Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
of course those who are ill - including mentally ill should be entitled to a quality of life, but those who are unable to work through things such as alcohol abuse or drugs - i am not happy about my tax money being used to support them.
Since we ALL will get old (no one gets out of this place alive) of course old and disabled people deserve care and housing. Otherwise, can't generalize.
After you have been on this site for a long time you will read and feel the difference between countries and their culture, it's interesting.
I am sure someone will correct me of tell me off in the USA if I get this wrong.
It is my observation of the opinions expressed here that USA taxpayers resent their tax dollars paying for anyone who is homeless, unemployed, has a physical or mental illness or lacks educational opportunities. You have heard the terms before, highschool dropout, living on welfare, lazy layabout.
However there is a lot of wonderful people and organisations out there in the USA, Australia and many other places doing their best for others.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
I see way too many people that ARE able to work and contribute that are getting free housing and free food,,that is what has to stop. If they are truly "unable" then they need housing and care but the government should not furnish it. It should be furnished by family, friends, or some kind of charity.
Then why don't you go down to the bridge and take these people into your house and take care of them. If you look through these peoples lives you will see that it is decisions that they have made in their lives that caused them to end up living under bridges.
The key word here is "unable". We as humans must take care of anyone who is unable to work or contribute even if they brought this inability on themselves.
This is a very difficult one to answer...
of course those who are ill - including mentally ill should be entitled to a quality of life, but those who are unable to work through things such as alcohol abuse or drugs - i am not happy about my tax money being used to support them.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyI do not think that Felix intends to take up a life of drug and alcohol abuse . He will, in the fullness of time, become old but that is different.
Depends on just what is considered to be "appropriate".
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplySince we ALL will get old (no one gets out of this place alive) of course old and disabled people deserve care and housing. Otherwise, can't generalize.
This comment was deleted.
[4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyAfter you have been on this site for a long time you will read and feel the difference between countries and their culture, it's interesting.
I am sure someone will correct me of tell me off in the USA if I get this wrong.
It is my observation of the opinions expressed here that USA taxpayers resent their tax dollars paying for anyone who is homeless, unemployed, has a physical or mental illness or lacks educational opportunities. You have heard the terms before, highschool dropout, living on welfare, lazy layabout.
However there is a lot of wonderful people and organisations out there in the USA, Australia and many other places doing their best for others.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
I see way too many people that ARE able to work and contribute that are getting free housing and free food,,that is what has to stop. If they are truly "unable" then they need housing and care but the government should not furnish it. It should be furnished by family, friends, or some kind of charity.
What if they don't have family, friends, or access to charity? There are still homeless under the bridge in the city nearest to where I live.
Then why don't you go down to the bridge and take these people into your house and take care of them. If you look through these peoples lives you will see that it is decisions that they have made in their lives that caused them to end up living under bridges.
I said in my earlier comment, "who don't have access to charity." If I lived in the city then they would have access to charity.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
If by community your referring to the government taking care of them NO that's not the responsibility of the government.
That is the responsibility of the family or civic organizations.
Rome, Russia, China and Cuba all come to as countries that the governments are in charge of taking care of thous that wont or cant work.
Rome is a country? :)
If they are unable, yes.
If they are just unwilling, certainly not.
The key word here is "unable". We as humans must take care of anyone who is unable to work or contribute even if they brought this inability on themselves.