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  
•       •       •

7569 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 28 Oct 2020 at 8:30 AM (12 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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

 
2020-10-28 3:49:24 AM  
23 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 8:42:30 AM  
20 votes:
As long as everyone agrees that 'landlords' are the real problem
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-28 8:41:59 AM  
15 votes:

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?
 
2020-10-28 8:52:23 AM  
6 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-28 8:33:29 AM  
6 votes:
Timmie and Molson report record earnings?
 
2020-10-28 8:59:58 AM  
5 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 9:48:49 AM  
4 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?
 
Xai [TotalFark]
2020-10-28 11:29:06 AM  
3 votes:

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 9:30:26 AM  
3 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.


How did Fark get to it so quickly?
 
2020-10-28 9:01:49 AM  
3 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 8:50:11 AM  
3 votes:
Yes but remember they are Canadians not Americans. Here they would spend it in hookers and blow.
 
Xai [TotalFark]
2020-10-28 8:48:50 AM  
3 votes:

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.
 
2020-10-28 8:34:17 AM  
3 votes:
Sarah Palin slips over the border for free health care and a check, eh?
 
2020-10-28 2:46:05 PM  
2 votes:

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.
 
2020-10-28 1:39:09 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:06:49 AM  
2 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 9:27:11 AM  
2 votes:
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.
 
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 3:06:01 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:39:33 AM  
1 vote:

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 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 11:01:01 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 10:19:57 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 9:46:11 AM  
1 vote:
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 9:39:04 AM  
1 vote:
I'm actually surprised that Canada actually had economically homeless people to try this on.
 
2020-10-28 9:35:44 AM  
1 vote:

Prof. Frink: Xai: 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.

Wait, how can you be outdoors if you don't have any for positional comparison? Do you really mean "out of doors"?


The people in the study were fresh out of doors (two years or less). So, $7500 in Canada buys a few doors* I suppose. I tried to get in to the study but I was shown the door (the one on my apartment).

(*likely quite nice wooden and aluminum ones as the US government seems afraid of Canadian wood and metal, but I digress)
 
2020-10-28 9:33:37 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.


Quick question- what is your average rent versus your average mortgage payment including escrow?
 
2020-10-28 9:28:47 AM  
1 vote:

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


Nice. Apparently you missed the Fark Landlord congregation thread yesterday...
 
2020-10-28 9:14:05 AM  
1 vote:

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 9:08:22 AM  
1 vote:
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 9:06:08 AM  
1 vote:

WhiskeySticks: 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?


that's some big bugle
 
2020-10-28 9:05:22 AM  
1 vote:

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 8:48:11 AM  
1 vote:
A piece of what, subby?
 
Xai [TotalFark]
2020-10-28 6:02:15 AM  
1 vote:
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.
 
Displayed 36 of 36 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.