Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ScrappleOnToast t1_j9v8lt1 wrote

Even after reading the article, I’m confused if that means they have a lot of millionaires, or not very many homeless children.

90

Generic_Mustard t1_j9vcvti wrote

750 students experiencing homeless is less than 1% of their students (96,000), but it'd be great to see the 1500 millionaires lead the charge to make that number 0.

42

drxdrg08 t1_j9vfcyd wrote

> but it'd be great to see the 1500 millionaires lead the charge to make that number 0.

I'd like to see evidence that there is not enough funding.

> In the academic year 2020 – 2021, 754 students experienced homelessness.

Or even get a definition of what "experienced homelessness" means. Does it include cases where there was a house fire and a family with kids were at a shelter for a few days? Does it include kids that has a fight with their parents and were runaways? How long was the average span of a stay at a shelter?

What they are saying certainly doesn't mean 750 students were homeless for the duration of the whole year.

−22

defusted t1_j9wbq0p wrote

I love the dick heads who try to justify that any amount of homeless kids is ok, even if it's for one day. Every single child should always have a place to call home every.single.one, full stop. You can even broaden this to literally every single person, all of them.

18

Blexcr0id t1_j9y1ifg wrote

Apathy... It's a symptom of the "I've got mine, f*c# you!" people.

12

rustoof t1_j9ycvci wrote

Houses have to be built, scarcity is real.

−2

drip_drip_splash t1_j9yte44 wrote

And governments are incapable of building them? What's your angle?

7

rustoof t1_ja357mo wrote

I mean the government can’t find the workers to replace badly needed and fully funded infrastructure projects so, I guess my angle is, if the government could why haven’t they? And if all the “housing is a human right” people really believe that, why is it easier to fill an office position at 15 an hour than a construction job at 20 an hour?

How many houses have you built in the last year?

1

ArcherChase t1_ja8h7jc wrote

Construction companies would rather not build if they cannot get a significant profit. Since new home buying is dropping, it means fewer construction jobs.

Because our society doesn't do things to fulfill needs of society. We NEED plentiful, affordable, permanent housing. We NEED new infrastructure that benefits the masses with public transit and more well designed population centers. We NEED alternative energy sources for a sustainable future.

We get whatever is most profitable to very few. We GET policy that isn't helpful to the masses but profitable to those who already hold power.

1

rustoof t1_jaexqjf wrote

You dont see any sort of correlation between the MOST FUCKED UP things in this country simultaneously being the ones the government is the deepest into "regulating, subsidizing, or policing"?

The housing market, the health care market, and the education market are all FUCKED by people like you thinking VOTING equals DOING what it takes to get things we "NEED".

Beleive me, let it all go, all the market capture, all the zoning, all the subsidies, and we'll end up with what we "need." Or you can keep trying to have a "kind a free market" and the economically obvious shortages that come with them.

1

victorix58 t1_j9yb84q wrote

Asking what a statistic means is a logical thing to do, regardless of what our hoped for course of action is afterwards.

4

tellmeaboutyourcat t1_j9w9n50 wrote

1 kid being homeless for 1 day is too many. What's your point? Is there some threshold for how many days a kid needs to be homeless before you care?

13

Electrical_Skirt21 t1_j9yihd5 wrote

It’s not the responsibility of one marginally successful person to bear the burden of a child of someone else to avoid 1 day of homelessness. Come on, now

5

tellmeaboutyourcat t1_j9ylqp7 wrote

No, I will not "come on now." Homelessness is a failure of society that we should all be ashamed of because we are all responsible for each other. The wealthy need to pay their fair share of taxes (which they don't because of endless loopholes) and those taxes need to go to support the least advantaged among us. That's how societies work, that is the purpose of society.

No, it's not the responsibility of any one individual, it's the responsibility of all of us.

7

Electrical_Skirt21 t1_j9ylz22 wrote

What are you doing to ensure kids don’t spend a single night homeless?

0

tellmeaboutyourcat t1_j9yrg3j wrote

I pay my taxes, vote, donate to my local food bank, and donate to my local women's shelter.

What are you doing?

3

Electrical_Skirt21 t1_j9ytdpt wrote

Mostly the same, except instead of donating to a Women’s shelter, we sponsor a family every year for Christmas.

3

tellmeaboutyourcat t1_j9z1dt3 wrote

Good for you. I still want millionaires to pay their fair share of taxes and the government to help the underserved communities.

2

Electrical_Skirt21 t1_j9z34t4 wrote

You guys should quantify exactly what my fair share is. If we tallied up everything people want to pay for by taxing the rich, it’s many times more money than we actually have. I’ve paid a shitload of money in taxes and these problems still exist. There’s no reason to believe that if I pay more, there will be fewer of these issues

3

tellmeaboutyourcat t1_j9zzamk wrote

The problem is that taxes are being spent poorly. Again, the solution is twofold - rich people pay their fair share and the government does its job by taking care of the people.

And I don't know how much money you have so I can't say what your fair share is, and that's not my job, either.

1

Electrical_Skirt21 t1_j9zzpe9 wrote

If I made one million dollars per year, how much should I pay in taxes and to which government (federal, state, local)?

0

tellmeaboutyourcat t1_ja07syu wrote

How should I know? I'm not a tax expert. But if you're exploiting tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes then you're doing it wrong.

1

Electrical_Skirt21 t1_ja08mw4 wrote

Why did they put in those “loopholes” if not for people to use them? And your not being a tax expert sure didn’t slow your roll when advocating for raising my taxes. I just want to know how much of my money is enough for you

1

tellmeaboutyourcat t1_ja0mati wrote

The loopholes were put there by corrupt politicians bought and paid for by billionaires, so no, I don't consider them legitimate.

Not once have I advocated for raising taxes. I want rich folks to pay their fair share. Period. Where did I stutter?

1

Electrical_Skirt21 t1_ja0n52t wrote

I pay exactly what I owe. Not only do I think that’s fair, I think it’s too much.

Give me two examples of a tax loophole that is abused by high earning people.

1

tellmeaboutyourcat t1_ja0uwtp wrote

OMG get off it, if you pay your fair share idgaf about you. If you feel attacked when I say that the rich should pay their fair share then maybe you need to talk to your CPA.

2

ArcherChase t1_ja8hk5x wrote

You're pretending the "rich" are these people with a net worth of like $5M. We are talking about taxing those with net worth in the Billions. The difference is unfathomable and the tax from the revenue that they amassed would solve a lot of societies woes.

1

YarnPerson t1_j9yt28l wrote

Will echo: Come on now. That’s a pretty thin resume to secure that high spot on the mountaintop your looking down on people from.

0

drip_drip_splash t1_j9ytktg wrote

It's telling you didn't even try to come up with a list of stuff you do to help a single person in your community

0

YarnPerson t1_j9yuwjn wrote

Didn’t think it was needed. I’m not the one pulling out a soapbox to lecture someone for asking a wildly legitimate question. Always fair to ask about facts.

But since you seem interested: I too pay taxes, vote, donate to multiple local charities (including my local food bank, RMHC, animal shelter, protecting women’s rights). I serve on the board for a NP focused on pediatric oncology. For a living, I spend a lot of time on health care equality - access and affordability, and connecting people to local resources.

2

tellmeaboutyourcat t1_j9z0y6h wrote

Good for you, the person I was responding to didn't ask a question, they showed skepticism for my stance on homelessness.

It's a logical fallacy to point the finger at individuals to solve the homelessness problem. Just like with climate change and a host of other issues, the problem is systemic and needs to be fixed from the top. I do what I can to help my community, but we as a society need to come together to hold the government accountable for doing their job.

−1

YarnPerson t1_j9z7z7v wrote

Take a look at what you initially responded to in this comment thread. You’re tone is pretty consistent in your comments throughout the post. You are doing barely more than the price of admission to be a part of the societal solution you’re describing. Admittedly, I am too; but, also not being a jerk about it and shaming people for asking questions or saving for retirement.

1

tellmeaboutyourcat t1_ja00b9h wrote

What the fuck? There is no price of admission to being in a society. The only obligation that I have to anyone is paying taxes. I do the other stuff because that's what I want to do. IDGAF what you do with your spare time or spare money.

All I've said is that homelessness is a social failure that needs to not exist and that rich people need to pay their fair share.

What I'm now wondering is what do you think is the acceptable number of days for a child to be homeless? Because to me it's zero. The first comment I replied to asked irrelevant questions about how many days those kids were homeless, as if that determines how they feel about whether or not it's worth doing something about it.

And if you interpret that as being a jerk, fine. But anyone who's cool with homeless kids is a jerk, so IDGAF.

0

YarnPerson t1_ja33rmr wrote

Your response is my point.

You’re making an ad hominem argument that when I ask a question about how homelessness is defined in an article where the targeted outcome seems to be highlighting a “class” difference (vs offer any view of solutions) it means that I DGAF homeless children. It’s an emotional and baseless position that let’s you feel morally superior to anyone you’re talking with. All the while, you’re not actually doing anything tangible that we shouldn’t expect from every one of our neighbors to make things better.

I hate that anyone feels the vulnerability of homelessness. Especially children. Even for one night. Sadly, the condition is real. When we’re distracted by fighting for the moral high ground (that mountaintop, if you will) we’re not only not making it better, we’re dampening any hope of progress.

1

tellmeaboutyourcat t1_j9z0b2d wrote

Seriously, what mountaintop? I'm not asking millionaires to buy houses for poor people, just to pay their fair share in taxes. I want the government to do its job and help people.

I don't think charity "resume" matters, but they asked what I do, as if I don't follow my own values.

0

Alternative_Donut_62 t1_j9yk5xz wrote

You are getting downvoted by people who have no clue, unfortunately. Definition is likely from the McKinney-Vento Act. https://usafacts.org/articles/what-can-mckinney-vento-act-data-reveal-about-youth-homelessness/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=ND-Elections&gclid=Cj0KCQiAgOefBhDgARIsAMhqXA6XU5kuno2NFKPB7jt4l1PAGHsVxZ1kTWrrAzxmb7aiR5FKxqG56NMaAofOEALw_wcB

We, 100%, need to understand what is meant by homeless in order to understand how to help.

A few years ago, our house was damaged to the point of being uninhabitable. We had to move into temporary housing. Under McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, the kids were considered “homeless” during that time. It was a good thing, because McKinney-Vento allows kids who become homeless to continue at their present school during times of homelessness. (For instance, even though our temporary housing was zoned to a different school, our kids could keep going to their usual school, giving them a degree of normalcy in an otherwise abnormal situation). We are very fortunate, because at no point were my kids at risk in any real fashion. (I totally get that transience due to home destruction is a rare part - this is just an example that was personnel to me)

McKinney-Vento also covers children living in domestic violence shelters. We need to understand if there are resources in place to get victims of domestic violence the help they need.

It also covers when families can’t afford rent and have to move in with others. For that, adequate, affordable housing has to be available. This is always a problem. Easiest way to increase affordable housing is to build apartment complexes. Apartment complexes increase the population density and put strains on public resources (parking, schools that our governments don’t fully fund in the first place, roads (lol), etc.). All of this has to be accounted for.

This is not to downplay homelessness - just to show that homelessness doesn’t always mean what it traditionally thought of.

11

hvacthrowaway223 t1_j9veyq9 wrote

Sorry, I’m a millionaire. When do I get my homeless child? Like is it a waitlist?

39

Allemaengel t1_j9vsf2z wrote

Housing costs are insane in Bucks.

I work there but live nowhere close to it.

12

drxdrg08 t1_j9vzh8w wrote

They are lower than in Montgomery and Chester counties, both of which have higher household incomes.

4

OccasionallyImmortal t1_j9wry66 wrote

Taxes in Bucks are much higher. Friends of ours bought a similar-sized house on the same sized property and they pay double our property taxes. The house was no less expensive.

5

Ghstfce t1_j9xndtv wrote

I live in Ivyland Borough in Bucks. Across Bristol Road the property taxes are pretty much double than what I pay.

2

RealLiveKindness t1_j9ydpfj wrote

After working for 45 years living modestly & saving Diligently I am a millionaire. However, I need to live off that money for hopefully the next 40. I spend a good portion of my income now on drugs & healthcare. The number of millionaires vs homeless kids is a poor metric for comparison. I would tell old Fitz to not approve stupid tax cuts and support education spending, stop usury student loan practices, and support our democracy.

9

werthless57 t1_j9zekjy wrote

I suspect that the article's stat is actually based on annual income. I would expect that there are many more than 1,500 people in Bucks County with a 7 figure net worth (especially including home equity).

2

RealLiveKindness t1_j9zlbl3 wrote

Could be, in the first paragraph they mention the median income is $99,000.00. Pretty skewed distribution if that’s the case.

5

Responsible-Type-392 t1_j9w902l wrote

So the millionaires should adopt the kids or buy them a house? Idk what this article proposes.

6

tellmeaboutyourcat t1_j9w9uka wrote

Millionaires should pay their fair share and the government should use that money to support low income families to prevent homelessness.

13

Responsible-Type-392 t1_j9wb4id wrote

Millionaires pay a lot already. What percentage is their “fair share”? Top income tax rate is 37%.

2

FlakeyMuskrat t1_j9wblvv wrote

Which they don’t actually pay because loopholes.

7

drxdrg08 t1_j9wqefd wrote

> Which they don’t actually pay because loopholes.

PA state taxes have no loopholes. Have you ever read the PA tax code?

10

Responsible-Type-392 t1_j9wctz6 wrote

… then where do all our taxes come from?

1

FlakeyMuskrat t1_j9wddr1 wrote

You really think income tax from millionaires makes up a large portion of our state tax?

3

Responsible-Type-392 t1_j9wewsj wrote

I would say that income tax makes up the largest source to the PA budget and millionaires pay a significant portion of that source. So yes.

6

FlakeyMuskrat t1_j9wireu wrote

Ooof I admire your optimism that money actually comes from millionaires and not the working class.

6

Responsible-Type-392 t1_j9wiyfs wrote

I’m just looking at the official PA budget on the treasury website. Give it a try. Unless you think those numbers are falsified.

1

FlakeyMuskrat t1_j9wjupj wrote

Might wanna check your source and be sure to click the revenue tab at the top. Individual estimated tax payments is literally the 4th biggest source of revenue for taxes. But you think millionaires pay their fair share in taxes, I’m not surprised you can’t do proper research.

https://www.patreasury.gov/transparency/revenue.php

5

Responsible-Type-392 t1_j9wou3s wrote

“I’m not surprised you can’t do proper research”

Yikes! Shots fired. I wish I was as pompous as you.

Hey… what is “withholding” anyway? Hmm. Look at page 2.

https://www.revenue.pa.gov/News%20and%20Statistics/ReportsStats/TaxCompendium/StatSupplement/Documents/2021-22_stat_supp.pdf

Try and be less of a total jerk next time.

5

FlakeyMuskrat t1_j9ww5a4 wrote

I’ve already wasted enough time arguing with someone who supports millionaires. That’s my fault.

5

Advanced-Guard-4468 t1_j9yaepa wrote

There maybe loopholes to lower your income but you still have to pay taxes on your reported income. You only pay taxes on your income, not your net worth.

1

FlakeyMuskrat t1_ja07p7r wrote

Yes and those are the issues (loopholes) I’m talking about. If one makes millions of dollars, they can “lower” their income on paper for massive amounts of money that are then, untaxed.

2

Advanced-Guard-4468 t1_ja08mtr wrote

No they can't. There is only so much you can do by itemized deduction to lower their incomes.

Someone who is a millionaire only has to be mid to late 40s with a 401k, a home and two incomes that total 150k.

You might be thinking super wealthy

1

HomicidalHushPuppy t1_j9vjxdq wrote

Many sources say you should have at least $1M set aside to retire comfortably. So being a millionaire means you can retire by yourself. Doesn't mean you can support a kid.

5

hedgehogging_the_bed t1_j9vndwh wrote

I had heard this often too but it's being reported this week that it's now being recommended you should save at least $3 million for retirement.

Just more fiscal goalpost moving.

16

sutisuc t1_j9w0su0 wrote

Good thing it doesn’t look like I’ll ever retire

12

Weary_Ad7119 t1_j9wjo5l wrote

3M is enough for 145k a year until you are like 95. You'll be just fine with less even accounting for inflation.

6

hedgehogging_the_bed t1_j9wk6xw wrote

This was the article that's being reported on: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-21/saving-for-retirement-investors-say-you-ll-need-3-million-to-be-comfortable

1

Pink_Slyvie t1_j9xlyjt wrote

People really underestimate how expensive late-in-life healthcare is. My grandmother was fairly well off, not rich, but they did well. Her healthcare is going to eat all of her assets, leaving nothing left, she has pretty much exhausted her Medicare, and now they start taking from her assets before she gets more. She could live another decade, but it's not going to be a pleasant existence, I wish I had a way to help.

3M (in today's dollars) is honestly about the minimum, because you will likely reach a point where you will need to spend tens, possibly hundreds of thousands a month in healthcare.

4

SneedyK t1_j9y2xms wrote

You’re hitting upon a problem that’s going to explode the infrastructure of living facilities and home health care as older Americans continue to live longer. I have an online pal who studies gerontology and she says about 80% of the cost of healthcare ends up going to end-of-life care.

3

hedgehogging_the_bed t1_j9yqk07 wrote

My mother worked in ICU care. She told me roughly 85% of the money spent on your healthcare in your lifetime will be in your last month of life.

2

Weary_Ad7119 t1_j9xt2vo wrote

Shitty article. If you actually read that 3m number isn't based on anything but a shitty pole from wealth managers with zero context for the person.

The math isn't hard and of you don't believe you can live off of 100k a year + ss then you might have a life style issue and are spending too much.

2

AskMoreQuestionsOk t1_j9yu9nw wrote

True. But 3m allows you to maintain a lifestyle at a certain level indefinitely as well as buy other financial products so you can pass your wealth to your children via life insurance or pay for long term care. It’s also the level at which you can start to do rich people money shenanigans.

1

drxdrg08 t1_j9vqevk wrote

Doesn't matter. You will read this low effort class warfare fluff piece and upvote it. Or else.

3

egJohn t1_j9wfjy6 wrote

i mean, there is a class war going on, what's your point

4

Er3bus13 t1_j9wk7vg wrote

Temporarily embarrassed millionaire thinks he isn't one of us. One day he'll be rich too.

6

drxdrg08 t1_j9wlmxz wrote

You do know that more than 10% of all households are millionaires without even counting their house?

When you factor in being able to spell, use of proper punctuation and computer literacy, the percentage is much higher. Don't assume everyone is broke on Reddit.

−2

worstatit t1_j9yflbh wrote

Not to mention, a house in that area will probably take you a long way towards your "million".

2

CarrotTotal4955 t1_j9yi2v7 wrote

Being a millionaire doesn't mean anything these days. It just means you've saved responsibly, not that you have vast riches.

0

Abbraxus t1_j9vj98t wrote

What is the millionaire to cop killer ratio?

−6