• WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    2 months ago

    Nooo!!! Anyone with money is inherently evil! The only way to help the world is to ensure that none of us ever rise above the level of a wage-slave drone! Anyone who even approaches a position where they might be able to make an actual difference must be attacked mercilessly!

    • doylio@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      There’s a story about how Bill Gates plans to give away 99% of his wealth in the next 20 years (on causes like eradicating polio, decreasing child mortality, etc) and all the Lemmy comments are “he’ll still have a billion dollars” or “he shouldn’t have that money to begin with”. Can’t we appreciate some good in the world?

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        I know of a guy who wanted to remove the middle class, but he also wanted to remove the upper and lower class as well so as to create a classless stateless society.

    • andybytes@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is a showy display promoted to soften negitive opinion of capitalism. We would need “nice rich people” if we made a ethical wage

  • Godric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    Someone took 99 families off the streets? Wow fuck that asshole, how dare she have enough money to do that. How dare she not give up her home and make it 100 families off the streets, not good enough!

    -Half this website, angry 99 families now have a place to live who didn’t before this event

    • Maalus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      This website is full of envy is the simple answer. Hate for people who have more, tons of entitlement and the “I totally wouldn’t want to be a billionaire!” bullcrap flying around.

    • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      The anger isn’t (necessarily) for the rich person who housed people. It’s for the system who left people homeless in the first place, the system that will put those people back on the streets if they don’t pay rent/property taxes/whatever other fee people have to pay to exist, the system where the solution is literally just “have rich people pay their share and almost everything will be fixed” but for some reason the people in charge can’t (or don’t want to) figure that out.

      You conflating anger with the system with anger for people getting houses is disingenuous.

  • snooggums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    2 months ago

    The wealthy do not deserve praise for spending the money they leeched from society to solve problems that could have been paid for by taxes they avoided paying. The wealthy are NOT going to solve society’s problems long term, just drag them out so society relies on them instead of solving it themselves.

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        No, we want taxes to help the homeless and other members of society in need dumbass.

        • WeekendClock@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah, ok. Look at our governments since the dawn of time and tell me when that’s happening moron.

          • snooggums@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Look at the wealthy since the dawn of time and tell me that they are a net benefit to society.

            • WeekendClock@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              Such a problem that has yet to be solved by any government.

              And you expect those same governments to just magically spend that money wisely.

              Hilarious.

    • Cows Look Like Maps@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      Inbe4 the starter-home priced housing is bought up, demolished, rebuilt, and sold as luxury housing on the market, as airbnbs, or rentals with no rent control.

    • Flax@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      He’s a millionaire, not a billionaire. Calm down. A millionaire most likely worked hard and earned their wealth. It’s billionaires who cheat.

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Millionaire covers everyone from having a million or two due to home equity all the way to 999 million because they just haven’t hit a billion yet. Someone who can drop a million dollars or more and still be a millionaire has multiple millions.

        Equating the two is “not all millionaires”.

        • brown567@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          From my little bit of research, he created and sold a software startup for around $320mil. He seems to consider it something he “won” through luck instead of earned through merit

          Reading up on him, it seems he researched successful programs for helping people out of homelessness with the intent to make sure nobody in his hometown would be unhoused. He appears to be pretty involved in the community too

  • HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    A lot of people talk about taxing folks like this and then using the money to supply the housing.

    The thing is, given the money, few people could pull this off well. The site isn’t just being plopped down; from the sound of the article in the comments it’s being actively developed as a community with other safeguards and support, by someone who sunk a lot of time into finding out what would work to help people rather than just appear to help.

    A scheme like this is hard to replicate because, in addition to money, it needs a core team with a clear vision and the time to really make it a focus of their lives. It also needs a community that will embrace it - for example it would likely work in the town I grew up in, but the town I work in (and am sadly forced to live in) now would likely drive such a project to failure.

    It’s a good idea that worked against the odds, and should be celebrated for that alone.

    • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      A scheme like this is hard to replicate because, in addition to money, it needs a core team with a clear vision and the time to really make it a focus of their lives.

      Sounds like an opportunity for the local government, and a way to create local jobs.

  • Robotsandstuff@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 months ago

    So this guy shouldn’t be news, this should be the standard, it’s scary that the one good guy with enough money to do something like this is the exception and not the norm.

    We all evolved to live in tribes; we have to work together as people.

    • Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      The problem is that we allow individuals to amass so much wealth, it inevitably leads to the rest of us being at their mercy like that. If we’re lucky, they’ll be sorta benevolent, like this person. Would be much easier if we took out the randomness and just had the funds to do necessary stuff like this collectively.

    • MojoMcJojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s why we elected people to help the community with our collected funds. To help govern the distribution of the community effort. Well, that was the idea.

    • Dae@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      2 months ago

      He sold his company for eight figures and used that wealth to build these communities for the people most in need, not (just) his (now former) employees.

      But even if he was still CEO, the fact remains that it’s not just for his employees and pay is still just half the equation: he doesn’t control the price of rent, and the real solution is rent control. Otherwise nothing stops landlords from just raising rent higher ans higher once they figure out that employers will just pay their tenants more.

      So yes, good pay matters, and we need comprehensive minimum wage laws and worker protection, but we also need rent control. And preferably to banish all landlords to the shadow realm.

      • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Rent control is a stopgap measure. Without enough supply, it doesn’t matter how controlled the rent is if your odds of obtaining a unit are miniscule. Adding to the supply as a response to rising rental rates and property prices is the correct way to keep things stable. Which should be the govt’s job, but…

        • Taalnazi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Rent control is a good first step. Building more is second.

          Cooperations crying that controlled rent is bad bc it doesn’t let them build more… have they tried reducing the CEOs’ pay? And asking for government intervention in building houses?

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    125
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    2 months ago

    I see no reason to believe that letting this guy make unilateral decisions is somehow better than taxing him appropriately and using the revenue to build public housing.

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 months ago

      If every billionaire did this and ended homelessness perhaps they would have a point about their wealth hoarding. I won’t be holding my breath for this to happen though. Tax the rich!

    • eskimofry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      I see one: he actually did something instead of a council that blows all of the money on meetings

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 months ago

      Sure there are lots of failures to the way we govern ourselves. This shouldn’t be a need. The reality is that it is a need and that person did what he could. Have you?

    • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is obviously way better, come on. Why involve middle men in something like this? Add more layers and it becomes less efficient. Less of the money goes to helping people and it gets spread around to different agencies, or even worse goes to government contractors who can charge ridiculous rates because they know someone and didn’t have to compete for the contract. I worked at a place once where we got a couple hundred thousand dollars for a useless study because if the money didn’t get used it would make their budget smaller for next year. That kind of thing happens all the time.

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      2 months ago

      This statement might be true, but we’re not taxing him. Should he just donate his money to the government?

    • Sc00ter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      101
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Did anyone say that it was better this way? He could just go buy another yatch instead.

      Dont let perfection be the enemy of better

      • chingadera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        Man, Im starting to think I’m tarded. Something about this isn’t letting my brain work, please do more sentences

        • Cris@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          People are downvoting because “retarded” is increasingly considered a slur or hateful term (just providing context, do with that what you will)

          Did anyone say that it was better this way? He could just go buy another yatch instead.

          No one is saying it’s better for rich people to independently spend money on charity pet projects. Appropriate taxation is better but this was still a good way for him to spend his money, it’s still good for him to help his community (he could have just spent that money on a yacht)

          Dont let perfection be the enemy of better

          This is a variation on the saying “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good”. Which means don’t reject good things just because they aren’t perfect. Perfect is an ideal that doesn’t exist, and good is still worth celebrating.

          In this case, the commenter is saying that perfect would be better taxation and government programs that provide this service to the people. But a private citizen helping people with their private wealth still helps people. That’s a good thing even if it’s not the perfect ideal solution

          Personally I am a huge advocate of the “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” mentality :) hope this helps and I hope you have a good day!

          • chingadera@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            I probably shouldn’t have said that. I’m gonna double down though a little and say I’m not out here to hurt anyone or make anyone feel hurt, I’m just trying to add voice to my writing. Sort of a tension cutting tool. Some of my favorite people are tarded, like my wife. She’s a pilot now.

            Joking aside though, I appreciate the effort of you ELI5ing this to me, and I should have been more direct. I just don’t get why this guy commented this when what he’s commenting on essentially said the same thing. I’m just more surprised that almost the same amount of people upvoted both. They’re both valid in the same way.

            • Cris@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              If you carefully read the negatives and positives he’s saying kinda the opposite of the first guy :)

              I see no reason to believe that letting this guy make unilateral decisions is somehow better than taxing him appropriately and using the revenue to build public housing.

              “I don’t believe letting them just spend their money this way is better than doing it with taxes”

              And then even more simplified (obviously loosing nuance)

              “I don’t think this is as good as doing this with taxes”

              • chingadera@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Dude, you are just a gem.

                I’ve been drinking a bit tonight, and I’m going to look at this tomorrow. I imagine that it’s all going to flow together nicely, but it’s never going to be as nice as you’ve been.

                Thank you, and just be proud of how kind you are. I’m astonished currently. I’ll see you tomorrow, and we’ll get to the bottom of this:)

      • anonproxy00@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        millionares($) wouldn’t be able to afford multiple yachts, or even so large of a yacht. billionares, those who offshoring wealth makes sense for, are the problem.

        not the docter nor lawyer, but the whale.

        millionares pay about 48%-49%, at least where im from.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Especially because his unilateral decision is optional. Someone got lucky with his choice vs someone was guaranteed an outcome.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Absolutely. We don’t need kings making decisions like this. The downside is the difficulty in forcing government and the anti-help-anyone segment of our society to spend such taxation correctly to actually help people.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m also angry he did a good thing despite the government’s abject failure to tax the rich.

      • Trigger2_2000@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        anti-help-anyone segment of our society

        This is the biggest problem (IMHO) to getting government to assist anyone that is not already rich. The rich get help - i.e. which gets a special tax break:

        1. Walmart opening a new store (and driving all the little people out of business)?
        2. The little business owner who hires 2-5 employees?

        The haves scream they are being “robbed” if you suggest taking any of “their tax dollars” to help the have-nots. It’s not “their tax dollars”, it’s “our tax dollars”.

    • suoko@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Corruption could make that money go to some people’s 3rd, 4rd or their relatives houses UNFORTUNATELY . The question here is: what about those who pay a rent???

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        So we’re so scared of corruption that (checks notes) we stop even trying for fairness and instead just let rich fucks make all the decisions and hope for the best?

        • suoko@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s clear that a lot of people switched to that way of thinking, thanks to those corrupted people.

          That’s what current voting results say all around

      • Signtist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Corruption already makes most millionaires’ and billionaires’ money go to that anyway. At least if it’s taxed some of it will actually go to toward necessary housing, maybe even frequently enough that it’s not newsworthy when it does, the way it is now.

          • Signtist@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            You’re worried that if we collect money from the wealthy through taxation, it might not be used to reduce homelessness. However, if we don’t tax the wealthy, they’ll spend the money on their own goals, which definitely won’t be to reduce homelessness. While you’re right that taxes are largely wasted, they do still fund important things such as fire departments, medical research, and yes, government housing. It’s true that we need to implement better tax management systems, but we also need a wealth tax.

            • suoko@feddit.it
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              I never said we don’t need a taxation system, I’m just reporting what’s happening almost everywhere.

              Alternatively a possibility is to give the public sector to woman, they should be a little bit more immune to corruption (I might be wrong though).

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    How many stories have I seen about billionaires building housing? Zero. Though, to be fair, I’ve only seen a meme about a millionaire doing so. No verification that it happened.

    • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      I used to live in a town that did something very similar to this. It sorta worked but mostly did not. But as another commenter pointed out you need more than just homes. Obviously they help a ton but a lot of people need more help than just a roof over their head. Financially, medically, mentally, employment… It’s a bigger, more complicated problem.

      But it goes without saying that this is a step in the right direction and absolutely better than collectively shrugging our shoulders and walking away.

    • Tahl_eN@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      2 months ago

      My city does something like this as part of our homeless program and we’re at “net-zero” homeless. It doesn’t work on it’s own, but the tiny homes give people a stable place to keep their stuff safe and the elements off their bodies, it gives them an address they can use for things like mail and applications, and it gives social workers a place to find them reliably. It’s the start of a long process to help them back to their feet.

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        Being on the streets is also incredibly dangerous. Putting drug users around other drug users as well doesn’t keep them off drugs.

    • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      79
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      If you give a homeless person a home, then by definition, they are no longer homeless.

      On a less pedantic note, yes, it should. Some countries (like mine) provide a secure place to live as step one, when helping the homeless. Having somewhere safe to sleep, keep your property, etc. makes all the other steps involved in solving your problems much easier, leading to a better success rate in getting people back on their feet.

  • Allero@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 months ago

    Nice!

    Now, it would be good not to rely on good will of some individuals and actually enforce this for all the rich.

    But still mad respect for the man.

  • Triasha@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is my most common fantasy if I somehow came into a billion dollars.

    It’s a fantasy, but I would create an apartment complex with mixed 1 2 and 3 bedrooms and set the rent below market value and then find a lawyer to draw up a legal document to turn it into a co-op so that after enough people moved in I could turn control over to them.

    If I were a multibillionaire I would do this again and again until non market housing was normal In my city, and anyone wanting to build housing has to compete with a bunch of non market housing.

    • ramenshaman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I would say that this particular millionaire did his part to help out. If every millionaire/billionaire spent the same percentage of their wealth on similar projects we would be in pretty good shape as far as homelessness goes.

      • eskimofry@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Don’t say this here. The people here don’t like charity from rich folk. While I agree it is worthwhile to point out that taxation and good governance is better than rich people charity. these folk are a bit too angry for their own good.

  • thefrozenorth@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is a terrible idea. We are not helpless children, it’s our society, we have the right to provide the necessities of life: food, health care, a place to live and a decent job. Capitalism is the sickness: get healthy, go woke.

    • iz_ok@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think it’s easier to make a million dollars and help a fair number of people out than it would be to over throw capitalism.

      While helping people out with your millions of dollars you could also advocate for reform. Work with the systems available to make change. Screaming at the walls of Troy won’t get you inside.