Slashdot Mirror
San Francisco Passes a First-of-its-Kind Tax on Big Businesses To Help the Homeless (recode.net)
San Francisco voters passed a measure that has divided the tech community and sparked a national debate about the industry's responsibility to fix the city's homelessness crisis. From a report: The San Francisco Chronicle called the race at 60 percent in favor with 99 percent of the vote counted. Proposition C will raise the city's gross receipts tax by an average of .5 percent on annual gross receipts over $50 million that companies like Square, Lyft and Salesforce generate. The new funds will bring in an estimated $250 million to $300 million a year -- twice what the city currently spends on an annual basis to help the homeless in tech's de facto capital. The thousands of people living on San Francisco's streets serve as a daily reminder of economic inequality in a city that has one of the highest concentrations of billionaires in the nation. Earlier this year, a United Nations expert on housing called the living conditions of the homeless in the Bay Area "cruel" and "unacceptable." The decision to increase funding for the city's most needy is a victory for the local nonprofits behind the measure and their tech fairy godfather, Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, who, along with his company, has poured more than $7 million into the campaign in the month leading up to the election.
More corporate flight from California. Good.
You want to push more business out of your city, this is how you push more business out of your city.
Do a great job taking care of the homeless and your city will become a magnet for the homeless of the nation. If that's what you want, go for it. Cheaper to turn them all into Soylent Green, but, hey, democracy, and each city can have its own values.
Frankly, this is less odd and government-intrusive than most stuff SF does, and companies of course have the option of just excluding SF from their business if it's not worth the cost.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
In short, if you are homeless, get yourself to San Francisco any way you can. They are spending tons of money on the homeless.
The way you treat others speaks a lot about yourself. These are people... so many people are just a few missed paychecks away from being homeless. Stop treating them like a scourge or like animals.
Where I live they go so far as to put concrete "spikes" to make flat areas unusable by the homeless.
This all starts from the "every zygote is sacred" mentality -- when you prevent abortion, someone has to pay for all the costs of supporting the resulting child. The more children, the more jobs are needed. That pushes more people to the bottom wages and increases living costs as more have to share.
These decisions are causing future problems -- and guess what? The future is now. It has been for many years.
When people have true control over their reproductive rights, fewer children are brought into society and those competitive costs decrease... which means fewer homeless people.
Anon because some religious cultists have attacked clinics and doctors in the past for simply helping people. Don't get me started on the fuckery that is religion and it's incredibly harmful effects on society.
I am all in support of taking care of the homeless.
However, San Francisco seems to get the least bang for the buck.
They need a completely different strategy. Pity that with all the smart people in the area, they cannot come up with any effective solutions.
I saw a documentary recently. Drug addicts, excrement on the street. Felt like third world than one of the richest areas in the world. I hope the documentary was not exaggerating. I haven't been there in a decade and that was for a conference. I just remember aggressive pan handling. The documentary said some conferences pulled out as well. They didn't feel safe, they said.
...using those words, "economic inequality." Like they mean something. What should terrify you is economic equality. That means no one prospers, because everyone is equally poor and dependent on the state for every aspect of their life. It's called Socialism.
Throwing money at the homeless problem has not solved it. Clearly most of these people have mental health issues or drug/alcohol dependency issues. That means that appeals to rationality are not going to work, but relocation might. Allow cities to exclude people for bad behavior, and suddenly this becomes a non-issue.
In the meantime, every tax that we spend just makes government more intrusive in our lives, and puts us farther down the path that the Soviet Union explored. The more we depend on government, the weaker we get as individuals, until you end up with a lot of clueless people shrugging their way through life.
Alternative Right.
It's all right there in the summary:
1. Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, along with his company, has poured more than $7 million into the campaign.
2. The new funds will bring in an estimated $250 million to $300 million a year.
So, a bit over 7 million was spent once to generate 250 to 300 million every year from now on. And even if it's repealed next year, it's a net gain of over 240 million for the homeless until then. The only way it would have been bad is if the law didn't pass, but it was a calculated move on his part. What you can do for the homeless with seven million is nothing compared to 250+ million.
#DeleteFacebook
local taxes for a local issue. I do wonder what the results would be of an audit of how current funds related to this issue were spent. And if these new funds will be used well it is government after all. But good luck to them I think they might need it.
;)
Just my 2 cents
They would be better to increase minimum wage to a livable wage, and then offer tax discount to hire locals.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yet, he could have done more by getting all companies to pay livable wages and cutting taxes.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
California collects GIGANTIC amounts of maoney and promptly wastes it.
That plus a lot of it is stuffed in to State Employee Pensions.
in the Union. Always has been. Not because of taxes, but because people want to live there. The weather's fantastic. They get little or no natural disasters (occasional fire or mud slide, nothing like east coast gets). Great beaches. Lots of parks. And you've got tons and tons of amenities (great sports teams, Disney Land, fantastic schools, etc, etc).
We've had 40 years of offshoring and outsourcing. If the companies could leave they would have done so already. It's high time we Americans called their bluff. Wanna leave? Fine. Go. Door's right there. Don't let it hit you where the dog shoulda bit you. You can go home, but you can't take the ball. If you try, we'll eminent domain your ass. This is our country, and we're through letting you threaten us.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
but it was extortion.
Seriously, why aren't people angry that they're constantly being threatened with economic disaster every time we do anything to upset our corporate overlords? Do we like being pushed around and told what to do?
Like I said on another thread, we didn't put up with this shit when the Mafia did it, why are we doing it now?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Mega corps have been using Dutch Sandwiches and Irish loop holes to avoid paying their fair share of taxes while enjoying the benefits of a well educated workforce, our police and military protecting them and our infrastructure making them rich (roads, telecom, stock trade, etc).
California has it especially bad. They pay more into the federal coffers than they get out. Meanwhile those mega corps manipulate elections in other states to get special privileges. I see this as a way for California to claw back some of the money they've been paying out.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It seems like after this new tax, California may be well in excess of spending $100k/homeless person per year. At what point does it make more sense to buy them all housing in one other state and pay for meals and everything in perpetuity?
From what I've seen though homeless people in California get pretty much nothing from all this money supposedly devoted to them. I'll bet if you looked over the people administering these programs you would find SO MUCH corruption...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It works because the mouse isn't aware why the cheese is free.
Uber-liberal San Francisco will continue to destroy itself as long as it embraces these "rob from the rich and give to the poor" policies. But perhaps it's necessary to let some of our cities follow these flawed ideas through, in the hopes that it educates more people?
Again, though it falls on deaf ears with the people who aren't already in agreement .... A vast majority of the homeless will not better their situations, even if large amounts of money are spent on giving them free things. Many have mental illnesses and simply aren't capable of functioning as contributing members of society. Occasionally, they even HAVE money but are living on the streets anyway, because that money is tied up in some sort of trust, set up for them by family members who knew they had issues. They're not in a frame of mind to withdraw that money and use it constructively on things like renting an apartment.....
America has some real challenges dealing with mental health, but I'm not sure the science is even at a stage where we can provide many solutions? You can give a lot of these people treatment, but serious mental problems don't get cured by any of the drugs out there. At best, some drug combinations work temporarily for a person, until their effectiveness decreases over the years. And it's a crap shoot if a new drug cocktail can be prescribed that gets them back to a functional state again for X number of additional years.
Once upon a time, we just locked them all away in asylums so the public didn't have to see or interact with them. Now, we don't - so you see them sleeping in the streets. It is what it is, but I don't want to punish businesses for any of it.
and don't do nearly as much damage as what Florida sees every 5-10 years.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
In the SF Bay area, the cost of homes are artificially high because the properties have changed hands so many times in the last decade--each time the price goes up from the agent and the banker. Now, we have large investment firms flipping houses, also driving up the costs. Here, we aren't making communities, we are making a collection of houses that few people own, which is exactly what the banks want.
On my street in Campbell, I've seen the same houses go $750,000 to over a $1,000,000 in less than 5 years. Even with two tech workers, it's not easy to pay that off.
The thing you won't be able to understand: a lot of the homeless in the SF Bay area, are blue-collar working people. People work to maintain the cities they often cannot afford to live in. This is also what happened in Orange County. The people who clean Irvine and Tustin Ranch live in Costa Mesa. What is also being built here seems a little like the old Science Fiction movie Metropolis.
Most of the traffic problems here are caused by single drivers going to work from where they can afford to work where they cannot afford to live.
There is also an attitude here that people don't believe how rich they are, which is caused by the high property. If you make $40,000 year, you might not be able to afford a 2-bedroom apartment here.
There are a few simple solutions:
1.) If you buy a house, you must keep it and live in for 5 years--unless you get divorced or show bankruptcy. This makes property homes and communities and not investment tokens.
2.) Zone more areas for apartments.
3.) Stop outlawing poverty and homelessness. Homelessness is an equal-opportunity affliction. This means no more police harassment.
4.) Give people a place to shower and go to the bathroom. It's not only the homeless people who need to use bathrooms. Pregnant women and men with prostate problems have to go more, too.
6.) Let people sleep in their cars.
7.) Make sure that homeless people can vote.
8.) Make social workers live as homeless people for 1 month before giving them jobs--on the lowest benefit afforded to the homeless people.
9.) Build small pod-hotels for the homeless people, like they have in Japan.
10.) Offer wash-machines for homeless people. If people can was their clothes, then they don't need to carry as much with them.
11.) Require that the "Salvation Army" either give homeless people clothes--or give up their non-profit status.
12.) Give more money to help the homeless, and get that money from reduced administration. It takes a lot of money in administration costs to deny people help.
13.) Consider giving 1/4th of the tax money to help a homeless person that might otherwise be spent to keep someone in jail.
14.) Give homeless people carts and storage solutions but expect them to organize their stuff. Riding along the Los Gatos Creek trail, I've seen homeless camps that where a shambles, but I also saw a well organized one, with signs of cottage industry.
15.) Few if any social programs have any kind of meaningful feedback. All social interviews should have a program in social worker performance review sheet. Are the programs working? Was the interviewer fair?
The problems surrounding homelessness won't get fixed unless the people involved run. As far as I know, the only politician around here gives a damn about the homeless--was himself homeless as a child when his families home burned down.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
some homeless are veterans and we need to do better for them.
Almost half of the homeless are employed either full or part time; they just can't afford housing. This is especially true in overly regulated California where the cost of development is so high and NIMBY policies make any type of affordable housing a pipe dream.
Cutting unnecessary regulations or increasing wages (through company policy not government regulation) are both ways that would drastically reduce homelessness. You'll always have issues with the extremely mentally ill sub group of the homeless population but outside of forced hospitalization there is limited ways to deal with them in any meaningful way.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
I think these are a bigger eye sore than the homeless.
For the record the big uptick in homelessness started under Reagan. He closed the insane asylums. It was part of a libertarian movement that said it was wrong to keep these folks locked up. Of course we didn't provide them any alternative housing or mental healthcare services (since in addition to "freedom" the idea was sold as a way to save money) and, well, predictable results.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Have you BEEN to downtown LA?
Talk abut Shit Holes.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
so you pay people not work, to be irresponsible bums, and now you're going to sink more money into the effort? You'll have even more hobos, is what you'll get.
[insert your own joke about /. here]
Anyway nursing homes are only for the elderly, and even then the ones that don't cost $5k+/mo are underfunded. Don't count on one if you get dementia.
The rest of those institutions will only house you if you're an active danger to yourself or people around you. You know that joke about "I cut myself to feel alive"? It comes from mentally ill people cutting themselves to show self harm so that they can be admitted to a loony bin long enough for an attack to safely pass. When I say "active danger" I don't mean suicidal thoughts, I mean you have to be actively trying to kill yourself. Until then you're on your own.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That's not how this works. that's not how any of this works
If everyone has enough money to buy food, housing, transportation that wouldn't make your wealth any less valuable.
OTOH it would diminish your power. For example, when you show up at a strip club with a wad of $20 dollar bills those girls aren't glomping on to you for your good looks for winning personality. Give those girls UBI and a lot of them wouldn't bother becoming strippers; and they'd never give you the time of day.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
There were plenty of $0 down mortgages back in 2008. Do you know what happened afterwards?
If they got downpayment assistance and could move into homes then a job loss would mean they could still live in those homes while they go through a restructuring of their loans with the banks.
No, they would be foreclosed. This is much worse than if they rented an apartment and could move out of the area.
A lot of people in 2008 survived by living rent free in their foreclosed houses. If these folks had been renting the homelessness would have been much worse. banks did not move to take possession as noone was buying and if they did an eviction then they would have to pay to guard an empty house or have it vandalized.
People taking 0$ loans did not cause 2008. The Mortgage brokers reselling these loans as AAA in order to get big bonuses caused 2008. If 0$ loans MBS had been priced properly we wouldnt have had a bust.
**Life is too short to be serious**
The problem stems from the Reagan-era budget cuts closing down mental health institutions aka insane asylums. (Reagan-era because although Reagan spearheaded it, control of Congress was split at the time so it couldn't have been done without the cooperation of both parties.) The hope was to divest the Federal government from mental health care (it's not listed in the Constitution as a responsibility of the Federal government) and put it back in the hands of the states (the downside of the 10th Amendment for the states). But the states never picked up the ball.
Consequently, about 25% of the homeless are people with severe mental health issues (vs about 4% for the general population). Add to that about 30%-40% who are addicted to drugs or alcohol (vs 10% for the general population). The large prevalence of mentally ill and substance abusers among the homeless prejudices people against the homeless in general, making recovery harder for the about 50% who are homeless simply because they've hit a rough patch in their lives.
At a city or county level, it's usually cheaper to simply boot the homeless out than to really tackle the issue. But that doesn't reduce the rate of homelessness, it merely hides it from view (in those cities). Just like a burglar alarm may reduce the chances of your house being robbed, but doesn't reduce the overall burglary rate (the burglar flees your home and robs another house instead). The problem really needs to be addressed at the state or national level for an effective solution - geographic areas large enough that simply booting them out doesn't appear to be a solution to legislators.
Deport them to Beverly Hills, Palo Alto, Santa Barbara, you know, where all the SJWs live.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.