Forum
»
Unconditional cash transfers reduce homelessness
09-04-2023, 02:41 PM
-
#241
09-04-2023, 02:49 PM
-
#242
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Ah, you’re closer.As long as we know what can go wrong.
When did things start going wrong? Now go back and look at before they went wrong. What was different? If we are going in the opposite direction, then what direction must we go? This will be the first lesson in your logic 101 class.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
09-04-2023, 02:52 PM
-
#243
Originally Posted By Kraken⏩
Traditional values!Ah, you’re closer.
When did things start going wrong? Now go back and look at before they went wrong. What was different? If we are going in the opposite direction, then what direction must we go? This will be the first lesson in your logic 101 class.
When did things start going wrong? Now go back and look at before they went wrong. What was different? If we are going in the opposite direction, then what direction must we go? This will be the first lesson in your logic 101 class.
09-04-2023, 03:00 PM
-
#244
- jtaylor2010
- Join Date: Mar 2010
- Location: United States
- Posts: 33,186
- Rep Power: 441972
-
-
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Single parent homes are a HUGE contributor to the homelessness problem. Are you suggesting that isn’t a large part of the problem?Traditional values!
09-04-2023, 03:03 PM
-
#245
Originally Posted By jtaylor2010⏩
How can a woman stay home if she doesn't have a man to make money?Single parent homes are a HUGE contributor to the homelessness problem. Are you suggesting that isn’t a large part of the problem?
09-04-2023, 03:11 PM
-
#246
- jtaylor2010
- Join Date: Mar 2010
- Location: United States
- Posts: 33,186
- Rep Power: 441972
-
-
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Single parent homes are a HUGE contributor to the homelessness problem. Are you suggesting that isn’t a large part of the problem?How can a woman stay home if she doesn't have a man to make money?
09-04-2023, 03:19 PM
-
#247
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Thats one issue, and there is certainly strong evidence to suggest it. Men and women were compelled to stay married, or get married, if they had children, because it took two parents to make it work. Either they both had to work, or it allowed one to stay home while the other worked. So what enabled a single parent home?Traditional values!
but with the wealth gap…who gets hit the hardest with taxes? Even if you taxed the 1% for every penny they have, you will only pay down a fraction that it costs to run the government today. So even if they pay their “fair share”, it’s a drop in the bucket. The government depends on over taxing the middle class, because it’s the biggest source of revenue. Yes, they are lying to you about taxes. As long as the government is big and spends like it does, the middle class will always get taxed the hardest. The solution? Trim all of the fat off of the federal government. If you want to solve the wealth gap, the most effective way to do it isn’t taxing the rich more, it’s dramatically shrinking size and power of the federal government.
So lets hit the wealthy with taxes anyway. Now all of your goods and services cost more, because you just increased the cost of production. Now that you’re paying more for goods and services, the government loves you even more, because now you’re paying even more taxes…
Is education getting better or worse? Who runs education?
Back to the homeless issue; if EVERYTHING costs less, taxes are much lower, is it easier or harder for someone to get off the streets? If there are more entry level positions available, does that make it easier to get a job for the homeless? If medications and healthcare were much less, does that make it easier or harder/
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
09-04-2023, 03:21 PM
-
#248
Originally Posted By Kraken⏩
Traditional values good, social supports bad.Thats one issue, and there is certainly strong evidence to suggest it. Men and women were compelled to stay married, or get married, if they had children, because it took two parents to make it work. Either they both had to work, or it allowed one to stay home while the other worked. So what enabled a single parent home?
but with the wealth gap…who gets hit the hardest with taxes? Even if you taxed the 1% for every penny they have, you will only pay down a fraction that it costs to run the government today. So even if they pay their “fair share”, it’s a drop in the bucket. The government depends on over taxing the middle class, because it’s the biggest source of revenue. Yes, they are lying to you about taxes. As long as the government is big and spends like it does, the middle class will always get taxed the hardest. The solution? Trim all of the fat off of the federal government. If you want to solve the wealth gap, the most effective way to do it isn’t taxing the rich more, it’s dramatically shrinking size and power of the federal government.
So lets hit the wealthy with taxes anyway. Now all of your goods and services cost more, because you just increased the cost of production. Now that you’re paying more for goods and services, the government loves you even more, because now you’re paying even more taxes…
Is education getting better or worse? Who runs education?
but with the wealth gap…who gets hit the hardest with taxes? Even if you taxed the 1% for every penny they have, you will only pay down a fraction that it costs to run the government today. So even if they pay their “fair share”, it’s a drop in the bucket. The government depends on over taxing the middle class, because it’s the biggest source of revenue. Yes, they are lying to you about taxes. As long as the government is big and spends like it does, the middle class will always get taxed the hardest. The solution? Trim all of the fat off of the federal government. If you want to solve the wealth gap, the most effective way to do it isn’t taxing the rich more, it’s dramatically shrinking size and power of the federal government.
So lets hit the wealthy with taxes anyway. Now all of your goods and services cost more, because you just increased the cost of production. Now that you’re paying more for goods and services, the government loves you even more, because now you’re paying even more taxes…
Is education getting better or worse? Who runs education?
I think I get it.
09-04-2023, 03:24 PM
-
#249
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
You didnt even read my post.Traditional values good, social supports bad.
I think I get it.
I think I get it.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
09-04-2023, 03:26 PM
-
#250
- jtaylor2010
- Join Date: Mar 2010
- Location: United States
- Posts: 33,186
- Rep Power: 441972
-
-
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
This is an example of why it’s so difficult(practically impossible) to have meaningful discussions with you.Traditional values good, social supports bad.
I think I get it.
I think I get it.
09-04-2023, 03:27 PM
-
#251
09-04-2023, 03:30 PM
-
#252
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
So communism is your solution?Rand Paul suggested mass revivals. He might be onto something.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
09-04-2023, 03:35 PM
-
#253
09-04-2023, 03:37 PM
-
#254
- jtaylor2010
- Join Date: Mar 2010
- Location: United States
- Posts: 33,186
- Rep Power: 441972
-
-
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
If we can find a way to create a society with a low percentage of single parent homes it would do much more in terms of combatting homelessness than the tactic outlined in the study you posted.Rand Paul suggested mass revivals. He might be onto something.
09-04-2023, 03:41 PM
-
#255
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
but that’s what you want.No.
But neither is government enforced religion.
But neither is government enforced religion.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
09-04-2023, 03:45 PM
-
#256
JLC failed basic logic and rhetoric school.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
09-04-2023, 03:45 PM
-
#257
09-04-2023, 03:47 PM
-
#258
Originally Posted By jtaylor2010⏩
Okay.If we can find a way to create a society with a low percentage of single parent homes it would do much more in terms of combatting homelessness than the tactic outlined in the study you posted.
Maybe a ban on divorce and separation will clear things up.
09-04-2023, 04:02 PM
-
#259
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Maybe a ban on divorce and separation will clear things up.
Originally Posted By Kraken⏩
JLC is legit a retard.JLC failed basic logic and rhetoric school.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
09-04-2023, 04:09 PM
-
#260
09-04-2023, 04:13 PM
-
#261
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
You do, and based on your logic, mocking Him gets you closer to Him.Maybe I need Jesus
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
09-04-2023, 04:17 PM
-
#262
09-04-2023, 05:29 PM
-
#263
Originally Posted By jtaylor2010⏩
Is this after controlling for household income?If we can find a way to create a society with a low percentage of single parent homes it would do much more in terms of combatting homelessness than the tactic outlined in the study you posted.
09-04-2023, 08:33 PM
-
#264
- DomMJr
- Registered User
-
- DomMJr
- Registered User
- Join Date: Dec 2022
- Age: 56
- Posts: 7,380
- Rep Power: 23077
-
-
Originally Posted By jtaylor2010⏩
We don't need 90% of time spend on redditors philosophizing about how, when lacking conventional resources and security, they suffer second order effects of bad primary conditions.That is a terribly over-simplified view. For the VAST majority of homeless people their problems run much deeper than just “material resources”. Give a mentally ill meth addict a bunch of resources and what do you think will happen? That’s a big reason participants in the study couldn’t be addicts, because they would risk ending up with a bunch of dead junkies. They also made sure the recipients weren’t mentally ill, and even took it a step farther to count people with “unstable housing” as homeless. So it’s quite possible they weren’t legit “living on the streets” people, but rather people bouncing around to different places as they try to get back on their feet. Taking those people and teaching them about financial responsibility then giving them a chunk of cash is much MUCH different than finding your average homeless person and giving them money.
They need fundamental security and resources.
Drugs exacerbate 100% of the cases I've seen and probably almost all anywhere. It's still a dead end to talk about anything that does not address the primary responsibility needed.
09-04-2023, 09:12 PM
-
#265
- Paul Kreul
- Registered User
-
- Paul Kreul
- Registered User
- Join Date: Apr 2006
- Location: United States
- Posts: 33,385
- Rep Power: 316746
-
-
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Your mockery explains everything about you. Just lol. No wonderMaybe I need Jesus
09-05-2023, 07:00 AM
-
#266
- GNCPOV
- Registered User
-
- GNCPOV
- Registered User
- Join Date: Dec 2010
- Age: 38
- Posts: 788
- Rep Power: 4512
-
-
Originally Posted By Kraken⏩
The whole taxing the 1% thing is only looking through the lens of income tax, which is not the vehicle in which the rich derive their wealth, they do it through assets. We already know that increasing the income tax on them would be a drop in the bucket, that's why no one serious is proposing just an income tax increase on them. The reason the middle class income tax hikes work is because that segment derives the lions share of their wealth from income, thus taxing that path is a large pool of money.Thats one issue, and there is certainly strong evidence to suggest it. Men and women were compelled to stay married, or get married, if they had children, because it took two parents to make it work. Either they both had to work, or it allowed one to stay home while the other worked. So what enabled a single parent home?
but with the wealth gap…who gets hit the hardest with taxes? Even if you taxed the 1% for every penny they have, you will only pay down a fraction that it costs to run the government today. So even if they pay their “fair share”, it’s a drop in the bucket. The government depends on over taxing the middle class, because it’s the biggest source of revenue. Yes, they are lying to you about taxes. As long as the government is big and spends like it does, the middle class will always get taxed the hardest. The solution? Trim all of the fat off of the federal government. If you want to solve the wealth gap, the most effective way to do it isn’t taxing the rich more, it’s dramatically shrinking size and power of the federal government.
So lets hit the wealthy with taxes anyway. Now all of your goods and services cost more, because you just increased the cost of production. Now that you’re paying more for goods and services, the government loves you even more, because now you’re paying even more taxes…
Is education getting better or worse? Who runs education?
Back to the homeless issue; if EVERYTHING costs less, taxes are much lower, is it easier or harder for someone to get off the streets? If there are more entry level positions available, does that make it easier to get a job for the homeless? If medications and healthcare were much less, does that make it easier or harder/
but with the wealth gap…who gets hit the hardest with taxes? Even if you taxed the 1% for every penny they have, you will only pay down a fraction that it costs to run the government today. So even if they pay their “fair share”, it’s a drop in the bucket. The government depends on over taxing the middle class, because it’s the biggest source of revenue. Yes, they are lying to you about taxes. As long as the government is big and spends like it does, the middle class will always get taxed the hardest. The solution? Trim all of the fat off of the federal government. If you want to solve the wealth gap, the most effective way to do it isn’t taxing the rich more, it’s dramatically shrinking size and power of the federal government.
So lets hit the wealthy with taxes anyway. Now all of your goods and services cost more, because you just increased the cost of production. Now that you’re paying more for goods and services, the government loves you even more, because now you’re paying even more taxes…
Is education getting better or worse? Who runs education?
Back to the homeless issue; if EVERYTHING costs less, taxes are much lower, is it easier or harder for someone to get off the streets? If there are more entry level positions available, does that make it easier to get a job for the homeless? If medications and healthcare were much less, does that make it easier or harder/
If you design policy to tax actual wealth (which we already do via RE taxes on a more local level) the amount of money is a much, much larger pot, not to mention, a renewable source. Other policies like banning stock buybacks, taxes on stock market transactions, higher taxes on "passive" income, rolling back certain deductions for taking out debt, removing tax haven loopholes, etc, removes incentive to engage in unproductive economic activity, raise alot more money and will do far more to level the wealth disparity than the strawman that is just the income tax.
If you want toactuallysolve wealth inequality, you need to remove the influence of the rich and corps from wielding the power of the gov't to protect their profits and positions in society, not dissolve the government entirely, that's cutting off your nose to spite your face. Again, the profit incentive is the not a panacea to all societal ails, which is why you don't see any anarchocapitalist "areas" today (they wouldn't be considered nations, there's no state) - same as you don't see pure communist countries, because the extremes don't work at this stage of human development.
09-05-2023, 11:00 AM
-
#267
- litljay
- Time to Work
-
- litljay
- Time to Work
- Join Date: Oct 2009
- Location: California, United States
- Age: 53
- Posts: 17,547
- Rep Power: 123114
-
-
Originally Posted By DomMJr⏩
Good response by JTaylor below.This just describes the problem a second time. How would someone in those positions not live with addictive / unhealthy stress? They'd have to be inhuman not to.
Their problem is material resources, not some reddit theory about the pattern of thought they experience when without security, wealth, etc.
If you own a store on a military base, and the military leaves, so you get robbed, is the problem the patterns of your thought? Maybe build a store in another place with security and a market
Their problem is material resources, not some reddit theory about the pattern of thought they experience when without security, wealth, etc.
If you own a store on a military base, and the military leaves, so you get robbed, is the problem the patterns of your thought? Maybe build a store in another place with security and a market
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Sure, but declaring as you did in the title of the thread: "Unconditional Cash Transfers reduce Homelessness" needs a disclaimer of "as long as they are not addicted or mentally ill."That why most research happens in stages.
Trying to do it all in a single study sacrifices experimental control and statistical power.
Trying to do it all in a single study sacrifices experimental control and statistical power.
Originally Posted By jtaylor2010⏩
That is a terribly over-simplified view. For the VAST majority of homeless people their problems run much deeper than just “material resources”. Give a mentally ill meth addict a bunch of resources and what do you think will happen? That’s a big reason participants in the study couldn’t be addicts, because they would risk ending up with a bunch of dead junkies. They also made sure the recipients weren’t mentally ill, and even took it a step farther to count people with “unstable housing” as homeless. So it’s quite possible they weren’t legit “living on the streets” people, but rather people bouncing around to different places as they try to get back on their feet. Taking those people and teaching them about financial responsibility then giving them a chunk of cash is much MUCH different than finding your average homeless person and giving them money.
You don't have to be great to start, but you have to start to be great.
09-05-2023, 11:40 AM
-
#268
Originally Posted By litljay⏩
Agreed.Good response by JTaylor below.
Sure, but declaring as you did in the title of the thread: "Unconditional Cash Transfers reduce Homelessness" needs a disclaimer of "as long as they are not addicted or mentally ill."
Sure, but declaring as you did in the title of the thread: "Unconditional Cash Transfers reduce Homelessness" needs a disclaimer of "as long as they are not addicted or mentally ill."
Media get carried away.
09-05-2023, 12:07 PM
-
#269
Originally Posted By GNCPOV⏩
We get it, you are a far left statist. But do you get that yet?The whole taxing the 1% thing is only looking through the lens of income tax, which is not the vehicle in which the rich derive their wealth, they do it through assets. We already know that increasing the income tax on them would be a drop in the bucket, that's why no one serious is proposing just an income tax increase on them. The reason the middle class income tax hikes work is because that segment derives the lions share of their wealth from income, thus taxing that path is a large pool of money.
If you design policy to tax actual wealth (which we already do via RE taxes on a more local level) the amount of money is a much, much larger pot, not to mention, a renewable source. Other policies like banning stock buybacks, taxes on stock market transactions, higher taxes on "passive" income, rolling back certain deductions for taking out debt, removing tax haven loopholes, etc, removes incentive to engage in unproductive economic activity, raise alot more money and will do far more to level the wealth disparity than the strawman that is just the income tax.
If you want toactuallysolve wealth inequality, you need to remove the influence of the rich and corps from wielding the power of the gov't to protect their profits and positions in society, not dissolve the government entirely, that's cutting off your nose to spite your face. Again, the profit incentive is the not a panacea to all societal ails, which is why you don't see any anarchocapitalist "areas" today (they wouldn't be considered nations, there's no state) - same as you don't see pure communist countries, because the extremes don't work at this stage of human development.
If you design policy to tax actual wealth (which we already do via RE taxes on a more local level) the amount of money is a much, much larger pot, not to mention, a renewable source. Other policies like banning stock buybacks, taxes on stock market transactions, higher taxes on "passive" income, rolling back certain deductions for taking out debt, removing tax haven loopholes, etc, removes incentive to engage in unproductive economic activity, raise alot more money and will do far more to level the wealth disparity than the strawman that is just the income tax.
If you want toactuallysolve wealth inequality, you need to remove the influence of the rich and corps from wielding the power of the gov't to protect their profits and positions in society, not dissolve the government entirely, that's cutting off your nose to spite your face. Again, the profit incentive is the not a panacea to all societal ails, which is why you don't see any anarchocapitalist "areas" today (they wouldn't be considered nations, there's no state) - same as you don't see pure communist countries, because the extremes don't work at this stage of human development.
If you don't like the filthy rich, then get rid of everything that creates them; publicly traded companies, unions, regulations... that would make you a moderate. What makes you far left, is that you are for the hierarchy that puts politics first. Capitalism is when the individual is put first, it makes them priority over the public sector and the government. The public sector is collectivist, and the government is totalitarianism.
You still don't get it though. You are even farther left than the collectivists.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
09-05-2023, 12:20 PM
-
#270
Originally Posted By Kraken⏩
We get it, you are a far left statist. But do you get that yet?
If you don't like the filthy rich, then get rid of everything that creates them; publicly traded companies, unions, regulations... that would make you a moderate. What makes you far left, is that you are for the hierarchy that puts politics first. Capitalism is when the individual is put first, it makes them priority over the public sector and the government. The public sector is collectivist, and the government is totalitarianism.
You still don't get it though. You are even farther left than the collectivists.
If you don't like the filthy rich, then get rid of everything that creates them; publicly traded companies, unions, regulations... that would make you a moderate. What makes you far left, is that you are for the hierarchy that puts politics first. Capitalism is when the individual is put first, it makes them priority over the public sector and the government. The public sector is collectivist, and the government is totalitarianism.
You still don't get it though. You are even farther left than the collectivists.
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-
- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts