Warming center denied by folks in Kaysville Utah

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Maybe because the company pays and not the people?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

And then there are the ancillary benefits of consumption such as employment and entrepreneurial opportunities.

My husband is a business professor specializing in entrepreneurship.  I agree that the ability to accumulate significant profit needs to be available for motivation for innovation.  I think having the cutoff at single digit billionaire at the very least (1/2 billion sounds better, it would be interesting to do a study of entrepreneurs and see what money goal they have—if any—that drives them) is a decent upper limit in that by then they are either doing it for the fun of it or they have lost the vision of why they want to innovate and my guess is the people taking in the money are not the innovators and there is a good chance the innovators are getting shortchanged but doing it anyway because of their passion.

For those who are challenged and work hard by trying to acquire possessions, it actually makes sense to make it slowly harder to accumulate the more they get according to behavior modification programs rather than easier.

For those who have the passion, the money is not the main incentive and can even be distracting for some, imo, as they start worrying about protecting their wealth rather than being willing to take the risks they once did.  That is one reason why the gap between the wealthy and middle income is likely making it harder for entrepreneurs and innovators at this point…the new ones.  Technology making it easier to publicize one’s services or products may be counterbalancing that pressure enough that it disguises that problem of lower income not having the ability to take risks because of less available income after expenses, lack of homes or other property one can use as collateral to get loans, etc.

Edited December 31, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 If we don’t like this, we should change the system, but folks on all sides don’t want that to happen

Of course everyone takes as many deductions as possible, I would expect them to.  The solution is to fix the loopholes that give the rich extra deductions that middle and lower class can’t access.  The system could be corrected to remove loopholes for the rich, but given the power of money to impress, I agree politicians on all sides are not looking out that well for the poor and middle income in comparison to the rich imo based on the increased numbers of poor and wealthy vs middle income.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Last year, California spent 3.3 billion dollars trying to solve the homeless problem.  The results?  California's homeless population grew 8% last year.

This is what happens imo when it is left to states and less federal programs. The states that are trying to do something get more of those in need while the states that ignore the problem lose those who can move while those who stay and struggle suffer.

I would love to be proved wrong. Anyone know of a study that tracks state funding for homelessness and other social services to see if the states with less spending also have a rate of increase of those in need that is lower and if so, if that reason is those in need moving out of the state?

Edited December 31, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Dario_M said:

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

You do realize that the homeless in California are not just from California, but from many other states?

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

And if homeless came from other countries in Europe because Portugal had a generous population and decent weather so staying outdoors all year round was feasible, would you blame yourself for not giving enough?

Edited December 31, 2024 by Calm

[Dario_M]

@Calm i don't know. But seriously about 3 hours it will be 2025 in my area. So......i just gonna concentrate on that.

Happy new year Calm. 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

@Calm i don't know. But seriously about 3 hours it will be 2025 in my area. So......i just gonna concentrate on that.

Happy new year Calm. 

Have fun!

[Dario_M]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Have fun!

Thank you. 🫂💙

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Of course everyone takes as many deductions as possible, I would expect them to.  The solution is to fix the loopholes that give the rich extra deductions that middle and lower class can’t access.  The system could be corrected to remove loopholes for the rich, but given the power of money to impress, I agree politicians on all sides are not looking out that well for the poor and middle income in comparison to the rich imo based on the increased numbers of poor and wealthy vs middle income.

The “loopholes” involve things that middle class people do not participate in. Very few in any “poor” pay income tax. I doubt that any homeless person pays income tax. 

Edited December 31, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

My husband is a business professor specializing in entrepreneurship.  I agree that the ability to accumulate significant profit needs to be available for motivation for innovation.  I think having the cutoff at single digit billionaire at the very least (1/2 billion sounds better, it would be interesting to do a study of entrepreneurs and see what money goal they have—if any—that drives them) is a decent upper limit in that by then they are either doing it for the fun of it or they have lost the vision of why they want to innovate and my guess is the people taking in the money are not the innovators and there is a good chance the innovators are getting shortchanged but doing it anyway because of their passion.

For those who are challenged and work hard by trying to acquire possessions, it actually makes sense to make it slowly harder to accumulate the more they get according to behavior modification programs rather than easier.

For those who have the passion, the money is not the main incentive and can even be distracting for some, imo, as they start worrying about protecting their wealth rather than being willing to take the risks they once did.  That is one reason why the gap between the wealthy and middle income is likely making it harder for entrepreneurs and innovators at this point…the new ones.  Technology making it easier to publicize one’s services or products may be counterbalancing that pressure enough that it disguises that problem of lower income not having the ability to take risks because of less available income after expenses, lack of homes or other property one can use as collateral to get loans, etc.

Yes. And since we’re talking about wealthy folks vs poor folks, I’m referring to people who become successful because they find opportunities to provide needed goods and services for the production of luxury items for the fat cats. Someone had to make and install the widgets and fixtures for yachts and penthouses. That web can spread far and wide. 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Maybe because the company pays and not the people?

I’m not sure how a company pays instead of the person. Does the company make the profits or does the individual? Whoever pays, is it not built into the cost of doing business which in the end is paid by the consumer?

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Thank you. 🫂💙

Happiest new year Dario! 

[Dario_M]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Happiest new year Dario! 

Thank you dear Tacenda. 🫂💙 About a half hour it will be new year in Utah. 🎇🎆

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

The gun (force) becomes involved when you do not pay your taxes. 
 

Our tax system is incomprehensible and the reporting on it is even more so.

 

Edited January 1, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The gun (force) becomes involved when you do not pay your taxes. 
 

Our tax system is incomprehensible and the reporting on it is even more so.

 

What would you suggest be the option if people didn’t pay taxes since the way you phrase it as a ‘confiscation with a gun’ appears you are against the government having taxes…though perhaps it’s only income tax that you have a problem with?

Just curious as to how you believe the country should fund worthwhile projects.  Even if one eliminated waste and made things efficient, to do certain things right and to be less intrusive in people’s lives probably takes more manpower, not less, so aggression isn’t as necessary because confrontations don’t have to be resolved quickly if they shouldn’t be just because the government doesn’t provide enough training or the right type of personnel and time to properly deal with problems.

Edited January 1, 2025 by Calm

[Okrahomer]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

You do realize that the homeless in California are not just from California, but from many other states?

My intuition agrees with you, but this article has me recalibrating:

“MYTH: Most unhoused people come here [to California] from somewhere else

“FACT: It’s often said that people who are down on their luck move here because of the nice weather and abundant social services. But the data doesn’t bear that out.”

”The vast majority of people who are homeless in California are from California — and most are still living in the same county where they lost their housing, according to a recent large-scale survey of unhoused Californiansconducted by the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative.”

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

My intuition agrees with you, but this article has me recalibrating:

“MYTH: Most unhoused people come here [to California] from somewhere else

“FACT: It’s often said that people who are down on their luck move here because of the nice weather and abundant social services. But the data doesn’t bear that out.”

”The vast majority of people who are homeless in California are from California — and most are still living in the same county where they lost their housing, according to a recent large-scale survey of unhoused Californiansconducted by the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative.”

Thanks for the info.  Interesting and sad.  I am Californian born and mostly bred and we always knew the rest of the US wanted to be us.  
 

All my family moved out of California and a lot of friends as well because it became too expensive to live there, so I suppose I am only mildly surprised once I think about it.  It would be where I would live if I could afford it and numbers of people were back to what they were when I was growing up.  Last time I went there the crowds were too much for me, I avoid SLC these days unless absolutely necessary as the traffic is so bad.  

My memory says my parents bought their house for 55,000$ back in 1970 in an upper class neighborhood and sold it for over 300,000 in 1987.  And it is now worth over 3 million, an increase from 2 million in 2015…but I am not certain about the long ago amounts to be frank though I looked up median prices in California and the amount of change seems right.

Quote

Among the homeless Californians surveyed by UCSF, 18% reported earning income from a job (either formal employment or informal/gig work) in the past month. When the researchers eliminated people who were older than 62 or had mental or physical disabilities from the data, the percentage was higher — 25% reported working in the past month.

But even if people are working, they aren’t making enough to afford rent. Fast food workers, for example, make a median wage of $17.32 an hour in California, but they’d need to make more than twice that to rent a one-bedroom home, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

 

Edited January 1, 2025 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/1/2025 at 5:25 AM, Calm said:

What would you suggest be the option if people didn’t pay taxes since the way you phrase it as a ‘confiscation with a gun’ appears you are against the government having taxes…though perhaps it’s only income tax that you have a problem with?

Just curious as to how you believe the country should fund worthwhile projects.  Even if one eliminated waste and made things efficient, to do certain things right and to be less intrusive in people’s lives probably takes more manpower, not less, so aggression isn’t as necessary because confrontations don’t have to be resolved quickly if they shouldn’t be just because the government doesn’t provide enough training or the right type of personnel and time to properly deal with problems.

There is no other way to enforce income tax than with a gun.

Tithing works well.

I don’t agree with your scenario, but there are things that could be done. Reduce the regulatory and enforcement powers of unelected agents. Turn many government functions over to private entities or back to the states where they belong. For example, the post office and education departments, reform and reduce the bureaucratic and lobbying systems, de-unionize government workers, simplify construction permitting, eliminate duplicate tasks and responsibilities across multiple agencies, reduce the amount of federally held land especially in the west, make deficit spending unconstitutional, etc.

Back to the topic, we must come together and eliminate homelessness and reduce drug addiction and its related  social and criminal devastation. We cannot survive as a culture if this goes on much longer. If Mexico or China were sending missiles into our cities and towns, killing hundreds of thousands of our people, we would respond with military devastation.  Instead, they send drugs with equal devastation and we respond by running around in circles arguing about food kitchens and warming shelters.

Edited January 3, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[MiserereNobis]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Turn many government functions over to private entities or back to the states where they belong. For example, the post office

But the constitution grants congress the authority to create the postal service, and more importantly the roads that the postal service can use (do we want toll roads everywhere? or the interstate system?)

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

de-unionize government workers

Why can't public sector employees have the same labor rights as private sector? As a teacher, surely you must have experienced administration (both site and district) doing things they shouldn't have. And my salary and benefits are thanks to my teachers union.

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

If Mexico or China were sending missiles into our cities and toons, killing hundreds of thousands of our people, we would respond with military devastation.  Instead, they send drugs with equally devastation and we respond by running around in circles arguing about food kitchens and warming shelters.

You make this sound like Mexico is intentionally trying to destroy the United States, like a war. Talk to some Mexicans about their feelings on the cartels, which are around because demand for drugs in America fuels them. It is Americans' fault there are cartels, not "Mexico."

I live about 45 minutes away from Cuidad Juarez, the border town with El Paso, Texas. In the 2010's it was the murder capital of the world, with violent terrible deaths caused by the cartels. Why? They were fighting over access to the United States because Americans wanted their drugs. Simple supply and demand.

Blame American demand for America's drug problem.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

But the constitution grants congress the authority to create the postal service, and more importantly the roads that the postal service can use (do we want toll roads everywhere? or the interstate system?)

That’s the beauty of the Constitution. It can be changed. The PO has long been a money pit. Hopefully this will be resolved. 

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why can't public sector employees have the same labor rights as private sector? As a teacher, surely you must have experienced administration (both site and district) doing things they shouldn't have. And my salary and benefits are thanks to my teachers union.

We are the government employees’ employers, so we should have a say in the conditions of their employment, and I do not condone them striking against me. 

I have objected to teachers unions from the beginning. They were very happy to collect my mandatory dues, but the times when I needed them the most they proved useless. They create factions and acrimony among faculties, and their policies, goals, actions, and platforms are firmly entrenched in things that I find morally and politically abhorrent and that I was powerless to influence or change. In the last decade of my career there was no tolerance for my views in any faculty or union meeting. Silence was the only way to survive ostracism. 

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

You make this sound like Mexico is intentionally trying to destroy the United States, like a war. Talk to some Mexicans about their feelings on the cartels, which are around because demand for drugs in America fuels them. It is Americans' fault there are cartels, not "Mexico."

Yes, Mexico is clearly trying (quite successfully) to destroy the US. It is an undeclared war with hundreds of thousands of American civilian casualties. The abject failure to police its northern and southern borders, refusal to prevent illegal mass migration across the entire length of the country, and to wink at demonic cartel activity make it complicit in undeclared acts of war. It’s actions speak louder than the words of a few citizens. Why we tolerate and encourage this is beyond my comprehension. 

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I live about 45 minutes away from Cuidad Juarez, the border town with El Paso, Texas. In the 2010's it was the murder capital of the world, with violent terrible deaths caused by the cartels. Why? They were fighting over access to the United States because Americans wanted their drugs. Simple supply and demand. Blame American demand for America's drug problem.

Well, good brother, on this we will have to agree to disagree. I think that is a very poor excuse. El Paso/Ciudad Juarez were sin cities when I was in high school in New Mexico back in the early 60s. That’s where all the kids went to get their vices.

If my neighborhood were filled with drug dealers and users, rather put the onus on my neighbors I would demand the government solve the problem through law enforcement against the suppliers. Would you say that the awful Appalachian opioid crisis is also just a supply and demand issue? Complicit doctors, pharmacies, and drug companies are just filling a demand?

The cartels’ deprivations demand lethal responses. We shut down the tobacco industry and continually strive to eliminate carcinogens. The murderous cartels need to be obliterated, and the sooner the better. Like tomorrow is not too soon. An ultimatum to Mexico is in order…clean it up with us or we will clean it up for you. I feel that strongly about the issue. 

Edited January 3, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

That’s where all the kids went to get their vices.

That sounds like supply and demand to me.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

That sounds like supply and demand to me.

Seems like not much has changed in over 60 years. Sounds like endemic corruption to me. 

Edited January 4, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/1/2025 at 1:00 PM, Calm said:

Thanks for the info.  Interesting and sad.  I am Californian born and mostly bred and we always knew the rest of the US wanted to be us.  
 

All my family moved out of California and a lot of friends as well because it became too expensive to live there, so I suppose I am only mildly surprised once I think about it.  It would be where I would live if I could afford it and numbers of people were back to what they were when I was growing up.  Last time I went there the crowds were too much for me, I avoid SLC these days unless absolutely necessary as the traffic is so bad.  

My memory says my parents bought their house for 55,000$ back in 1970 in an upper class neighborhood and sold it for over 300,000 in 1987.  And it is now worth over 3 million, an increase from 2 million in 2015…but I am not certain about the long ago amounts to be frank though I looked up median prices in California and the amount of change seems right.

 

 

 

On 1/1/2025 at 10:14 AM, Okrahomer said:

My intuition agrees with you, but this article has me recalibrating:

“MYTH: Most unhoused people come here [to California] from somewhere else

“FACT: It’s often said that people who are down on their luck move here because of the nice weather and abundant social services. But the data doesn’t bear that out.”

”The vast majority of people who are homeless in California are from California — and most are still living in the same county where they lost their housing, according to a recent large-scale survey of unhoused Californiansconducted by the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative.”

Does this myth busting” somehow exonerate California? Seems like it besmirches the state even more if its own citizens are the majority that is suffering. 

Edited January 3, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Seems like not much has changed in over 60 years. Sounds like endemic corruption to me. 

Hey, Corianton crossed the borders into the land of Sidon to have a ‘good time’.

I saw advertisements for just over the line casinos all the time from my youth when approaching the state lines of Nevada (we lived in California, family and BYU were in Utah to begin with; then, we were in Utah and family and friends…and Disneyland ‘shudder’ were in California).  Also saw direct flights offered to various sin cities when living in Canada, California, Utah, Kansas.  It appears to be a historical practice to make money off of people who don’t want their own neighborhoods to be corrupt, but still want the opportunity to dabble in such vices when the urge hits them.

Edited January 4, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Does this myth busting” somehow exonerate California? Seems like it besmirches the state even more if its own citizens are the majority that is suffering. 

Why would you think anyone was trying to exonerate California rather than just be accurate in our claims?