What do CAFers think about housing policy, particularly affordable housing for the working class?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
loool. If the church could help everyone, and if everyone was willing to give to their neighbor, there wouldn’t be any need for government involvement. But that’s not reality. And the Church clearly believes in this thing called the common good, thus i think the Church is right to support the governments right to use tax money for the less fortunate.
 
Last edited:
So i guess that means i can’t build a small house made of entirely recyclable plastic in your back garden.
 
tafan2 said:
I don’t know the answer, but we have a growing problem.
Click to expand...
The way people view the value of other people has to change. Until then the governments going to have to tax, and tax hard.
 
  1. Working class? Why thinking in “classes” here? I am a historian and worked (instead of my profession, next to my profession, etc) everywhere from cleaning toilets, selling noble fashion and controlling bus tickets. In ALL those areas I met people who struggle with rent and purchase prices, me included.
  2. My husband and me had to move our home county because of housing prices. So yes, it´s a big problem, it caused much pain to leave my home.
  3. Governmental control is not the answer for everything. We moved to a region where you can drive hours and see one ruin after the other, because it´s wasteland. People think here are no jobs, but in reality, we experienced there are jobs, driving 1 hour in the morning on the plain land is not more stressful than 1 hour city traffic in the morning. In reality, people here (germany) don´t want to leave the urban sprawl, and yes, there´s a reason people don´t like this area here. But life isn not always perfect, and screaming for governmental help to rent an appartment in munich while other areas are empty of people is not realisitc.
  4. Where I see more need for control is the decision who should be able to purchase land or buildings - there´s someting wrong with a town where the whole inner city is owned by chinese investors, for example.
  5. The only task (and this is a big task!) I see here for us christians is in acting responsible and charitable when we have a house to sell or for rent. Not becoming rich on other people´s shoulders.
 
Last edited:
exnihilo said:
The reason housing prices are high to begin with is because of government involvement.
Click to expand...
I disagree, i think the problem is that human beings are selfish creatures. People are more concerned with making themselves rich than actually helping others do the same or helping them at least have a reasonable standard of living. Profit margins are the most important thing, and people tend to put profit before people. If the government didn’t get involved, things would be a whole lot worse. If i have several billion dollars, and i know that half of that would provide basic housing for most if not all the homeless in my country, but i refuse to contribute based on some misguided sense of ownership, then i cannot honestly count myself as some who cares. And if i do care, then i must have a seriously deluded and warped conscience.

The fact of the matter is, if we do not give people the means to production, we cannot complain when the government comes in to clean up the aftermath.
 
Last edited:
That won’t work. European countries taxed hard for decades, the problem is just as bad there, indeed in many places worse
 
Profit is the difference between costs and revenues.

If costs exceed revenues, you have a loss.

AND you go out of existence.
 
If profit didn’t result in a number far exceeding what anyone person needs, then i would understand. If I’m a billionaire, and i have a workforce that can barely pay their rent or have any real quality of living, then who is to blame in that scenario. Who bares the responsibility? Better yet, if i know that i can change the homeless situation and i don’t, who bares the responsibility? The poor rely on the government, because that all they can rely on practically. Sure, charity is welcome, but clearly that does not suffice to provide everyone’s basic needs; and to suggest that they should rely on that alone is to me immoral, and i think the Catholic church agrees. Thanks be to God…

The market place cannot support everyone, and the common good is everyone’s obligation not just charities.
 
Last edited:
So people are selfish creatures, except when they are in the government? Somehow being in government makes them not selfish?
 
Not necessarily, but I think many of those who support the government or public options to the provision of good see governments as the only feasible option to scale up help for ALL in need? For instance, hypothetically, let me put this rhetorical question; why should innocent people have a hard time or even suffer because a cause did not have enough awareness or because there are not enough people of goodwill or said people did not provide enough support (@Brendan I would like to hear your answer to this as well)? Why should people be left behind by their neighbors if there neighbors fail?
 
Last edited:
RCIAGraduate said:
why should innocent people have a hard time or even suffer because a cause did not have enough awareness or people of goodwill did not provide enough support?
Click to expand...
If a cause doesn’t have much awareness, there won’t be a government program to address it either.
 
Okay not enough awareness might be a better term (or necessarily, let’s say this person is considered a dreg by the mainstream of society and rejected (like a struggling addict trying to sincerely heal)). Okay now I know I am delving into the realm of imagination, but what if there was a kindly legislator who was able to use his power and influence to support his cause, although in the public sphere his cause received not too much acclaim (like providing programs and supports to help folks with a specific disability or shedding light to a little known problem)?
 
Last edited:
RCIAGraduate said:
Not necessarily, but I think many of those who support the government or public options to the provision of good see governments as the only feasible option to scale up help for ALL in need?
Click to expand...
That is what the Church is for.
RCIAGraduate said:
Why should people be left behind by their neighbors if there neighbors fail?
Click to expand...
I don’t know what this is supposed to mean. But I do know there are more and less successful people in life. This is perfectly OK and good. We don’t all have to have the same amount of wealth. This is a good thing. That way we can have people who give up wealth to live simply. We also have people who accumulate wealth to help others. If we all had the same then none of this would be possible.
 
Why should people be left behind and toil in destitution and struggling continuously because their neighbors and the greater society fail to provide enough support for those in need?

For example, let’s say there is a working-class family where the parent or parents have to work 60 hours a week, metaphorically breaking their back(s)simply to make ends meet but they’re not sure if they will be able to make it to rent this month? Or even if they do, it’s living hand to mouth (without savings, economically aren’t they doomed to poverty?) and there seems to be no possibility of advancement in sight.

What if someone was a single worker, but there are not plenty of opportunities, they try to find work but only land a part time job, or they work as much as they can (60 hours a week while taking the bus to and from work) but it’s simply not enough? What if that worker had no one in life they could rely on?

What is to be done for the struggling and toiling masses, for many it seems like there is little to no hope for advancement or repose (you can’t see the light at the end of the tunnel or it’s too far)? I know I am sounding melodramatic but there does seem to be people having a difficult time, also, people in the high cost of living states (granted a low cost of living state with limited opportunities (and no transit) isn’t a cakewalk either), well, it looks it would be a struggle to make ends meet.

I want to hear various perspectives here.
 
Last edited:
RCIAGraduate said:
Why should people be left behind and toil in destitution and struggling continuously because their neighbors and the greater society fail to provide enough support for those in need?
Click to expand...
Why do you assume people get ‘left behind’ because they don’t have ‘support’? Most folks I see reap what they sow.
RCIAGraduate said:
For example, let’s say there is a working-class family where the parent or parents have to work 60 hours a week, metaphorically breaking their back(s)simply to make ends meet but they’re not sure if they will be able to make it to rent this month? Or even if they do, it’s living hand to mouth (without savings, economically aren’t they doomed to poverty?) and there seems to be no possibility of advancement in sight.
Click to expand...
A lot of Americans work a lot of hours and really live paycheck to paycheck with no savings. There are certainly problems with employers, but a big reason for that is an expectation of living in luxury and poor impulse control.
 
Maybe those people had a difficult start and don’t know better, people stuck in the cycle of various misfortunes such as that of poverty but also lacking supportive family, friends, neighbors and communities helping them out and rising above their struggles.
 
Maybe so. But if so the state isn’t going to change that. In order to do so the state would have to be a moral policeman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top