Until the problem of money in politics gets fixed, your "simple" problem is largely unfixable.
Until the problem of money in politics gets fixed, your "simple" problem is largely unfixable.
Where it's personally frustrating for me: I've sold two companies in my life, and saw my tax rate jump from the lowest to the highest. I'm fine with that. I did well and despite all the work I put in, I recognize the amount of good fortune that was involved - and I'm perfectly happy to give back more because it affects me less, and because it's my fair share.
I recognize that a lot of others don't feel that way, and certainly recognize the influence that money has on politics. That's sad and frustrating to me.
People with school age kids probably vote to approve new funding for school districts at a higher rate than people without kids. Even if the difference is only a couple percent. Is that a scandal? No. Indeed, if nobody had kids, there probably shouldn't be a school. If everybody had kids, why, a good school is an the very heart of the community.
If you really feel that way, charitable organizations can effectively distribute donations far more efficiently and effectively than any government organization has ever been able to. I suspect that if all of the people who say they feel the same way did just voluntarily donate what they considered their own fair share to charity, the homeless crisis would be mostly solved.
1) There's a capability gap. Charities can't do a number of things that are needed that local government can. Simple things like permission to operate portable toilets, or working alongside cops for redirection away from jail it possible, are somewhere between multi-month activities outside their core-competencies to impossible for private actors.
2) The vast bulk of private charities segment their 'market' in various ways that leaves gaps. That's fine, but it isn't going to "mostly solve" the issues caused by society-wide economic failures.
3) Because the problems are so varied, coordination reaps substantial benefits. Social workers talking to cleanup crews talking to mental health talking to cops is a dynamic that your local churches are not equipped to take part in.
Kneejerk antigovernment bias is a national pastime, I know. I'll even play along when it is valid. But the idea that the Salvation Army is going to spring to the rescue is fantasy.
Two, many people don't think rich people should be the ones choosing how we help those in need and who should qualify for that help. Popular causes will get more money, and that often times doesn't line up with what is actually needed.
Third, you seem to completely ignore the problem of collective action. Saying "why don't you just give your own money and leave everyone else alone" is not a way to accomplish things in a society.
If we had an unfettered market perhaps cheap apartments could be built and given to the homeless by charity. In practice new housing that complies with all zoning codes, labor regulations, etc ends up costing quite a lot.
Government certainly has a role to play here even if it is just changing policies to stop driving up costs. Of course governments also have eminent domain power and other powers that private organizations can’t access.
I spent nearly 6 years homeless. I'm currently in an SRO. It is like a million times better.
The hundreds of billions of dollars per year paid out with minimum fuss by Social Security suggest otherwise.
The 1% may have 50% (or more) of the money, but they only have 1% of the votes. The 99% (or rather, those members of the 99% who vote as if they're in the 1%) need to exert their power at the polling booth.
Yes, but that money also buys political votes via contributions, political influence, and affects legislation favorably towards themselves. Look at how much money Google alone spent in 2017 on lobbying ($18M). If that wasn't gaining them tremendous influence, I highly doubt they'd be doing it. Not to single Google out (they just spent more than anyone else last year)... they all do it... because they have the money to do it... and it pays off.
The 1% have a lot more influence than just their "1 vote each."
http://fortune.com/2018/01/24/google-facebook-amazon-apple-l...
I feel this is an easy cop out. And while money absolutely influences politics, votes get people elected. And in today's age of connectivity, there should be no reason a candidate can't overcome that money barrier if they appeal to the the wider populace.
I think the reality is more we don't want to look at ourselves as architects of the negatives we see. Like how many here dont like the current state of government and can say they are highly politically active in creating change?
Sadly I think apathy is one of the largest variables for poor government.
Irrespective of income, nobody in SF can stand the status quo. It's not a question of whether there's a willingness to pay -- I personally wonder if anyone even has a credible plan.
I can't think of any meaningful way to resolve this, but I'm guessing the majority earn less than $150k...
On the hopeful side, I feel like there is a bottom enabling threshold where money is needed for a campaign, but beyond that basic level there are many modern channels for voter engagement.Those channels only now are really starting to be employed effectively by younger, newer politicians and will let us "fix the engine while it's running".
Some campaigns were successful on small donations and people power.
We should have more good data once we see elected people perform in Congress.
The big question is whether they can maintain agency longer term.