• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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


  • Total voters
    44
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.
 
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.
 
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 ...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 :2mad: concept to bitch about.
 
In other words, it's just a nebulous :2mad: concept to bitch about.

Not at all. I made a very clear distinction. There is nothing nebulous in the least in what I wrote.
 
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....
 
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.
 
I think we often approach the homeless problem from the wrong direction. Many homeless have underlying issues that have led to their homelessness such as mental illness or addiction. It is not simply a case of them being to lazy to work as I believe many people perceive them to be. Due to their conditions many cannot maintain gainful employment. We to often put programs into place to provide housing while simply ignoring the causes of their homelessness and expect the problem to be solved. I believe we are putting the cart before the horse.

I also believe we spend more money on the housing side of things than we should (this goes for all publicly assisted housing) and I believe this wasted money could be better used providing programs to help them treat their mental illnesses and addictions.

I believe all publicly assisted housing should look more like this (along with communal facilities).

jap1.JPG

Instead of this.

4526989039_44a71c01de-300x199.jpg

I personally do not agree with the notion that people that cannot do for themselves should have the same standard of living as those that do and all of it being provided by the taxpayer. However I do think it is in all our best interests to provide them with the most basic of services and the treatment they need so that they can hopefully one day better their own lives.
 
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.
That's how it should work.
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???!!!
I pay police to protect my rights. Investigating crimes is part of that.

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....
You see no difference between police and SS. That is part of the reason this conversation is going nowhere, A free society forces nothing upon you. Your society forces a great deal upon me.
 
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.

It is a mystery to me. And who determines the "etc."? And at what levels those mystery services should be funded?
 
That's how it should work.

So a poor person has no access to the courts and therefore no ability to enforce the law or a contract?

I pay police to protect my rights. Investigating crimes is part of that.

If protecting your rights is important, why don't you pay for that yourself? Why should Romney and Buffett pay to protect your rights?

You see no difference between police and SS. That is part of the reason this conversation is going nowhere, A free society forces nothing upon you. Your society forces a great deal upon me.

Of course I see a difference. What I disagree about is the notion that you have some higher claim on what is or isn't an appropriate government services than other citizens in your community, who vote for representatives that govern according to shared values, same as you do. And by your terms, there has never been in all of recorded history a "free society" larger than a small tribe.
 
It is a mystery to me. And who determines the "etc."? And at what levels those mystery services should be funded?

Eliminate all wealth transfer welfare schemes and funding what is left amounts to mere pennies on the dollar. As for how it could be funded, you answered that yourself in the very first line of your last response to me. People who use the courts and the legal system pay for it. For example, Lebron James negotiates a new contract with the Cavs for $100,000,000. If there was a fee of 1% per dollar value of every contract, Lebron and the Cavs would cough up a million dollars. I buy your car for $10,000 and we cough up $100. That way people who use the legal system pay for it.
 
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.

IIRC there are several nations that have a guaranteed income for their citizens...and these nations are for the most part still doing very well, thank you very much.
 
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?

apartments? .. no way.... you're talking about giving away, for free, that which everybody else works very hard and pays big money for.

I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of living quarters, though...something like old school Marine Squad bays.
something that provides the very basics in shelter and hygiene facilities, at minimal cost to taxpayers.

I also wouldn't be opposed to a chow hall, if staffed by the residents themselves.

parris_island_6.jpg
 
Probably would be cheaper... right now. It would also provide incentive for people currently on the edge to just give up and join the ranks of the homeless.

This is a "be careful what you wish for" solution.

I think I've stated elsewhere that yes, there would be those who would abuse the system...but most won't. There's no indication I can find anywhere that so many would abuse the system to the point that it would become more expensive than the alternative.

And just to remind everyone, it cost significantly more per month to keep a person in prison than to pay for that person's apartment.
 
I think we often approach the homeless problem from the wrong direction. Many homeless have underlying issues that have led to their homelessness such as mental illness or addiction. It is not simply a case of them being to lazy to work as I believe many people perceive them to be. Due to their conditions many cannot maintain gainful employment. We to often put programs into place to provide housing while simply ignoring the causes of their homelessness and expect the problem to be solved. I believe we are putting the cart before the horse.

The story didn't have a lot of details, but most I've read about don't just hand the homeless keys and say "Have fun!" They almost always have social workers of some kind who work with them to get problems such as health issues and mental health issues addressed and if run at all well will work with them on the rest.

I think the idea is with a permanent place to live, the homeless can finally get stable enough to address the other issues. Let's say Joe needs meds to control mental health issues. It's nearly impossible for that to be sustained if Joe is on the street, but is possible if he's living somewhere and a rep comes by, makes sure he gets the medical appointments scheduled, can help arrange transportation, etc.

I also believe we spend more money on the housing side of things than we should (this goes for all publicly assisted housing) and I believe this wasted money could be better used providing programs to help them treat their mental illnesses and addictions.

I personally do not agree with the notion that people that cannot do for themselves should have the same standard of living as those that do and all of it being provided by the taxpayer. However I do think it is in all our best interests to provide them with the most basic of services and the treatment they need so that they can hopefully one day better their own lives.

I agree basically. There are selfish benefits of a stable society and safety from having an income floor of sorts. Just as an example, we have friends in Bolivia, which isn't big on social welfare spending, especially for the indigenous population. What that means is all the decent houses in the city are surrounded by 8-12 foot walls, topped with barbed wire or cut class, and you can't park your car on the streets or in a parking lot unless you pay some local touring the lot for "protection" of your vehicle.
 
apartments? .. no way.... you're talking about giving away, for free, that which everybody else works very hard and pays big money for.

I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of living quarters, though...something like old school Marine Squad bays.
something that provides the very basics in shelter and hygiene facilities, at minimal cost to taxpayers.

I also wouldn't be opposed to a chow hall, if staffed by the residents themselves.

View attachment 67185434
No that's too cruel. We cant expect our homeless to live like some lowly private. They need a place of their own, with three meals a day, a tv, internet, job training, transportation, leisure time, and a wardrobe that wont stigmatize them. You know, all those things that the rest of us actually have to get up every morning and bust our asses to achieve...
 
Eliminate all wealth transfer welfare schemes and funding what is left amounts to mere pennies on the dollar. As for how it could be funded, you answered that yourself in the very first line of your last response to me. People who use the courts and the legal system pay for it. For example, Lebron James negotiates a new contract with the Cavs for $100,000,000. If there was a fee of 1% per dollar value of every contract, Lebron and the Cavs would cough up a million dollars. I buy your car for $10,000 and we cough up $100. That way people who use the legal system pay for it.

Sure, it's "pennies" on the dollar, but that's still a lot of pennies.

And I don't think your proposal works, but it really doesn't matter. That's not the system we have, but you have the same right I do to try to change it and enforce your priorities on me and the rest of your community, including the powerful business community. Good luck getting e.g. GE to agree to pay a fee for every contract it signs!
 
Harsh. :shock:

If everyone in this country waited until they had a quarter of a mil invested, the population would die out pretty quickly. That's a lot of money for people just starting out, and that's when most of the women are having children.

I think a quarter million is a bit silly, but at least people ought to wait until they have a decent job, can afford a decent roof over their head and the ability to put food on the table without turning to government handouts. I don't give a damn if people like it, it's called personal responsibility and something that should be a basic expectation in society.
 
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?

The savings has to come from somewhere. If they are spending, say, $20 on housing, yet not saving any money on social services or law enforcement or whatever, then it's not really a savings, is it?
 
That's how it should work. I pay police to protect my rights. Investigating crimes is part of that.
You use the court system whether you realize it or not. Decisions from other people's cases affect you, even if you were not a direct participant.


I pay police to protect my rights. Investigating crimes is part of that.
Now you're cherry-picking.
 
Back
Top Bottom