View Poll Results: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • If it's cheaper to the taxpayer, I would support providing apartments for the homeless.

    29 65.91%
  • I would not support providing apartments to the homeless even if it is cheaper to the taxpayer.

    15 34.09%
Page 11 of 26 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 259

Thread: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

  1. #101
    Sage

    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,981
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Why don't we give every man, woman, and child 1.5x the poverty rate and let them do as they will? Then, if someone wants better they can go get a job. But those who don't care have the means to have the basics, and it's fair because everybody has the means to have the basics. It'd be only the extras you work for.

    There. Problem solved.
    Because within a year, that money would have been squandered on any number of other things, and the same people would be right back with their hands open looking for more. I mean we see this over and over again with lottery winners.
    It's a global Jihad, stupid. Allowing that poison into the country is only going to increase the damage it inflicts on others.
    Trump: "When You Open Your Heart To Patriotism, There Is No Room For Prejudice"
    Trump to NYT: “Try reporting accurately & fairly!”

  2. #102
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,511

    Re: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    Free societies don't operate that way. The essence of freedom is the ability to say "no." People should not have the power to force their neighbors to fund the welfare of others. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happens here.
    Actually, they do operate exactly that way.

    The alternative is there has never been any "free society" in the history of man. We've never had the individual ability to opt out of stuff we don't like and accept what we do like. If you want to live in a developed, first world, advanced society, you must accept social welfare spending. There are no places on the globe where you don't have to make that choice.

  3. #103
    Sage
    Chomsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Third Coast
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,198

    Re: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Meh. Give 'em a 6x10' hut each with a futon, toilet and sink. No electricity, no comms, no A/C, but some kind of heat in the winter sure. Stack 'em ten stories high in a fenced complex and try to keep 'em away from the regular folks somewhat.

    Give 'em a block of generic nutrient paste every day that will keep starvation at bay, a bar of soap once a month, and a couple blankets.


    That's enough. For those with a speck of ambition, put a branch Employment Office nearby...
    Your solution sounds like the slums of Rio ...
    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

    The 10 Commandments of Logic - (Courtesy of Abbazorkzog Blog)

  4. #104
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,942

    Re: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    If you were able to opt out of paying taxes... which it sounds you would like to do... would you also opt out of public services, i.e. police services, fire protection, public roads, etc.?
    There are other ways of paying for those things other than direct taxation. What is being discussed here is wealth transfers--the concept of taxing Peter for no other purpose than to provide Paul with an unearned benefit. Get rid of those and we can figure out how to fund the police, courts, etc.

  5. #105
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,511

    Re: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    Governments do not possess 'rights' only individuals do. Government has powers, and just powers are those delegated to it by the citizens. Since you have no just power to take my property for your purposes, you cannot rightly delegate a power you lack to the state.
    It's not me deciding on the purposes. We collectively elect representatives and they make decisions on our behalf. And they just do, actually, have the power to tax and to spend the proceeds. You can wish it weren't so, but that's not going to get you very far. I wish I didn't have to subsidize shopping centers - oh well.

    Robbing Peter to pay Paul is robbing Peter. The moral stand I choose to take is the one that opposes theft by the state for any purpose. The supposed 'goodness' of the ends do not justify the use of evil means.
    OK, taxes are evil. Noted. It's too bad you choose to live in a first world country, the governments of which ALL "steal" from their citizens. For myself, the benefits of living in a first world country FAR outweigh the downside of seeing some of my taxes go for spending that I don't approve of.

  6. #106
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    28,934

    Re: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    There are other ways of paying for those things other than direct taxation. What is being discussed here is wealth transfers--the concept of taxing Peter for no other purpose than to provide Paul with an unearned benefit. Get rid of those and we can figure out how to fund the police, courts, etc.
    In other words, it's just a nebulous concept to bitch about.
    April Fool's Day is the one day of the year
    that people critically evaluate news articles before accepting them as true.

  7. #107
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,942

    Re: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    In other words, it's just a nebulous concept to bitch about.
    Not at all. I made a very clear distinction. There is nothing nebulous in the least in what I wrote.

  8. #108
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    28,934

    Re: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    Not at all. I made a very clear distinction. There is nothing nebulous in the least in what I wrote.
    Zero detail and "we can figure out" = nebulous.
    April Fool's Day is the one day of the year
    that people critically evaluate news articles before accepting them as true.

  9. #109
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,511

    Re: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    There are other ways of paying for those things other than direct taxation. What is being discussed here is wealth transfers--the concept of taxing Peter for no other purpose than to provide Paul with an unearned benefit. Get rid of those and we can figure out how to fund the police, courts, etc.
    Why should I have to fund courts I don't use? Let people who need the courts and judges to enforce contracts pay all those bills. And if we need a military to protect our oil supplies in the ME, fine, divide it up per barrel of oil sold and levy that cost to oil users. Etc. We can theoretically eliminate all government and pay for it all as we go. Heck, if my wife is murdered and I care who did it, I can fund a police investigation - they can charge me by the hour. Why should you have to pay for investigating a crime against ME???!!!

    All you're doing is stating your priorities - police, but not SS - and would if possible force YOUR priorities on me. You don't have that right, as I don't have that right. We both get a vote, and the ability to influence the government's priorities in other ways if we are so moved - protest, donate money, lobby, write letters, give speeches....

  10. #110
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,942

    Re: Is is cheaper for the taxpayer to provide apartments for the homeless?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Zero detail and "we can figure out" = nebulous.
    The distinction I made was between what was being discussed (wealth transfer schemes) and what you introduced (Police, fire, etc) As to how the latter would be paid in absence of direct taxation is not exactly a mystery.

Page 11 of 26 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •