I like the Asian model of subsidized housing. This is where 6,8,10,12 members of the same family pool their money together to buy a house in Brampton and all live in the same house. In no time the house is fully paid. The beauty is that this kind of "subsidized housing" doesn't cost the taxpayer a dime. The only problem is that occasionally a female is discovered dead in the house and nobody knows what happened.
subsidized housing
- Thread starter red
- Start date
Ten or twelve people in a house tend to use a disproportionate amount of amount of public services relative to the property taxes paid on that propertyI like the Asian model of subsidized housing. This is where 6,8,10,12 members of the same family pool their money together to buy a house in Brampton and all live in the same house. In no time the house is fully paid. The beauty is that this kind of "subsidized housing" doesn't cost the taxpayer a dime. The only problem is that occasionally a female is discovered dead in the house and nobody knows what happened.
I can not imagine a house with 12 people living in it would be the most hygienic of places.
Actually, in reality, there would be no road to carry me without people helping people. As a society we have decided to help each other, pool resources, and make the world better together. We pay taxes to make the roads we all use. I'd rather we didn't put so much into the roads, actually... and had a lot less cars, etc, but I give that up because it is pointless to argue with the consensus of modern society. As a collective we have built a system that helps us all, though it continues to evolve and will change over time. If everyone decided to just eat anyone who got in their way, we really would all still be animals... and we would still co-operate even then.That is a very nice thought, and the world would be a nicer place if everyone acted this way
However, back to reality
Your sentiment and a bus token will get you downtown, but not much further.
Your competition in business does not act in accordance with your "people helping people" principle.
Its a dog-eat-dog world and you do not want to be wearing milk bone underwear.
I know that we are all sure that nature is dog eat dog, survival of the fittest... but that isn't the whole story either. Creatures live in niches to avoid competition, and do well at it. And long before there were dogs to eat dogs, there were single cell creatures who got together and formed the first multicell life forms, that is, cells co-operated with other cells, began to specialize, and eventually we end up here.
And somehow, I have no business competition. I work in the education racket. That is all about building a society in co-operation. Of course one can disagree about how things are organized, but that argument is contingent on a safe place to have the discussion, a civilized world built through the work of other people, throughout history, for the common good.
Civilization evolves - at one time basic necessities of life were scarce, and someone who couldn't walk, or was 30 years old, was a drag on survival of their fellows. They either were left out in the cold, or went there themselves to help their fellows keep going. Now, just because you can't walk doesn't mean you have to die to save the rest of us... and people in wheelchairs have done great things for us - who is that smartest guy in the world who can't even talk without a machine to help him? And we don't all need to contribute to that level - a good friend in a wheelchair can make life better for anyone who is lucky enough to know them.
Zoning
FAST
Is it even legal ?Ten or twelve people in a house tend to use a disproportionate amount of amount of public services relative to the property taxes paid on that property
I can not imagine a house with 12 people living in it would be the most hygienic of places.
FAST
Civilization evolves - QUOTE]
Yes it does
The number one driver of this evolution is the incentive to capture wealth through innovation and invention
If someone invents a better wheelchair, they still charge a premium over the old model & the competition (if the market allows the premium)
But, I would think all the utilities are metered based on usage. 10 or 12 people would be at the upper end, probably 3 generations living under one roof.Ten or twelve people in a house tend to use a disproportionate amount of amount of public services relative to the property taxes paid on that property
I think 10 to 12 people under one roof and the legality depends on their circumstances.... if it's grandparents, parents and children that's probably okay. But if it's 10 to 12 people renting the same house that might not be the case.
But when I was in University and looking for a place to stay I remember one house that had been divided up into 11 rooms! That was in Guelph.
You get into issues when the garage is being rented out (I've heard of that in Markham) or basement apartments without proper fire escapes.
Begs the question what's cheaper subsidies housing for 12 people or 12 people sharing one house when you look at tax contributions and what not.
But this is getting away from the OP's topic.
It's interesting to hear different POVs on people of low income. Bit disappointing that some people are upset at what I consider a core value in Canada which is we provide a social safety net. No doubt some will exploit it. But for those who want to exploit it I say more power to them because I would rather work and make real money than sit around a scrape by on government handouts. I've met and known people who used the system respectfully and I am glad it was there to help them.
I'm not a criminologist but I like to think that the social safety net is what keeps our poor neighbourhoods as being as bad as ghettos in the US. e.g. East Baltimore, South Central LA etc.
that's not to say East Hastings or Jane and Finch are Disney Land just that they aren't as bad. Whether the root cause is the net or not I can't say for sure.
But when I was in University and looking for a place to stay I remember one house that had been divided up into 11 rooms! That was in Guelph.
You get into issues when the garage is being rented out (I've heard of that in Markham) or basement apartments without proper fire escapes.
Begs the question what's cheaper subsidies housing for 12 people or 12 people sharing one house when you look at tax contributions and what not.
But this is getting away from the OP's topic.
It's interesting to hear different POVs on people of low income. Bit disappointing that some people are upset at what I consider a core value in Canada which is we provide a social safety net. No doubt some will exploit it. But for those who want to exploit it I say more power to them because I would rather work and make real money than sit around a scrape by on government handouts. I've met and known people who used the system respectfully and I am glad it was there to help them.
I'm not a criminologist but I like to think that the social safety net is what keeps our poor neighbourhoods as being as bad as ghettos in the US. e.g. East Baltimore, South Central LA etc.
that's not to say East Hastings or Jane and Finch are Disney Land just that they aren't as bad. Whether the root cause is the net or not I can't say for sure.
In my few forays into "at risk" neighbourhoods, I saw very few if any Asians.Whether the root cause is the net or not I can't say for sure.
That's completely not my line of thinking.In my few forays into "at risk" neighbourhoods, I saw very few if any Asians.
I'm just saying that "I wonder if the social safety net is what keeps (or plays a role) in our at risk neighbourhoods from being as bad as the ones in the united states."
"The incentive to capture wealth through innovation and invention" is one drive, prioritizing it beyond others is your bias, to which you are entitled. There are also evolutionary drives that counter this, in cases where the innovation might cause conflict with other drives or innovations, or it turns out to have detrimental effects outside of its added utility. A lot of the innovations that stem simply from trying to make more bucks are actually counterproductive outside the vision of the innovator, such as "financial innovations" that caused this latest financial crisis, and may lead to the next.Civilization evolves - QUOTE]
Yes it does
The number one driver of this evolution is the incentive to capture wealth through innovation and invention
If someone invents a better wheelchair, they still charge a premium over the old model & the competition (if the market allows the premium)
Also, plenty of innovation takes place not because of the "incentive to capture wealth," but because someone simply finds pleasure in creative activity. Money may come from this, but the reason the idea happened is because the inventor enjoyed playing creatively within his/her discipline.
The Soviets had to rely on this type of creativity (that and the fear of Siberia)Also, plenty of innovation takes place not because of the "incentive to capture wealth," but because someone simply finds pleasure in creative activity. Money may come from this, but the reason the idea happened is because the inventor enjoyed playing creatively within his/her discipline.
They produced the Lada, while West produced the Ford Mustang.
The profit driven model is responsible for probably 80-99% of all of the innovation and creature comforts you take for granted.
Do you think the iPhone would exist if not for the drive to make a profit ?
You would be lucky if you were able to make a call on a rotarry dial phone. Even that is questionable, who was going to run all the land lines for free?
Sometimes it is better to look at a system and determine what is right about it, rather than focusing on what some precieve is wrong about it.
Or people who get annoyed at the Canadian taxes and just go non-resident and stop paying most of them?Great points. People are quick to point out that there are poor people playing the system while ignoring people who work cash jobs and claim less than what they make, or seasonal workers who collect EI in the off season, or wealthier people who hide their assets, or people who write off things as part of their business when in fact it's not. Putting income under the name of a dependent who makes less money than you etc. And these are just some of the simple scams I'm sure there are plenty more.
Why not be more concerned about the people living a good lifestyle who are cheating the system?
I think more people would be upset if they realized that they are in fact not middle class
i would say a few months actually... Too many are just lazy fuckers who want freebies. My parents and I arrived in Canada as immigrants.. Sure we lived with a cousin for about 5 months before my parents found low paying jobs and we got our own places. None of us went looking for subsidized housing etc.i would rather give them a rent free space for a year so they can save money to buy or move to a place they can afford, but limit the time to one year- allow others who need a leg up a chance
Actually that depends. If they are still accessing free health care and what not then that's bullshit. Otherwise, go ahead and opt out.Or people who get annoyed at the Canadian taxes and just go non-resident and stop paying most of them?
But yes you could probably come up with other examples of people cheatin the system/shirking their duties.
Which is why living under subsidized housing to me is not really a big deal.
