• chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Best of all, the Vancouver study concluded that doing so actually reduces government spending.

    Makes you wonder about the people dead set against this sort of thing

    • oroboros@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Unfortunately, quite a lot of people only feel self worth through others misery. You could give them everything, but if others didn’t have less they’d be miserable.

    • GeneralVincent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      They’ve likely associated homelessness with drug use, and drug use with a moral failing. Or they just don’t have any empathy at all and are ignorant of the benefits we all get from helping those in need.

  • Sternout@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Yes, but you see this policy isn’t cruel enough to be implemented by the christian right

  • Wilzax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    Cool, now make it happen for everyone with no questions asked. Then we cut out the overhead of seeing if you qualify and stop people from complaining about how it incentivises you to be lazy.

    No level of effort will make you earn less than you did before, as can happen when you earn enough that you no longer qualify for the programs that let you take the first steps out of poverty. But it will still be cheaper for the government (and therefore the taxpayer) at the end of the day because we won’t be wasting as many resources trying to heal people who are only sick because they were suffering extreme poverty, or are only addicts because it’s the only way to make their practically hopeless living situation slightly more bearable, or are only unemployed because every job makes them earn too much to stay on SNAP benefits or Medicaid (US examples, I know, but I’m willing to bet similar Catch-22s exist near you).

    • Doug Holland@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      “No questions asked” is brilliant.

      The people who need aid most — any kind of alleged aid program — are not capable of navigating the proof and paperwork maze. That’s not accidental, it’s cost control. All aid programs should be as close to “no questions asked” as feasible.