Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 95 posts

Re: San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

#51

Post by gok »

ralusek wrote: post #39
gok wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans complain about taxes more than perhaps any other people from a rich nation, but we frankly don't pay that much. The OECD average is about 35% of GDP. The UK pays right about that. The US pays ~27% of GDP. And of course even with that relatively small amount of revenue, a lot of it goes to uniquely American spending schemes like defense or NASA, both of which are vastly better funded than their European equi…

Percentage of GDP sounds like an insane way to measure tax rate for individuals.

If you look at individual tax rates the United States is an even bigger outlier. No VAT, and income tax is extremely progressive.

Re: San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

#52

Post by joesmo »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #25
grecy wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is truly sad that in by far the richest country in the world, and ostensibly the best, millions of people are living this way. Why on earth Americans are not fixing America, I have no idea.

I've found that America makes a lot more sense when you think of it as a country run by rich people, with a whole lot of workers. For the rich, this place is amazing. The rich have all the political power, so this makes sense. You'd think the working class has political power but their opinions are controlled by the wealthy. So for the people running America, there's nothing to fix. The system is designed to produce…

You missed one thing about the poor: they are useful as slaves--which is still legal in America. So America spends billions, maybe trillions over the last four to five decades to incarcerate people for anything, especially normal everyday human endeavors so they can be enslaved, provide free labor, and provide a base for others to profit off their pain. Most of these people are, of course, people of color, whom America has enslaved since before it even existed as America, so there is an additional benefit of removing them off the white-controlled streets. No analysis of American poverty is complete without acknowledging this fundamental factor: race and slavery.

Re: San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

#53

Post by throwaway729 »

throwaway_911 wrote: post #47
throwaway729 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you're being down-voted, other than that the evidence you provided isn't very compelling. For people who think this is hyperbole, it is not. Zoning codes also exist for a lot of other (good) reasons, but there are large sections of zoning codes (esp. regarding the type of housing allowed within a residentially zoned area) that were absolutely created with explicitly and openly racist intent. Sometimes th…

Residential segregation is the large scale observable effect of small biases. http://ncase.me/polygons . To end residential segregation is to either end the biases themselves or the freedom to express them. Either approach is rather distopian, with strong reverberations in the worst abuses of the Soviet regime.

Massive false dichotomy.

First, there's a huge amount of space in policy design between "zoning laws with racial segregation as an explicit goal" and "Soviet regime restriction on personal choice re: where to live".

Second, a lot of people's preferences are a much more nuanced than toy game theoretic models assume.

Re: San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

#54

Post by vkou »

throwaway_911 wrote: post #47
throwaway729 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you're being down-voted, other than that the evidence you provided isn't very compelling. For people who think this is hyperbole, it is not. Zoning codes also exist for a lot of other (good) reasons, but there are large sections of zoning codes (esp. regarding the type of housing allowed within a residentially zoned area) that were absolutely created with explicitly and openly racist intent. Sometimes th…

Residential segregation is the large scale observable effect of small biases. http://ncase.me/polygons . To end residential segregation is to either end the biases themselves or the freedom to express them. Either approach is rather distopian, with strong reverberations in the worst abuses of the Soviet regime.

What? Eliminating ass-backwards zoning laws that enforce 'aesthetic character' is a Soviet dystopia? How?

And here I always thought that the best example of a Soviet dystopia in housing was the row after row of cookie-cutter prefab Krushevkas [1]. That and the constant lack of housing. In fact, restrictions on aesthetics, driveway sizes, etc, only exacerbate the problem.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHdFd2RKRSI&ab_channel=Inese...

Re: San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

#55

Post by joesmo »

usaphp wrote: post #22
grecy wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is truly sad that in by far the richest country in the world, and ostensibly the best, millions of people are living this way. Why on earth Americans are not fixing America, I have no idea.

Well just look at the president candidates for the most powerful and richest country in the world. How is that possible that in a whole country of many smart people these two individuals could get someone's votes.

It's not. But it surely is possible in a country of many incredibly stupid people like America.

Re: San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

#56

Post by jbuzbee »

kahirsch wrote: post #48
mmmBacon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We pay almost 50% in taxes which I think is close to what you guys pay in Europe. The lions share goes to Washington where as far as I can tell it either evaporates or gets spent on very expensive jobs programs like the F-35. Our states do a better job generally and provide the bulk of the services. However in many cities and states the budgets are consumed by pensions leaving less for services each year. A person wh…

> We pay almost 50% in taxes which I think is close to what you guys pay in Europe. Total tax burden in the US is about 30%, slightly higher for the top half of the income scale. http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2015/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america_... > The lions share goes to Washington where as far as I can tell it either evaporates or gets spent on very expensive jobs programs like the F-35. About 2/3 of taxes go to the fe…

Regarding federal payroll taxes, i.e. Social Security and Medicare, it's not accurate to lump these in with other taxes as they are basically forced-savings. And due to their progressive nature, low-income individuals will get more out then they ever put in.

Re: San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

#57

Post by arjie »

kahirsch wrote: post #48
mmmBacon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We pay almost 50% in taxes which I think is close to what you guys pay in Europe. The lions share goes to Washington where as far as I can tell it either evaporates or gets spent on very expensive jobs programs like the F-35. Our states do a better job generally and provide the bulk of the services. However in many cities and states the budgets are consumed by pensions leaving less for services each year. A person wh…

> We pay almost 50% in taxes which I think is close to what you guys pay in Europe. Total tax burden in the US is about 30%, slightly higher for the top half of the income scale. http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2015/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america_... > The lions share goes to Washington where as far as I can tell it either evaporates or gets spent on very expensive jobs programs like the F-35. About 2/3 of taxes go to the fe…

I looked through and it seems to me they excluded the 7.65% for social security and Medicare. I don't see it explicitly mentioned, at least, and some of those numbers seem too low to be including it.

Re: San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

#58

Post by daenz »

nwenzel wrote: post #41

Honest question: Do any class or all classes of people (citizens, legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, refugees, criminals, teachers, disabled, adults, children, or any other type of people) have a right to a home or some other minimum level of shelter? Seems like discussion on homelessness would be slightly easier if we started from first principles or at least some place where there is closer to a consensus.

What amenities does the legal definition of "home" include? Just a roof and walls? Running water? Electricity?

Re: San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

#59

Post by pkaye »

mmmBacon wrote: post #20
ljf wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Brit and a left leaning type, it baffles me to see America. From talking to friends who live there (I won't pretend I know fully) but it seems between income, state and property taxes you guys pay a lot. Add in health care and it seems you pay in line with or above many European countries. Yet with your society's wealth there seems a resistance to supporting your own people, and almost actively seeking to add to…

We pay almost 50% in taxes which I think is close to what you guys pay in Europe. The lions share goes to Washington where as far as I can tell it either evaporates or gets spent on very expensive jobs programs like the F-35. Our states do a better job generally and provide the bulk of the services. However in many cities and states the budgets are consumed by pensions leaving less for services each year. A person wh…

"At the same time we also have large numbers of people who pay no taxes, 51%. So as our population grows, the demand for services increases but the percentage of tax paying citizens is not increasing."

By large number of people who pay no taxes, I assume you are referring to working age adults? In other words you exclude those under 18 years age, most college students, retirees, people with major disabilities, those who choose to stay at home to take care of their kids because child care is unaffordable? Also most of those who pay no income taxes still pay sales tax, social security tax, medicare tax and (sometimes) property taxes.

Re: San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

#60

Post by [deleted] »

nwenzel wrote: post #41

Honest question: Do any class or all classes of people (citizens, legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, refugees, criminals, teachers, disabled, adults, children, or any other type of people) have a right to a home or some other minimum level of shelter? Seems like discussion on homelessness would be slightly easier if we started from first principles or at least some place where there is closer to a consensus.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN