Unable to load image

Free unconditional money improves quality of life. Break through study on :marseypoor: :!marsey911roofer:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38701227

Call me a chud, there's no way I believe this

About 2% of the total went to alcohol, cigarettes and drug expenses

:marseyxdoubt:

Any homeless camp on the sidewalk with open drug use definitely has more than $15/mo spend on drugs, alchy, and cigs. Isn't a pack of cigs in the west coast like $10 for a single pack alone?

I think a lot of productive hardworking people's money has been spent on propaganda whose sole intention is to ensure that people equate homeless people to "mentally ill drug addicts" rather than, say, "private equity real estate buyup refugees"

Is private equity in the fentalnyl business :marseybeanquestion: and are we really back pedaling so hard we are going to ignore mental health issues and homelessness?

49
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This was on stupidpol a while back, the trick was they pre-selected the people they gave it to to ensure they only picked people who weren't drug addicts. Like they filtered through a list of homeless people, found the 1 or 2 out of a thousand who were hard working single mothers who couldn't pay the rent, and just used those

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseyhesright:

They did the same here in Canada several times, and yeah they made it extremely hyperspecific so only people that recently got homeless and were living with their parents or friends qualified.

Something like no severe mental conditions, no drug history, and must have a mailing address or whatever. Kinda like how China defines their homelessness as "doesn't exist".

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I see nothing wrong with this :marseywholesome:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:pepemoney:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I mean more money always means better life doesnt it? At least they got more money for more drugs, which is better than less drugs, right?

About 2% of the total went to alcohol, cigarettes and drug expenses

Yeah no way this is true tho lol

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You see, if you pay their rent and their rent money goes straight to heroin instead, then technically you didn't pay for their heroin.

:marseybigbrain#:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Some guy in the thread says he's been homeless 2,000 days and doesn't do drugs or drink

:marseybruh2: what a bum at least enjoy your squalor

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

All the Single Room Occupancies were shut down by speculation on real estate. Cheap neet caves and hobo nests for 80 bucks a month priced out by hipsters and yuppies. :marseysad:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

cage apartments and trailer parks :marseyshortbus: are inhumane it's much better :marseysaulgoodman: if poors have to live in literal tents on the street.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The top federal income tax rate was 91 percent in 1950 and 1951, and between 1954 and 1959. In 1952 and 1953, the top federal income tax rate was 92 percent. (USA)

We need to go back to this. Wealth inequality is damaging society far more than ever.

Income inequality has plummeted since 2019 due to the tight labor market. Weirdly, the fentanyl zombies keep multiplying. What gives?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Effective tax rate is basically flat anyway. Nobody was paying 91 percent

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Could they name a single person paying even 80% of their income in federal taxes back then? I hear this quoted all the time but they don't say they Kennedys or Roosevelts had their net incomes cut to 20% of their gross

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseyshapiro: Let's say, hypothetically, you've been a naughty child even, ok, and if you were a naughty child you would also be waging war on Christmas? Then hypothetically speaking you would be on my little Naughty List. Now let's say that you're also a non-Christian child, now that we've established you're both a bad child and non-Christian child, then I believe you'd agree with me when I say that you deserve a stocking full of coal, am I not correct? A bad child deserves a stocking full of coal and as I am Father Christmas, you are my child, so I am the one who must provide punishment. :carpshapiro:

Snapshots:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The top comment: 2k days of homelessness. Dumbass claims to not be a junkie (highly :marseyxdoubt:). I hope that r-slur understands that it's actually more pathetic to be homeless and NOT be addicted to drugs.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.