the need to start somewhere (i.e. with ourselves), but we shouldn't lose sight of the enormous and unconscionable waste much of what we already give with that in mind is subject to.
- BadassFractal 10y ago
  Thanks for pointing that out, I've come to similar conclusions myself as well. As someone who lives in the city and has paid six figures in taxes last year, I also wonder if people not contributing enough to the pool is really the problem. To me it seems that the culprit is mismanagement of the funds that are generated by taxpayers every year. How much more should I be spending as a taxpayer to improve the situation?
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    It's a crazy and infuriating situation, when we're essentially forced to pay into a common fund which we then watch be grossly misused. I'm honestly not sure how much more an individual can do; this strikes me as an issue that educated voters have to come together on. Of course then it becomes ever so clear as to why the drive to make sure that voters are often not educated has been so intense during the same period of this mismanagement.
    - gavanwoolery 10y ago
      Education is only part of it. I think that we are all generally aware there is some abuse of the budget, but the greater enemy IMO is apathy and/or feeling powerless to change our current situation.
  - cinquemb 10y ago
    Who knows, maybe one day we can have the BOJ pay the IRS on your behalf?
- reid_fatman 10y ago
  Californians goose-step to the ballot box to make _other people_ pay taxes. 99.9% of Californians don't pay the "mental health" tax, for example. Only people with incomes over $1MM/year pay that. If Californians really wanted to help homeless people, and not punish the most productive people in society, they would have passed a ballot proposition where _everyone_ has to pay for public mental health services. (See CA prop 63 http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/mh/Pages/MH_Prop63.aspx http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/mh/Pages/MH_Prop63.aspx ) The people I knew who supported this really didn't care where the money went. If they could have voted to take money from productive people and have it shredded they would have.
- someguydave 10y ago
  Unlike voluntary charity, government "charity" does not come with the discipline of the donors. That is, money comes in whether it is wasted or not. In a voluntary charity there is clear responsibility to the donors.
dnautics 10y ago
Part of the problem is that pro-growth- and pro-economic-stability- ("pro-jobs") policies (economic stimulus, bailouts) erode the purchasing (read: surviving) power of middle and lower class, who are massive contributors to charity in the US. They also make it more difficult for a charitable organization to continue operating by increasing program costs. You could also make a more subtle meta-argument that these policies more dramatically bias wealth to the selfish, which decreases the giving at the top, as well.

M_Grey 10y ago

Charity is a nice idea, but when people are paying their taxes, and seeing trillions wasted in Afghanistan and Iraq, boondoggles like the F-35 and the LCS, and even to an extent the Zumwalt, they might have a right to speculate that their charity or lack thereof is not the primary issue. Then they might look at the state of healthcare in this country, and how a combination of bought politicians, insurance, and some particularly greedy pharmaceutical companies cough albuterol cough Mylan cough and realize that the problem is bigger than a spirit of pooling resources. We already pool our resources, then those resources are wasted. That's the problem.

gavanwoolery 10y ago
good points :)
- M_Grey 10y ago
  Thanks, I respect the points you're making about charity, and especially about the need to start somewhere (i.e. with ourselves), but we shouldn't lose sight of the enormous and unconscionable waste much of what we already give with that in mind is subject to.
BadassFractal 10y ago
Thanks for pointing that out, I've come to similar conclusions myself as well. As someone who lives in the city and has paid six figures in taxes last year, I also wonder if people not contributing enough to the pool is really the problem. To me it seems that the culprit is mismanagement of the funds that are generated by taxpayers every year. How much more should I be spending as a taxpayer to improve the situation?
- M_Grey 10y ago
  It's a crazy and infuriating situation, when we're essentially forced to pay into a common fund which we then watch be grossly misused. I'm honestly not sure how much more an individual can do; this strikes me as an issue that educated voters have to come together on. Of course then it becomes ever so clear as to why the drive to make sure that voters are often not educated has been so intense during the same period of this mismanagement.
  - gavanwoolery 10y ago
    Education is only part of it. I think that we are all generally aware there is some abuse of the budget, but the greater enemy IMO is apathy and/or feeling powerless to change our current situation.
- cinquemb 10y ago
  Who knows, maybe one day we can have the BOJ pay the IRS on your behalf?
reid_fatman 10y ago
Californians goose-step to the ballot box to make _other people_ pay taxes. 99.9% of Californians don't pay the "mental health" tax, for example. Only people with incomes over $1MM/year pay that. If Californians really wanted to help homeless people, and not punish the most productive people in society, they would have passed a ballot proposition where _everyone_ has to pay for public mental health services. (See CA prop 63 http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/mh/Pages/MH_Prop63.aspx http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/mh/Pages/MH_Prop63.aspx ) The people I knew who supported this really didn't care where the money went. If they could have voted to take money from productive people and have it shredded they would have.
someguydave 10y ago
Unlike voluntary charity, government "charity" does not come with the discipline of the donors. That is, money comes in whether it is wasted or not. In a voluntary charity there is clear responsibility to the donors.

dnautics 10y ago

Part of the problem is that pro-growth- and pro-economic-stability- ("pro-jobs") policies (economic stimulus, bailouts) erode the purchasing (read: surviving) power of middle and lower class, who are massive contributors to charity in the US. They also make it more difficult for a charitable organization to continue operating by increasing program costs. You could also make a more subtle meta-argument that these policies more dramatically bias wealth to the selfish, which decreases the giving at the top, as well.