Children are the next generation of workers. Without children, society would be irrelevant. In a few years, those children will be working productive jobs. But those druggies will still be lounging on park benches.
"You can kill my body, but you can't kill my soul. My soul will live forever!"
You know for a fact these homeless people will never get jobs again? You know those children will not go into drugs or other crime? Still, if we assume this, it is a charity setting up these soup kitchens.
The child's parents pay for the child's privilege to be in the park as part of their taxes most of the time. But even for those who are not the child is generally granted a few years worth of such privelidges 'on credit' so to speak set off against the likelyhood of their future contributions before they come of age and can get a job.
How many years credit is deemed appropriate? Does it change if you get a higher earning job (hence paying more taxes)? What if the homless people had been working for 30 or 40 years before coming homeless? How is such an idea enforced?
I suspect enfocrement of such an idea would cost a great deal more of taxpayers money then the damage a homeless person does to a bench by sitting on it. If it does then it would seem a bit like cutting your nose off to spite your face. I don't like homeless people wasting my money by getting into public parks free, so I'll spend ten times as much ensuring they don't.
People don't realize that more then half the homeless people on the street have mental or severe physical problems. I know it seems look a good answer "GO GET A JOB, GO TO A GOVERNMENT JOB PLACE, GET WELFARE!" etc etc, but it doesn't work for people with scysophrenia or other mental diseases. They don't know they need help, or they don't want it.
How many years credit is deemed appropriate? Does it change if you get a higher earning job (hence paying more taxes)? What if the homless people had been working for 30 or 40 years before coming homeless? How is such an idea enforced?
I suspect enfocrement of such an idea would cost a great deal more of taxpayers money then the damage a homeless person does to a bench by sitting on it. If it does then it would seem a bit like cutting your nose off to spite your face. I don't like homeless people wasting my money by getting into public parks free, so I'll spend ten times as much ensuring they don't.
Until you can get a job at which point you either start paying taxes and contributing or you're out on your arse. Taxes are like a membership fee for society, when you don't or can't pay them anything society provides you with is a gift rather than a right.
You missunderstand me in the belief that I suggest we track these people down and throw them out. I simply point out that they have no right to be there, I do not suggest that we spend masses of money removing them. If they are removed from somewhere they have no right to be in the first place then I can hardly be expected to shed any tears over it.
People don't realize that more then half the homeless people on the street have mental or severe physical problems. I know it seems look a good answer "GO GET A JOB, GO TO A GOVERNMENT JOB PLACE, GET WELFARE!" etc etc, but it doesn't work for people with scysophrenia or other mental diseases. They don't know they need help, or they don't want it.
I wouldn't say disorders - I would say just plain and simple lower intelligence. I mean, what kind of idiot would think he could hold up a bank, with cameras, security, and police, and get away with it.
Its just a mathematical fact that a prison has a much lower average IQ than normal society. Same goes for the homeless.
But it also has to do with ethics and personality. Any idiot could get a job at Burger King or digging ditches. They simply don't want to work.
"You can kill my body, but you can't kill my soul. My soul will live forever!"
Nem: Ah OK, I still disagree with you however, given the fact the land is public, meaning no individual owns it. A tax payer may pay to maintain the park, but they do not hold the authority as to who can or can't use it (assuming they are not commiting crimes), in my opinion.
Actually the land is owned by the local authority in that particular area who do have the authority to say who can and can't use it. Trully 'public' land doesn't really exist anymore, most of it's state land.
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
The Pub 
Re: Las Vegas bans feeding homeless in parks 
Linear Mode
