Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Vox)   A Canadian study gave homeless people $7,500. How'd that turn out?   (vox.com) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

7588 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 28 Oct 2020 at 8:30 AM (17 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
Xai [TotalFark]
2020-10-28 6:02:15 AM  
67 votes:
This proves that it saves taxpayers money by reducing the cost of maintaining homeless programs - in just 1 year it produced net savings per person, so even with only a 50% retention in just 2 years this would be a net saving - and that's before you even consider the social benefits.

Considering this, that means anyone opposed to such schemes actually wants to spend more money to merely punish homeless people for being poor.
 
2020-10-28 3:49:24 AM  
38 votes:
Well, obviously this could never work in the US because they gave that benefit to Canadians, and not Americans. American homeless would just spend the money on crank and bootleg cigarettes, or booze and porn magazines. Our poors are sooper special in how irresponsible and parasitic they are, while Canadian poors are just nicer.

/Hell
//One plz
///Just wanted to get the argument that some jackass would try out of the way early. Yes, I need a shower now.
 
2020-10-28 8:34:37 AM  
30 votes:
Repeat from a few weeks back, but still worth bringing up again.  Homeless people don't want to be homeless, what a shock.
 
2020-10-28 8:52:23 AM  
27 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-28 9:01:49 AM  
24 votes:

Xai: Considering this, that means anyone opposed to such schemes actually wants to spend more money to merely punish homeless people for being poor.


This is why I am not a conservative anymore. Fargin iceholes. We have the same in Canada. The conservatives don't want to give people money. It might hurt the stock market. You know what? Fark all of those rich assholes hoarding their cash.

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

We have a Sikh leader of the NDP who cares more about Canadians at the bottom of our society than any of these conservatives. Conservatism has been shown to be a bunch of greedy assholes trying to keep everything for themselves at the expense of everyone else.  How long before Bastille Day?

The other things to consider is that we have free health care for all. Yes we have issues, but no one is going broke by being sick.

We also have legal weed. I can buy an ounce of decent pot from a government store for $100 including taxes. We've already seen the decline in drinking and hard drugs because of this.

I have 4 boys at home and business died with covid like everyone else's. My government has already given me $12k this year to pay my bills and stay alive. They have just set up another 6 months of benefits @ $1800 per month. Why worry about a deficit if the whole world is going through the same problems?

Americans have been taught forever that government hand outs are socialism. If the government supports people, they won't work is the mantra. Yet corporations receive trillions and close up shop anyway leaving the poor taxpayers to pick up the tab yet again.

America, they've played you for fools.

When that shiat-hole country is gone the world will be able to break free from this incredibly selfish, flawed, American model of government. Maybe then we can all look after each other without some freak screaming socialism.

Here's another tip. Jesus was a  socialist. Everything he taught was about sharing and looking after others. That is exactly opposite of america and their prosperity jesus.
 
2020-10-28 8:42:30 AM  
23 votes:
As long as everyone agrees that 'landlords' are the real problem
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
d23 [OhFark]
2020-10-28 8:48:30 AM  
17 votes:

Xai: Considering this, that means anyone opposed to such schemes actually wants to spend more money to merely punish homeless people for being poor.


Yes this is true.  There is also that there is this concept of "deserving" that many Americans place on top of everything.  If the person is homeless because they were overtaken by a drug problem then he is not "deserving", for instance.  And sometimes the old protestant "if he/she got to this state then that must be an indication of a bad person" that people are taught growing up in the USA, that bad fortune is an indication of character flaws.

And on the purely economics side people can't think until next week a lot of the time.  The ability to see that if you spend money now that if prevents larger expenditure later is rare here these days.  Look at COVID: it will cost the economy 4x the cost of what the huge upfront expenditure could have been.
 
2020-10-28 9:12:11 AM  
15 votes:

Tyrosine: Keep in  mind that this study only focused on homeless who were not experiencing addiction or other mental health issues. That doesn't devalue the study but we can't lose sight of the fact that a significant portion of the homeless population suffer from one or both is these issues.

Here's a better link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/b​ritish-columbia/new-leaf-project-resul​ts-1.5752714

Also, article is a repeat from October 7th or 8th.


Pretty much this.  There is a huge difference between someone falling on hard times and losing everything versus the person covered in their own shiat digging through garbage cans while having a conversation with a unicorn.  Both people need help, but only one of those people will benefit from a large lump sum of cash.
 
2020-10-28 8:54:27 AM  
14 votes:
Keep in  mind that this study only focused on homeless who were not experiencing addiction or other mental health issues. That doesn't devalue the study but we can't lose sight of the fact that a significant portion of the homeless population suffer from one or both is these issues.

Here's a better link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/​british​-columbia/new-leaf-project-results-1.5​752714

Also, article is a repeat from October 7th or 8th.
 
2020-10-28 8:33:05 AM  
12 votes:

Xai: Considering this, that means anyone opposed to such schemes actually wants to spend more money to merely punish homeless people for being poor.


And would this surprise you in any way?
 
2020-10-28 9:14:05 AM  
11 votes:

Por que tan serioso: As long as everyone agrees that 'landlords' are the real problem
[Fark user image 425x302]


I'm a landlord. My entire rental stock is Affordable or Social Housing. I'd love to hear your thoughts as to how I'm the problem.
 
2020-10-28 9:46:11 AM  
8 votes:
Headline is a bit misleading, Canada didn't give the poor across the board money, it was a study by a not for profit that gave 50 people money.  Similar experiments have been done in quite a few cities/counties in the US, Canada and many many other areas of the world.  Results vary, some are positive, some negative. Some very conservative economists are for this as a way to cut the bloat out of the system.

And for all the whining about conservatives in this thread, why not hammer on the liberals in San Francisco (who spend $364 million a year on homeless)  or Seattle ($51 million)   That way, you won't even have to go to Walmart and talk to any conservatives to get the program you want.  Just convince those who run the homeless programs in every big city to fork over $7500 to each homeless person.
 
2020-10-28 8:52:16 AM  
8 votes:
Screened out  anyone homeless for more then two years, the mentally ill and relied on self reporting.
 
2020-10-28 9:20:08 AM  
7 votes:

djloid2010: Well, this is obviously a lie, as it goes against our manufactured narrative that the hobos and rub-a-dubs will spend the money on booze and junk. /s

Many of them will!  Many of them will spend the money on booze and drugs and crap, so let's all stop freaking out about it FFS!  It's still vastly cheaper to just give them the handouts and rehabilitate the reachable ones than piss away all the money on police presence, legal costs, incarceration, etc.  Making people invisible is crazy expensive.  We're spending extra tax money just for the privilege of kicking people when they're down.  But point that out and then "conservatives" go "well then let's not spend any money at all" and then you get debacles like the Kansas experiment.

Conservatives are the stupidest farking psychopathic wastes of oxygen on this planet.
 
2020-10-28 9:15:33 AM  
7 votes:

Jeebus Saves: Tyrosine: Keep in  mind that this study only focused on homeless who were not experiencing addiction or other mental health issues. That doesn't devalue the study but we can't lose sight of the fact that a significant portion of the homeless population suffer from one or both is these issues.

Here's a better link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/b​ritish-columbia/new-leaf-project-resul​ts-1.5752714

Also, article is a repeat from October 7th or 8th.

Pretty much this.  There is a huge difference between someone falling on hard times and losing everything versus the person covered in their own shiat digging through garbage cans while having a conversation with a unicorn.  Both people need help, but only one of those people will benefit from a large lump sum of cash.


Agreed, but one side of American politics will use this as a reason to help nobody.  For conservatives, if one person can abuse the system, then the whole system must be scrapped (unless it's rich people abusing the tax code, that's just "smart" and they can be "elected" "president").
 
2020-10-28 9:04:56 AM  
6 votes:
Its a lot cheaper to give all Canadians a Basic Standard Income and then whatever your job makes ontop of that instead of spending large money on Shelters and other various programs.
Yes we would still need shelters and those programs but they could be scaled back some what since they wouldn't be strained so badly.
If any political party (other than the Treason Frogs 🐸) offered a guaranteed basic yearly income for all Canadians they'd get my vote and once people see the savings actually working they'd probably keep getting reelected.
Socialism, it does work as long as you're not American.
 
2020-10-28 8:33:07 AM  
6 votes:

Xai: This proves that it saves taxpayers money by reducing the cost of maintaining homeless programs - in just 1 year it produced net savings per person, so even with only a 50% retention in just 2 years this would be a net saving - and that's before you even consider the social benefits.

Considering this, that means anyone opposed to such schemes actually wants to spend more money to merely punish homeless people for being poor.


Wait till I tell you about the state's desire to kill criminals.
 
Xai [TotalFark]
2020-10-28 9:15:05 AM  
5 votes:

d23: Xai: Considering this, that means anyone opposed to such schemes actually wants to spend more money to merely punish homeless people for being poor.

Yes this is true.  There is also that there is this concept of "deserving" that many Americans place on top of everything.  If the person is homeless because they were overtaken by a drug problem then he is not "deserving", for instance.  And sometimes the old protestant "if he/she got to this state then that must be an indication of a bad person" that people are taught growing up in the USA, that bad fortune is an indication of character flaws.

And on the purely economics side people can't think until next week a lot of the time.  The ability to see that if you spend money now that if prevents larger expenditure later is rare here these days.  Look at COVID: it will cost the economy 4x the cost of what the huge upfront expenditure could have been.


The irony is that people are being cruel because they aren't being truly selfish. Like they are actively cutting off their nose to spite their face, but honestly there seems to be a lot of that in American society - where people will literally pay to make other people's lives worse.
 
2020-10-28 9:05:22 AM  
5 votes:

d23: PickleBarrel: d23: Xai: Considering this, that means anyone opposed to such schemes actually wants to spend more money to merely punish homeless people for being poor.

Yes this is true.  There is also that there is this concept of "deserving" that many Americans place on top of everything.  If the person is homeless because they were overtaken by a drug problem then he is not "deserving", for instance.  And sometimes the old protestant "if he/she got to this state then that must be an indication of a bad person" that people are taught growing up in the USA, that bad fortune is an indication of character flaws.

And on the purely economics side people can't think until next week a lot of the time.  The ability to see that if you spend money now that if prevents larger expenditure later is rare here these days.  Look at COVID: it will cost the economy 4x the cost of what the huge upfront expenditure could have been.

so...what good is making the choice to get better boots, if you starve in the meantime?  I guess the next person can steal it off your skinny dead ass later.

What are you talking about exactly here when you are giving the people the money to by the better boots in the first place?


This exact discussion caused a huge riff between me and one of my friends.  We played the thought exercise, "What if it was cheaper and more effective to give homeless people mansions?"  Even though it would have saved him money on his taxes, he was still opposed to it.  And at that point, I just gave up.  I'm not going to reason someone out of a position they didn't use reason to get themselves out of.  This is why America can't ever be great.
 
2020-10-28 8:34:17 AM  
5 votes:
Sarah Palin slips over the border for free health care and a check, eh?
 
2020-10-28 8:33:54 AM  
5 votes:
Well, this is obviously a lie, as it goes against our manufactured narrative that the hobos and rub-a-dubs will spend the money on booze and junk.  /s
 
2020-10-28 11:03:03 AM  
4 votes:

dragonchild: djloid2010: Well, this is obviously a lie, as it goes against our manufactured narrative that the hobos and rub-a-dubs will spend the money on booze and junk. /s
Many of them will!  Many of them will spend the money on booze and drugs and crap, so let's all stop freaking out about it FFS!  It's still vastly cheaper to just give them the handouts and rehabilitate the reachable ones than piss away all the money on police presence, legal costs, incarceration, etc.  Making people invisible is crazy expensive.  We're spending extra tax money just for the privilege of kicking people when they're down.  But point that out and then "conservatives" go "well then let's not spend any money at all" and then you get debacles like the Kansas experiment.

Conservatives are the stupidest farking psychopathic wastes of oxygen on this planet.


Spending money on booze and drugs still benefits the economy.  If they took the money and gave it to a corporation to do a stock buyback, that would be much worse for the economy.
 
2020-10-28 11:07:38 AM  
3 votes:
A big city like Vancouver and they gave 50 people cash.

That is a lot of extrapolation to say let's give everyone money.
 
2020-10-28 11:06:49 AM  
3 votes:
If we took 70% of the wealth from the richest 400 Americans we could
- basically wipe out malaria globally
- provide clean water for everyone. Globally
- give every American $10k on the spot
- forgive taxes on any American making under $80k for the next 4 years

And each of those 400 American would STILL be billionaires.

Is there ANY good reason we shouldn't do this? Any reason at all?


https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-​w​ealth/
 
2020-10-28 10:32:55 AM  
3 votes:
That's cool. Don't biatch about 7.5K CAD. In the US I've heard directly from police and EMT's how much homeless people cost. There was one guy in my small city who between booze and heroin probably racked up 60K in ambulance costs (city run FD ambulance not private) alone + thousands more in jail in just one year. You could put him in a small city owned apartment, food, drug rehab program, basic health etc for probably 20K.
I think some cities in the US have done similar test programs with good results. I'm good with it, if it does pay off in the end. I know there will be always some people homeless even if we had every solution possible in place, but at least help the people who want to be helped and get hundreds of thousands off the streets.

/also kick a few bucks back my way and tax corporations, as you and I are the ones paying for this.
 
2020-10-28 9:57:20 AM  
3 votes:
Interesting. Give people enough money that they can meet their basic needs and invest a little in themselves, and they spend less money, not more, on booze and drugs and whatnot. It's almost as if getting them to a place where their lives are more than seemingly hopeless, grinding poverty leads to prioritizing something besides temporary escape from the misery.

That's what it did for Ray. In addition to getting housing, he used the cash transfer to take the courses he needed to become a front-line worker serving people with addictions. "Now I can work in any of the shelters and community centers in the area," he told me

The first thing he wanted to do after getting his own most basic needs met was to help others in similar situations. Good on Ray.
 
2020-10-28 9:48:49 AM  
3 votes:

Xai: I find these all to be lies to shield the truth, and the truth is it's opposition to change, any change. This is why they don't want to help the homeless


I think it's more of how they view the role of government.  They don't think the government should be that involved with peoples lives.  It's not some big evil plot to be cruel.  It's not that they don't want to help the homeless, they just don't see it as the governments role, especially at the federal level.  And contrary to the thinking around here, Americans are very generous and charitable.  There are hundreds if not thousands of nonprofits and charities that help the homeless.  So with that in place, why does the government need to do more, and would it be any more effective?
 
2020-10-28 9:28:40 AM  
3 votes:

Xai: In my opinion conservativism isn't actually about corporations or the rich or any of that, despite the claims they make - I find these all to be lies to shield the truth, and the truth is it's opposition to change, any change.

Huh?  Conservatives love change.  Just only change that improves their lives and/or makes others' lives worse.

Last I heard, the "trade war" is going so well that the federal government is now the source of about 40% of Iowa farmers' revenue.  Tens of billions of dollars thrown at them, because they vote.  They don't think it's "socialism" (as they define it, which is basically any tax expenditure they don't approve of).  That's very much a change.  And Republicans very much want to change the legality of abortion, to the extent that Senators were refusing to get tested for COVID-19 to ram through a Supreme Court Justice, in the name of making poor people's lives worse.
 
2020-10-28 9:16:12 AM  
3 votes:

Xai: d23: Xai: Considering this, that means anyone opposed to such schemes actually wants to spend more money to merely punish homeless people for being poor.

Yes this is true.  There is also that there is this concept of "deserving" that many Americans place on top of everything.  If the person is homeless because they were overtaken by a drug problem then he is not "deserving", for instance.  And sometimes the old protestant "if he/she got to this state then that must be an indication of a bad person" that people are taught growing up in the USA, that bad fortune is an indication of character flaws.

And on the purely economics side people can't think until next week a lot of the time.  The ability to see that if you spend money now that if prevents larger expenditure later is rare here these days.  Look at COVID: it will cost the economy 4x the cost of what the huge upfront expenditure could have been.

The irony is that people are being cruel because they aren't being truly selfish. Like they are actively cutting off their nose to spite their face, but honestly there seems to be a lot of that in American society - where people will literally pay to make other people's lives worse.


*Gestures to everything*
 
2020-10-28 9:08:22 AM  
3 votes:
Here in the US, we got enough to send some checks to charities to feed the poor.  Then the Senate decided to buy a SCOTUS girl, which used us all the money and time left over.
 
2020-10-28 8:33:29 AM  
3 votes:
Timmie and Molson report record earnings?
 
2020-10-28 3:26:13 PM  
2 votes:

whitroth: Tyrosine: webron: Tyrosine: Por que tan serioso: As long as everyone agrees that 'landlords' are the real problem
[Fark user image 425x302]

I'm a landlord. My entire rental stock is Affordable or Social Housing. I'd love to hear your thoughts as to how I'm the problem.

That's great.  But one persons actions don't mean that it isn't a huge problem.  you do get that right?  If what you say is true, you are a good person and should be congratulated, but it doesn't change much when you are talking larger economic trends.

Ok. How exactly do you envision a equitable housing market? What exactly do you think needs to be done to make the market fairer to renters while still incentivizing people to build and operate rental units?

"Incentivizing people to build and operate rental units?" Let's see, we can sit here and play the stock market, while the construction workers I usually employ are on unemployment (the bums) or I can build low-cost housing and they can work and get paid, and I'll make money.

Or how about HIRING THE HOMELESS TO HELP BUILD, AND THEY GET A UNIT FOR X YEARS IF THEY HELP BUILD X UNITS?

Nahh.... you'd rather they didn't have bootstraps.


Do you honestly believe that developers don't already strike the best bargain possible when tendering?

As for hiring the homeless, that's a laudable desire, but that in and of itself in no way answers my question. Regardless, your suggestion does come with problems. Firstly, you need to consider that a significant proportion of the homeless population come with mental health and addiction issues. Many, likely most in my experience, are not work ready and need to be housed first. There's also skillset issues and liability to consider.

That's not to say that construction of social and affordably housing projects can't involve and element of skills training. The Investment in Affordable Housing Program does have a labor component built in, requiring skilled trades to use a certain number of apprentice hours and offering incentives for employing workers who have come through certain training programs. Also, Habitat for Humanity works in a vaguely similar manner to what you're suggesting, so tis stuff is already happening, but I'm sorry to say it's highly unlikely that large numbers of the homeless are going to be able to participate in what you have described.
 
2020-10-28 3:06:01 PM  
2 votes:

dragonchild: djloid2010: Well, this is obviously a lie, as it goes against our manufactured narrative that the hobos and rub-a-dubs will spend the money on booze and junk. /s
Many of them will!  Many of them will spend the money on booze and drugs and crap, so let's all stop freaking out about it FFS!  It's still vastly cheaper to just give them the handouts and rehabilitate the reachable ones than piss away all the money on police presence, legal costs, incarceration, etc.  Making people invisible is crazy expensive.  We're spending extra tax money just for the privilege of kicking people when they're down.  But point that out and then "conservatives" go "well then let's not spend any money at all" and then you get debacles like the Kansas experiment.

Conservatives are the stupidest farking psychopathic wastes of oxygen on this planet.


You seem reasonable.
 
2020-10-28 1:51:40 PM  
2 votes:

the money is in the banana stand: Tyrosine: thehobbes: Appreciate you doing the nonproit thing- but still the question. On my mortgage, the taxes and insurance are part of the escrow money.

Do your units include all utilities with the rent?

Also- what are life safety, professional fees, and staffing and how do they factor in?

The mortgages guaranteed by commercial banks have escrow accounts. It's a requirement of most commercial loans. It should be noted that escrows are based square footage, not on a BCA or other engineering study, so they are not adequate to cover the capital needs. In the cases of loans backed by government funding there is no escrow.

Taxes are an extra.

Life safety: Monthly elevator inspections, fire system testing and monitoring, annual inspections, roof anchor testing, chiller monitoring and testing (for Legionella), etc. On a 100 unit high rise with two elevators these costs run ~$50k/yr.

Professional Fees: Legal, accounting, and audit. Can vary from typically $20k+

Staffing: Building superintendent, someone to clean, do minor repairs, suite rentals, etc. In a low or high rise this will be ~$30K or more depending on the level of staffing needed. If security is needed there's an additional $18k/year and up depending on the level required.

Here's the budget breakdown for a typical 60 unit building:

[Fark user image image 792x1024]I've had to condense parts to fit plus there's been some redaction to protect my client's identity.

I'm sure they are probably not "actually operating at a deficit" but that is reflected through careful itemization. Pretty much any company worth their salt is going to prepare a report like that for taxes.


Firstly, that's budget, not a P&L statement. This property is currently has a deficit of $47,918. The losses reflect extra security costs and higher bad debts than anticipated.

Secondly, how else should these expenses be presented? You seem to imply that there is something underhanded going on. Could you possibly elaborate?
 
2020-10-28 11:39:33 AM  
2 votes:

Xai: Got to point out that the majority of the wealth of the richest isn't cash just sat about, it's mostly in stock etc that you would need to sell.


I'm okay with that.

The thing is that the problem isn't actually that they have that much wealth, it's that their income is actually taxed at a lower rate than average people - just look at Trump paying just $750 despite his companies making hundreds of millions. Tax systems allow offsetting against losses, yet you or I couldn't offset the cost of our car breaking down, we couldn't offset the losses we have playing the lottery, yet if they gamble and lose, they still win.

This combined with the reduced cost of living as a percentage of income means the rich actually fare better during economic downturns (as we are seeing) and thus are encouraged not to support measures to avoid them.

Solutions - tax income of the wealthy including measures to prevent tax avoidance. We have the power and no if we did it right they couldn't simply flee the country since we could just tax cash flows going offshore/onshore to have the same effect.
- inheritance tax is one of the largest things that needs fixing, giving huge piles of wealth to children who haven't earned it is rewarding failure and discouraging competition.
Estates over $1m need heavily taxing rising to at least 90% for estates over $1bn and again, the same tax avoidance measures can be taken.


Couldn't agree more. We should not be taxing income higher than capital, and yes, we can increase rates on both high incomes and on estates. We've had much higher rates on both in the past and the wealthy still did extremely well. They didn't all flee the country or lose their motivation to succeed.
 
2020-10-28 9:35:31 AM  
2 votes:
Jesus was a socialist.
 
Xai [TotalFark]
2020-10-28 9:21:39 AM  
2 votes:

mr-b: Xai: Considering this, that means anyone opposed to such schemes actually wants to spend more money to merely punish homeless people for being poor.

This is why I am not a conservative anymore. Fargin iceholes. We have the same in Canada. The conservatives don't want to give people money. It might hurt the stock market. You know what? Fark all of those rich assholes hoarding their cash.

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

We have a Sikh leader of the NDP who cares more about Canadians at the bottom of our society than any of these conservatives. Conservatism has been shown to be a bunch of greedy assholes trying to keep everything for themselves at the expense of everyone else.  How long before Bastille Day?

The other things to consider is that we have free health care for all. Yes we have issues, but no one is going broke by being sick.

We also have legal weed. I can buy an ounce of decent pot from a government store for $100 including taxes. We've already seen the decline in drinking and hard drugs because of this.

I have 4 boys at home and business died with covid like everyone else's. My government has already given me $12k this year to pay my bills and stay alive. They have just set up another 6 months of benefits @ $1800 per month. Why worry about a deficit if the whole world is going through the same problems?

Americans have been taught forever that government hand outs are socialism. If the government supports people, they won't work is the mantra. Yet corporations receive trillions and close up shop anyway leaving the poor taxpayers to pick up the tab yet again.

America, they've played you for fools.

When that shiat-hole country is gone the world will be able to break free from this incredibly selfish, flawed, American model of government. Maybe then we can all look after each other without some freak screaming socialism.

Here's another tip. Jesus was a  socialist. Everyt ...


In my opinion conservativism isn't actually about corporations or the rich or any of that, despite the claims they make - I find these all to be lies to shield the truth, and the truth is it's opposition to change, any change. This is why they don't want to help the homeless etc, because things would change and they find that terrifying - that these homeless people might get a job, buy a house, become their neighbour. They can't cope with it, so they oppose it.
It's why they oppose public transport, new housing, etc.

But of course that's my opinion.

The thing is if we were all immortal and a single nation then opposition to change might technically work, but the problem is and always has been time, because if the 60 year old wants things to stay the same and gets their wish, that when they are 70 things will be the same - this also means that the 20 year old with nothing still has nothing at 30 and the worst thing about all this is that the rest of the world wouldn't stand still with our country, they'll move past us.
 
2020-10-28 9:03:29 AM  
2 votes:

hubiestubert: Well, obviously this could never work in the US because they gave that benefit to Canadians, and not Americans. American homeless would just spend the money on crank and bootleg cigarettes, or booze and porn magazines. Our poors are sooper special in how irresponsible and parasitic they are, while Canadian poors are just nicer.

/Hell
//One plz
///Just wanted to get the argument that some jackass would try out of the way early. Yes, I need a shower now.


You forgot guns. American homeless still want to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights
 
d23 [OhFark]
2020-10-28 9:02:49 AM  
2 votes:

PickleBarrel: d23: Xai: Considering this, that means anyone opposed to such schemes actually wants to spend more money to merely punish homeless people for being poor.

Yes this is true.  There is also that there is this concept of "deserving" that many Americans place on top of everything.  If the person is homeless because they were overtaken by a drug problem then he is not "deserving", for instance.  And sometimes the old protestant "if he/she got to this state then that must be an indication of a bad person" that people are taught growing up in the USA, that bad fortune is an indication of character flaws.

And on the purely economics side people can't think until next week a lot of the time.  The ability to see that if you spend money now that if prevents larger expenditure later is rare here these days.  Look at COVID: it will cost the economy 4x the cost of what the huge upfront expenditure could have been.

so...what good is making the choice to get better boots, if you starve in the meantime?  I guess the next person can steal it off your skinny dead ass later.


What are you talking about exactly here when you are giving the people the money to by the better boots in the first place?
 
2020-10-28 8:59:58 AM  
2 votes:
Wait, so the bulge in the pants of that crazy crack head who jacking off in front of the restaurant window and then proceeded to take a dump in a flower pot, that bugle was actually $7,500 cash?
 
2020-10-28 4:54:50 PM  
1 vote:

Tyrosine: whitroth: Tyrosine: webron: Tyrosine: Por que tan serioso: As long as everyone agrees that 'landlords' are the real problem
[Fark user image 425x302]

I'm a landlord. My entire rental stock is Affordable or Social Housing. I'd love to hear your thoughts as to how I'm the problem.

That's great.  But one persons actions don't mean that it isn't a huge problem.  you do get that right?  If what you say is true, you are a good person and should be congratulated, but it doesn't change much when you are talking larger economic trends.

Ok. How exactly do you envision a equitable housing market? What exactly do you think needs to be done to make the market fairer to renters while still incentivizing people to build and operate rental units?

"Incentivizing people to build and operate rental units?" Let's see, we can sit here and play the stock market, while the construction workers I usually employ are on unemployment (the bums) or I can build low-cost housing and they can work and get paid, and I'll make money.

Or how about HIRING THE HOMELESS TO HELP BUILD, AND THEY GET A UNIT FOR X YEARS IF THEY HELP BUILD X UNITS?

Nahh.... you'd rather they didn't have bootstraps.

Do you honestly believe that developers don't already strike the best bargain possible when tendering?

As for hiring the homeless, that's a laudable desire, but that in and of itself in no way answers my question. Regardless, your suggestion does come with problems. Firstly, you need to consider that a significant proportion of the homeless population come with mental health and addiction issues. Many, likely most in my experience, are not work ready and need to be housed first. There's also skillset issues and liability to consider.

That's not to say that construction of social and affordably housing projects can't involve and element of skills training. The Investment in Affordable Housing Program does have a labor component built in, requiring skilled trades to use a certain number of apprentice hours ...


You should go for a job working for somewhere like the American Enterprise Inst. Koch would really appreciate the sleazy bs you upchuck.

For example, if I do a stupidly simple search, I see an estimate of 20%-25% of the homeless with mental health issues. But you'll say anything rather than actually giving them a job (which, mostly, they can't get, because they have no address, no phone #, and no email). That's like Iraq, where the US was importing American truck drivers, rather than hire folks there and pay them a decent wage.

And, of course, your "dear" construction companies are so in love with HOAs (aka keep out the 'ethics').
 
2020-10-28 3:13:45 PM  
1 vote:
Conservatives say we are Rational Actors Rationally acting our Rational Self-Interest and that we just need to give (rich) people money and they will do great things with it. That's their foundational belief. Conservatives also say that giving poor people money is bad because it they can't do rational things because they're lazy and stupid. So they need the Harsh Discipline of The Market. Especially, you know, members of Urban Thug Culture(tm).
 
2020-10-28 1:39:09 PM  
1 vote:

Tyrosine: thehobbes: Appreciate you doing the nonproit thing- but still the question. On my mortgage, the taxes and insurance are part of the escrow money.

Do your units include all utilities with the rent?

Also- what are life safety, professional fees, and staffing and how do they factor in?

The mortgages guaranteed by commercial banks have escrow accounts. It's a requirement of most commercial loans. It should be noted that escrows are based square footage, not on a BCA or other engineering study, so they are not adequate to cover the capital needs. In the cases of loans backed by government funding there is no escrow.

Taxes are an extra.

Life safety: Monthly elevator inspections, fire system testing and monitoring, annual inspections, roof anchor testing, chiller monitoring and testing (for Legionella), etc. On a 100 unit high rise with two elevators these costs run ~$50k/yr.

Professional Fees: Legal, accounting, and audit. Can vary from typically $20k+

Staffing: Building superintendent, someone to clean, do minor repairs, suite rentals, etc. In a low or high rise this will be ~$30K or more depending on the level of staffing needed. If security is needed there's an additional $18k/year and up depending on the level required.

Here's the budget breakdown for a typical 60 unit building:

[Fark user image image 792x1024]I've had to condense parts to fit plus there's been some redaction to protect my client's identity.


I'm sure they are probably not "actually operating at a deficit" but that is reflected through careful itemization. Pretty much any company worth their salt is going to prepare a report like that for taxes.
 
2020-10-28 12:48:29 PM  
1 vote:

webron: Tyrosine: Por que tan serioso: As long as everyone agrees that 'landlords' are the real problem
[Fark user image 425x302]

I'm a landlord. My entire rental stock is Affordable or Social Housing. I'd love to hear your thoughts as to how I'm the problem.

That's great.  But one persons actions don't mean that it isn't a huge problem.  you do get that right?  If what you say is true, you are a good person and should be congratulated, but it doesn't change much when you are talking larger economic trends.


Ok. How exactly do you envision a equitable housing market? What exactly do you think needs to be done to make the market fairer to renters while still incentivizing people to build and operate rental units?
 
2020-10-28 12:29:07 PM  
1 vote:

thehobbes: Appreciate you doing the nonproit thing- but still the question. On my mortgage, the taxes and insurance are part of the escrow money.

Do your units include all utilities with the rent?

Also- what are life safety, professional fees, and staffing and how do they factor in?


The mortgages guaranteed by commercial banks have escrow accounts. It's a requirement of most commercial loans. It should be noted that escrows are based square footage, not on a BCA or other engineering study, so they are not adequate to cover the capital needs. In the cases of loans backed by government funding there is no escrow.

Taxes are an extra.

Life safety: Monthly elevator inspections, fire system testing and monitoring, annual inspections, roof anchor testing, chiller monitoring and testing (for Legionella), etc. On a 100 unit high rise with two elevators these costs run ~$50k/yr.

Professional Fees: Legal, accounting, and audit. Can vary from typically $20k+

Staffing: Building superintendent, someone to clean, do minor repairs, suite rentals, etc. In a low or high rise this will be ~$30K or more depending on the level of staffing needed. If security is needed there's an additional $18k/year and up depending on the level required.

Here's the budget breakdown for a typical 60 unit building:

Fark user imageView Full Size
I've had to condense parts to fit plus there's been some redaction to protect my client's identity.
 
2020-10-28 11:38:05 AM  
1 vote:

Tyrosine: thehobbes: Tyrosine: Por que tan serioso: As long as everyone agrees that 'landlords' are the real problem
[Fark user image 425x302]

I'm a landlord. My entire rental stock is Affordable or Social Housing. I'd love to hear your thoughts as to how I'm the problem.

Quick question- what is your average rent versus your average mortgage payment including escrow?

That's a meaningless question since mortgage payments (both principle and interest) are only a fraction of the monthly expenses. You're forgetting maintenance, professional fees, property taxes, utilities, life safety, staffing, insurance, etc., etc. A better way is to look at annual net revenue. On the Affordable (affordable being defined as rent's being 80% or less than the local average marker rent) most of my clients make a small profit of less than $500/unit/year. This money gets placed in Restricted Reserves (because the escrow account is not sufficient to cover all capital expenses over the lifespan of the building) and/or pumped into new projects.

On the Social Housing (defined as a property where Rent Geared to Income subsidy is available) side we're lucky to break even. Some years you run a small surplus, other's a deficit.

Keep in mind all my clients are non-profits.


Appreciate you doing the nonproit thing- but still the question. On my mortgage, the taxes and insurance are part of the escrow money. 

Do your units include all utilities with the rent?

Also- what are life safety, professional fees, and staffing and how do they factor in?
 
2020-10-28 11:35:28 AM  
1 vote:

d23: Xai: Considering this, that means anyone opposed to such schemes actually wants to spend more money to merely punish homeless people for being poor.

Yes this is true.  There is also that there is this concept of "deserving" that many Americans place on top of everything.  If the person is homeless because they were overtaken by a drug problem then he is not "deserving", for instance.  And sometimes the old protestant "if he/she got to this state then that must be an indication of a bad person" that people are taught growing up in the USA, that bad fortune is an indication of character flaws.

And on the purely economics side people can't think until next week a lot of the time.  The ability to see that if you spend money now that if prevents larger expenditure later is rare here these days.  Look at COVID: it will cost the economy 4x the cost of what the huge upfront expenditure could have been.


Prosperity Gospel.

If I'm successful/rich, it's because I've gained favor with god.

If I'm not successful/poor, it's because I've done something bad and lost god's favor.
 
Xai [TotalFark]
2020-10-28 11:29:06 AM  
1 vote:

ElecricalPast: If we took 70% of the wealth from the richest 400 Americans we could
- basically wipe out malaria globally
- provide clean water for everyone. Globally
- give every American $10k on the spot
- forgive taxes on any American making under $80k for the next 4 years

And each of those 400 American would STILL be billionaires.

Is there ANY good reason we shouldn't do this? Any reason at all?


https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-w​ealth/


Got to point out that the majority of the wealth of the richest isn't cash just sat about, it's mostly in stock etc that you would need to sell.

The thing is that the problem isn't actually that they have that much wealth, it's that their income is actually taxed at a lower rate than average people - just look at Trump paying just $750 despite his companies making hundreds of millions. Tax systems allow offsetting against losses, yet you or I couldn't offset the cost of our car breaking down, we couldn't offset the losses we have playing the lottery, yet if they gamble and lose, they still win.

This combined with the reduced cost of living as a percentage of income means the rich actually fare better during economic downturns (as we are seeing) and thus are encouraged not to support measures to avoid them.

Solutions - tax income of the wealthy including measures to prevent tax avoidance. We have the power and no if we did it right they couldn't simply flee the country since we could just tax cash flows going offshore/onshore to have the same effect.
- inheritance tax is one of the largest things that needs fixing, giving huge piles of wealth to children who haven't earned it is rewarding failure and discouraging competition.
Estates over $1m need heavily taxing rising to at least 90% for estates over $1bn and again, the same tax avoidance measures can be taken.
 
2020-10-28 11:23:52 AM  
1 vote:

Tyrosine: Por que tan serioso: As long as everyone agrees that 'landlords' are the real problem
[Fark user image 425x302]

I'm a landlord. My entire rental stock is Affordable or Social Housing. I'd love to hear your thoughts as to how I'm the problem.


Well, are you a straight white male?
 
2020-10-28 11:16:37 AM  
1 vote:

thehobbes: Tyrosine: Por que tan serioso: As long as everyone agrees that 'landlords' are the real problem
[Fark user image 425x302]

I'm a landlord. My entire rental stock is Affordable or Social Housing. I'd love to hear your thoughts as to how I'm the problem.

Quick question- what is your average rent versus your average mortgage payment including escrow?


That's a meaningless question since mortgage payments (both principle and interest) are only a fraction of the monthly expenses. You're forgetting maintenance, professional fees, property taxes, utilities, life safety, staffing, insurance, etc., etc. A better way is to look at annual net revenue. On the Affordable (affordable being defined as rent's being 80% or less than the local average marker rent) most of my clients make a small profit of less than $500/unit/year. This money gets placed in Restricted Reserves (because the escrow account is not sufficient to cover all capital expenses over the lifespan of the building) and/or pumped into new projects.

On the Social Housing (defined as a property where Rent Geared to Income subsidy is available) side we're lucky to break even. Some years you run a small surplus, other's a deficit.

Keep in mind all my clients are non-profits.
 
2020-10-28 11:01:01 AM  
1 vote:

Tyrosine: Por que tan serioso: As long as everyone agrees that 'landlords' are the real problem
[Fark user image 425x302]

I'm a landlord. My entire rental stock is Affordable or Social Housing. I'd love to hear your thoughts as to how I'm the problem.


That's great.  But one persons actions don't mean that it isn't a huge problem.  you do get that right?  If what you say is true, you are a good person and should be congratulated, but it doesn't change much when you are talking larger economic trends.
 
2020-10-28 10:38:36 AM  
1 vote:

Flappyhead: Repeat from a few weeks back, but still worth bringing up again.  Homeless people don't want to be homeless, what a shock.


As a matter of fact, a lot of homeless people do want to be homeless.
 
2020-10-28 10:32:21 AM  
1 vote:

Tyrosine: Keep in  mind that this study only focused on homeless who were not experiencing addiction or other mental health issues. That doesn't devalue the study but we can't lose sight of the fact that a significant portion of the homeless population suffer from one or both is these issues.

Here's a better link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/b​ritish-columbia/new-leaf-project-resul​ts-1.5752714

Also, article is a repeat from October 7th or 8th.


Keep in mind also the entire study revolved around the people self-reporting to get the data points. Pretty sure if you gave someone money and then follow up and say "did you use it responsibly!?" you are going to have a sizeable portion that flat out lies or embellished the truth. Self-reporting and surveys are known to be notoriously untrustworthy.
 
2020-10-28 10:29:25 AM  
1 vote:
UBI has been pretty consistently successful over the centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_​f​or_Realists
 
2020-10-28 10:28:26 AM  
1 vote:

Tyrosine: Por que tan serioso: As long as everyone agrees that 'landlords' are the real problem
[Fark user image 425x302]

I'm a landlord. My entire rental stock is Affordable or Social Housing. I'd love to hear your thoughts as to how I'm the problem.


Right. So you would be represented by that middle square on the bottom row of the pictorial.
 
2020-10-28 10:19:57 AM  
1 vote:

zang: What does that look like when you scale it up to $100K?


That looks like how big money people got rich, that's what it looks like. Game the system.
 
2020-10-28 10:18:08 AM  
1 vote:

hubiestubert: Well, obviously this could never work in the US


A friend of mine, Norwegian immigrant and now US citizen, and severe Trumper, said socialism will never work in the US. For exactly the reasons you throw out there. Which made me grasp the true definition of the word.

"Socialism" - anything that might raise my taxes.
 
2020-10-28 10:17:28 AM  
1 vote:

xanadian: CSB:

There was an opinion piece (I guess you could call it) done by someone at no other than the CATO Institute that suggested something similar, but at around $100k, one-time payment, to replace all the other forms of welfare with the goal of drastically reducing the bureaucracy.  The only reason I knew about it was because we had a Fark thread about it.  This was *years* ago.

I wish I could find that study.  Probably got scrubbed off the website for being too liberal or something.  It is the CATO Institute, after all.


If there was a government policy where you could get $7500 for being homeless, there's a thin but very broad layer of our population who would go into homelessness just to get the money.  Some people would be kicking their kids out in the street so they could get more, and people would hold it as a point of honor to bring that $7500 back to their families.  What does that look like when you scale it up to $100K?
 
2020-10-28 9:27:11 AM  
1 vote:
Well it could never work here because look what happened, we gave everyone $1200 and a lot of them still haven't gone back to work. Them lazy good for nothings.
 
Xai [TotalFark]
2020-10-28 8:48:50 AM  
1 vote:

Harry Freakstorm: Flappyhead: Repeat from a few weeks back, but still worth bringing up again.  Homeless people don't want to be homeless, what a shock.

They don't?  Then why are they outdoors so much?


A lack of doors.
 
Displayed 60 of 60 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.