I know a lot of people throw a fit over the concept of Basic Income...

I know a lot of people throw a fit over the concept of Basic Income, people getting free money every month to live and whatnot. But what about something that should be even more basic than that - Basic Housing? Forget the whole income thing, people can find a job themselves. The real, REAL shame nowadays is that anyone can get a decent job, but living costs are out of control. Rent in an area where the jobs are can go from 700 to over 1000/mo, and on minimum wage, or even a little more, that is well over half your monthly income, if you arent sharing with someone.

So the government has bought up all the land, and they know how to make buildings on the cheap, why cant we give everyone a damn place to live. I mean even moreso than health insurance isn't that a basic need? They don't gotta be fancy, just a living room, bedroom, small kitchen and a bathroom/shower and heat/electricity/water. They still gotta pay if they want internet, cable, etc. So now you can go get a job, and help the economy, and then pay taxes to help pay for your/everyone else's apartment.

Any arguments against this?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

...

Just to clarify, this is just something I thought up, and I don't need or even know if I'd want something like this purposefully. But would like to hear answers on why it would be bad. Or maybe good, idk.

This is a problem that arises from the tendency to cluster together. Federal land is cheap, but city land is prohibitively expensive -- because that's where all people crowd.

Germany actually had a plan to work against extreme clustering by making "many capitals". It worked pretty well, if you check the population density it's one of the most evenly populated countries.

Also interesting in this discussion is Singapore. They do offer "social housing" for people and a huge share of residents live in those for the reasons you listed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore

82% of the residents lived in such housing in 2015

Commieblock mindset

So my question is if something like this could work out in the US, at least in medium/large cities, to alleviate the suburb problem

did this for the abos and they shit all over it

I wonder if there are any real statistics on that, maybe it lowers crime amongst them in those areas? makes it worse?

yeah...that worked well, will all the fucking criminal arabs over running your completely fucked nation. Evenly distributed to get evenly butt fucked by people who don't give a fuck about you or your culture.

>Any arguments against this?
Basic economics.

NO you dumb fuck. Welfare is a scheme to get white people to pay for brown people so wages can be kept low for profiteers. Corporations don't have to raise their wages and lose money, they just lobby to raise taxes and have us pick up the bill for the employees they don't want to pay.

So does that mean we should raise minimum wage? NO you DUMB FUCK. They've created a bubble by importing cheap labor (third worlders) and if you were to raise the wages now many of them would lose their jobs so the profiteers can continue to make profits. Then they would be on the streets and we'd have an even worse housing problem (protip: already happening).

The globalist model of increasing GDP is based on the notion of fucking the native (white) population over so these rich fuckers can benefit from cheap third world labor. Basically we actually are extremely fucked if we don't get rid of the cheap laborers. Trump is fucking right. Did you think it was meme when we suggested he was playing 4D chess?

What if taxes were taken from the tenants incomes to pay for the cost. Just the cost and nothing more.

Irrelevant - OP is asking about governments providing people with housing.

So youre saying corporations are to blame?

it doesn't matter at this point. Nothing can survive the backstabbing of the people that make it up

Wait sorry, I see that youre saying immigrants and outsourcing is to blame.

Unless Trump makes both of those illegal i'm not sure how we can fix that.

Yes, Sup Forums will blame the Jews and indeed they're responsible for a disproportionate amount of what's being done.

Ask yourself the age old question, qui bono? Who benefits?

More immigrants means more people needing jobs, which means more competition so wages can be kept lower (supply/demand), more people applying for and paying off loans, more dumb kids to shill into taking out student loans and becoming debt slaves, more wage slaves, and all of that translates to a higher GDP (more profits). Awesome right? Well as I explained above, we foot the bill. Their aim is to lower the middle class and raise the lower class. We will keep less of the fruits of our labor, and they will receive more from the state (which is our tax money) so wages don't have to increase. Why do you think wages have been stagnant and the standard of living steadily decreasing overall since the migration boom? Similar trends can be found in every Western nations where the globalist model has been set up. The corporations are doing great, the kikes are making a lot of profit, but what do we get? More competition, less wages, more traffic, more strain on environmental resources, more strain on the environment itself due to production necessity, and of course more fucking crime and RAPE.

All that's left is to take advantage of the emotions of the mentally weak (through media), and you've got yourself a mob of useful idiots to keep your labor importation flowing in, fed, and housed... and while we're at it lets give them YOUR money to have kids so the cycle of native suppression can continue.

:[ damn man I feel bad now...You've completely given up...Why not leave Germany and come to America, At least here you have the right to bear arms and when the shit hits the fan...well you'll know what to do.

What about basic wife

He's not going to fix everything. There are two types of corporatists in the US, the Republicans and Democrats.

Republicans support US corporations solely, and will limit global corporate involvement when it comes down to affecting the American way of life. For this reason they don't support the typical globalist model of importing labor competition.

Democrats will support any corporation that throws money at them, and typically these are foreign corporations because they can't get the Republicans to cut them a break, since they're competition with the domestic corps the Reps are in the pocket of. They don't share the same regard for the "American way of life," they conveniently don't believe American culture exists. For this reason, the costs of mass immigration are the costs of doing business.

You just have to pick a side. America is a powerhouse, we're not going to get corporate influence out of politics any time soon. You just have to pick between supporting domestic interest or supporting foreign interest, both of which seem to include Israeli interest. Hmm really makes you think.

You think you want that, but believe me you don't.

Elite wife is enough of a hassle already.

And to actually quash the thread topic (I'm way off topic, but I wanted you to understand where that "free" money comes from and where it's intended to go)

A welfare system will never lack surrounding controversy. Some say it's against nature (doesn't allow for the stupid to thrive less and thus breed less), others say it's in line with nature since we were tribalists before all else.

Most people of the original stock of Sup Forums, before all the drumpfkins came along, are in fact socialist. However, they're national socialist. We have no problem giving money to our fellow people when they actually are our people, not some foreign tribe, and especially when the model is not sustainable (there is no ceiling in globalist economics).

Socialism CAN NOT work in a non-homogeneous society. Going back to the notion above, before all else we were tribalists. This is how the human race evolved, in accordance with nature, and how it best operates. No tribe has ever willfully given its labor for the benefit of another tribe. This should not be seen as selfishness, it's purely logical. Freely giving cannot be sustained, resources are limited. The identity, culture, and security of the tribe cannot be sustained, when masses of other tribes are being brought in.

Honestly, the debate between socialism and capitalism shouldn't have even devolved to include the presence of foreign tribes. Now that it has, socialism is out of the question. We will not capitulate in the theft of our own labor, and in the slow or swift death of our own people.

>Socialism CAN NOT work in a non-homogeneous society

I think this really resounds with me and answers my question, thank you.

The giver is the master. If the government gives you something then they can and will put conditions on it.

You lose your constitutional rights unless you can afford to forego the benefits the government pays for compliance.

Then only the rich really have rights.

And the more they pay the more relative wealth you give up to refuse their universal basic slavery.