5 ms·

'California operates the largest, most ambitious social welfare program in the entire country, funded entirely out of its own tax revenue. It costs California $

'California operates the largest, most ambitious social welfare program in the entire country, funded entirely out of its own tax revenue. It costs California $68 billion per year, or $5,200 per household.3 Furthermore, it is unquestionably the most efficient welfare program in existence—the state automatically figures out your eligibility and sends you the exact amount you are entitled to, with 100% accuracy. There are no complicated applications to fill out, no bureaucratic overhead, no waste. The money just automatically flows to deserving Californians that need public financial support.' If only other states were richer and offered more support for their citizens. California is a magnet for benefits and mild weather seekers, and sadly those suffering from substance abuse dependencies. Equity should define this as a federal nationwide problem IMO but instead the word is out all over the world - if you sit down on the pavement in California and say you are 'homeless' the money starts flowing. https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/travel-stories/san-francisco-drug-addict-says-they-pay-you-to-be-homeless-here/news-story/2c92b6c564747a6c8f89fdb9731595ad https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/travel-stories...

lostdog 4y ago
> California is a magnet for benefits and mild weather seekers, and sadly those suffering from substance abuse dependencies. Equity should define this as a federal nationwide problem IMO but instead the word is out all over the world - if you sit down on the pavement in California and say you are 'homeless' the money starts flowing. The great thing about this article is that you can tell who didn't bother to read it.
- olivermarks 4y ago
  'California has a lot of extremely rich people and a high income tax' The challenge here is that most 'extremely rich' people (including UK PM Rishi Sunak who has a large house in California) have all their money offshore. In the prooposals at the end: 'Write a software application that matches program beneficiaries with a household (or more likely, a combination of households) that paid an equivalent amount in the same year. For example, our San Francisco homeowner from earlier that received $16,500 might get matched with five middle class families that rent in Fresno who pay $3,300 each in sales taxes each.7 Now we have made it into an “adopt-a-property owner” program. This makes the benefit much more tangible for taxpayers'. This attempt at equity in a blisteringly expensive state makes more sense when viewed through the prism of the federal HUD 'housing first' laws around where money can be spent. Again it would be far better to have a nationwide match of properties to owners. A friend has calculated the billion+ spent by Cal on the unhoused could buy housing and wrap around services in other parts of the USA for virtually all the people asking for this.

lostdog 4y ago

> California is a magnet for benefits and mild weather seekers, and sadly those suffering from substance abuse dependencies. Equity should define this as a federal nationwide problem IMO but instead the word is out all over the world - if you sit down on the pavement in California and say you are 'homeless' the money starts flowing. The great thing about this article is that you can tell who didn't bother to read it.

olivermarks 4y ago
'California has a lot of extremely rich people and a high income tax' The challenge here is that most 'extremely rich' people (including UK PM Rishi Sunak who has a large house in California) have all their money offshore. In the prooposals at the end: 'Write a software application that matches program beneficiaries with a household (or more likely, a combination of households) that paid an equivalent amount in the same year. For example, our San Francisco homeowner from earlier that received $16,500 might get matched with five middle class families that rent in Fresno who pay $3,300 each in sales taxes each.7 Now we have made it into an “adopt-a-property owner” program. This makes the benefit much more tangible for taxpayers'. This attempt at equity in a blisteringly expensive state makes more sense when viewed through the prism of the federal HUD 'housing first' laws around where money can be spent. Again it would be far better to have a nationwide match of properties to owners. A friend has calculated the billion+ spent by Cal on the unhoused could buy housing and wrap around services in other parts of the USA for virtually all the people asking for this.