• Omgpwnies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s a fiscally conservative position, where fiscally conservative is defined by someone who wants the government to spend less money and have a balanced budget.

    Homeless people are a net burden on the government, even if the only costs are to arrest and imprison them. Since we are already paying to house them (in prison) it would make sense instead to give them a modest place to stay and enough support to get them back to a healthy state of living. This becomes a net financial benefit because a healthy employed person pays income tax, they buy stuff and pay sales tax, etc. so the money spent to get them back on their feet is repaid and then some.

    The same thing happens again when the government offers free college or vocational training to people, the amount of taxes someone pays goes up with their income, and using the government as a single-payer to these schools will help keep costs low.

    Case in point: in Ontario we had a program called Second Career (it still lives on as ‘Better Jobs Ontario’ but it’s been hamstrung by the conservative government) which was funded through EI and would pay your tuition, books, supplies, and give a basic living allowance up to $28k per year if you qualify. It would cover any 2-year diploma program, with the caveat that if you failed out you would be on the hook to repay the tuition/books/supplies costs.

    I did that program starting in 2009 and paid out-of-pocket (w/OSAP) for a third year to upgrade from Technician to Technologist. Prior to that, our household income was low enough that we effectively paid 0 income tax after deductions. After graduating, I tripled my income, and in the 11 or so years since I’ve doubled it again. For the ~$60k the government spent on me, they made that back in about the first 3 years after graduation and the rest has been profit from their perspective.

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      It’s a fiscally conservative position, where fiscally conservative is defined by someone who wants the government to spend less money and have a balanced budget.

      Just to continue my point: “fiscal conservatism” has had nothing whatsoever to do with US conservatism since Ronald “Deficits Don’t Matter” Reagan blew the budget to pieces in the 1980s and started us on our debt spiral that currently has us sitting at $35 fucking trillion.

      in Ontario we

      Ah.