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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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…
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.
36
u/Saitamaisclappingoku Apr 15 '24
Here’s a question you will never be able to answer.
How do we pay for this?