U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-22-2014, 05:26 PM
 
4,367 posts, read 3,568,698 times
Reputation: 2926

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
Free labor is the key. If you whip them for slacking off, perhaps put them in solitary confinement or deprive them of food if they don't work hard enough, poor farms work well. When slave labor was acceptable in the USA, poor farms were quite popular as a means of taking care of the indigent.
...meaning they are NOT a viable solution in the 21st century, point taken.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-22-2014, 08:43 PM
 
Location: Washington state
5,466 posts, read 2,789,434 times
Reputation: 16453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
Your logical mistake is thinking that you should take money from private citizens against their will to house the homeless. That is incorrect. If you want to do something for the homeless, it is up to you to take personal money out of your bank account and help them. But it is morally wrong for you to demand that private citizens fork over their money to pay for charity.

Charity should be voluntary and asked for, not mandatory and demanded.
Maybe it should be. But the charity thing isn't working, obviously. So what, exactly, are the other options?

People complain when the homeless are on the street. People complain when the government doesn't do anything to get them off the street. People complain when the government uses tax dollars to get them off the street. And because the people complain, the government quits using tax dollars and the homeless are back on the street again. And then people complain about the homeless being on the street.

Look, you can do something or nothing. If you wait until the world is perfect to do something, it will never get done. If you wait until you can solve the whole problem at once, it will never get done. The bottom line is, doing anything, even teeny weeny things, is better than nothing. You can't save the whole world, so you concentrate on one person at a time. You can't fix the whole problem, so work on just a little bit at a time. Sometimes, you have to be satisfied with just that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2014, 09:17 PM
 
2,349 posts, read 3,933,498 times
Reputation: 2202
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser View Post
Maybe it should be. But the charity thing isn't working, obviously. So what, exactly, are the other options?

People complain when the homeless are on the street. People complain when the government doesn't do anything to get them off the street. People complain when the government uses tax dollars to get them off the street. And because the people complain, the government quits using tax dollars and the homeless are back on the street again. And then people complain about the homeless being on the street.

Look, you can do something or nothing. If you wait until the world is perfect to do something, it will never get done. If you wait until you can solve the whole problem at once, it will never get done. The bottom line is, doing anything, even teeny weeny things, is better than nothing. You can't save the whole world, so you concentrate on one person at a time. You can't fix the whole problem, so work on just a little bit at a time. Sometimes, you have to be satisfied with just that.
People complain because every idea from the gov ends up being some money grab, in which the housing ends up costing over 100,000 dollars per person. Generally, people get sick and tired seeing this time and time again repeated across the US. The government likes to put these housing projects in the worse places as well, instead of suitable areas, because the agenda driven folks wants the middle and upper class areas to have this housing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2014, 07:39 AM
 
Location: Northern NJ
7,953 posts, read 7,948,771 times
Reputation: 11183
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser View Post
Maybe it should be. But the charity thing isn't working, obviously. So what, exactly, are the other options?

People complain when the homeless are on the street. People complain when the government doesn't do anything to get them off the street. People complain when the government uses tax dollars to get them off the street. And because the people complain, the government quits using tax dollars and the homeless are back on the street again. And then people complain about the homeless being on the street.

Look, you can do something or nothing. If you wait until the world is perfect to do something, it will never get done. If you wait until you can solve the whole problem at once, it will never get done. The bottom line is, doing anything, even teeny weeny things, is better than nothing. You can't save the whole world, so you concentrate on one person at a time. You can't fix the whole problem, so work on just a little bit at a time. Sometimes, you have to be satisfied with just that.
I don't think we need to do anything. Aggressive panhandling or obviously unbalanced people should be arrested. However, those that are quiet and fly under the radar are free to stay in the street until they figure something out. They can walk into any church or synagogue or mosque or whatever and they will not be turned away.

For the aggressive and disturbed individuals who are a threat to the citizenry, I am OK paying taxes to keep the bad ones in jail or the sick ones in an institution where they can be warehoused if hopeless or offloaded to private charities if they have some potential.

But building anyone a house or renting anyone an apartment on the backs of the taxpayer is out of the question. Creating additional victims and adding to our 70% overall tax burden is a non-starter. In fact, perhaps if we had a small, efficient government and people got to keep most of what they earn and own, far less people would be prone to falling into street life.

Perhaps government is responsible for creating the problem it is trying to solve.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2014, 09:45 AM
 
Location: Seattle
1,534 posts, read 1,325,994 times
Reputation: 3605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
But building anyone a house or renting anyone an apartment on the backs of the taxpayer is out of the question.
So I assume you strongly advise your clients to file simple 1040s and forgo the mortgage interest and property tax deductions?

You might want to run the numbers and see exactly who it is that the taxpayers are subsidizing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2014, 11:16 AM
 
Location: Northern NJ
7,953 posts, read 7,948,771 times
Reputation: 11183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gardyloo View Post
So I assume you strongly advise your clients to file simple 1040s and forgo the mortgage interest and property tax deductions?

You might want to run the numbers and see exactly who it is that the taxpayers are subsidizing.
Your woefully misguided and incorrect premise is that the money people earn is owned by the state, and a tax deduction represents a gift by the state to the people claiming the deduction.

My correct, rational, and moral premise is that the people own 100% of what they earn, and it belongs to nobody else, and should be under their absolute control to use and dispose of as they wish without interference. Since it is theirs, and only theirs. Since they earned it.

Therefore, I advise maximum use of the mortgage interest deduction, as it enables people to keep more of what they EARN and already OWNED in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2014, 11:42 AM
 
Location: Seattle
1,534 posts, read 1,325,994 times
Reputation: 3605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
Your woefully misguided and incorrect premise is that the money people earn is owned by the state, and a tax deduction represents a gift by the state to the people claiming the deduction.
I don't think that at all, but I'm going to leave the alternate universe that I've apparently stumbled into. Enjoy Neverland, and be sure to refuse to work with anybody needing a VA mortgage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2014, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Northern NJ
7,953 posts, read 7,948,771 times
Reputation: 11183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gardyloo View Post
I don't think that at all, but I'm going to leave the alternate universe that I've apparently stumbled into. Enjoy Neverland, and be sure to refuse to work with anybody needing a VA mortgage.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. And no, the VA should not be providing mortgage guarantees, nor should FHA. We need to get the government out of the mortgage business entirely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2014, 04:58 PM
 
3,117 posts, read 3,221,594 times
Reputation: 3741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. And no, the VA should not be providing mortgage guarantees, nor should FHA. We need to get the government out of the mortgage business entirely.
The VA home loan program was established as a benefit for military service. As such it was touted as a benefit to make up for the low pay long hours and danger we (The nation) subjected our military to. Whether it currently does that or not may be subject to discussion but if you get rid of it (and other Veterans Benefits) expect to replace it with other benefits to encourage young capable people to enter the service.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2014, 05:32 PM
 
Location: Northern NJ
7,953 posts, read 7,948,771 times
Reputation: 11183
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidValleyDad View Post
The VA home loan program was established as a benefit for military service. As such it was touted as a benefit to make up for the low pay long hours and danger we (The nation) subjected our military to. Whether it currently does that or not may be subject to discussion but if you get rid of it (and other Veterans Benefits) expect to replace it with other benefits to encourage young capable people to enter the service.
Fine, let's up their pay. But let's not have the government involved in the private mortgage market. Guaranteeing mortgages is not a legitimate function of government. Paying soldiers is fine. In the form of cold hard cash. Not in a form that disturbs what should be efficient private markets.

Further, the VA home loan program hurts veterans by assisting them with making an incredibly stupid financial decision: buying a home with no money down and no skin in the game. That's what screwed our country in the first place: Irresponsible borrowing. The VA continues to make that possible and feasible. Bad for vets. Bad for markets. Bad for America. Bad philosophically. Bad practically. Just bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top