Remix.run Logo
▲ johnsmith1840 6 hours ago

More taxes should solve that.

Read somewhere that SF spends roughly 50k$-80k$ per homeless person per year.

Taxing more doesn't solve a massively inefficient system at it's core. Just like US education, we spend more than any country on earth, why is it still bad?

Answering that question with a "if only we had more money" is a really poor argument. The CA tax fundamentals are bad, pooring more cash onto the fire will not fix that.

▲omgwtfbyobbq 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sure. A lot of that money doesn't even make it to intended recipients because of corporate welfare and inefficiencies in government.

https://youtu.be/YKAD7l1a9hc

In addition, there should probably be changes to laws/regulations to address companies that exploit the poorest.

https://youtu.be/U9Rls-_7LdQ

And, many people who are poor have persistent mental/physical disabilities, so part of that spending is because many of these people have it the hardest.

With that said, we could likely fix all of these things and significantly unequal wealth distribution would still result in a lot of poverty.

▲peab 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think it's hitting 96k per homeless person a year now. But yes, it's the tax system's fault.

▲johnsmith1840 5 hours ago | parent [-]

96k$?! Those are rookie numbers. I propose a mclaren for every homeless person. We will weath tax all stocks in the fortune 500 to pay for it, crash the stocks and solve inequality.

▲edoceo 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If money isn't solving the problem, you're just not using enough.

▲jdm2212 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You can't solve a shortage with demand subsidies. You need to expand supply. SF has too little housing relative to its population, and has perennially tried throwing money at the nonprofit industrial complex which has (obviously) perennially failed to solve the problem because it doesn't generate new housing units, it just bids up and reshuffles the existing ones (and steals a lot of money in the process).

▲edoceo 5 hours ago | parent [-]

OK, use money to expand supply. Using more money can make more supply.

▲johnsmith1840 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Technically, cratering every fortune 500 does solve inequality so at it's purest their argument is right.

I think it's more socialist/communist motivation to seize production I don't think they care about the rich as much as control.