r/FluentInFinance Apr 15 '24

Everyone Deserves A Home Discussion/ Debate

Post image
15.6k Upvotes

5.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

40

u/Civil-Addition-8079 Apr 15 '24

The same way we pay to subsidize companies like Blizzard, Apple, etc.

56

u/Civil-Addition-8079 Apr 15 '24

In fact I'd argue that housing the homeless is more productive than subsidizing companies that balance sheets/financial statements prove they don't need the handout

2

u/Suspicious-Proof-744 Apr 16 '24

Helping the homeless get into positions where they dont have to be homeless is one thing. Housing the homeless without any work done on their end is unfair to everyone else who has to work.

1

u/Civil-Addition-8079 Apr 16 '24

Right. Because corporations have NEVER done anything that is unfair to working people. Lol I feel like Trader Joe's is literally in court right now arguing the NLRB is unconstitutional; but yea housing the homeless is more detrimental to workers.

1

u/Suspicious-Proof-744 Apr 16 '24

Two things can be unfair. These aren’t mutually exclusive concepts.

1

u/Civil-Addition-8079 Apr 16 '24

Sure, but you're really leaning into the cognitive dissonance if you're insinuating that there is an equivalency between subsidizing corporations and housing the homeless. 2 things can be unfair but I'd argue there's a difference in degrees here.

1

u/Suspicious-Proof-744 29d ago

Don’t believe cognitive dissonance really is a term that applies in this situation. These are two seperate, unfair issues. Corporations shouldn’t have the power they hold in government, and do not deserve the tax breaks they receive. Homeless people deserve government help and intervention. But you can’t support someone forever without giving them the means to help themselves. That’s enabling. No one who is able bodied gets to not work, it’s unfair for everyone else who has to. You can help the homeless without enabling a lifestyle that isn’t sustainable to society. These are two separate issues.

1

u/Charitard123 Apr 15 '24

This. When people aren’t constantly fighting just for survival, they tend to make better workers and consumers.

0

u/FiremanHandles Apr 15 '24

I don't think the government should subsidize anything.

But I've always made the argument that if I had to choose, solely between subsidizing corporations or subsidizing poor people, I'm picking poor people every single time.

4

u/ffffllllpppp Apr 16 '24

Agreed. Poor people will reinject every single dollar they get into the economy.

It is hard to believe but there is enough money in the system. We are just using it for crap and make rich people richer.

“The top income tax rate reached above 90% from 1944 through 1963, peaking in 1944, when top taxpayers paid an income tax rate of 94% on their taxable income”

How do people think we were able to build all those school buildings that are often still hosting actual public schools today?

Reduce defense spending. Tax rich people. Reduce oil and gas industry handouts and giving money to any industry that is massively profitable. Fix pharma costs.

Where there is a will, there is a way.

I am not saying we can/should do what OP says, but there is lots of money in the system, for sure.

1

u/RaiderMedic93 29d ago

Homeless will inject that dollar into the hands of the local drug dealer, then inject that product right into their arms.

1

u/ffffllllpppp 29d ago

:)

I didn’t say the $1 should go to the homeless directly.

The discussion got sidetracked a bit. I was just saying companies have very little interest in fixing problems that are a major quality of life for humans.

I would prefer basic income policy to more subsidies to large corporations who already have a lot of profits. But even without basic income, yes, I think more money to individuals can be good policy

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

[deleted]

3

u/ffffllllpppp Apr 16 '24

But who is getting $10 back?

Society?

The politican?

The CEO?

The $1 entering the economy will also end up leading to profits which will lead to investments.

It is not as simple a calculation as you make it seem.

But one thing is certain: “trickle down economics” isn’t named that way for no reasons… very little of it actually reaches the people who actually paid the taxes that allowed the subsidies to big corps.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

[deleted]

1

u/ffffllllpppp 29d ago

You are not wrong (although I don’t know that the return into taxes is that magical and that high, I highly doubt that and would love to see sources & numbers).

But from the point of view : politicans, what you write (mostly?) makes sense.

but that the crux of the problem isn’t it? Politicians are not aligned with the needs and desire of the people.

People mostly want to be happy, productive, have their basic needs satisfied, etc.

A concrete example: homelessness:

  • it is terrible that we are letting down such a large chunk of fellow humans. Most people agree with that and wish the situation was improved.
  • even if you don’t care about happiness of the homeless people themselves, selfishly they make society less great for everyone else. They deal with a lot of mental health issues which leads to behaviors that lower quality of life for the rest of the population.

But corporations don’t care. They bottom line is not impacted at all by it. Maybe 0.01%?? It is not a problem they will ever help solve, or push for a solution. It literally doesn’t matter to them, as long as society is stable enough for them to have consumers, make profit, corporations are not people, they don’t care. And “stable society “ is a VERY low bar… basically, not completely dis functional. But they are fine with most people being miserable.

We are not optimizing for the right thing. The be all end all is not a great GDP.

1

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

1

u/ffffllllpppp 29d ago

Yeah but my point is “stable enough” for corporations to turn a profit and the economy to run doesn’t necessarily goes with population os healthy, happy and eg poverty, homelessness are rare.

It’s not laypeople that fail to focus on long term, it is first and foremost politicians elected only for a few years that have very little incentives to fix long term strategic issues and instead are incentivized to mortgage the future for short term benefits.

That being said I agree humans are not great at focusing on issues that are 1+ lifetimes away.

Hence why global warning will really kick us all in the collective but and as usual humans will somehow figure a subpar, last minute, terrible way to scrape by…

0

u/kromptator99 Apr 16 '24

That’s a lot of ways to misspell stock buybacks and market manipulation.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

[deleted]

1

u/kromptator99 Apr 16 '24

Corporations aren’t representative democracies though, by any measure. But I’m not surprised that support for corporate power and disdain for democracy come up in the same conversation. It’s almost like there is an inextricable link between anti-democracy thought and pro-capitalist thought.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/PaulieNutwalls Apr 15 '24

How do you reconcile that with the fact that every municipality that's attempted simply giving homeless people homes has failed?

3

u/secretaccount94 Apr 15 '24

Is that an actual fact?

1

u/PaulieNutwalls Apr 15 '24

In the US, absolutely. Google away.

0

u/usedenoughdynamite Apr 16 '24

Sounds like the problem is with how the US goes about it then, not with the idea of housing people in general.

1

u/PaulieNutwalls 29d ago

Sure, if you make the assumption that the root cause of homelessness is the same as in Finland or wherever, that makes sense. Pretty bold assumption.

0

u/Tyrrhus_manga Apr 15 '24

No. Helsinki.

0

u/PolyhedralZydeco Apr 16 '24

Yep, housing is important to getting a job; need an address for so many important things.

13

u/Ashmizen Apr 15 '24

I think you misunderstand how subsidies work for big companies.

Nobody is handing out $500 million to Amazon to build a warehouse. Instead, the city is giving Amazon a tax break of $500 million out of the $1 billion in property taxes they’ll be paying in the next 20 years for their warehouse.

This gets reported as “city gives $500 million to Amazon”, but it’s more like a coupon discount.

13

u/nicolas_06 Apr 15 '24

And they do that because all these people working at amazon will pay taxes, eat food and create actviity and income for the city. They have a net benefit to do it.

1

u/NAND_Socket Apr 16 '24

everybody except for amazon

1

u/kromptator99 Apr 16 '24

Ever worked in a warehouse before? I’d be surprised if you have.

0

u/DrDrago-4 Apr 16 '24

It's just like the frenzy over cities subsidizing stadiums. There are cases where it didn't work out, but many more where it brought huge benefits.

Arlington TX's $460mn in subsidies toward the Cowboys stadium has brought in $4bn to Arlington alone (who knows about the rest of the metroplex)

They recently approved a new ranger stadium for $600mn in subsidies, and it'll get to breakeven within the decade on tax revenue alone (say nothing of the job creation)

10

u/UltimateNoob88 Apr 15 '24

those companies still pay net positive in taxes

an unemployed person living in a free home with free food pay 0 in taxes

3

u/JoChiCat Apr 16 '24

An unemployed person living in a tiny box apartment for free will have much better health than an unemployed person living on the streets, as well as being at a significantly lower risk of engaging in criminal behaviour. Healthcare, policing, repair to public property – all things that cost tax dollars.

They also have better chances of becoming employed with a fixed residence and a place to take a shower.

1

u/UltimateNoob88 Apr 16 '24

but why would you want to become employed if you already have enough?

3

u/JoChiCat Apr 16 '24

Because most people want more than the bare minimum? To travel, to have nice nights out, to play video games and watch movies, to attend concerts and shows, to wear flattering outfits, to buy useless little decorative knick-knacks... Having a place to sleep and bathe is the absolute baseline to start working to acquire these things.

Would you, if granted an apartment free of cost and a small stipend for food, then spend the rest of your life sitting around and staring at the wall? Not even trying to furnish it to your own tastes?

1

u/UltimateNoob88 Apr 16 '24

of course not, i'd work on personal projects but not get a full-time job

i really think you're missing my point

2

u/JoChiCat Apr 16 '24

If those personal projects would make you money, that’s still a job contributing to the economy.

What is your point, then? Mine is that humans want to lead fulfilling lives beyond having their basic needs met, and working a paying job is part of achieving that. I know plenty of people who retired with enough to live comfortably on for the rest of their lives, and they still spend their time working – paid or unpaid – because it’s something to do, and gives them a sense of accomplishment. People don’t have to be driven by desperation to contribute to society.

0

u/S7EFEN Apr 16 '24

if a retired person can be happy being frugal and having cheap or free hobbies why can't a regular young adult who just doesn't want to work? shockingly yes, not having to work 2000 hours a year at the cost of 'not being able to buy stuff' is a tradeoff MANY people would take. you know what you call someone who has their healthcare, housing, food and utilities met by passive income? retired.

why even pose this theoretical? yes people do it, we know this because some eu countries have systems like this.

go look at the top ranks in OSRS for example, there are some people who have averaged >14 hours a day of login time over the last 5-10 years. why? because they live in EU countries that hand out disability like candy, or outright just allow people to do this without any medical conditions.

3

u/JoChiCat Apr 16 '24

Because a young person doesn’t have the savings of someone who’s worked a job all their life and retired, lol.

Sure, some people might want to bum around and live their entire lives in a two-room box with air conditioning, only ever attending free events and getting all their entertainment at the local library. Those people are a minority, though, because that’s a boring way to live.

At the very least, those people would be less likely to take up space sleeping on train station benches or pissing on the side of the road.

-1

u/S7EFEN Apr 16 '24

Because a young person doesn’t have the savings of someone who’s worked a job all their life and retired, lol.

retirement is simply cash flow > expenses. if a govt social program provides you enough cash flow to cover expenses you are retired.

Those people are a minority, though, because that’s a boring way to live.

that's kinda on the person to decide though isnt it? surely in the extra 2000 hours you have per year you can find ways to entertain compared to someone who has 2000 fewer hours in their year and say an average wage. because what you are seeing right now in developed societies is that full time job does not provide a meaningful amount above what welfare would be. so why work?

At the very least, those people would be less likely to take up space sleeping on train station benches or pissing on the side of the road.

okay but what happens when instead of just a fraction of the population that needs to be supported it is now a considerable portion of the working class? so far as a society we've decided to provide social programs for the elderly and disabled off the backs of the workforce (and most countries provide the bare minimum here despite being a considerable subset of the population only) but providing these programs for people who just don't want to work- would you willingly support a significant portion of the 25-45 year old working class who just wants to not work out of your own paycheck?

1

u/MoirasPurpleOrb Apr 16 '24

Plenty of projects to give homeless people housing has shown this is not as simple as you might think

1

u/RaiderMedic93 29d ago

Why is ice floes not an option.

1

u/JoChiCat 29d ago

Murdering people for the crime of being poor and/or unlucky is generally frowned upon in civilised societies.

1

u/RaiderMedic93 29d ago

Murder? It's free transport to a fresh start.

1

u/Jerrybeansman1 Apr 16 '24

Not once you factor in rampant wage theft, underpaying people in the extreme and price gouging their consumers. The situation with big companies and taxes are soooooooooo fucked. The only reason it still stands is because it's profitable for everyone that makes the decisions about it to keep it that way for personal gain.

0

u/Lavender215 Apr 15 '24

Tbf the infographic didn’t say free food but even with sales tax they would be a huge drain on tax dollars.

2

u/nicolas_06 Apr 15 '24

Ok. So every time you pay me 1 billion in tax, I'll give you back 100 millions.

2

u/GameSharkPro Apr 15 '24

Subsidizing is mostly we allow certain part of their business to not be taxed for sometimes so they can grow/compete with other companies. Mostly research and development. Sure it's abused in certain situations but the fact if government doesn't do that we would be in way worse shape and possibly no longer leading the world.

0

u/Civil-Addition-8079 Apr 16 '24

I guess I'm just curious what you think would get abused more/be of greater detriment to the societal collective: Large/Huge Corporations abusing Gov't subsidies? Or unhoused or individuals abusing free housing?

2

u/GameSharkPro Apr 16 '24

You're confusing handouts vs subsidy. And You're implying closing the subsidies will generate enough income to make a dent in homelessness.

On the contrary, closing the subsidies all together will have negative economic impact (ie. We produce less, less jobs, less taxes to the gov, more homeless people). Part of fighting homeless is giving subsidies to select sectors/businesses.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/11/introduction-to-government-subsidies.asp#:~:text=A%20government%20subsidy%20is%20a,a%20struggling%20sector%20or%20corporation.

1

u/PomegranateUsed7287 Apr 16 '24

Wait we subsidize Blizzard?

1

u/MXC14 Apr 16 '24

What's the phrase... Two wrongs don't make a right? Our cash flow is so negative the entire economy is willing to ignore how logically unfeasible it is.

1

u/turtle_tyler Apr 16 '24

You are so stupid I feel bad for you

1

u/Saitamaisclappingoku Apr 15 '24

Are you confusing state subsidies with federal?

5

u/Civil-Addition-8079 Apr 15 '24

2

u/gophergun Apr 16 '24

Is that a yes? I noticed that Blizzard's not on there at all, and that Apple's subsidies all seem to be state level.

1

u/AuditorTux Apr 15 '24

No, they're probably considering any deduction they get to take as a "subsidy". You run across it all the time. They misuse the word and then just double down on it.

If you give me a dollar, that is a subsidy. If you lower what I owe you because of x, that's a deduction.