• 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?

  • If it's cheaper to the taxpayer, I would support providing apartments for the homeless.

    Votes: 29 65.9%

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

    Votes: 15 34.1%
  • Total voters
    44
Fletch said:
I am not obligated to help these people and neither are you. You are free to do so and so am I. Except that isn't good enough for liberals. They want to help these people but not with their own money. They want to take it from others. And look at the results. The left has gotten its theft schemes enacted and there are still more homeless than you can count. Just as much poverty as ever. And $18,000,000,000,000 worth of debt. So what do you want? More of the same. No thanks.
Click to expand...

OK, so the Christian thing is to let the homeless rot on the streets. Just wanted to clear that up. Thanks!

Yes, AN option is to turn your head and pretend these folks don't exist and say "f' you, leave me alone" to those you can't ignore, but I don't see how that is moral or ethical. And in the real world faith based charities haven't stepped up and solved actually ANY big problem in America. So I'm not sure what your proposal is, except to continue to ignore these folks, or know that charities are overwhelmed and say, well, life sucks for those who fall through the cracks, good luck in the next life!

BTW, I don't know who "they" are but I'm a taxpayer like you, I volunteer my time, for years, to help these people and we donate our money to that charity and many others in the area - the food banks and other faith based on non-faith based orgs who help out. So if you want to whine about people not walking the walk or expecting others to do what I'm not, you'll have to find someone else to bitch to. And in the meantime, please tell us all your efforts as a Christian to help out and then tell me why more of those like you haven't stepped up and founded charities, since you want the state to play no role....
 
JasperL said:
OK, so the Christian thing is to let the homeless rot on the streets. Just wanted to clear that up. Thanks!

Yes, AN option is to turn your head and pretend these folks don't exist and say "f' you, leave me alone" to those you can't ignore, but I don't see how that is moral or ethical. And in the real world faith based charities haven't stepped up and solved actually ANY big problem in America. So I'm not sure what your proposal is, except to continue to ignore these folks, or know that charities are overwhelmed and say, well, life sucks for those who fall through the cracks, good luck in the next life!

BTW, I don't know who "they" are but I'm a taxpayer like you, I volunteer my time, for years, to help these people and we donate our money to that charity and many others in the area - the food banks and other faith based on non-faith based orgs who help out. So if you want to whine about people not walking the walk or expecting others to do what I'm not, you'll have to find someone else to bitch to. And in the meantime, please tell us all your efforts as a Christian to help out and then tell me why more of those like you haven't stepped up and founded charities, since you want the state to play no role....
Click to expand...

No, actually Christians help the homeless all the time, with our own money. That's the point. But you already knew that. ;)

There are myriad charities founded by Christians. Why must libs always lie and exaggerate to make a point?
 
countryboy said:
No, actually Christians help the homeless all the time, with our own money. That's the point. But you already knew that. ;)

There are myriad charities founded by Christians. Why must libs always lie and exaggerate to make a point?
Click to expand...

Of course, AS I SAID, I have been personally involved with one of them for years, and I donate to many others.

The point is the Christian and other charities are not enough. As I pointed out, our waiting list is hundreds long and it could be longer if there was a point taking a name that won't be crossed off for two years or more.

So, given that there just are not the resources available to serve these folks, what do you suggest? We could all wish more charities existed and they were enough, but that's not actually going to help anyone who needs help, and there are many.

BTW, it's of course possible to favor multiple strategies. I support the efforts of our faith based charity, AND a public role. There really isn't any conflict because I know there just in reality aren't enough charities to serve the population, so as a rational individual, also support the city's efforts as a necessary complement to the food banks, Salvation Army, and other charitable orgs that are doing great work but are simply overwhelmed by the need. Heck, we have to use public resources to treat our residents' medical issues - i.e. the ER, Medicaid, VA and more. We simply cannot afford to feed, house, address addiction AND treat their often serious and chronic medical issues, including mental health issues. It requires multiple approaches from multiple orgs, including public (taxpayer funded) orgs.

Or, you can accept failure, and whine about liberals.
 
countryboy said:
No, actually Christians help the homeless all the time, with our own money. That's the point. But you already knew that. ;)

There are myriad charities founded by Christians. Why must libs always lie and exaggerate to make a point?
Click to expand...

BTW, the comment I responded to was that neither he nor I is "obligated" to help. As an ethical issue, I think we ARE obligated to help. We can't individually address every moral or ethical issue - there isn't enough time or money to do that - but that doesn't give us permission to ignore the problem either. That's why I do support public efforts. If we left all this up to charity, knowing millions would fall through the cracks, IMO we are not behaving morally or ethically.

One other point, in this reality, the actual approach given the failures of charities and public efforts is to provide free medical care, housing, food in regular stays funded by taxpayers in jails and prisons. That is the default, keep on the current road, approach. I can't support that on any level - fiscally, ethically, or on what can be expected to work to turn these lives around.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
BTW, the comment I responded to was that neither he nor I is "obligated" to help. As an ethical issue, I think we ARE obligated to help. We can't individually address every moral or ethical issue - there isn't enough time or money to do that - but that doesn't give us permission to ignore the problem either. That's why I do support public efforts. If we left all this up to charity, knowing millions would fall through the cracks, IMO we are not behaving morally or ethically.

One other point, in this reality, the actual approach given the failures of charities and public efforts is to provide free medical care, housing, food in regular stays funded by taxpayers in jails and prisons. That is the default, keep on the current road, approach. I can't support that on any level - fiscally, ethically, or on what can be expected to work to turn these lives around.
Click to expand...

Liberty comes with a price. He's right, we aren't obligated to help the homeless. And you have no right to force others to do as you wish at the point of a gun.

One other point, why do you find it necessary to use idiotic comments like, "OK, so the Christian thing is to let the homeless rot on the streets. Just wanted to clear that up. Thanks!"? :roll:
 
countryboy said:
Liberty comes with a price. He's right, we aren't obligated to help the homeless. And you have no right to force others to do as you wish at the point of a gun.
Click to expand...

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. We as citizens vote for public officials who make these decisions and levy the taxes and spend the money. It's how this thing works, and if you don't like it, vote in people who agree with you, and I'll vote for people who share my views. Thankfully, the clear majority favors public spending on social services.

And, sure, we aren't obligated to help ANYONE. Kids die because they can't get an infection treated and mom can't afford the doctor bills? We CAN say - well too bad, freedom! But then don't preach to me about religion and Christianity and assert that those who do want to help don't understand their religion. Just say you don't give one damn about them, and if they die in the streets, f'em because liberty or something demands suffering.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
There is no reason, given the resources that we have in this country, that any American should be homeless or hungry. To answer the poll, I would support it even if it were not cheaper. Great if it is, but I would support it either way.
 
countryboy said:
One other point, why do you find it necessary to use idiotic comments like, "OK, so the Christian thing is to let the homeless rot on the streets. Just wanted to clear that up. Thanks!"? :roll:
Click to expand...

Because if we as society or Christians aren't obligated to help them, that is the alternative in real life, in our communities, to people we pass every day on the streets. The charitable resources just are not there to serve the population as we speak. It's easy to say, "Well, charities SHOULD address these problems" but when they do not (i.e. in real life) address them because they don't have the resources, it's just fact that people will in fact die on the streets.

If you don't favor that or accept it as the acceptable price of freedom and liberty, and don't favor public efforts, then what is your suggestion?

BTW, if we are honest we all accept that to some degree. There are millions or billions of starving, destitute people worldwide, and unless we give away all our possessions and live in poverty and move to some poor area to devote our lives to help them out as much as is humanly possible, we do accept that state of affairs. That's just the reality. But then let's be honest and say that instead of pretending we're doing something else.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Poll Question is assumed in both of the possible answers. What is someone who thinks it is likely that it will not prove cheaper to answer?
 
radcen said:
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.
Click to expand...

I Hawk, I Hawk, I continue to Hawk...
 
Even if you could prove that providing the apartments would be cheaper, there is a the matter of maintenance. Visit any public housing and see what the conditions of repair are. People who have things given to them do not respect what they have been given as much as people who have earned it do. Consequently, the cost of keeping that housing in good repair is going to be higher than if those who live there had purchased the home.
 
JasperL said:
OK, so the Christian thing is to let the homeless rot on the streets. Just wanted to clear that up. Thanks!
Click to expand...
No. Now you are intentionally trying to misunderstand. Let me make it clear for you: charity to have any moral worth or value must be voluntary. State mandated wealth transfers are not a replacement for voluntary Christian giving, nor are they in the slightest bit moral. You do not steal so that good may come.

Yes, AN option is to turn your head and pretend these folks don't exist and say "f' you, leave me alone" to those you can't ignore, but I don't see how that is moral or ethical. And in the real world faith based charities haven't stepped up and solved actually ANY big problem in America. So I'm not sure what your proposal is, except to continue to ignore these folks, or know that charities are overwhelmed and say, well, life sucks for those who fall through the cracks, good luck in the next life!

BTW, I don't know who "they" are but I'm a taxpayer like you, I volunteer my time, for years, to help these people and we donate our money to that charity and many others in the area - the food banks and other faith based on non-faith based orgs who help out. So if you want to whine about people not walking the walk or expecting others to do what I'm not, you'll have to find someone else to bitch to. And in the meantime, please tell us all your efforts as a Christian to help out and then tell me why more of those like you haven't stepped up and founded charities, since you want the state to play no role....
Click to expand...
I am not a Christian. And I do nothing to set up charities. That is my right as a free man. You may call that immoral if you like, but my actions are not a moral crime no matter what you think. You, on the other hand, don't get to then choose the immoral path of confiscating that which does not belong to you in order to do "good."
 
JasperL said:
BTW, the comment I responded to was that neither he nor I is "obligated" to help. As an ethical issue, I think we ARE obligated to help. We can't individually address every moral or ethical issue - there isn't enough time or money to do that - but that doesn't give us permission to ignore the problem either. That's why I do support public efforts. If we left all this up to charity, knowing millions would fall through the cracks, IMO we are not behaving morally or ethically.

One other point, in this reality, the actual approach given the failures of charities and public efforts is to provide free medical care, housing, food in regular stays funded by taxpayers in jails and prisons. That is the default, keep on the current road, approach. I can't support that on any level - fiscally, ethically, or on what can be expected to work to turn these lives around.
Click to expand...
The bolded is nothing more than your own personal opinion. If you believe you are 'obliged to help' then you are free to do so. What you are not free to do is FORCE me to join you. That is the essence of what it means to be free men, equal in our rights--you go your way and I go mine. That is never good enough for liberals. They see something as right or just or moral and force everyone to participate whether they want to or not. YOU see helping them as a moral imperative. You help them and leave me free to follow my own conscience in such matters.
 
Cheaper for the taxpayer? Cheaper then what?

Providing clean, safe shelters is enough.

It is not possible - except in Fantasyland - to provide an apartment for a homeless person from taxpayers that is sustainable.

This 'give the poor everything' nonsense is just that - nonsense. Give them money, give them food, give them 'dignity' and now give them an apartment. What is the incentive for these people to get jobs if they get everything they need and/or want by sitting on their butts?
The government should provide safe/clean shelter, food, clothing and basic healthcare (full healthcare for children)...and that is it.
If they want more, then they can get a job an earn it.
 
Fletch said:
No. Now you are intentionally trying to misunderstand. Let me make it clear for you: charity to have any moral worth or value must be voluntary. State mandated wealth transfers are not a replacement for voluntary Christian giving, nor are they in the slightest bit moral. You do not steal so that good may come.
Click to expand...

But I don't accept equating taxes with stealing. That's your opinion, not mine or the country as a whole. You've made a decision to live here or to stay here and by doing so have made a decision to agree to the terms, which are the laws of the land, including the tax laws. You have the same right I do to work to change those terms, but it's not "theft" when the community has decided for itself what the tax levels should be and where the proceeds are spent.

And I fundamentally and completely disagree with you about "state mandated transfers." In my view the 'state' is a reflection of the community, and a moral community takes care of the disadvantaged. How that help is delivered is of secondary importance to me. Sure, I'd prefer that voluntary contributions to charitable orgs get the job done, but the task is too great for them and there hasn't been one second in all of recorded history where such "voluntary" efforts were sufficient. State mandated transfers are also insufficient, for that matter, but are an improvement.

I am not a Christian. And I do nothing to set up charities. That is my right as a free man. You may call that immoral if you like, but my actions are not a moral crime no matter what you think. You, on the other hand, don't get to then choose the immoral path of confiscating that which does not belong to you in order to do "good."
Click to expand...

OK, we have a different notion of what is and isn't 'moral' and 'immoral.' It would be amazing if two thinking humans did agree. It's why we have a representative government - to weigh all those differences of opinion on hundreds or thousands of issues and make the decisions on our behalf...
 
Fletch said:
The bolded is nothing more than your own personal opinion. If you believe you are 'obliged to help' then you are free to do so. What you are not free to do is FORCE me to join you. That is the essence of what it means to be free men, equal in our rights--you go your way and I go mine. That is never good enough for liberals. They see something as right or just or moral and force everyone to participate whether they want to or not. YOU see helping them as a moral imperative. You help them and leave me free to follow my own conscience in such matters.
Click to expand...

Sure - it's why I modified the statement with "I think..." And you've given me nothing more than your personal opinion. We apparently disagree!

And we all get "forced" to "participate" in government programs whether we want to or not. We're talking local issues, so a recent local example is they just put in a new exit to serve a big new shopping center. My own view is if the owner of the center wants an exit, good for him - build it. Unfortunately no one actually asked me my opinion and my local and state taxes subsidize this center, as they did the local Walmart that also got its own exit. In this case, the almost 100% "conservatives" in my red city in my red state saw something that was "right or just or moral" - using tax dollars to subsidize a business - "and force[d] everyone to participate whether they want to or not."

You don't have any better options than I do. It's life in a developed country with elected government! I prefer it to the alternatives!
 
JasperL said:
But I don't accept equating taxes with stealing.
Click to expand...
Of course you don't. That's what makes you a liberal. You taking things that don't belong to you is theft. That you elect people into office to do it for you does not change that. You just pretend it does. You have the right to dispose of your own property, not mine.
 
Fletch said:
Of course you don't. That's what makes you a liberal. You taking things that don't belong to you is theft. That you elect people into office to do it for you does not change that. You just pretend it does. You have the right to dispose of your own property, not mine.
Click to expand...

You're right, I don't have any right to tax you, but the government whose laws you agree to follow by residing here DOES simply, objectively have the "right" to levy taxes. And....

"You've made a decision to live here or to stay here and by doing so have made a decision to agree to the terms, which are the laws of the land, including the tax laws. You have the same right I do to work to change those terms, but it's not "theft" when the community has decided for itself what the tax levels should be and where the proceeds are spent."

Unfortunately for me and you, no one actually asks our opinion or gives us individual veto powers over government spending decisions. If you had that power, we'd call you "King" or the equivalent!
 
JasperL said:
Sure - it's why I modified the statement with "I think..." And you've given me nothing more than your personal opinion. We apparently disagree!

And we all get "forced" to "participate" in government programs whether we want to or not. We're talking local issues, so a recent local example is they just put in a new exit to serve a big new shopping center. My own view is if the owner of the center wants an exit, good for him - build it. Unfortunately no one actually asked me my opinion and my local and state taxes subsidize this center, as they did the local Walmart that also got its own exit. In this case, the almost 100% "conservatives" in my red city in my red state saw something that was "right or just or moral" - using tax dollars to subsidize a business - "and force[d] everyone to participate whether they want to or not."

You don't have any better options than I do. It's life in a developed country with elected government! I prefer it to the alternatives!
Click to expand...

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.
 
JasperL said:
You're right, I don't have any right to tax you, but the government whose laws you agree to follow by residing here DOES simply, objectively have the "right" to levy taxes.
Click to expand...
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.
"You've made a decision to live here or to stay here and by doing so have made a decision to agree to the terms, which are the laws of the land, including the tax laws. You have the same right I do to work to change those terms, but it's not "theft" when the community has decided for itself what the tax levels should be and where the proceeds are spent."

Unfortunately for me and you, no one actually asks our opinion or gives us individual veto powers over government spending decisions. If you had that power, we'd call you "King" or the equivalent!
Click to expand...
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.
 
radcen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Has the low income housing developments been successes?
Haven't a large part of them become magnets for violent crime and dug abuse / dealing and drug gangs?

Seems that this solution was already tried and didn't do so well. No, I think temporary homeless shelters are probably a better solution, preferably run by charities and not on the public dime.

Kreton said:
There is no reason, given the resources that we have in this country, that any American should be homeless or hungry. To answer the poll, I would support it even if it were not cheaper. Great if it is, but I would support it either way.
Click to expand...

Nice in theory, but you'd need to answer the above questions. If you propose no changes, why is it you expect a different outcome?
 
Fletch said:
Of course you don't. That's what makes you a liberal. You taking things that don't belong to you is theft. That you elect people into office to do it for you does not change that. You just pretend it does. You have the right to dispose of your own property, not mine.
Click to expand...

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.?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom