3 ms·

> We all benefit more than we ever can repay. So yes, optimally the costs should be distributed in a very systematic, fair way. But at the same time my general

by darawk 8y ago

> We all benefit more than we ever can repay. So yes, optimally the costs should be distributed in a very systematic, fair way. But at the same time my general response is: stop whining when asked to pull your weight a little. That's not really how this works. You don't arbitrarily force property owners to bear the full cost of supporting these people. If society deems them worthy of support, then society should support them. If we collectively think these people shouldn't be forced from their homes, then great. Let's pay the delta between what we think their rent ought to be and what the market price for that rent is. Let's all pay it together. Randomly and capriciously forcing whoever happens to own that property at the time to foot the bill is short sighted and silly.

chii 8y ago
And what if majority of society believes that those who own property are more capable of the burden of the poor, and thus, they should shoulder it instead of the entirety of society?
- darawk 8y ago
  There are plenty of people who can shoulder that burden. Why not doctors and lawyers? A-list actors? What possible justification is there for putting that burden on property owners? And not, mind you, all property owners. Just the ones who happen to have been housing low-income people at the wrong time.
  - chii 8y ago
    > Why not doctors and lawyers? A-list actors? they already do - presumably they aren't dodging taxes, and is in a progressive tax system. This is about housing, and property owners might not reach an income level where the progressive system taxed them enough to produce a surplus to cater for the poor, and if so, making property specific taxes is one such way to force the burden on to them.
    - darawk 8y ago
      > they already do - presumably they aren't dodging taxes, and is in a progressive tax system. You mean the same progressive tax system inhabited by those property owners? > This is about housing, and property owners might not reach an income level where the progressive system taxed them enough to produce a surplus to cater for the poor and if so, making property specific taxes is one such way to force the burden on to them. ...seriously? My point is that it's arbitrary and unfair, and you respond by saying, well, it might be that by chance some of these people escaped paying their fair share? How is that a response?
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > Why not doctors and lawyers? A-list actors? They do, in their own fields. Lawyers provide pro bono representation to the indigent, help charities and others who couldn't afford them, develop law to address problems, etc. Doctors do similar things, helping the ill regardless of their ability to pay. A-list actors use their status to draw attention to issues. Etc.
    - taysic 8y ago
      Those things are voluntary. I've known landlords who've given cheaper than market rate rent to people or were sympathetic to their situation. Those are similar to what you've listed. > A-list actors use their status to draw attention to issues No way that compares...
      - forapurpose 8y ago
        > Those things are voluntary Doctors treating patients is not voluntary; in many cases the doctor cannot turn away the patient. Lawyers' pro bono services aren't always voluntary AFAIK; sometimes the court appoints them. And it if it wasn't done sufficiently in a voluntary fashion, it would be required.

by darawk 8y ago

chii 8y ago

And what if majority of society believes that those who own property are more capable of the burden of the poor, and thus, they should shoulder it instead of the entirety of society?

darawk 8y ago
There are plenty of people who can shoulder that burden. Why not doctors and lawyers? A-list actors? What possible justification is there for putting that burden on property owners? And not, mind you, all property owners. Just the ones who happen to have been housing low-income people at the wrong time.
- chii 8y ago
  > Why not doctors and lawyers? A-list actors? they already do - presumably they aren't dodging taxes, and is in a progressive tax system. This is about housing, and property owners might not reach an income level where the progressive system taxed them enough to produce a surplus to cater for the poor, and if so, making property specific taxes is one such way to force the burden on to them.
  - darawk 8y ago
    > they already do - presumably they aren't dodging taxes, and is in a progressive tax system. You mean the same progressive tax system inhabited by those property owners? > This is about housing, and property owners might not reach an income level where the progressive system taxed them enough to produce a surplus to cater for the poor and if so, making property specific taxes is one such way to force the burden on to them. ...seriously? My point is that it's arbitrary and unfair, and you respond by saying, well, it might be that by chance some of these people escaped paying their fair share? How is that a response?
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > Why not doctors and lawyers? A-list actors? They do, in their own fields. Lawyers provide pro bono representation to the indigent, help charities and others who couldn't afford them, develop law to address problems, etc. Doctors do similar things, helping the ill regardless of their ability to pay. A-list actors use their status to draw attention to issues. Etc.
  - taysic 8y ago
    Those things are voluntary. I've known landlords who've given cheaper than market rate rent to people or were sympathetic to their situation. Those are similar to what you've listed. > A-list actors use their status to draw attention to issues No way that compares...
    - forapurpose 8y ago
      > Those things are voluntary Doctors treating patients is not voluntary; in many cases the doctor cannot turn away the patient. Lawyers' pro bono services aren't always voluntary AFAIK; sometimes the court appoints them. And it if it wasn't done sufficiently in a voluntary fashion, it would be required.