The Ghost of RubangB said:
Kasz216 said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
Kasz216 said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
39% of American homeless are kids. |
Who are mostly homeless with their parents?
Aside from which... America doesn't have anymore of a problem with homelessness then Canada.
Despite the fact that it should be easier for Canada to deal with homelessness.
|
Yeah I haven't come up with a good solution for it yet either. (But I do think there are more people in prison for drug possession than there are homeless people, and I'd rather legalize the drugs and convert some prisons to homeless shelters and mental institutions, which would cost less.)
I just think the whole free market idea in America grew out of an outdated Puritan work ethic with an awkward reverse predestination argument that rich people are going to heaven and you can already tell because G-d made them rich because they were good people, and the poor are going to hell and you can already tell because G-d is already punishing them, so making rich people share is making G-d's chosen share G-d's rewards with sinners. In fact, the way some free market people (like an old roommate of mine) blame the homeless for opting out of capitalism because they're lazy and greedy almost sounds like a religious argument.
I think pure capitalism is impossible because it's unethical to force everybody to compete for everything, and I think pure communism is impossibe because it's unethical to force everybody to share everything, but if I had to pick between 2 impossible ideals, I'd pick the one based on sharing with the community over the one based on greed and individualism. I think a healthy blend of competition and sharing is better for everybody.
I'm just in a bad mood, 'cuz some LaRouche assholes cornered me at school today and tried to tell me they could solve the financial crisis.
|
I agree with that. I don't think the lack of homeless shelters are much of a problem though. I mean we have them here. I know plenty of homeless people who have used them. People are still considered homeless if they use homeless shelters. The larger problem is that the permanent homeless are by and large unhelpable... while the ones who largely can be helped... aren't homeless for very long. I'm just glad are homeless shelters are free. It was probably just a scam to get money but when i was in montreal a guy said it cost them a dollar to use their shelters. I mean what's that about? Montreal was depressing that way. Probably spent more giving money to the homeless then I did everything else. Every corner downtown there was a homeless person. Then some punk kids with dyed hair too... yeah i'm going to give YOU money when there is a starving guy one block away. What douchebags.
See I don't think you understand the arguement. The general arguement is
A. that the most important thing is that everyone is treated equally. When you tax someone a higher % because they make more money it's just another form of discrimination.
B. Those who don't have serious problems do get out of homelessness because of their ability to work hard. That part actually is true, those who stay chronically homeless aren't there by chance more often then not it's because of some kind of mental disease or other problem of which they should be cared for. Not because of the homelessness though, but because of the problem.
The arguement though is what is healthy... and what is fair. Making everyone compete over the necessities of life. Food, Healthcare, shelter etc... is wrong. However taxing people unequally is also wrong. Taking care of these needs and taxing everyone equally... now that is fair.
As for the LaRouche guys. Tell me about it. Every freaking day I would buy something to eat so i'd have a built in excuse to not deal with those dicks who park themselves outside of the main campus every day when i was leaving school. Every day they try and harrass you and go to one of there meetings and join their email list.
|
If the argument is between equal health and equal taxes, I have to side with equal health, since health problems kill people and taxes don't. If we had a magical world where all basic needs could be handled by a flat tax, I guess I could go for a flat tax, but I don't think that's possible. And even then, as Final-Fan suggested, a flat tax is unfairly harsh on the poor. 20% to a poor person is 20% of everything they have, but 20% to a rich person is just 20% of their income for one year, and they usually have a couple houses and yachts and are living off their wealth and investments instead of their income anyway.
|
All basic needs can be handled by a flat tax. It just involves the government not wasting a bunch of money on stuff that doesn't need to be there... there are whole branches of the government that are just completely unneeded... and there isn't a government plan out there that couldn't afford to do some trimming among the useful ones.
When all basic needs are taken care of poor people aren't taxed "Everything they have" beacuse they have their basic needs taken care of.
When your needs are taken care all you have left is expendble money.
That's the basis behind the current tax system even where people who make up to a scertain amount aren't taxed because that's what is seen as needed to provide food and shelter. (of course the problem being with allowing it like this is that prices differ at different places and not everyone makes even the minimium.)
