Dancers, taxes and the homeless

23 comments

• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  If I was making $2,000 a day tax free, then I wouldn't be happy giving even $5 a month to the homeless fund. However, that doesn't mean that I don't help people with both my time and money. I'm lower income so my resources are fairly limited. I don't help the less fortunate to be a good guy or because I believe in charity----I do it for very selfish reasons. I like helping people when I can make a difference and it doesn't financially drain me. Having related the above I'm fairly negative about charities. I did get some first hand experience with the Miami Lighthouse for the Blind and my anti-charity view was softened---I was just very impressed with the staff and the people they were helping. Heck, I could even see myself donating to them.
• giveitayank

  •

  15 years ago

  Jablake, It was just her attitude. She was all ME ME ME... I don't tolerate people like that.
• SuperDude

  •

  15 years ago

  We are embarrased that we have homeless people in what is still a land of plenty. We don't know what to do when charities, religious institutions and the government have programs in place, but the problem persists. It feeds the view, maybe true or not, that some of the homeless just don't want to conform their conduct to working within existing institutions and getting the help that is available. Or maybe we have to face the fact that some people are just so far gone that nothing can help them, but we are not going to round them up or jail them.
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  "It was just her attitude. She was all ME ME ME... I don't tolerate people like that." It doesn't seem very attractive. I know a long time dancer that has become like that. She thinks everyone is out to screw everyone and therefore it would be stupid for her not to follow suit. When I point to her that I've helped people without expecting repayment, her response is basically that I'm a fool and a poor fool at that. When she was younger she was very different and liked to help people. When I pointed that out, her response was that she was a stupid young girl who didn't know any better . . . but, she has learned. Depressing; mainly because I had admired her giving nature when she was young and now that is gone.
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  The homeless people that I've met need either full time parents and or medication. There might be help available, but I'm skeptical and distrusting. It's just difficult to imagine the government doing good works. That charity for the blind opened my eyes so perhaps there are good government programs that actually help people instead of terrorizing them physically and financially and emotionally. I had the "opportunity" to take care of a middle age man, but the problem was that physically I'm just no match for him and he does lose it on *rare* occasions. Anyway, being a parent to a middle age man, violent or not, doesn't seem to appealing or rather it just seems too weird. He seems like a very nice man based on the time that I've spent with him.
• samsung1

  •

  15 years ago

  Just wondering...what did she say after you said "Wow. So compassionate. You make $1,500 a day and you don't pay taxes. And you're complaining about $25.00 a month?" At least she is being honest about her selfishness. I hate it when a girl pretends like she cares about other people/things but really doesn't. I knew one dancer who was really pretty but in our conversations she talked about how she is going to be a celebrity because she's a really good singer. lol
• SuperDude

  •

  15 years ago

  Really, do we take dancers seriously about anything. I don't anymore.
• DandyDan

  •

  15 years ago

  When I saw this topic, I thought it was going to be about homeless dancers not paying their taxes. I'm not sure anything can solve the homelessness problem. A lot of the homeless are mentally ill, and there isn't much you can do to solve that problem, and you have to solve their mental illness problem before you solve their homeless problem. And they aren't convinced they have that problem. As for that dancer, well, most of them are all ME, ME, ME 24/7, so what the hell do they expect?
• giveitayank

  •

  15 years ago

  Samsung, She replied with a smug grin and then looked away. If you can call that a reply. DandyDan, I DON'T dissagree with you when you say that the homeless problem is difficult to solve. The point I was making was that most people make a lot less than that dancer and pay a lot more than $25.00 a month in taxes. I have a real and justified problem with that.
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  Well seems like a positive that she has the balls to avoid paying some taxes. Seems strange how most people think more money for the government or more government is a good thing. Having said that I think more government is needed! :) Yeah, doesn't seem too rational at first glance, but it sort of disgusting that people who aren't screwed by the government have such love for it. My thinking is that if they love it so much, then they need a ton more of it and perhaps they'll learn a few lessons and perhaps other people (who need help) will benefit. Heck, just the equality of income could be seen a boon to fairness and justice and human rights. It is like my buddy who got arrested on a weapons charge. Loves America because he paid $20,000 (a pittance to him) to his lawyers and the system worked in that his only real loss was being arrested and spending a few hours in jail. Now, for a poor person they might rot in a jail for a year or more and have to plead the case. If my buddy had to experience the same filth from the government, then he *might* not love America even a little bit. To add salt to the wounds the government inflicts on poor people many who can barely take care of themselves are ordered to pay money to one nasty charity or another nasty charity. In the Joe Blake case, the judge was so impressed that the accused "voluntarily" gave $1,500 to a children's charity. Believe me the accused outside of the courtroom expressed (and rightfully so, imo) complete contempt for the charity. He let his lawyer know in strong and uncertain terms how unhappy he was with being forced to lose $1,500 to a bunch of disabled kids. The lawyer rightfully pointed out that $1,500 was a super deal especially since the judge thought it was so wonderful.
• Dudester

  •

  15 years ago

  In the 1960's, two events happened that impacted our lives on this site: 1) Up until the 1960's, there was a bordello in every medium size and up city and town in America. A coalition of feminists and religious folks had them shut down. Everyone knew where they were, including the local Sheriff-who went there several times a week, just like every other uy in town. 2) Many of the asylums were closed. Up until the 1960's, if a damaged person was born in your household, you gave them over to the state and they spent their life in an asylum. Sociologists and Psychologists lobbied state legislatures to have them closed, saying that the residents had "the right to pursue their own lives", and asylums "were holding them back". Prior to the 1960's, the homeless were either lazy no good for nothings, or people in a bad stretch of their life. The insane joined their ranks in the 1960's, more than tripling the homeless problem. 3) Hate him, or love him, George Bush was dead on that Faith Based Initiatives were the best cure for the homeless. Northwest Assistance Ministries in Houston has an 85 percent success rate in getting people back on their feet, retrained, employed, and under their own roof. Government welfare offices only have a one percent success rate. One percent versus eighty five percent, hmmm...I'd say that was a no brainer.
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  All things being equal, I would prefer a dancer who cares about other people. It isn't a requirement. If she doesn't care about other people, then mainly I'd be interested as to her reasons. Some people just don't care. It shouldn't come as much of a surprise when considering that a large number of people have no qualms at all about destroying entire villages if there might be a "terrorist" amongst them. Women and children? Not a problem because the enemy shouldn't have been hiding behind 'em. Not to worry, I'm sure those whose homes are bombed and those who are have been crippled recognize the the righteousness of the "good guys."
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  "One percent versus eighty five percent, hmmm...I'd say that was a no brainer." The cure can be worse than the ailment. I see them imposing their religious nonsense and wars on others as far worse than homelessness. So if these former homeless people have been converted into intolerant religious nuts, then this is just more nastiness courtesy of President Bush. Using government money to spread the word of God. Communism keeps looking better and better. Damn, I wish President Bush could have served another 8 years.
• malayataylor

  •

  15 years ago

  ehh...it'll come back and bite her in the ass three times.
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  I would *try* to see her actions/views in the most positive light. It isn't like she is going out of her way to hurt people. There is some chance you might feel more sympathetic to her if you could feel where she is coming from. I feel guilty seemingly every time that I refuse some bum a little spare change, but normally I still don't "enable" (hate that word) panhandlers. Why? Not, sure. Perhaps I'd rather see them stealing what they need (the government has shortage of prisoners). Perhaps I just think these are more cases for the government or the church to keep busy. Seems like there are plenty of moral busybodies should be willing to lend a helping hand. Perhaps I'm afraid the panhandlers are moral busybodies. Anyway, it seem like most people no matter how well off won't help with either spare change or a nice meal.
• ozymandias

  •

  15 years ago

  My approach to panhandlers is practical: if they saw where I parked, I give them a dollar; otherwise, I just ignore them. I certainly think it's unfortunate that there are homeless people, but at the end of the day they're really just people at the bottom of a string of bad decisions. When I was a kid, I was studying when other kids were partying. I went to good colleges, chaining together jobs and scholarships to support myself because my parents couldn't afford to foot the bill... while others were goofing off, partying, getting pregnant, whatever. In my first job, I stayed late at the office while others clocked out at 5. And now they're on the streets? or on the dole? and expect money from ME? I don't think so. And this "let's redistribute income so that it will be fair" is pure nonsense; I worked my proverial ass off while the useless and ignorant were out getting drunk, knocked up, and laid off. I deserve my money, and they deserve their misery. Period. I've often pointed out that the big difference between America and some of the various welfare nations (like Holland, say) is that in America there's no limit to how high you can go... and no limit to how far you can fall. Everyone's lot is as good or bad as they are. Me? I prefer it that way. O.
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  I prefer that people who preach how wonderful America is get more of America. Much more. Perhaps my buddy who easily paid $20,000 to a lawyer to get the government off his back would feel differently if he was just a regular working class joe or a poor person. Another buddy who went thru a living hell with the government is still pro-America----I don't understand that even a little bit especially since my "inside" sources "knows" that he was 100% innocent. I know these extremely wealthy Iranians who fled Iran and just are madly in love with America. What is amusing is that they claim to have fled Iran due to corrupt courts. Gee, I said that sounds just like America. They laugh and explained that the thousands stolen from me is nothing. And, to them with their millions, it is true any funds that I have is pocket change. The point is they need more of America, a lot more of America and then we'll see if they still talk stupid about loving America. And, who knows perhaps they only mind being screwed by their own country and if America does it they'll still be pro-America flag wavers. I've mentioned Don Landry. He was very proud to have served America as a pilot (a fighter pilot?). Listening to him and learning about him, it was easy for me to understand why he was so proud. He is a fine gentleman and someone that I have a lot of respect for. Anyway, I got the sense the men he served with were like him: top quality. He had absolutely NO idea how corrupt and blood thirsty this country was until he got a taste of it himself. And, he just couldn't believe it. He said to me this is like some banana republic. Did he hate America? He said he was disgusted; and wanted to try and somehow fix the mess--he wanted to serve his country. Problem is that his story sounded so far fetched even to me and it is easy for me to believe any negatives about America. Whatever, flag wavers will only potentially learn when they experience a healthy taste for themselves. I would strongly prefer no welfare state at all with a tiny government, but if big government is the ticket, then I prefer communism. Fund any idiotic wars on terrorism or drugs or stripclubs, but just remember the golden rule of income equality and if necessary wealth equality.
• Clubber

  •

  15 years ago

  Ditto to ozymandias! I've once given money to a bum, but why? His sign read, "No lie, I just want some beer!" When they ask for money for food, they and get them to walk across the street to a Micky D's for some food and they look at you like you are the crazy one! Sure, there are legitimate people down on their luck. They have places to get help without the begging, but it may require some effort on their part. So that rules those places out!
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  I bought a Whopper, fries, and maybe a Coke? (yeah, I think I splurged on a Coke) for a nasty looking bum who claimed to be a roofer. Anyway, he thought that I was the most wonderful person. I told him not at all. I can see your hungry and appreciated the fact that you expressed concern fake or real in my roofing problem. To my complete shock this nasty bum actually showed up for work! I'm thinking this clown is going to hurt himself so I offered him lesser work. No, he wanted to fix the roof. What a he-man he turned out to be. Not only could he work, he knew what the hell he was doing and took a lot of pride in cutting, nailing, papering, etc. Best roofing job that I've ever had done. Years later he still thought that I was the most wonderful person and wrongly gave me credit for "saving" him. I told him that he just doesn't understand my mindset. I needed the roof fixed and didn't have a lot of money to fix it. He helped me. And, I didn't really care about him as a person other than I didn't like to see him starving. He had a severe alcohol problem that he says cost him everything that he held dear. And, the bum that I gave the Cuban pastries to acted like I gave him a million bucks. I was doing myself a favor----I'm fat and just want to try the pastries because they're supposed to be delicious. Problem is I don't want to waste 'em (you had to buy 10) and I didn't to eat them due to my fat. The bum helped *me*. I was very happy that he was happy, but the main motive on my part was selfishness. I wanted to get rid of the pastries and I like seeing him happy for *my* benefit.
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  That 7% is very sexy or if not sexy at least appealing. Years and years ago this one dancer would practically give you the shirt off her back if you needed it. Here she really was doing well and yet she always thought the it was good to help people who need your help. Although it caused to spend more money on her, it was wasted in that she would try and use that money to help other people. One time she had invited me to go to a church sponsored fund raiser and was very surprised when I said that I didn't believe in that. Even shocking to her was that I wasn't a Christian. That was one very sweet Christian girl. If she was the uncaring type, then probably I still get dances from her, but she would not have been special.
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  "should try and help out (not necessarily money-wise) those that happen to be less fortunate than us, no matter how they got that way." A very nice sentiment. I like to think that if you treat nasty people (those without power or just cause) nicely that, that may help them be a little nicer toward other people. One extremely nasty person that I knew had scars on his back (he was crippled in basic training and received generous (his word) VA benefits (he was very pro-American)) that made me wince. It made a nurse wince as well and I'd have thought that she'd have seen everything. Anyway, most people didn't realize how much agony he was in---I didn't appreciate it enough until I saw the scars on his back. When I'm nasty or uncaring or unsympathetic or rude, I try and remember that the other person's viewpoint may be very valid based on his experiences and that I could be just like him if the ball had bounced differently.
• Book Guy

  •

  15 years ago

  I generally agree with Ozy too ... except, in bad times, sometimes a person who finds himself for a brief time to be homeless is NOT someone on the end of a string of bad decisions. It's rare, but getting less so, that people who simply can't make ends meet are people who also didn't really make mistakes. Maybe they weren't financial GENIUSES but neither was I. They just did "normal" things -- got a college degree, regular job, went along with it, then something kicked them in the ass. Likely they aren't pan-handling, but instead have figured out that there's a support system and they need to head for a work-fare organization of some sort -- but still, I want to by sympathetic. Under capitalism, sometimes even good choices can randomly get punished.
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  Screw the good times bad times dichotomy. The fact is until you meet this nasty government face to face, I'm not really interested in supposedly good choices versus supposedly bad choices. DRIXORAL---an OTC (over the counter)cold and allergy medicine. Never appreciated in the past that you pay a reasonable price and give the cashier the money and presto you have your medication. Instead of spitting up phlegm 24/7 and having flu symptoms, you feel some real relief. Enter nasty government. Initially, the government just limited purchases to 2 packages per day and demanded government ID and demanded you fill out a form so the vile creatures can keep track of you. No big deal really just a waste of time and they get their rocks off watching how much Drixoral you purchase. Of course, the government bullshit more than doubled the price, but what the F if you have the money who cares. Right??? (lack of caring is the American way) Anyway, of course the new bullshit wasn't enough for the nasty government. Just to make sure people didn't get their medication the government limited sales, which means no more Drixoral for me until hopefully sometime later in 2009 or maybe never. Freedom? In America? Yes, those of you who don't need Drixoral don't give a shit and you just wish to worship America and yap about how wonderful this country is. Who knows perhaps when you get screwed you'll still be waving the flag. That is your choice and it is probably a healthier choice in more ways than one. Yes, they're generics to Drixoral. They don't work exactly the same for all patients. So what does the foregoing have to with this thread? Well, the focus seemed to be on the lack of caring which the original poster found disgusting. Well, lack of caring to me just seems like a normal trait and worse is enforced by law. The lack of caring about homeless people is normal and I'm guilty of it. However, the good choice bad choice thinking is extremely grating (I'd probably be kindly disposed/leaning to this view if the game wasn't completely corrupt). I wish to see wealthy assholes get screwed by the corrupt government and then get back to me about life choices and supposed freedoms. Some choices are because people are stupid or sickly or it is the lesser of 2 evils. The mortgage blow up, imo, is a perfect example of the lesser of 2 evils conundrum. Do you attempt to protect your hard earned money by buying a home or do you just get financially raped by skyrocketing rent? If you bought an "overpriced" house in the 1970s you'd be looking smart, but do the same thing in 2003 or later suddenly you are too blame. NO. It is that nasty government and its money creation machine. Please don't misunderstand. That money creation machine does create a lot of real wealth. However, it also forces people to choose between the lesser of 2 evils e.g. sky high raping rent or "overpriced" homes. Blame the government---that is really the bottom line whether it be about people being denied medication or forcing people to take risks to try and protect their very limited wealth. I feel some sympathy for the nasty dancer, but I can also see a customer being totally disgusted by her ME ME ME attitude. Someone mentioned it should be required that Americans be forced to visit other countries so they'd appreciate America----I think that is a wonderful idea and the nasty government should foot the bill from its money creation machine. I wish to see the world, but will need assistance including a healthy person to go with me and probably a wheelchair. Heck, maybe other governments will require that I chop off a finger to buy Drixoral (my neighbor claims he can get it cheaply in Haiti! I said wonderful and you're going to risk smuggling it into this nasty country?).