Toxic Charity

[Perspektiv]

"Giving to those in need what they can be gaining of their own initiative may well be the kindest way to destroy people" Robert D. Lupton

Some experts believe the United States is currently experiencing a toxic charity crisis.

I.E The instinct to give, creating dependency and entitlement, vs develop and allowing the basic human dignity of being able to get oneself out and back onto their feet.

You look at places like some countries in Europe,  where some have incredibly low homelessness rates, you see a consistency. I.E affordable housing, strong emphasis on living wages, and heavy investment into critical things such as education, health, etc.

Agree, disagree?

[CdnFox]

The most effective way to enslave a man completely is to provide for his every need.

[Perspektiv]

57 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Do you believe that government should be involved in solving issues like affordable housing, or do you think that ONLY the free market can provide solutions?

I think government should remove the red tape that makes building affordable housing impossible, to begin with.

The red tape, make it insanely expensive to get a building permit. The sheer time it takes, means that often a builder by the time shovels hit the ground, are dealing with cost increases that likely weren't accounted for at times.

It just incentivizes building expensive buildings, to recoup your ROI quicker.

I see similar in Hong Kong.

Housing is insanely expensive there, yet there is so much land available to build on.

Why would the government build on it, when they can charge a king's ransom for available lots, forcing builders to build immense skyscrapers at high costs to the consumer, to recoup their investments?

A very similar thing is happening in cities like New York.

So to answer your question, yes -- the government should do something. Its do less. Incentivize building. Not only this, but green and affordable building. Or at least, this is my humble opinion.

Sorry, but I don't trust the federal government to play landlord with its level of incompetence.

[Perspektiv]

23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The most effective way to enslave a man completely is to provide for his every need.

Its that teach a man to fish vs giving him fish idea. One, you'll create a self-sufficient man who will be able to feed his family. The other, you'll create a dependency, and eventually entitlement behind his expectation to obtain fish. This incentive goes away, and you'll have a useless man who will be lost as to what to do.

Kind of like a domesticated cat. Out in the wild, they become useless. They're food, really.

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

I think government should remove the red tape that makes building affordable housing impossible, to begin with.

The red tape, make it insanely expensive to get a building permit. The sheer time it takes, means that often a builder by the time shovels hit the ground, are dealing with cost increases that likely weren't accounted for at times.

It just incentivizes building expensive buildings, to recoup your ROI quicker.

I see similar in Hong Kong.

Housing is insanely expensive there, yet there is so much land available to build on.

Why would the government build on it, when they can charge a king's ransom for available lots, forcing builders to build immense skyscrapers at high costs to the consumer, to recoup their investments?

A very similar thing is happening in cities like New York.

So to answer your question, yes -- the government should do something. Its do less. Incentivize building. Not only this, but green and affordable building. Or at least, this is my humble opinion.

Sorry, but I don't trust the federal government to play landlord with its level of incompetence.

Everything you said is accurate but it only scrapes the surface. For example, consider how local gov't taxes developments.

If the land is bare land and only worth x dollars, then a developer who buys it only pays x dollars until he starts to build.  The MOMENT the home can be occupied, he must now pay tax on the IMPROVED value of the property, which is about double or more the tax. In some cases triple as there are now sewer and water assessments as well as garbage pick up assessments for a property with nobody living in it. And empty home taxes if it's in bc.

So - a developer cannot afford to build a home before its sold. When it's sold he must be able to turn it over to a buyer right away, or he risks having to pay massive taxes on it.

This means they will NEVER build in advance of need - they will ONLY build AFTER there's demand and the place will sell right away.  We need them to build houses even if there's no buyers today, in anticipation of there being buyers tomorrow which is what used to happen - a home would be nearing completion and THEN put up for sale. Now that it's mostly strata that's not how it works.

Things like that guarantee we will never ever have enough houses.

[Perspektiv]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Things like that guarantee we will never ever have enough houses.

While you make great points, involving an apathetic or incompetent government in taking the initiative to fix this, may have unintended consequences.

But definitely do agree with you, that something has to be done. You eradicate the anxieties that push some to doing drugs and becoming homeless in the first place, in giving people access to housing.

[Perspektiv]

I think access to affordable housing, should be a right.

Free shelter, am not so keen on, as a result. I feel the same with regards to charity in general. I'm all for helping people back on their feet.

[NYLefty]

It tickles my heart when I see how quickly pull yourself up by your bootstraps Republicans will jump on the get things for free bandwagon in a heartbeat when they need it. Have yet to see a Republican refuse unemployment, food stamps, or Social Security ??? darn socialist programs!

[Perspektiv]

9 minutes ago, NYLefty said:

Have yet to see a Republican refuse unemployment, food stamps, or Social Security ??? darn socialist programs!

I'm as conservative as they come, and have never been unemployed longer than a week, since early teens. Speak for yourself.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

Its that teach a man to fish vs giving him fish idea. One, you'll create a self-sufficient man who will be able to feed his family. The other, you'll create a dependency, and eventually entitlement behind his expectation to obtain fish. This incentive goes away, and you'll have a useless man who will be lost as to what to do.

Kind of like a domesticated cat. Out in the wild, they become useless. They're food, really.

Exactly.

And that entitled man will live in abject fear if you ever threaten to take away your support.

The liberals have traditionally worked on this principle. Get people addicted to their gov't handouts, then note that the conservatives will take them away if THEY get into power and people will panic.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, NYLefty said:

It tickles my heart when I see how quickly pull yourself up by your bootstraps Republicans will jump on the get things for free bandwagon in a heartbeat when they need it. Have yet to see a Republican refuse unemployment, food stamps, or Social Security ??? darn socialist programs!

They paid for it, of course they're going to use it.  It's the lefties who want people who DIDN'T pay for things to get them for free

Republicans would rather NOT pay for it and NOT use it. But if you're going to force them to pay, they might as well. 

The fact you don't see the hypocrisy of your own position is rather telling

[BeaverFever]

What charity in America?  The one that makes a family of 4 spend $15k- $20k per year for private health insurance that still leaves them bankrupt if any of them actually get seriously ill?

The millions of Americans who can’t afford health insurance at all and suffer from easily preventable deaths and disability because can’t even afford basic treatment and preventive care?

The court systems that employ private corporations to charge people exorbitant  “administration fees”to administer small fines for petty offences, then lock those people up in debtors prisons and bill them even more for their own imprisonment if they can’t pay the corporation’s fees?

the predatory police officers who are not only able to but encouraged to confiscate cash at the roadside from law abiding citizens at will, and threaten to arrest them or seize their children if they try to get the money back?

the county fire department that will literally stand by and watch your house burn to the ground because you didn’t pay them an annual $1,000 “fire subscription fee” by the deadline?

the Republican state that refused federal funding from the Trump administration for preschool slots because they feared it would encourage women to go out and work when they should be at home ?

The countless numbers of American communities with contaminated tap water?

America is a predatory society not a charitable one full stop. 

To the question though:

public service’s don’t even come close provide people’s “every need” and benefits exist precisely because people can’t achieve them through their own initiative  

A healthy functioning society, especially a capitalist society is like a big complex machine. In order for the machine to work efficiently and properly you have to ensure all the different gears and parts are lubricated and maintained. Some public services such as courts are more like machine parts and others like benefits function like the lubricant.  Obsessing over which gears “deserve” lubricant is a fool’s game that misses the point that you need the entire machine to function  

So for example you don’t want people throwing trash in the street spreading disease so instead of obsessing about who “deserves” to have their trash picked up and who hasn’t “earned the privilege” everyone agrees its in the public interest to just pick up everyone’s trash at taxpayer expense. Same goes for a basic education, running water etc.  

You need a system that makes it easy for people to want to obey the law go to work and provide for their family without feeling like they’re living on a razor’s edge and you need a system with minimal crime and abject poverty. That means a certain base level of benefits from the government that are not tied to employment and that act as a safety net when people fall on hard times and allow them an opportunity to bounce back. In the USA what few remnants of the social safety net still exist are a poverty trap, forcing people to “earn” their benefits through exploitative “workfare” arrangements that are financially lucrative to corporations but don’t allow people the time or the money to ever escape poverty. 
 

Conservatives love to commodify every aspect of society, then obsess over who deserves what  and especially rant about all the political they think need to be deprived of something. It’s the ultimate toddlers game of “no fair how come Tiny Tim gets a wheelchair and I don’t? TAKE IT FROM HIM!”

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

you need a system with minimal crime and abject poverty.

How's that working for the US?

[eyeball]

10 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

You look at places like some countries in Europe,  where some have incredibly low homelessness rates, you see a consistency. I.E affordable housing, strong emphasis on living wages, and heavy investment into critical things such as education, health, etc.

Agree, disagree?

Wait a minute, I thought affordable housing, strong emphasis on living wages, and heavy investment into critical things such as education, health, etc.  was communism.

It's sure wierd watching conservatives get woke.

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I think access to affordable housing, should be a right.

Free shelter, am not so keen on, as a result. I feel the same with regards to charity in general. I'm all for helping people back on their feet.

Having a domicile is generally a requirement to get back on your feet. Very hard to get a job if you don't have an address.

[Perspektiv]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

was communism.

No, communism is the erosion of free speech. Something today's woke are doing. Trying to reform police by defunding it, making crime skyrocket. Making a mockery of gender, irregardless of future consequence, feminizing men and eroding women's rights. 

Thats the woke that gets mocked.

There are parts of socialism that work. Free education, and access to health care, are two of them which work to your benefit as a society.

[Perspektiv]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Very hard to get a job if you don't have an address.

I don't believe in free housing, but that's my opinion. However, I strongly believe there should be affordable housing.

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

There are parts of socialism that work. Free education, and access to health care, are two of them which work to your benefit as a society.

Gee who would've imagined that? /sarcasmoff

As I understand it socialism has been with us since the days of the Neanderthals.  I guess evolution has a progressive bias.

[Perspektiv]

14 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Gee who would've imagined that?

Some parts don't work. 

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Gee who would've imagined that? /sarcasmoff

As I understand it socialism has been with us since the days of the Neanderthals.  I guess evolution has a progressive bias.

First off - that's not socialism.  Your lack of education is showing.  Socialism is where the gov't one way or another controlls the means of production.

Sure there's always been shared community responsibilities. There's nothing 'progressive' about that - every family unit is basically a communist unit .   And that's why we FORM communities - to address some of our common interests.

But that's not socialism at all.

Very few "Pure" things work out well. Extremes don't do well in nature. So real socialism or communism doesn't really work.  Netiher does 'pure' capitalism. 

The best and most successful models over time seem to be strongly capitalist economic models with a modest "social safety net"  that addresses SOME basic needs such as health and military.

It's not complex - it's not a revelation - it's not evolutionary.  And conservatives believe in that stuff too, they just don't believe in the excessive and destructive levels of it that the left does.

[eyeball]

Just now, Perspektiv said:

Some parts don't work. 

Yes well like I said its good to see conservatives becoming woke to this. 

Better late than never though? Not this time, it's clearly too late.

[eyeball]

Just now, CdnFox said:

First off - that's not socialism.  Your lack of education is showing.  

Will you please just go f**k yourself?

Thanks.

[Perspektiv]

Just now, eyeball said:

Yes well like I said its good to see conservatives becoming woke to this. 

Better late than never though? Not this time, it's clearly too late.

I don't consider this as being woke. Its common sense. 

Its in a societys best interests for its population to be as educated as possible, and for their health to be as little a tax burden as possible. 

Where my conservative kicks in, is someone able to work, who feels entitled to free housing and a cheque at the first of the month.

[eyeball]

10 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

I don't consider this as being woke. Its common sense. 

I guess it's only considered communism anytime a lefty suggestes them.

10 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Its in a societys best interests for its population to be as educated as possible, and for their health to be as little a tax burden as possible. 

No argument there.

10 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Where my conservative kicks in, is someone able to work, who feels entitled to free housing and a cheque at the first of the month.

Mine kicks in when someone wealthy powerful and influential gets behind a closed door with a politician to ask for a cheque or a favour.

I've lost count of how many times I've been called a commie for suggesting we open the door to the public.

Edited May 1, 2023 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I guess it's only considered communism anytime a lefty suggestes them.

Just simply not true. And that stuff has never been considered to be 'communism'.

Do you need us to hold you a pity party or something?

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No argument there.

Mine kicks in when someone wealthy powerful and influential gets behind a closed door with a politician to ask for a cheque or a favour.

So you're triggerd. Well - fair enough.

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I've lost count of how many times I've been called a commie for suggesting we open the door to the public.

you lost count? Wow  so more than 10 in your case.