I like how the argument is "we've been historically shitty to so many people for so long that we don't have the capacity to help new people." But they won't help those homeless or those vets or anybody really; they'll just use them as a prop and an excuse.
do you know what would happen if a single rich person at her level was to give away all of her money and all of her income to the homeless? each would get around 130 bucks at the start and pennies every month and that's assuming a few things
1. she's giving her cash to ONLY California homeless
2. that she as around an 1/8 of her accumulated net worth in monetary assets
Maybe I'm a bit out of the loop but I don't get how that's relevant? The way to help isn't to just give away everything you have at once but by paying your taxes which, y'know, many ultra rich celebrities dodge.
the taxes go to setting up anti-homeless spikes in windbreaks and making the country LOOK like it doesnt have a homeless problem rather than actually doing anything to fix it
they are awful and also expensive, the cost for making them and installing them and the labor and the cost of running the equipment all cuts into funds collected from taxes. They are worse than a waste of money and they tend to be one of the first choices big cities go with for homeless problems. Looking like the problem is solved is the same as ahving the problem solve for city leaders in a lot of cases
@vitklim Wow, you can regurgitate an edgy quote, that deserves a round of applause. /s
As funkmasterrex said, taxing the rich isn't communism, not even close.
Then how about you explain how you would pull that off, huh? You jack up the taxes on the rich, they move to wherever they won't have to pay as much. Straight up raising taxes doesn't work in the modern world. And yes, there are alternatives, but I don't see any of you talking about solutions, only showing resentment towards rich people in general. Plus, my response was to this guest in particular, who is presenting the issue as an antagonisation between people based on class. Just like fucking communists do.
So to be clear. Yes, it's not either/or and the rich should pay their share. But the guest in question didn't pose his statement in a reasonable way, hence my response.
This must have slipped past me... I know I would have responded. Anyway, they want to put their money overseas? Fine, you're right, that can't be stopped. You can tax them further if they try to bring it back into the US. If they want to go be a millionaire in Guatemala, let them; let them see how much merchandise they can unload. There's a reason why every company wants to sell in the US: consumers with a fuck-ton (comparatively) of disposable income.
Some might not pay income taxes (fault of the government), but what about sales taxes, excise taxes, and other fees? Do you really think that immigrants don't purchase food and gasoline, or pay for electricity, water, tolls, and cellphone bills?
or use the emergency room for literally everything hospital related? or drive around with no license? or steal wages/taxes from america and send them to other countries? or lower everyone's wages by flooding the market with illegally-cheap labor? or overpopulate schools with their kids who don't speak english? or have too many people in a residence and overload the sewage capacities? or walk around unvaccinated? or commit far more crime than their numbers would indicate (aside from being here in the first place and all that)?
No, you wanted them here, YOU deal with them.
@harperfan7 You might want to look up Operation Wetback... and then before that our immigration stance concerning Mexico during WW2, then before that the Mexican-American War.
You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
I probably fall into the same category anyway, but I'm curious on which side you're speaking from.
1. she's giving her cash to ONLY California homeless
2. that she as around an 1/8 of her accumulated net worth in monetary assets
As funkmasterrex said, taxing the rich isn't communism, not even close.
So to be clear. Yes, it's not either/or and the rich should pay their share. But the guest in question didn't pose his statement in a reasonable way, hence my response.
No, you wanted them here, YOU deal with them.
You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.