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.
Not really, Tiny houses on tiny lots can be affordable. Big houses on large lots are designed and intended to be affordable only at average or greater incomes..
You can't afford a room in a flophouse. There is not house or lot tiny enough for you to afford.
Do not give welfare away for free. Link welfare payments to a honest days work for an honest days pay. With the money we spend on welfare we could get infrastructure projects completed in this country.
The labor on infrastructure projects is mostly union labor and high skilled. There is no way under God's Sun that those labor unions (or the politicians they buy) will let welfare recipients do the work.
I'm OK driving a car over a bridge built by high-skill union labor.
I would never drive a car over a bridge built by low-skill or unskilled welfare-as-a-lifestyle people.
There are plenty of places round the country where you can buy an affordable house. It's just not going to be in a trendy big city!
I don't know a time when minimum wage workers were homeowners, heck, most can't even afford to rent. Minimum wage was never intended to provide a comfortable lifestyle.
Read history. You are wrong. Minimum wage WAS supposed to be a decent living lifestyle.
Quote:
In his 1933 address following the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act, President Franklin D. Roosevelt noted that “no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.”
“By ‘business’ I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of decent living,”
Correct. The homeowner gargantuan sense of entitlement includes the right to use government to prevent poor people from buying homes in the neighborhood.
The more affluent people pay into a better educational system for their children. The poor understandably can't afford that. There was a thread on that topic which I can't locate now.
The more affluent people pay into a better educational system for their children. The poor understandably can't afford that. There was a thread on that topic which I can't locate now.
It varies by state, I believe. In California, that was once true, but in 1971 the Social Engineers and Social Justice Warriors on the California State Supreme Court decided that was bad and stopped the practice.
So, nowadays, people in more affluent areas pay property taxes for local schools, but state-wide that money is vacuumed up to the State level where Bureaucrats re-allocate that tax money and send it back to the local level, where a disproportionately large share of the money goes to school districts serving students of poor families and to school districts serving mostly Black and Brown students.
But before the tax revenue for schools is sent back to the districts, first some of it is wasted paying for countless bureaucrats who work in nice air-conditioned offices far removed from school districts or schools or classrooms, where bureaucrats push paper around and give Powerpoint presentations to one another.
The more affluent people pay into a better educational system for their children. The poor understandably can't afford that. There was a thread on that topic which I can't locate now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
It varies by state, I believe. In California, that was once true, but in 1971 the Social Engineers and Social Justice Warriors on the California State Supreme Court decided that was bad and stopped the practice.
So, nowadays, people in more affluent areas pay property taxes for local schools, but state-wide that money is vacuumed up to the State level where Bureaucrats re-allocate that tax money and send it back to the local level, where a disproportionately large share of the money goes to school districts serving students of poor families and to school districts serving mostly Black and Brown students.
But before the tax revenue for schools is sent back to the districts, first some of it is wasted paying for countless bureaucrats who work in nice air-conditioned offices far removed from school districts or schools or classrooms, where bureaucrats push paper around and give Powerpoint presentations to one another.
Do not give welfare away for free. Link welfare payments to a honest days work for an honest days pay. With the money we spend on welfare we could get infrastructure projects completed in this country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
"It found that 54 percent of the families who turn to pantries to help put food on the table have at least one member working, and that rate was much higher, 71 percent, for households with kids. 52 percent of fast-food workers are enrolled in, or have their families enrolled in, one or more public assistance programs such as SNAP, Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program." https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...y-already-work
Only adults with children can receive TANF, if they have children under 6 single parents are required to work 20 hours a week, in a household with two parents the work requirement is 35 hours. https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-b...nf-experience/
The TANF cash grant in Mississippi for a family of 3 is $170 a month. So under your "plan" of an honest days work for an honest days pay, they would only be required to work at minimum wage for 23 hours a month or a little less than 3 days. The law currently requires work participation for 20 hours a week.
If "livable wage" is vague, then "Honest day's work" sure is as well. Somebody who does do an honest day's work at FF will then get criticized for "not bettering themselves". A lot of conflicting ideas all around
.
As another poster mentioned, I'd feel better knowing the bridge I'm driving over was built by folks who did indeed get a good wage for skilled labor.
If "livable wage" is vague, then "Honest day's work" sure is as well. Somebody who does do an honest day's work at FF will then get criticized for "not bettering themselves". A lot of conflicting ideas all around
.
As another poster mentioned, I'd feel better knowing the bridge I'm driving over was built by folks who did indeed get a good wage for skilled labor.
Yet people who tried to better themselves and have college degrees will be told "McDonald's is always hiring" when they aren't able to find a decent job by these same people who criticize people for working fast food.
Because while it might be a myth that America is a land of equal opportunity, it's a worthy goal that our citizens want our country to strive for:
"...The gap between aspiration and reality could hardly be wider. Today, the United States has less equality of opportunity than almost any other advanced industrial country. Study after study has exposed the myth that America is a land of opportunity. This is especially tragic: While Americans may differ on the desirability of equality of outcomes, there is near-universal consensus that inequality of opportunity is indefensible. The Pew Research Center has found that some 90 percent of Americans believe that the government should do everything it can to ensure equality of opportunity...", (not that Republicans care what Americans want, they always know what's best).
I assume you're asking this question because liberals are calling for a more equitable way to fund our schools than by local property taxes. Currently this method allows wealthy neighborhoods to lavish their schools with the best teachers and latest equipment relative to our poor neighborhoods. But that's not good enough?!? Cry me a river.
We should fund our schools from the combined taxes received, to be spent equally in every school district. If the wealthy feel that isn't good enough for their privileged children, they can damn well spend some of their own wealth and send their kids to the most exclusive and expensive school they can find...
Not really, Tiny houses on tiny lots can be affordable. Big houses on large lots are designed and intended to be affordable only at average or greater incomes..
OK, I'll bite. Please imagine that Tiny House on a Tiny Lot that is affordable. What is its fair market price?
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.
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.
