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 7 of 26 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 259

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

  1. #61
    Sage


    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:07 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,528

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Ok can you link the budget numbers that say SLC and Colorado cut social services or law enforcement budgets after this program was started?
    If the state is spending less on the homeless than they were prior to the program then why would it need to cut other social services or law enforcement to fund it?

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    06-27-15 @ 03:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    2,191

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

    Actually from a cost-saving perspective I've no doubt it is cheaper to give homeless their own houses or apts.

  3. #63
    Powered by diesel
    EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Grapeview, Washington
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    6,441

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    If the state is spending less on the homeless than they were prior to the program then why would it need to cut other social services or law enforcement to fund it?
    If they're spending less money then social services should have a smaller budget.

    If goes down to 1 buck a gallon from three, you should be spending 66% less on fuel

    Same principal, if not as many homeless people are being dealt with by law enforcement we need fewer corrections officers and jail expenses like food or the such.

    The reality is it doesn't save us money otherwise, like years ago when the state of Washington claimed mandatory helmets for motorcycles would cut Medicaid costs and the indoor smoking ban would cut Medicaid costs, but Medicaid expenditures continue to rise
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    No one cares about your stupid hippy logic
    "Be careful of averages, the average person has one breast and one testicle"
    -Dixy Lee Ray

  4. #64
    Powered by diesel
    EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Grapeview, Washington
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    6,441

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan5 View Post
    Actually from a cost-saving perspective I've no doubt it is cheaper to give homeless their own houses or apts.
    It may well be for the people who apply.

    But people tout salt lake city's program, but I've been to SLC several times in the last few months there is still homeless people on the streets, I think the people who actually seek the apartment are probably the best 10% of the homeless
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    No one cares about your stupid hippy logic
    "Be careful of averages, the average person has one breast and one testicle"
    -Dixy Lee Ray

  5. #65
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,198

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    If it is shown that it costs less in taxpayer dollars to provide apartments for the homeless than it would be to just let them remain homeless in the streets, would you support using taxpayer dollars to pay for apartments for the homeless?

    Why or why not?
    And do you take into account the cost of maintaing those appartments and constantly replacing them as they get thrashed?

  6. #66
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,835

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

    Why is everything in america deduced to a strict monetary equation, rather than at least put up a semblance of humanitarian/moral duty? To think that 3/4 of the country identifies as christian and doesn't even support shelter for the homeless. How do i know they don't support it? The dwindling number of even ghetto shelters that are available

  7. #67
    Sage


    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:07 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,528

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    If they're spending less money then social services should have a smaller budget.
    If goes down to 1 buck a gallon from three, you should be spending 66% less on fuel.
    Just because you're spending less on fuel doesn't mean you won't still have rising costs in buying a car, car insurance, registration and car maintenance/repair bills. There's more to the homeless problem than just finding housing because a lot of them are mentally ill or drug abusers and require a lot of medical care. Getting people off the street helps keep them safer and healthier which means less medical costs.

    Same principal, if not as many homeless people are being dealt with by law enforcement we need fewer corrections officers and jail expenses like food or the such.

    The reality is it doesn't save us money otherwise, like years ago when the state of Washington claimed mandatory helmets for motorcycles would cut Medicaid costs and the indoor smoking ban would cut Medicaid costs, but Medicaid expenditures continue to rise
    Well, if Medicaid costs are going up it's probably because doctors are using more technology and expensive drugs to treat patients and because there are more people than there were 20 or so years ago and because there's more Medicaid fraud. But just reducing fraud would go a long way to lowering costs by a few billion.

  8. #68
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,835

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    If they're spending less money then social services should have a smaller budget.

    If goes down to 1 buck a gallon from three, you should be spending 66% less on fuel

    Same principal, if not as many homeless people are being dealt with by law enforcement we need fewer corrections officers and jail expenses like food or the such.

    The reality is it doesn't save us money otherwise, like years ago when the state of Washington claimed mandatory helmets for motorcycles would cut Medicaid costs and the indoor smoking ban would cut Medicaid costs, but Medicaid expenditures continue to rise
    Policies like mandatory seat belts are purely intended as a gift for the insurance lobby and costs on treatment going down doesn't mean some exec isn't pocketing the difference. Medicaid in my state at least is still run by for profit companies

    Likewise, fewer homeless *should* translate to less prison costs, but also conceivably higher social service costs (new food stamps or whatever). Then again, many prisons are for profit so expect them to just raise the rates per inmate. Even less time spent by cops dealing with homeless -> lower police budget -> they make up the diff thru higher traffic tickets, preferably black drivers if it's ferguson

    Corruption is just human nature i'm afraid. The question is does our system make it easier to get away with

  9. #69
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,118

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    That's part of why I vote Democratic.
    And part of why I don't. If you believe in something, fund it with your own money. Don't vote into power politicians who will steal from others to implement policies you like.

  10. #70
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,118

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

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    Why is everything in america deduced to a strict monetary equation, rather than at least put up a semblance of humanitarian/moral duty?
    Because we are a nation of free individuals. If you prefer a nation where the citizens are devoid of rights of their own and must bow to the needs of the Motherland or the Fatherland, I am sure there are places out there that can accommodate you.
    To think that 3/4 of the country identifies as christian and doesn't even support shelter for the homeless. How do i know they don't support it? The dwindling number of even ghetto shelters that are available
    Christianity is based upon charity and voluntary giving. What you advocate is state imposed humanitarian/moral duty. Any Christian who supports that, doesn't understand their own religion.

Page 7 of 26 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •