The first city in Canada to eliminate homelessness

[Ten oz]

It is as important to consider what is done with the tax money as it is where that tax money comes from. While a flat tax seems fair to many people the way benefits handed out are not. Many industries are heavily aided by tax dollars. UPS, Fed ex, Uber, and the thousands of other companies that use our public roads for their business activities would do so without any additional tax for the usage. Most of the terrible roads I have driven on are so bad because of tractor trailers and other industerial vehicles. The Airline, agriculture, and nurmerous defense/security industries are heavily supported by the government. In a flat tax system we would all pay a "fair tax" and then industry would siphon off the bulk of the benefit of that money while writing themselves huge checks and increaseing their positions on Wall Street.

[EdEarl]

It is as important to consider what is done with the tax money as it is where that tax money comes from. While a flat tax seems fair to many people the way benefits handed out are not. Many industries are heavily aided by tax dollars. UPS, Fed ex, Uber, and the thousands of other companies that use our public roads for their business activities would do so without any additional tax for the usage. Most of the terrible roads I have driven on are so bad because of tractor trailers and other industerial vehicles. The Airline, agriculture, and nurmerous defense/security industries are heavily supported by the government. In a flat tax system we would all pay a "fair tax" and then industry would siphon off the bulk of the benefit of that money while writing themselves huge checks and increaseing their positions on Wall Street.

Not the topic of this thread, but my government spends billions of dollars it borrows by selling bonds to other governments, e.g., the Chinese. My fellow countrymen and I are responsible for repaying these loans, but we never see the money. It ends up in corporate coffers and belongs to the richest people on Earth. Since I am partly responsible for repaying the national debt, I figure I have the right to say what happens to that money as much as anyone else. The economic system is rigged in favor of the wealthy. On the other hand, it has done a pretty good job of improving the wealth of humanity, but many people are still dirt poor. Many things in this world are unfair. Things are changing, but how IDK. The money must come from those who have it, whether tax or loan.

[CharonY]

With regard to changes there are at least two developments. One, the apparent standard of living is improving due to affordability of many previously considered luxury items (e.g. electronics). This hides, to some degree, the increasing disparity between rich and poor. Effectively, the economic situation has also changed for the middle class. While a worker was able to raise a family on single income and own a house, it is almost impossible nowadays. This is why trying to bring or maintain manufacturing jobs in the USA is somewhat of a red herring. There are different metrics to consider, of course, such as wealth availability of assistance and so on. E.g. in Sweden there is also a significant inequality when it comes to personal wealth, but the actual effect is cushioned by benefits that are used to redistribute wealth (although that has changed in the recent years to some degree).

[EdEarl]

There are many developments, some we are aware of and others we are not. There are actual improvements in standard of living and apparent improvements. Some people work for wealth, but many are satisfied with much less. Some who seek wealth use it; others hoard it.

 

An individual feels wealthy if they can have anything they both need and want. People need food, clothing, shelter, medical care and education. Food, clothing, shelter, and medical care sustain life and prevent suffering; education improves ones spirit and helps prevent physic suffering. People are naturally curious and need to satisfy their curiosity.

 

With ubiquitous automation, it seems likely most food will be produced locally, clothing will be 3D printed at home, shelter will be available for everyone wherever they go, medical monitoring will be continuous and unobtrusive, and medical care will be available when needed.

 

People need to work for what they want. For example, if one wants to climb Mt. Everest, one must train their body, plan the trip, assemble provisions, etc. Automatons that monitor our lives should assure the climbers are safe. Working for wants is necessary for people to be happy, even if their adventure is being a couch potato and watching TV.

 

I think the right recipe is equality for needs and individuality for wants. People need food, but not everyone likes liver.

[iNow]

Providing housing to the homeless and a guaranteed basic minimum income, while ideologically unpalatable to many, is far cheaper and in most cases realizes far greater success and ROI than our current mish-mash random smattering of inefficient, independent, largely ineffectual assistance programs.

 

It's time to stop doing things in ways that cost more and achieve less, and IMO the ideas of guaranteed housing and income achieve that. Serious voices in this discussion take these ideas very seriously.

 

A good podcast episode (along with the transcript) about this issue if anyone is so inclined: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/mincome/

EDIT: My comments above are specific to the US where we don't even have universal healthcare

[CharonY]

Actually, I think it is quite complicated to accurately assess impact due to lack of data, mostly derived from series of studies (including negative income tax) dating back to the 70s and 80s. For example, it was found to be a mild work disincentive, which, depending on political affiliation, was seen either as a huge, or a minor issue. Proponents argued that at least some were actually using the additional time to pursue education and estimated at best minor impact, whereas opponents stressed potential wide market responses. The studies themselves were limited in a number of ways. But maybe it is worthwhile to create a thread specifically to continue this part of the discussion?

[EdEarl]

Whether a guaranteed minimum standard of living is a disincentive to work seems not important, since automation is taking our jobs. At some point in time, masses of hard working employees are necessary to run the world. At some point in the future, they are not needed. It might make sense to discuss optimal timing of implementing a guaranteed minimum standard of living. However, there is a need now for some people who aren't working for whatever reason, and who need assistance. As time goes on, there will be more people who cannot find jobs. Not caring and not acting is not something I can abide quietly; although, I have little power otherwise.

[CharonY]

To a certain degree, it might. The original fear was that people would move out completely from the workforce, meaning that a smaller workforce would have to bear a larger tax load. But at least that seems certainly not to be the case as the decrease was relatively small. However, if you assume that the overall workforce will shrink due to lack of jobs, the whole market will change due to loss of consumers, at least in certain areas.

[EdEarl]

I agree with the whole market changing. People without jobs will have time and will need activities, for example a space for gardening. Society will change along with the market.

[John Cuthber]

 

No. If somebody has no job, will ask government "what job you can offer me?".

 

Amount of money in the game is always constant.

 

Your example is in many ways flawed.

The first thing, is that income of somebody is expenditure of somebody else. Money must match on both sides of equation.

 

In your example these 10 millions dollars for the richest appeared from literally nowhere.

While they should be from 10 millions people $1 each, or 1 million people $10 each, or 100k people $100 each, etc, per month.

 

I was telling "what is fair", not "what is good to town administration".

What is good to town administration (or country government) is endless flow of money

And you are analyzing it from point of view of administration/government.

Head tax is not fair in my opinion.

 

Money does not exist.

 

"No. If somebody has no job, will ask government "what job you can offer me?"."

Well, as long as the government can take money from the rich, the answer to that is "Building and running the Thing".

But if they can't afford to because there's not enough money- well no thing and no public sector employment.

I'm not the one saying that's a good thing.

 

You seem to be in two minds about the money supply as witness your assertion that "10 millions dollars for the richest appeared from literally nowhere." and "The first thing, is that income of somebody is expenditure of somebody else. Money must match on both sides of equation."

 

 

But you also say "Money does not exist."

Well, the second idea is more nearly true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money

The money does come from nowhere- the government prints it.

Actually, the government now lets the banks print it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

This makes the banks very profitable- yet they sometimes manage to run at a loss.

And the government then uses the "success" of the banks as an excuse to protect them.

 

now the next issue to address is why the government might not be good for the people- even though the people notionally choose the government's policies.

 

Here's a funny thing, very rich people don't like progressive tax- and they also own the news media.

Guess what happens next...

Edited May 19, 2016 by John Cuthber

[Ten oz]

Providing housing to the homeless and a guaranteed basic minimum income, while ideologically unpalatable to many, is far cheaper and in most cases realizes far greater success and ROI than our current mish-mash random smattering of inefficient, independent, largely ineffectual assistance programs.

 

It's time to stop doing things in ways that cost more and achieve less, and IMO the ideas of guaranteed housing and income achieve that. Serious voices in this discussion take these ideas very seriously.

 

A good podcast episode (along with the transcript) about this issue if anyone is so inclined: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/mincome/

EDIT: My comments above are specific to the US where we don't even have universal healthcare

We are actually a very cynical society. We gladly spend unlimited amounts of money on prisons and military style gear for local police but the suggestion of aid to the less fortunate offends our sensibilities. A lot of it is cultural racism; us vs them. Better to spend a million and be segregated than save a hundred and be stuck with neighbors that are different. Of course that is only part of it. Another side it the way we have defined freedom and confused money for success and character needed to attain. We teach that freedom means that everyone creates and does for themselves. Freedom is associated with independence and individual responsibility. While money is our measurement of success and reward. To give someone money who has not earned it themselves is akin to giving someone an award or prize for nothing. It is illogical be our stand definitions. I think we are slowly realizing that freedom and community are not opposites and that money is a poor measure of character.

[iNow]

I tend to agree. We preach about pulling oneself up by their bootstraps while ignoring how even those who do are not being properly rewarded. We preach about hard work being the path to wealth and prosperity while ignoring how critical it is to be born into the right family or in the right country or the right city or region or school district; to win the lottery of birth. We forget that when people are fed and have shelter then the base layer of Maslow's hierarchy is fulfilled and crime goes down while productivity goes up, and that we can achieve so much more if we'd get our collective heads out of our asses and just look at the data on how well this has worked nearly everywhere it's been tried.

[mp][/mp]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/04/housing-homeless-silicon-valley_n_7504564.html

The Economic Roundtable report analyzed six years of data of a homeless housing initiative in Santa Clara, taking into account each of the group’s varying financial needs. It found that members of one of the participating groups each cost the city an estimated $62,473. After those homeless people were given housing, that figure dropped to $19,767, a 68 percent decline annually.

(...)

A nonprofit out of Charlotte, for example, which provides permanent housing and other services to homeless people, has saved the city $2.4 million in medical costs alone since 2012, according to a recent report.

 

Through its housing first program, Utah has reduced its chronic homeless population by 91 percent over the course of a decade, according to Deseret News.

 

“No other state is even close,” Gordon Walker, director of the state Division of Community and Housing, told Deseret News. “We’ve had no additional resources than [any other state] has had to do this, but by focusing, having a plan and having great collaboration with our partners, we’ve been able to see successes.”

And if you don't want to do it on moral grounds, then do it for economic conservatism:

 

https://mic.com/articles/86251/study-reveals-it-costs-less-to-give-the-homeless-housing-than-to-leave-them-on-the-street#.XChFS4Y9h

A new study has found that it's significantly cheaper to house the homeless than leave them on the streets.

 

University of North Carolina Charlotte researchers released a study on Monday that tracked chronically homeless adults housed in the Moore Place facility run by Charlotte's Urban Ministry Center (UMC) in partnership with local government. Housing these people led to dramatic cost savings that more than paid for the cost of putting them in decent housing, including $1.8 million in health care savings from 447 fewer ER visits (78% reduction) and 372 fewer hospital days (79% reduction). Tenants also spent 84 fewer days in jail, with a 72% drop in arrests.

 

Moore Place cost $6 million in land and construction costs, and tenants are required to contribute 30% of their income (mainly benefits) towards rent. The remainder of the $14,000 per tenant annually is covered by donations and local and federal funding. According to the UNCC study, that $14,000 pales in comparison to the costs a chronically homeless person racks up every year to society — a stunning $39,458 in combined medical, judicial and other costs.

[EdEarl]

We need the right kind of advertising to sell the ideas necessary to understand why providing for the homeless makes a superior culture. For example, some sports stars, popular singers, graphic artists, authors and movie makers could sway public opinion with statements, pictures, songs, books and movies. Not every work or art is seen or heard by everyone, so it will take a sustained campaign, which might be necessary in perpetuity.

 

Some works exist with this message, but not enough. Since artists can sway public opinion, I think many feel ethically compelled to make political statements. It is only necessary to clarify which issues are most important to that community. I don't know Specifically how that can be done. Perhaps someone else reading this has some ideas.

[Phi for All]

This really reminds me of the Baltimore Needle Exchange program Malcolm Gladwell references in The Tipping Point. The media tells the public that the city is giving out free needles to drug users, and paying $1 for used needles. The citizens freak out! Then it's explained that this will reduce the serious AIDS outbreak caused by reusing needles. The citizens relax. Then they find out some of these druggies are making money off the system by bringing in bags full of needles. The citizens freak out again! It's explained that this is great, that the program wouldn't be as effective without these guys bringing in bags full of used needles. The citizens relax again, until the next media alert.

 

Part of me wonders if the media isn't exploiting the fact that people are often torn when it comes to some of these off-the-wall solutions. Appeal to Outrage increases ad revenues.