Truth Detector (09-01-2017)
Members banned from this thread: midcan5 |
http://www.dailynews.com/social-affa...ouncilman-says
Supposedly California is the sixth biggest economy in the world. Surely they can afford to give all of their homeless housing. They are home to some of the richest people in the world. Surely we can tax them more in order to make sure children aren't living in the streets.
I thought these people were compassionate
Truth Detector (09-01-2017)
What is the problem that taxing the rich is to solve ?
"Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything." Joseph Stalin
The USA has lost WWIV to China with no other weapons but China Virus and some cash to buy democrats.
CA is 6th in size but it is not a free-standing economy. The CA economy is integrated within the larger US economy and this constrains its economic options just as federal law constrains its political options.
Truth Detector (09-01-2017)
The OP claims, "Surely they can afford to give all of their homeless housing." The constraint is not from federal law but the necessity of operating the California economy within the context of the US economy. If CA were a sovereign country, it might try a universal housing program of some sort. Tied to the other 49 states by the federal government, such a program would not be feasible.
I think what you're trying to say is that if CA had free housing for the homeless then homeless from other states could move to CA and take advantage of that, inundating the program. This ignores the fact that CA could restrict the program to residents of CA, the precedent being its University system, which does exactly that.
Truth Detector (09-01-2017)
I appreciate your effort to understand what you think I am trying to say but please remember that what you think I am trying to say isn't what I said. Your are correct that CA could restrict a free housing program to California residents; the issue of how the state defines its citizenship isn't quite as simple as it might appear. In any event, the very high cost of a free housing program would require taxation which could adversely effect the CA economy if other states had no such burden. State economies aren't closed systems.
Each state must budget its social programs within the confines of the tax revenue it can raise from its economy. Unlike the federal government, the states can't print money or run endless deficits. The Constitution imposes restrictions on the power of states to interfere with inter-state trade, so no state can seal its borders and set up its social programs without regard other states.
Some states have relatively strong economies -- California is a big one, my New Hampshire is a tiny one. Some states have lots of poor people in need, some have fewer. Some states have economies that are self-contained, others depend of a highly competitive inter-state economy.
Put these parameters together and let the system run and you get the kind of concentration of capital we saw in the 19th century. Simply put, the rich states get richer and the poor states get poorer. The Civil War taught America a bitter lesson about how concentration of capital weakens the union and ever since, the federal government has undertaken responsibility to balance and distribute some degree of the national wealth to maintain social stability and economic development across the diverse states. All Americans benefit from the wealth and power generated by our huge nation.
Truth Detector (09-01-2017)
That's an interesting theory but really doesn't make much sense, especially with respect to the OP.
For instance, the last paragraph, you claim that without FedCo the system would concentrate capital in a few states. There is no mechanism for that. Then you double down and claim that was the reason for the Civil War. Non sequitur on top of non sequitur.
Bookmarks