It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mayor argues against homeless tax in SF with a somewhat ironic reasoning

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:10 PM
link   

In the latest turn of events, liberals are sounding like conservatives!

Cheat sheet:
- "Could attract homeless people from neighboring counties to the city, and could cost middle-class jobs in retail and service."
- "I have to make decisions with my head, not just my heart."

Wouldn't this reasoning translate perfectly to the illegal epidemic in out southern border?
Would it be possible the wage suppression and extra infrastructure required by these illegals are the cause that we cannot take care of our lower class?
______________________________________________________________

A citizen led effort called Proposition C is backed by the largest employer in the region, Salesforce. Under the proposed legislature, the tax would trigger an average half-percent tax increase on companies' revenue above $50 million each year. This would raise an additional $300 million in revenue to combat homelessness. The city already allocates $380 million a year for the homelessness epidemic and even has a "poop patrol" to clean the streets.

Surprisingly Mayor London breed is arguing that... well just read the quote below.


In San Francisco, it's also become an intriguing fight between recently elected Mayor London Breed, who is siding with the city's Chamber of Commerce in urging a no vote, and philanthropist Benioff, whose company is San Francisco's largest private employer with 8,400 workers. Breed came out hard against the measure, saying it lacked collaboration, could attract homeless people from neighboring counties to the city, and could cost middle-class jobs in retail and service. "I have to make decisions with my head, not just my heart," Breed said. "I do not believe doubling what we spend on homelessness without new accountability, when we don't even spend what we have now efficiently, is good government."



Salesforce vs Twitter in San Francisco homeless tax fight


Are leftists inmune to irony or just stupid? This kind of blatant hypocrisy grinds my gears.
Are they going to start calling the mayor Racist, Bigot, and all the other-ists??

Midterms are going to be a bloodbath.
edit on 10/15/2018 by efabian because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/15/2018 by efabian because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: efabian


So a Democrat is against raising taxes to help the poor? I think we have come full circle.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: highvein

No just that, he argues that it would attract homeless people from other counties, and would cost jobs to the middle class.
If you change the word 'homeless' to 'illegal' and 'counties' to 'countries', it sounds suspiciously similar to what the right has been saying all through these years.
edit on 10/15/2018 by efabian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: highvein

Maybe eventually they'll figure out that while they've kept raising taxes, they've been busy passing regulations that make affordable housing impossible to build. Between all of this, they've pretty much killed what passes for a middle class in California.

Either you are very rich or very poor, and the more of this they pursue, the more get squeezed out at the very bottom to become homeless or simply give up and move out.

They're creating their own problem, and they want to export this to the rest of the country.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: efabian

I have nothing to add to the OP, except who the bleep names their kid London Breed??

That names just rolls off the tongue like a box of tacks.


edit on 15-10-2018 by JAGStorm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Last I looked they we're spending just under $50,000 per year per homeless. Big business keeping people on the street. Fine plantation to live in.





posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: efabian






If you change the word 'homeless' to 'illegal' and 'counties' to 'countries', it sounds suspiciously similar to what the right has been saying all through these years.



It is weird that it comes off that they care more about illegal immigrants than they do the legal homeless.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Last I looked they we're spending just under $50,000 per year per homeless. Big business keeping people on the street. Fine plantation to live in.





posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

Sounds like a dog breed to be honest, lol.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko





Maybe eventually they'll figure out that while they've kept raising taxes, they've been busy passing regulations that make affordable housing impossible to build. Between all of this, they've pretty much killed what passes for a middle class in California.



I fear your confidence that they will maybe figure anything out comes with great angst.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: highvein

Hopefully this snipstorm will be over soon enough, SF looks like is about to implode.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:34 PM
link   
This is a great way to get businesses to relocate to more business friendly environs. Throwing money at a problem isn’t the way to solve things. It’s a cop-out and is the lazy way people in government solve problems when they eschew creative solutions.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: efabian

That's great and all and honestly I do believe that by modern western standards homelessness, which mostly effects single males by the way (in the UK the numbers are far FAR ahead of women) but is there going to be a check to make sure that money would go to solve homelessness? I mean the same thing over here in the UK, people are talking about the NHS and a way of saving it would be if every single person living in the UK would pay a penny extra in tax and call it the NHS TAX but the fear I have is that not a penny of the money will end up going to what it is supposed to go. I mean we've seen it time and again governments promise one thing and then along comes that evil Mister Corruption and starts to take money for "other" things.

If the money was ring fenced, protected and given to charities who deal with homelessness and the problem was worked on and you could actually see that it was being worked on then great I'm all for it but unless there is that protection then this does nothing and the same with the NHS, I'm happy to pay an extra 5p per person BUT only if it is a protected tax that only goes for the NHS.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: efabian


So a Democrat is against raising taxes to help the poor? I think we have come full circle.


Mandela Effect in full force.


edit on 15-10-2018 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: mikell
Last I looked they we're spending just under $50,000 per year per homeless. Big business keeping people on the street. Fine plantation to live in.




Sad thing is that that much money will keep most people in a lot of other areas in the country, but not California for the reason I cited above.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Dwoodward85

I have no issue with helping people on our streets, if done right it could give hope back to a very large part of our population.
But I believe they are starting to see the light and understand that giving things away without structure is a No-no.
edit on 10/15/2018 by efabian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: efabian

It isn't just giving things away without structure. It's giving things away with a large structure in place. Most of that money gets sucked into bureaucrat pockets instead of going where it needs to go.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dwoodward85
a reply to: [post=23863468]efabian[st]

If the money was ring fenced, protected and given to charities who deal with homelessness and the problem was worked on and you could actually see that it was being worked on then great I'm all for it but unless there is that protection then this does nothing and the same with the NHS, I'm happy to pay an extra 5p per person BUT only if it is a protected tax that only goes for the NHS.


most charity spends most of its donations on "operational fees" aka staff bonus and bribery
"non profit" orgs cant show a profit at the end of the year, so that money often goes to ceo bonuses, buying "office equipment" (new curtains for the wife), etc.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Would rather take care of the border debacle before tackling this issue, with illegals pouring non-stop the funds are never going to be enough.

PS: You're right, bureaucracy is one of the mayor roadblocks to any cost-effective solution.
edit on 10/15/2018 by efabian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 06:48 PM
link   
San Francisco might be chalking full of liberal minded people; that doesn't mean they all like the homeless.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join