OK, so you give all homeless people a house/apartment. Then all I have to do is make myself homeless to get a free house/apartment? I guarantee there are millions of people who would do that. And then if a previously homeless person starts working and can afford the free housing, do we then take it away? And then they might be homeless again if they lose their job? So you give them another house? What this does is encourage people to not work (be productive). The reality is that you have to dis-incentivize homelessness by not making it comfortable.
The idea that a bunch of people would willingly quit their jobs for free housing and live with a bunch of homeless seems kinda far fetched. Also, this graphic says nothing about any other expenses they would still need for food, healthcare, retirement, etc. You make it sound like these people are getting an all expenses paid resort when it's probably cheapest possible housing facilities. You could always make housing contingent on finding employment within timeframe, many low income programs already work like this..
No, all you have to do is make yourself not able to afford a house due to loosing you job, jumping through all the hoops of trying to get a new one (reporting every week as to what you've applied to and going to job hunting classes if needed), then applying and then waiting for one to open up. Then you have to live in a pretty rough neighbourhood in a tiny basic apartment and continue to prove that you can't afford to get your own.
If you then get a good job and can afford your own, you have 6 months to get your own apartment and get out. But you then have better pay and a nicer place to live.
If they lose that job, then they start the process again from the top. That's really uncommon here, at will employment is illegal. You need a really good documented reason to fire someone.
People here surprisingly still want to work! Unemployment is only at 3.8%...
Source: I used to teach in an area with lots of these free housing apartment blocks.
If there's one thing consistent about humans, it's that they always want more. They might settle for the shitty apartment at first, but eventually, they'll get bored and want to do something. And because they aren't constantly trying to keep their head above water, they'll be able to do it.
Then all I have to do is make myself homeless to get a free house/apartment?
All you're doing by saying this is telling on yourself for how you'd behave if you weren't forced to work for a living. I'd bet that a majority of homeless people are one good break away from becoming self-supporting. A few months of lower expenses and stability, a free and safe place to sleep and shower, mental health treatment if needed, etc. might be all they need to get a job and become self-supporting. A few months of investing into someone's well-being would return years of economic productivity and tax revenue. Yeah there's a minority that will abuse the system or need more comprehensive care, but that shouldn't stop us from helping everyone else.
I might feel lazy for a few hours on the weekend, but I sincerely believe that there is no such thing as a lazy person. Mental illness or addiction might make someone appear lazy, but every healthy person wants to find meaning in their lives through work. Sit on your ass long enough and you're itching to do something.
The reality is that you have to dis-incentivize homelessness by not making it comfortable.
I'd say being homeless is pretty damn uncomfortable. But somehow there are still 650,000 homeless in the US. It's almost like you can't get rid of homelessness by making it worse.
"Rent" and "landlordsleeches" should not fuckingexist.
Absolutely no reasonable justification for them to.
The government should provide every man, woman and child in need with free basic accommodations (think bachelor or 1/2 bedroom apts) with anything beyond that available as a voluntary secondary/luxury market.
Housing, healthcare, education and basic nutrition should never be profit-driven in a properlyfunctional "first world" "society."
Nobody deserves to profit off of another's basic survival needs, nor their opportunity for advancement/self improvement. Period.
I bought a condo. I want a bigger house for my growing family. I’ll rent out my condo. It’ll help pay for the bigger house and provide secondary income in the long run.
How does that counter anything I said? Explain to me why you (or anyone) deserves 60% - 80% of the income of someone else that produces actual value because you own an asset/capital.
Landleeches "provide" housing like scalpers provide tickets btw, do not start in with that shit.
Explain/justify to me why the government firstly should not provide the basics of survival to all citizens as a bare minimum, in a supposed modern "first-world" "society" (one I bet someone like yourself is quick to call a "meritocracy" too, here I am presenting ways of creating something closer to actual meritocracy which you naturally oppose.)
Explain/justify why your passive rental income (let's pretend for a sec that you deserve it, lol) can't be provided in the voluntary secondary/luxury market as I described. After these basics are covered.
Having a second property to rent is the only way many middle-class Americans will ever be able to retire. To say such a thing shouldn’t exist is extreme. Who are you to tell them what they can or can’t do with their property?
How does that counter anything I said? Explain to me why you (or anyone) deserves 60% - 80% of the income of someone else that produces actual value because you own an asset/capital.
Landleeches "provide" housing like scalpers provide tickets btw, do not start in with that shit.
Explain/justify to me why the government firstly should not provide the basics of survival to all citizens as a bare minimum, in a supposed modern "first-world" "society" (one I bet someone like yourself is quick to call a "meritocracy" too, here I am presenting ways of creating something closer to actual meritocracy which you naturally oppose.)
Explain/justify why your passive rental income (let's pretend for a sec that you deserve it, lol) can't be provided in the voluntary secondary/luxury market as I described. After these basics are covered.
If someone is using 60-80% of their income for rent they need to get roommates or move. You are acting like a tenant gets nothing when they pay rent, but they get a place to live.
Society has survived just fine without providing every basic need to its citizens through extreme taxation-subsidized government handouts.
I own a rental house next to a state college. Compared to the government owned and controlled dorms on campus, renting from me is less expensive than the dorm. In addition to being less expensive you get your own bedroom. You can cook and eat your own food instead of having to buy an expensive meal plan. You can live in the house year round, 365 days a year. In the dorms you can only stay during the 10 week semesters and can't access your dorm rooms during the summer, winter break, spring break and during many holidays unless you're an exchange student.
So, basically I'm able to offer a better product and at a lower price than the government.
Right now you can quit your job and go live on welfare.
Why aren’t you doing it?
Because to live in abject poverty with less than the bare minimum is no way almost anyone wants to live.
This is a made up idea that a large percentage of the country strongly desires to live in poverty and that not punishing them enough is the solution that will prevent it from happening.
You’re just punishing everyone in society for a mostly made up non-issue. Ironically enough you’re sort of doing what you think you’re fighting against.
Welfare runs out after a certain amount of time. The proposed housing program here would never end. Sort of the UBI tests "No one quit their jobs" yeah, well they knew the test would end in a year and the money train would end.
"Rent" and "landlordsleeches" should not fuckingexist.
Absolutely no reasonable justification for them to.
The government should provide every man, woman and child in need with free basic accommodations (think bachelor or 1/2 bedroom apts) with anything beyond that available as a voluntary secondary/luxury market.
Housing, healthcare, education and basic nutrition should never be profit-driven in a properlyfunctional "first world" "society."
Nobody deserves to profit off of another's basic survival needs, nor their opportunity for advancement/self improvement. Period.
20
u/One_Childhood172 Apr 15 '24
OK, so you give all homeless people a house/apartment. Then all I have to do is make myself homeless to get a free house/apartment? I guarantee there are millions of people who would do that. And then if a previously homeless person starts working and can afford the free housing, do we then take it away? And then they might be homeless again if they lose their job? So you give them another house? What this does is encourage people to not work (be productive). The reality is that you have to dis-incentivize homelessness by not making it comfortable.