$750 a month, no questions asked, improved the lives of homeless people

Post by monktastic1 » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 9:51 PM UTC

everfree wrote: post #114

ryuhhnn wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you even ask a question like this? It’s clear that our society has issues that stem from people’s inability to navigate our complicated modern world. Your “why not just let them suffer” provocation adds nothing productive to this discussion.

The other reply to my comment proves that my question wasn't a provocation, but a successful intuition of some people's beliefs in this thread. Further, the US' lack of universal healthcare shows that it's a societally acceptable stance to not give aid to ill people just because they are ill. I'm not trying to provoke anyone, I'm trying to clarify their belief within a set of beliefs that are socially acceptable.

Post by a_wild_dandan » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 9:56 PM UTC

ciguy wrote: post #39

narcindin wrote: post #33

I am happy for Las Angeles to perform a widespread trial of this kind of initiative. Attract people to Southern California that might be homeless elsewhere, help them get on their feet via $750/person/month, then they will get off the subsidy and contribute back to the community! If it works I will encourage a similar system in my hometown. If it does not work then I'm glad we did a trial run first. Note: I'm paywall…

This is a hilariously naive and silly take because SF did exactly this and continues to do so. Spoiler alert, they have massively exacerbated their homeless problems and very few are being reintegrated back into society.

Post by soupfordummies » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 9:58 PM UTC

ecommerceguy wrote: post #91

The top federal income tax rate was 91 percent in 1950 and 1951, and between 1954 and 1959. In 1952 and 1953, the top federal income tax rate was 92 percent. (USA) We need to go back to this. Wealth inequality is damaging society far more than ever. From Onlyfans to Bitcoins Scams, social media platforms has only exacerbated the issue. Will the pendulum swing back to morality and just cause away from lawlessness and…

Post by paulpauper » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 10:00 PM UTC

eli wrote: post #51

paulpauper wrote: post #2

Of course it did. The question or debate is not if unconditional money helps, but if it's better than alternatives which may be cheaper, such as food credits. Even middle class people would benefit, like $750 to buy groceries. Inflation obviously will erode some of this new purchasing power.

"Food credits" are an expensive and paternalistic Big Government approach to the problem. Is the idea that poor people don't know they need to buy food? Or that the government knows what you should be eating better than you do? SNAP spends something like $0.15 of every dollar on administrative and has complicated rules.

Post by advael » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 10:01 PM UTC

ejb999 wrote: post #67

pests wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a bout or two of homelessness when I was younger. A $750 windfall (or equiv at the time period) would have definitely been a huge help at getting past those initial hurdles. Like with the old adage of the $20 boots that last a year vs the $150 boots that last a life time, yet you have a person with only $30 of disposable income at any one time. Poor guy's spent $600 on boots.

yea, no doubt if you are down on your luck someone handing you $750/month would improve your circumstances in the short run - but it sounds like perhaps you made changes in your life, such that you are no longer homeless - great - but would you, or anyone else not feeling the desperation of being hungry or unsheltered be more, or less, likely to try and improve your circumstances if you were getting a cash handout ev…