House prices rise because an area is prospering. Those with no investment in the area are forced to move to an area they can afford. Such is life for all of us.
And what about the people who can't afford to move in the first place?
11–20 of 105 posts
House prices rise because an area is prospering. Those with no investment in the area are forced to move to an area they can afford. Such is life for all of us.
And what about the people who can't afford to move in the first place?
$100m isn't really a lot, but if that money can be offered to help people that need more than money and a roof over their head, it could do some genuine good.
Why exactly homelessness is a problem?
There's a lot of misinformation and stigma around people who are vulnerably housed (often along the lines of "they did it themselves") so by by creating a culture that helps homeless people you're helping a potential future-you.
Why exactly homelessness is a problem?
To be happy you need both kinds of wealth. If you live in a big, expensive house and you drive a Ferrari, but there are parts of the city you live in where you don't want to go, then you aren't living a rich, full life. There'll be a constant reminder of how there are people worse off than you, and that will make you feel awful.
People who are homeless effectively make everyone worse off. Helping to fix their problems makes your own life better.
San Francisco should do something too. I'd love pay an extra tax to fund solutions to this massive problem.
I donate to people, but is forcing (violently if necessary) other people to do the same ethical? Aren't there better ways?
The charities people give to? For the most part, it's acute and visible charities. Very few people give to the same charity again and again, over the course of decades. People also give to attractive charities - kids with terminal diseases is a much easier charity to raise money for than mental health in young adults. Same with animals - people care about cruelty to dogs, but they don't care about cruelty to voles. And while you haven't said it, another libertarian refrain is that people would donate more than they get taxed, which is obvious nonsense, because nothing is stopping them from disposing of that extra money.
Anyway, if you don't want "violent" (stupid bloody redefining, that) taxes, then move to Vanuatu. It has good weather, happy people, a small government, and the army is so small it's also the police force (fewer than a thousand people). There's no income tax. Of course, there's little comparable in the way of infrastructure or services, but you'll get to live the libertarian dream of hiring your own garbage collector instead of having one violently forced on you by the incompetant apparatus of the overbearing state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I donate to people, but is forcing (violently if necessary) other people to do the same ethical? Aren't there better ways?
> .. is forcing [...] ethical? In a democracy taxes would be considered ethical, by most. Even for redistribution. > Aren't there better ways? There could be. Do you know any? Use your vote.
I'm really glad to see this issue on the front page. I live in downtown LA and I'm on the front lines of this epidemic. It does seem like the situation is getting worse. I wonder if technology can somehow play a role here. I would gladly fund some of the "regulars" around here via some type of Watsi-esque solution.
That's what HandUp (https://handup.org/) is doing.
Funny how leaders rather would declare "state of emergency" than alter the city planning that causes too little housing to be built.