Warming center denied by folks in Kaysville Utah

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Could you name some that you think the Church should fund?

Could I? Yes.  will I? No.  I don't believe in telling others what they should do with their money.  I also lack the knowledge, as pretty much everyone does, of just what is happening with the money the church has.   

-----------

Here is a run down of some of what led to my comments:

Mfbnew gave some of the concerns with helping the homeless with our churches.

I replied asking why this is not a problem in other churches.

Calm talked about saving money, self insurance and how the money saved could be used to help in other ways.

I stated "I have loved knowing when the church donates to the efforts of these other churches.  I also think that it is wise for the church to support efforts that are already on the ground when it's available."

ZealouslyStriving - thought some may be middle management in the church and suggested a partnership with Catholic charities would be good and I agreed about the partnership.

You mentioned other concerns about having the homeless at church.

There was a discussion on cooking rules at the church.

Mfbnew then suggested that the problem may be that the church doesn't have a professional leadership. He asked if people would like it if tithing money went to things like security. I said that if it were going to things that would make helping the homeless possible then yes I would agree to my tithing money going there.

Zealously - agreed that paid positions did make it easier to do the things discussed in the thread and that's why the church should partner with Catholic Charities.

I brought up an example of the church funding the salary of someone from another church doing the work and suggested that if it can pay this other church and partner with the Catholic church then it really isn't that different than paying for it's own employees to do the work and Zealously thought that was a fair point.

Calm said we shouldn't duplicate services and I agreed and gave an example of where the money could be used without duplication.

Then you asked, "Why duplicate services when it is more efficient to support those that already exist? Is it better to support successful local efforts or to create another one?"

---------

In a nutshell, I love a lot of what the church is doing. I just don't see why it can't do some of the same things other churches are doing when there is a need that they can't handle or don't have covered. Again, I am not saying it should do these things.  I am saying I don't understand why it is not doing them and that I would love it if they did use the tithing money I pay to do them.   

I feel like you have missed 3/4 of the thread and then are going after me to pin me down on things I am not saying or agree with because you have missed those things.    

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2024 by Rain

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

In a nutshell, I love a lot of what the church is doing. I just don't see why it can't do some of the same things other churches are doing when there is a need that they can't handle or don't have covered. Again, I am not saying it should do these things.  I am saying I don't understand why it is not doing them and that I would love it if they did use the tithing money I pay to do them.   

I know my point of view has always been if the Church cannot  help others who are filling a need that exists because there are no others for that specific issue, then it would be a good thing if it could take the initiative and lead in filling that niche need….and definitely do not expand to cover what others cover.  Whether it does that through funding and supplying staff for the expansion of an already functioning charity or starting from scratch would depend on the quality and adaptability of possible charities, the immediacy and length of needed service.

For smaller projects, it looks like Just Serve might handle that.

As an FYI….If you are ever wondering what to do together with a ministering sister, have them choose a project off of Just Serve and volunteer together.

https://www.justserve.org/projects?displayView=list&volunteering=locally&radius=25&location=84081

Edited December 29, 2024 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

Could I? Yes.  will I? No.  I don't believe in telling others what they should do with their money.  I also lack the knowledge, as pretty much everyone does, of just what is happening with the money the church has.   

-----------

Here is a run down of some of what led to my comments:

Mfbnew gave some of the concerns with helping the homeless with our churches.

I replied asking why this is not a problem in other churches.

Calm talked about saving money, self insurance and how the money saved could be used to help in other ways.

I stated "I have loved knowing when the church donates to the efforts of these other churches.  I also think that it is wise for the church to support efforts that are already on the ground when it's available."

ZealouslyStriving - thought some may be middle management in the church and suggested a partnership with Catholic charities would be good and I agreed about the partnership.

You mentioned other concerns about having the homeless at church.

There was a discussion on cooking rules at the church.

Mfbnew then suggested that the problem may be that the church doesn't have a professional leadership. He asked if people would like it if tithing money went to things like security. I said that if it were going to things that would make helping the homeless possible then yes I would agree to my tithing money going there.

Zealously - agreed that paid positions did make it easier to do the things discussed in the thread and that's why the church should partner with Catholic Charities.

I brought up an example of the church funding the salary of someone from another church doing the work and suggested that if it can pay this other church and partner with the Catholic church then it really isn't that different than paying for it's own employees to do the work and Zealously thought that was a fair point.

Calm said we shouldn't duplicate services and I agreed and gave an example of where the money could be used without duplication.

Then you asked, "Why duplicate services when it is more efficient to support those that already exist? Is it better to support successful local efforts or to create another one?"

---------

In a nutshell, I love a lot of what the church is doing. I just don't see why it can't do some of the same things other churches are doing when there is a need that they can't handle or don't have covered. Again, I am not saying it should do these things.  I am saying I don't understand why it is not doing them and that I would love it if they did use the tithing money I pay to do them.   

I feel like you have missed 3/4 of the thread and then are going after me to pin me down on things I am not saying or agree with because you have missed those things.    

 

 

 

 

 

I’ve read the thread three times. Just trying to understand everyone. 

[JAHS]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I just wonder if God is that pleased sometimes with the wealth being the way it is.

Pres Nelson said:

“We're witnesses to a process of restoration. If you think the Church has been fully restored, you're just seeing the beginning. There is much more to come. … Wait till next year. And then the next year. Eat your vitamin pills. Get your rest. It's going to be exciting.” 
(Latter-day Saint Prophet, Wife and Apostle Share Insights of Global Ministry, News release, 30 Oct 2018)

Whatever he is talking about it is going to no doubt take a lot of money to accomplish it. So I think God is pleased about that.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’ve read the thread three times. Just trying to understand everyone. 

If that's true then why after I said it's good to not duplicate did you ask me "why duplicate"? When I said it is good to support local charities did you really want to know if it's better to support local charities or was that a rhetorical question? 

Lots of people were talking about how maybe the reason the church doesn't do what other churches were doing was because it doesn't pay people.  Why didn't you ask them what positions would need to be created? They are the ones that were saying that would require someone to be hired.

Edited December 30, 2024 by Rain

[Bernard Gui]

40 minutes ago, Rain said:

If that's true then why after I said it's good to not duplicate did you ask me "why duplicate"? When I said it is good to support local charities did you really want to know if it's better to support local charities or was that a rhetorical question? 

Lots of people were talking about how maybe the reason the church doesn't do what other churches were doing was because it doesn't pay people.  Why didn't you ask them what positions would need to be created? They are the ones that were saying that would require someone to be hired.

Rhetorical. General question. Sorry for the confusion.

I’m glad we agree that it is better at this point to support existing programs than to create our own, especially now that we are in a position to give very substantial assistance. It’s been a long time coming, and I am so very glad that the Church can do this. It’s a powerful testimony of the blessings of the law of tithing. 

Edited December 30, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[Rain]

30 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Rhetorical. General question. Sorry for the confusion.

I’m glad we agree that it is better at this point to support existing programs than to create our own, especially now that we are in a position to give very substantial assistance. It’s been a long time coming, and I am so very glad that the Church can do this. It’s a powerful testimony of the blessings of the law of tithing. 

Just to be clear I don't necessarily think it's better to support existing agencies than for the church to create its own. I think it's better for the church to support existing agencies when they are there and need the help and create its own support when it is not.  Obviously, the church can't do everything, but I think there may be some spaces where it would be good and may be more important for the church to create something than to support an existing agency. 

For example if a charity in Village A has taken care of all of the needs of water then it may be better for the church to help Village B with water or Village A with food than help Village A with water, but I do think it would be far better to support the charity with water if it needs the support than create a competing water charity in Village A.

Edited December 30, 2024 by Rain

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

A couple of things.  You might want to read this article to understand what is going on.  

When you can afford to pay the very best tax lawyers, and accountants that can shift your money around to prevent you from paying taxes, then you understand that it is not a level playing field.  There are a huge number of special tax benefits that really only favor the rich.  

Also, how much money wealthy people make is not at all the same as the regular working stiff.  

I remember having lunch with a very wealthy client that I was doing some marketing for at a restaurant that was part of a very upscale shopping center he owned.  He looked out the window at a vacant hillside across the street from where we were having lunch.  He tells me he bought that property earlier in the month for 8 million dollars and last week sold it for 11 million dollars.  He made 3 million dollars from literally paper transactions.  Yes he was very smart and maybe a little lucky.  But. think about how much blood, sweat and tears it would take an average worker to make that kind of money.  Should one man be taxed often at a much cheaper rate because of loopholes and exploring the tax system than the guy that shows up every day to work even when he is sick in order to feed his family?  Should the working stiff pay a higher percentage of his income because he can't afford a high priced tax attorney just because the ones with the gold make the rules?  

I also want to add this.  The guy didn't add any value to the property to sell it for 3 million more than he bought it for less than a month ago.  He only added value to his bank account.  In doing so, the developer that bought the property has to add 3 million dollars as an added expense when he finally developes the land, which means higher cost in housing.  Ultimately that filters down to the very subject of this thread.  How to deal with the homeless.  

 

I understand exactly what is going on. “You can buy anything in this world with money.”

I might think it’s absurd to be paid millions of dollars to play with a little round of oval ball or to sing a song on a stage or beat up someone in an arena or be a social media personality;  however, the question remains, how can one justify confiscating another person’s property or money? In the end, no matter how much money one has someone else is going to get it. 

Homelessness in the USA could be resolved rather quickly. We have the means but not the will to do it. I don’t believe taking money away from rich people is part of the solution. So if by pretty much comes down to the local folks to have to deal with it, hence the understandable and predictable reaction of some of the folks in Kayesville, and of course, any place where there is going to be a negative impact on neighborhoods and schools, and the opacity of government officials when finding  finding locations for such facilities.  

 

 

Edited December 30, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

22 minutes ago, Rain said:

Just to be clear I don't necessarily think it's better to support existing agencies than for the church to create its own. I think it's better for the church to support existing agencies when they are there and need the help and create its own support when it is not.  Obviously, the church can't do everything, but I think there may be some spaces where it would be good and may be more important for the church to create something than to support an existing agency. 

For example if a charity in Village A has taken care of all of the needs of water then it may be better for the church to help Village B with water or Village A with food than help Village A with water, but I do think it would be far better to support the charity with water if it needs the support than create a competing water charity in Village A.

I don’t understand your example. 

[Rain]

52 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don’t understand your example. 

Two scenarios.

ONE. Charity in Village A has got water covered. They don't need help. Village B has no help. The church can choose to 1. support the charity in Village A with water. 2. Create a charity to help Village A with food. 3. Create a charity to help Village B with water. 

I think it is more important for the church to do 2 or 3 than 1.

TWO. Charity in Village A helps with water. They need help. The church can 1. Support the charity. 2. Create a new charity that helps with water in Village A. 3. Create a new charity that helps with water in Village B or create a new charity that helps with food in Village A.

I think it is important for the church NOT to do 2. What is best may be 1 or 3 depending on the circumstances.

[california boy]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I understand exactly what is going on. “You can buy anything in this world with money.”

I might think it’s absurd to be paid millions of dollars to play with a little round of oval ball or to sing a song on a stage or beat up someone in an arena or be a social media personality;  however, the question remains, how can one justify confiscating another person’s property or money? In the end, no matter how much money one has someone else is going to get it. 

Homelessness in the USA could be resolved rather quickly. We have the means but not the will to do it. I don’t believe taking money away from rich people is part of the solution. So if by pretty much comes down to the local folks to have to deal with it, hence the understandable and predictable reaction of some of the folks in Kayesville, and of course, any place where there is going to be a negative impact on neighborhoods and schools, and the opacity of government officials when finding  finding locations for such facilities.  

 

 

You really don't see any difference between taxing the rich people and taxing the working class?  Given my example, you really think rich people should be able to higher the best tax lawyers and accountants to find all the loopholes in the tax laws, many of which they have gotten by donating millions of dollars to the right candidates, to protect their income from paying zero income tax as in the cases that I mentioned above, but the working class who can't afford to hide their income end up paying more?  You are ok with Jeff Bezos, who just spent a half of billion dollars on a yacht and paid zero in income tax should be able to not have any of his money taxed because that would be unfairly "confiscating" his money?

Can you tell us all how the homelessness in the USA could be resolved rather quickly if wet just had the will?

[Tacenda]

18 hours ago, Rain said:

Just to be clear I don't necessarily think it's better to support existing agencies than for the church to create its own. I think it's better for the church to support existing agencies when they are there and need the help and create its own support when it is not.  Obviously, the church can't do everything, but I think there may be some spaces where it would be good and may be more important for the church to create something than to support an existing agency. 

For example if a charity in Village A has taken care of all of the needs of water then it may be better for the church to help Village B with water or Village A with food than help Village A with water, but I do think it would be far better to support the charity with water if it needs the support than create a competing water charity in Village A.

I can't like this enough!

[Bernard Gui]

18 hours ago, california boy said:

You really don't see any difference between taxing the rich people and taxing the working class?  Given my example, you really think rich people should be able to higher the best tax lawyers and accountants to find all the loopholes in the tax laws, many of which they have gotten by donating millions of dollars to the right candidates, to protect their income from paying zero income tax as in the cases that I mentioned above, but the working class who can't afford to hide their income end up paying more?  You are ok with Jeff Bezos, who just spent a half of billion dollars on a yacht and paid zero in income tax should be able to not have any of his money taxed because that would be unfairly "confiscating" his money?

Can you tell us all how the homelessness in the USA could be resolved rather quickly if wet just had the will?

Please justify confiscating other peoples’ resources at the point of a gun. 

Yes. Using existing and newly constructed medical and housing facilities, all homeless people would be relocated to receive mandatory drug rehabilitation and health intervention. There are precedents such as the military, the penal system, wartime internments, and disaster relief programs. These would be legal and controlled but humane and safe supervised environments and would include self-sufficiency and skilled labor/education training, nutrition, mental health care, mentorship, family restoration, meaningful employment, and other things to help them regain their health and self-respect. Like the Perpetual Education Fund, as people are reestablished in society they contribute back to the program to help others.

We have the means to do this, but anticipating the reactions my thoughts are going to get, we do not have the will. Instead we will continue the current insanely inhumane system that allows them to continue in a life of misery and depredation, and cast about for stopgap warming and homeless centers that are but momentary respites from the chaos and sorrow but that make us fell better about ourselves. 

If you find this objectionable, I don’t care.  Sister Gui and I used half our retirement money to save a son from a slow, sure, and agonizing drug induced death by forcing him to undergo almost a year of rehab in a captive and protected environment. It was the hardest thing we have ever done, but somehow we mustered the will. There was nothing else we could do.  If you think we were harsh, cruel or wrong, so be it. He is healthy and alive today with a beautiful wife, two precious little boys and a daughter on the way, soon a college degree…..and bygones are bygones. We have Sunday dinner together every week. 

Edited December 31, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

homeless people would be relocated to receive mandatory drug rehabilitation and health intervention.

What about the third (iirc) that have neither substance abuse or significant mental/emotional health issues?

I would not have the least problem setting up very, very humane services and having the government and charities fund them and requiring relocation if a person demonstrated the inability to care for themselves or their surroundings in a safe way (that means keeping clean and warm and fed as infections, etc. can be dangerous).  We need much better mental health care in our country if we intend to do anything but turn such places into prisons though imo.  We will need better pay for social workers to attract more into the field, probably for nurses as well.

I think it was a tragedy the repeal of the Mental Health Systems Act was pushed by Reagan.  I wonder how many less problems we would be having if we had a robust national community mental health care system.  Even money wise, I think it was a penny wise, pound foolish move.  There are certain social programs that need to be a basic level of care at the federal level so that the states that are willing to invest in health, etc are not overwhelmed by people from other states flocking in to receive needed care they can’t get at home.  If a state wants to invest more and restrict those programs to longer term residents, I wouldn’t have an issue with that as long as a decent level of care was available everywhere.

Edited December 31, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Please justify confiscating other peoples’ resources at the point of a gun. 

You mean taxes or something else?  If taxes, the government provides extensive services for all including protection so wealthy people won’t get looted, organized crime moving in once you are successful (a friend of my husband’s was assassinated in Moscow because he thought the law would save his business from the Russian mafia, but certain government officials were using the mafia to takeover his very profitable hotel and business center).  I assume you don’t want toll roads throughout the US and private police and military forces, that you want some vehicle, food and medical safety standards that are not left to those doing business to decide how to enforce, same with educational standards, but correct me if I am wrong.

The more one consumes, the more one benefits from these services (police and military keep order, which allows for business to function; quality transportation gets consumer goods where they are wanted).

I think I would prefer taxing luxury goods and services rather more than income.  If one wants to pay exorbitant amounts for clothing, cars and jewelry, why not exorbitant sales taxes to go with it.  But of course, that would just create a black market instead, so income tax seems the appropriate version.  Willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Edited December 31, 2024 by Calm

[Tacenda]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

What about the third (iirc) that have neither substance abuse or significant mental/emotional health issues?

I would not have the least problem setting up very, very humane services and having the government and charities fund them and requiring relocation if a person demonstrated the inability to care for themselves or their surroundings in a safe way (that means keeping clean and warm and fed as infections, etc. can be dangerous).  We need much better mental health care in our country if we intend to do anything but turn such places into prisons though imo.  We will need better pay for social workers to attract more into the field, probably for nurses as well.

I think it was a tragedy the repeal of the Mental Health Systems Act was pushed by Reagan.  I wonder how many less problems we would be having if we had a robust national community mental health care system.  Even money wise, I think it was a penny wise, pound foolish move.  There are certain social programs that need to be a basic level of care at the federal level so that the states that are willing to invest in health, etc are not overwhelmed by people from other states flocking in to receive needed care they can’t get at home.  If a state wants to invest more and restrict those programs to longer term residents, I wouldn’t have an issue with that as long as a decent level of care was available everywhere.

And sadly it's only going to get worse with the incoming administration which are cutting back on the programs for the needy.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

And sadly it's only going to get worse with the incoming administration which are cutting back on the programs for the needy.

Perhaps. Maybe they will make them more effective. We shall see. 

Edited December 31, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

You mean taxes or something else?  If taxes, the government provides extensive services for all including protection so wealthy people won’t get looted, mafia moving in once you are successful (a friend of my husband’s was assassinated in Moscow because he thought the law would save his business from the Russian mafia, but certain government officials were using the mafia to takeover his very profitable hotel and business center).  I assume you don’t want toll roads throughout the US and private police and military forces, that you want some vehicle, food and medical safety standards that are not left to those doing business to decide how to enforce, same with educational standards, but correct me if I am wrong.

The more one consumes, the more one benefits from these services (police and military keep order, which allows for business to function; quality transportation gets consumer goods where they are wanted).

I think I would prefer taxing luxury goods and services rather more than income.  If one wants to pay exorbitant amounts for clothing, cars and jewelry, why not exorbitant sales taxes to go with it.  But of course, that would just create a black market instead, so income tax seems the appropriate version.  Willing to be persuaded otherwise.

I am specifically referring to income taxes and sales taxes on food, medicine, and other life-sustaining goods and services. And then there are the ancillary benefits of consumption such as employment and entrepreneurial opportunities. How do you justify forced confiscation of income and property? There are other means.

I have searched long and hard to get a figure on how much rich folks like Trump, Bezos, Musk, Soros, Cuban, et al. pay in property, business, construction, SS taxes for employees, etc., but that doesn’t seem to get reported….just the sensational and inflammatory stuff about income taxes (which poor people do not pay).

As a famous person once pointed out, anyone would be stupid not to take advantage of tax laws that shield income from taxation. I would love to hear from anyone here who prefers to pay their full income tax burden rather than take legal deductions. Before I retired, I squeezed every penny of deductions that I could possibly get. I’m sure everyone reading this does the same. If we don’t like this, we should change the system, but folks on all sides don’t want that to happen, so as long as income is taxed we will have to live with this. 

Edited December 31, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[Dario_M]

22 hours ago, california boy said:

Can you tell us all how the homelessness in the USA could be resolved rather quickly if wet just had the will?

Start with California because that state has the highest rates of homeless people. You live there right? So maybe you can give them some money. Or other form of help. 

In the time i lived in Portugal i also gave money to the homeless people. Or food if i didn't had cash money with me. I was realy friendly to the homeless people. Till the moment i got homeless myself. 

Edited December 31, 2024 by Dario_M

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

Start with California because that state has the highest rates of homeless people. You live there right? So maybe you can give them some money. Or other form of help. 

In the time i lived in Portugal i also gave money to the homeless people. Or food if i didn't had cash money with me. I was realy friendly to the homeless people. Till the moment i got homeless myself. 

A couple of things.  California does not have the highest homeless population in comparison to it's total population.  New York, Vermont, Oregon are higher.  That still does not mean that California does not have a homeless population.

What I am more interested in is how would the amount of money I could afford to give homeless people solve the homeless problem in California?  What would I spend the money on that would solve the homeless problem?  Last year, California spent 3.3 billion dollars trying to solve the homeless problem.  The results?  California's homeless population grew 8% last year.

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I am specifically referring to income taxes and sales taxes on food, medicine, and other life-sustaining goods and services. And then there are the ancillary benefits of consumption such as employment and entrepreneurial opportunities. How do you justify forced confiscation of income and property? There are other means.

I have searched long and hard to get a figure on how much rich folks like Trump, Bezos, Musk, Soros, Cuban, et al. pay in property, business, construction, SS taxes for employees, etc., but that doesn’t seem to get reported….just the sensational and inflammatory stuff about income taxes (which poor people do not pay).

As a famous person once pointed out, anyone would be stupid not to take advantage of tax laws that shield income from taxation. I would love to hear from anyone here who prefers to pay their full income tax burden rather than take legal deductions. Before I retired, I squeezed every penny of deductions that I could possibly get. I’m sure everyone reading this does the same. If we don’t like this, we should change the system, but folks on all sides don’t want that to happen, so as long as income is taxed we will have to live with this. 

Got it.  You are totally ok with rich people not paying the same rate as the working class because they can take advantage of the countless loopholes in the tax laws that have been put there by politicians that have received generous contributions to their campaign chest to enact those loopholes.  Contributions like Elon Musk donating $277 million to our current incoming president who has promised to once again cut taxes on the wealthy.  Since the presidential election Musk's wealth has increased by $64 billion dollars.

 

Quote

Since Trump’s election, Musk’s net worth has increased $64 billion, or nearly 25%, according to Bloomberg’s estimate. This is partly based on the assumption that future growth will be easier with Musk offering advice on topics including artificial intelligence, self-driving vehicles and funding for agencies that have given his companies regulatory trouble.

 

A lot of the $64 billion dollar increase in his wealth has come from the anticipation of further government subsidies and tax breaks given to his companies by investors of his companies.  Not a bad return of investment on the $277 million given in political contributions.

 

If you think there is a level playing field when it comes to income taxes in the United States, you are delusional.  The golden rule applies.  Those that have the gold, make the rules.

 

Edited December 31, 2024 by california boy

[Dario_M]

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

A couple of things.  California does not have the highest homeless population in comparison to it's total population.  New York, Vermont, Oregon are higher.

I have googled it myself in the Dutch language because they seem to have a more accurate rate. And what i read was clear. California has the highest rates of homeless people. https://nos.nl/artikel/2328348-amerikaanse-daklozen-hebben-het-zwaar-mensen-doen-alsof-wij-het-virus-zijn this website claims that California has the highest rates. Unfortunately it's in Dutch so you meight wanna translate the text. 

And you want to claim that Oregon has more homeless people then Cali? There are hardly people living up Oregon state. Yeah in Portland offcourse. But the rest of the state is nomandsland with nothing more then nature then anything else. 

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

 That still does not mean that California does not have a homeless population.

They have, and a big one. Especially in Los Angeles. 

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

What I am more interested in is how would the amount of money I could afford to give homeless people solve the homeless problem in California?

If everyone would do it it would make a difference. But the choice is on you offcourse. 

When i lived in Portugal i often gave money or food to the poor and homeless people you know. 

 

Edited December 31, 2024 by Dario_M

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

I have googled it myself in the Dutch language because they seem to have a more accurate rate. And what i read was clear. California has the highest rates of homeless people. And you want to claim that Oregon has more homeless people then Cali? There are hardly people living up Oregon state. Yeah in Portland offcourse. But the rest of the state is nomandsland with nothing more then nature then anything else. 

They have, and a big one. Especially in Los Angeles. 

If everyone would do it it would make a difference. But the choice is on you offcourse. 

When i lived in Portugal i often gave money or food to the poor and homeless people you know. 

 

When comparing homeless populations, to be fair, you have to base it against the population of the state.  You can't just report on total numbers.  California has a total population of about 39 million people.  Oregon has a total population of about 4.2 million.  

And you can't just eliminate the homeless population of Portland just because it is high.  It is still part of the state, just like you can't eliminate the homeless population of Los Angeles just because it is high.

Once again, the state of California spent $3.3 BILLION dollars on the homeless population.  That came from tax dollars that came from most of the population of California.  So yeah, pretty much everyone in California is contributing to try and solve the homeless population.  It still increased last year.

Like I have said in previous posts, the homeless issue is a very complicated issue and caused by numerous factors many of which can not be solved by just giving more money.  I am way more of an advocate of soup kitchens and opening up warming centers than I am just throwing more money at the problem.  I also believe that there has been a strong resistance against the government providing more subsidies for housing of people who can't make rent even when having a job.  This is what Europe has been doing for decades and I believe it is the single biggest safety net that keeps homelessness from being such a huge problem.  

There is a cycle where a family or individual is living successfully, but rent goes up or they loose their job which throws them into being homeless.  Once they are homeless, it is much more difficult to climb out of that hole.  So homeless population grows.  Drug addiction and mental issues need to be taken care of by professionals like they were before Ronald Regan threw all the mentally  ill out on the streets of California by shutting down the mental hospitals because they were too expensive.  All the sudden their care in a proper facility seems like a pretty cheap solution.

[Dario_M]

Just now, california boy said:

When comparing homeless populations, to be fair, you have to base it against the population of the state.  You can't just report on total numbers.  California has a total population of about 39 million people.  Oregon has a total population of about 4.2 million.

Yeah. It doesn't work like that sorry. Have you seen my link in my previous post? Never mind here again. https://nos.nl/artikel/2328348-amerikaanse-daklozen-hebben-het-zwaar-mensen-doen-alsof-wij-het-virus-zijn it's in Dutch so you meight wanna translate it. 

Just now, california boy said:

And you can't just eliminate the homeless population of Portland just because it is high.  It is still part of the state, just like you can't eliminate the homeless population of Los Angeles just because it is high.

I didn't do that. I just said that California scores as highest number of homeless people. 

Just now, california boy said:

Once again, the state of California spent $3.3 BILLION dollars on the homeless population.

I don't care how much they've spend. Have anything changed? No it hasn't so mission failed. 

Just now, california boy said:

 That came from tax dollars that came from most of the population of California.  So yeah, pretty much everyone in California is contributing to try and solve the homeless population.  It still increased last year.

Why is the amount of homeless people still growing in Cali then? 

Just now, california boy said:

Like I have said in previous posts, the homeless issue is a very complicated issue and caused by numerous factors many of which can not be solved by just giving more money.

Did you hear me saying that it was only about money? But that's just what i did myself in Portugal when i spotted a homeless person. But i'm aware that this problem is way bigger then that. But you know what i believe. A better world starts with yourself. 

Just now, california boy said:

 I am way more of an advocate of soup kitchens and opening up warming centers than I am just throwing more money at the problem.

Okay then you don't give a cent. Your money. Your choice. 

Just now, california boy said:

 I also believe that there has been a strong resistance against the government providing more subsidies for housing of people who can't make rent even when having a job.  This is what Europe has been doing for decades and I believe it is the single biggest safety net that keeps homelessness from being such a huge problem.  

The Netherlands has a realy good safety net indeed. I don't see any homeless people here in my area. 

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I am specifically referring to income taxes and sales taxes on food, medicine, and other life-sustaining goods and services.

Where is the gun involved?

”….just the sensational and inflammatory stuff about income taxes (which poor people do not pay)”

Well, when you don’t have enough income to pay for housing, food, medicine, etc, isn’t it more efficient to let poor people keep what little income they get rather than tax them and then give it back to them, since that costs time and money to do so.  Time the poor could be using to work or care for their families.  Money the government could use elsewhere.

Edited December 31, 2024 by Calm