Printable View
Just how on Earth is a tax cut part of a government dole? Having tax money given to us is government doleing out that which belongs to others. Not having taxes taken from us in the first place is not being on the government dole.Quote:
Originally Posted by acmanko
These types of shelters are run quite well through private agencies throughout the country, so there is a precident that it can be done more effectively than anything that government facilities do.Quote:
Originally Posted by printer2
From a financial standpoint, if we get social issues out of the hands of government, there will be less waste of taxpayer monies so that less taxes will be needed to be confiscated from us. With more money in the hands of the people, homeless shelters will be better supported by those who willingly give of what they have. As it is, too many Americans who would normally be supporting privately operated shelters are able to justify doing nothing by saying; "Government takes care of that..."
I can see where acmanko is coming from lets say your tax rate is 30 percent and and the government lowers your tax rate to 20 percent with the intent that more money in your pocket equals maybe you higher another employee, that is being on the government dole . You will no doubt disagree with this but that is what i think he means . Now before you call me a leftist or something let me say that i would prefer a flat progressive tax based solely on earnings with no accounting for wether your married,have children, own a home or what have you . The other thing is everybody pays something no more getting back more than you pay in .:couchhide:Quote:
Originally Posted by RoBoTeq
But where is the money going to come from?Quote:
Originally Posted by RoBoTeq
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/our...ties/souwesterQuote:
Women and children who are victims of domestic violence could be turned away from Winnipeg's largest shelter within days.
The city has rejected a request from Osborne House for $450,000.
Executive director Barbara Judt says the shelter can't carry on without the funding.
"I've had people ask, 'will you cut more staff?' I can't cut more staff because we're working on a bare bones schedule as it is," she said.
"If I don't have the resources in place to provide for these clients, and the city doesn't want to offer any support on that, what else can I do?"
If one person is paying less tax than another person the one paying more is subsidizing the system whether the other person does something with their money or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by 54885488
Given the clientele, there would have to be police there 24/7. Some folks would basically be living there because of whatever variety of problems they have. There would need to be separation of the single men/women with kids/ women without and so on. You are correct it would be a little more than simply a warehouse. Since they would be living there, even if only temporary, they must have shower and laundry facility. I had not thought about lockers, but yes they would be required. Payphones.Quote:
Originally Posted by printer2
To help them get out of the situation, those that can, there would have to be a public transportation route available. This would be an excellent location for, or within easy walking distance: daycare, day-labor center, employment office extension, drug rehab center, KOO-KOO hatch, and a county jail. Basically, the types of government services so many of them would be well acquainted with.
Certainly is not my intention to just throw people in a box and cut off all services,... But I do think we should stop paying their rent, utilities, cell-phone service, and then giving them those idiotic food-stamps which may be the most abused public charity in the entire history of the earth.
Side note Printer: In the US we have 'battered women shelters' that care of women with abusive relationship problems. That is a special situation, I would not suggest shutting those down, but as a separate facility might be operated in more or less the same way.
There would be a massive fortune saved in rent subsidies, food subsidies saving would also be massive. The money is already there, it is just just needs to be re-allocated. The savings would be incredible. Fraud and abuse cut to a fraction of our current system[s]. Plural because some of this is state based rather than federal programs.Quote:
Originally Posted by printer2
Problem is... no polecat can resist buying those votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tool-Slinger
IMO the only solution is to let them feel the results of their choices (starve in the cold/hot) until they go to work.
The first thing we need to understand is: The $$$ is not the govt's to begin with... it is ours. When we realize this (again)... we will TELL the govt how they will and will not spend it. If they do not listen... then replace them.Quote:
Originally Posted by RoBoTeq
It's just too hard to sort out the chaff at a government agency level. You cannot assume everyone in need is just lazy. Persons who need a warm meal and a safe place to sleep can from any category. They could be a lazy drug dealer or a recently released felon. Or they could be some clueless 19 year old kid with a busted radiator on his truck and no family/friend support, or a widowed home-maker with three kids, or a penniless tornado victim with nothing but clothes on his back...Quote:
Originally Posted by ga-hvac-tech
If someone needs a meal and a safe place to sleep, fine. I don't want to pay their rent though for a nicer place than I live.
Of course I disagree with what you stating...it's wrong minded.Quote:
Originally Posted by 54885488
Read my sig line. Your left handed approach to taxation is exactly what my sig line refers to. Not taxing small businesses for taxes that should never have been imposed in the first place is not governments doing small businesses any favors, just taking credit for that which they were the initial antagonists of.
What government does with taxation is the same as what organized crime does with extortion. Do you think we should consider organized crime to be benevelent because they don't kill those who pay them to not kill them?
I've already explained that the money that government confiscates from us to run government programs that don't work is money that will be back in the hands of the people....that's where the money has always come from.Quote:
Originally Posted by printer2
No, we cannot afford to continue to provide the money to government that has proven they cannot do the job efficiently, even by spending five times the amount of our taxes in order to fail. We need to reduce government and get benevelent social programs back in the hands of the people.
A true Socialist view of government. When taxes are paid by all to benefit all, then your statement would be accurate. But as long as taxes are paid by those who work to provide for their families and given to those who refuse to work but still provides for them and their families, there is something fundamentally wrong with the system.Quote:
Originally Posted by printer2