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

Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 560 posts

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#461

Post by nambit »

Jedd wrote: post #435
yodsanklai wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just want Amazon to pay tax like any other business would in the UK, pay employees NI like any other business in the UK, and pay minimum wage like any other business in the UK I agree with you, but you can't blame Jeff Bezos for UK legislation.

> ... but you can't blame Jeff Bezos for UK legislation. Ahh, the old 'unless it's specifically and explicitly denied, regardless of moral or ethical considerations, let alone acting contra to the spirit of the law, then it's okay' defence. Your misdirection is correct - Jeff Bezos is not responsible for UK legislation - however how Jeff Bezos instructs his vendors and employees to act is very much his responsibility…

You want companies to pay more taxes than is legally required of them? What la la land do you live in?

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#462

Post by dmode »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #192
dmode wrote: post #101

Finally someone realizes that there is a problem. There is no justification in the biggest economy of the world to have this much poverty and homelessness. I am amazed every time I travel to Europe, how few homeless people there are, despite their economic growth lagging the US. And it is inherently a solvable problem with adequate resources. We have $1 trillion for the military. Surely, we can spare a few billions a…

Military spending is only 16% of Government spending, you'd think we could cover the homeless somehwere in that other 84%.

If you include all DoD spend include VA, it is well over 20%. Why this portion ? Because it is mostly unnecessary and just needed to foster faux nationalism

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#464

Post by s0rce »

fjsolwmv wrote: post #217
RandallBrown wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seattle's homeless camping problem has gotten really out of hand in the last 2 years. I moved away about a year and a half ago, when homeless tents were pretty common. When I visited recently, it was stunning how much worse it is. Almost every green space in the city (except for popular parks) is filled with tents. It's really crazy.

Homelessness is a problem. Camping is a (weak) solution.

Its an unsafe solution. There have been a number of fires in homeless camps in the East Bay and as larger camps continue to be built there will be more. Recreational camping tents are not safe for semi-permanent use. They are fire hazards.

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#465

Post by chongli »

blablabla123 wrote: post #306
ithilglin909 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that both are problems worth solving, but one is pretty obviously a more urgent public health problem, and unfortunately, the more difficult one to solve. When people are talking about Seattle's worsening homeless problem, they're talking about the presence of needles and fecal material on the sidewalks, and being harassed, and sometimes even attacked, by clearly mentally ill people, not about people living i…

Maybe people also get mentally ill from being homeless. Then one gets physically ill from living in a physically hostile environment...

I don't think the original cause matters so much. It's the cause that sustains their homelessness which needs to be addressed. People with strong support networks can bounce back from a lot of difficulties. It's the unlucky few who end up on the sidewalk in abject despair.

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#466

Post by savanaly »

fixermark wrote: post #218

Utilitarian question: Can he do more net good spending $2 billion to help the homeless, or spending an equivalent amount to double the take-home pay of warehouse employees and/or convert the "money towards medical insurance" plan into a company-supplied medical plan? (Follow-up question is "Given he doesn't have plurality control of the stock votes, does he have the authority to do so in a vacuum without getting ejec…

Wouldn't it be weird if a direct wealth transfer to group A was preferable to group B where group A is the better-off of the two? That's what you are suggesting, as far as I can tell, where group A is people with jobs at Amazon and group B is homeless people.

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#467

Post by manigandham »

Jedd wrote: post #435
yodsanklai wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just want Amazon to pay tax like any other business would in the UK, pay employees NI like any other business in the UK, and pay minimum wage like any other business in the UK I agree with you, but you can't blame Jeff Bezos for UK legislation.

> ... but you can't blame Jeff Bezos for UK legislation. Ahh, the old 'unless it's specifically and explicitly denied, regardless of moral or ethical considerations, let alone acting contra to the spirit of the law, then it's okay' defence. Your misdirection is correct - Jeff Bezos is not responsible for UK legislation - however how Jeff Bezos instructs his vendors and employees to act is very much his responsibility…

Companies follow laws and regulations, and optimize for profit and sustainability within those rules. Why would they ever pay MORE than they have to? There are no ethics or morals here. Taxes are not charity.

If you want to change the tax laws then you can do so, via the government that you take part in.

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#468

Post by andrepd »

WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #448
jimnotgym wrote: post #419

Bezos can keep his donations, I just want Amazon to pay tax like any other business would in the UK, pay employees NI like any other business in the UK, and pay minimum wage like any other business in the UK. It shouldn't be up to the billionaires to choose where to spend money that should be in the hands of national governments and workers. This article for instance shows homeless Amazon warehouse workers living in…

I like your thinking but Amazon/Bezos will push the boundaries to minimize costs and to be successful. The 2B is a start but it's up to society to make sure he doesn't go too far by putting limits where needed. Amazon's ways would change tomorrow if customers would speak up against its abusive ways but we all love PRIME, their customer service, and the convenience. Amazon at least has to hire people to get the job do…

>they minimized their tax footprint while having truckloads of externalities that cost society billions.

This is what gets me. It's what they say: "privatised profits, socialised losses".

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#469

Post by Nasrudith »

Janeman544 wrote: post #219
ithilglin909 wrote: post #158

This isn’t popular, but I’d challenge anyone who thinks homelessness in Seattle isn’t primarily an addiction and mental illness problem to go spend a few afternoons in areas with significant homeless populations (3rd Ave in Pioneer Square is a great place, if you need a suggestion). It’s not that affordable housing isn’t a problem in Seattle. I know people who couldn’t live on their own in Seattle anymore due to rent…

When you subsidize poverty you are going to have more of it and local bodies love these people as the establishment can always buy their votes through doles. This actually hurts the real needy people who are trying to get by.

Under that logic paying people making a billion per year would encourage more billionaires. Clearly that wouldn't help create any more of them.

While incentives are powerful they still require an actual mechanism to work.

As for buying votes that assumes so many facts not in evidence it isn't funny in addition to being flat out prejudicial - when the budget is spent on something I support it is deserved when it is on others it is bribery. Actual vote buying was solved centuries ago with the secret ballot.

Post reply on HN