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

hvacthrowaway223 t1_j9veyq9 wrote

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

39

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

Abbraxus t1_j9vj98t wrote

What is the millionaire to cop killer ratio?

−6

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

Allemaengel t1_j9vsf2z wrote

Housing costs are insane in Bucks.

I work there but live nowhere close to it.

12

Responsible-Type-392 t1_j9w902l wrote

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

6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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_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

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

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

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_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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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