• 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
I always consider it disingenuous when someone tells me it's cheaper for the taxpayer to pay more taxes than to require a person to be responsible for himself.

I am especially skeptical of that story about the teacher who became homeless. But hey...maybe I expect too much intelligence from a person who's profession was to educate our youth. Maybe there is more to that story that's not being told...like maybe he lost his job because he's an alcoholic. I don't know, but it sounds fishy to me.
 
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?




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...
 
if they are not crazy, dopers, lazy or boozers, 90+% CAN sell plasma, "fly a sign" ,do day labor, do work gigs on Craisslist, etc, enough to get an old car to live in. $300 or less, if it doesn't run very well. Get around on a bicyle and the bus. Fix up the car as you can, then get more work from day labor, cause you can haul around other workers who lack a car. Soon have a mini-van. if you are organized and know what to do, the van will suffice for years on end, while you accumulate 15k per year of school loans ,for 5 years. there are several ways to turn that school money into retirement within that 5 years.
 
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?

One would have to be a direct descendant of Ebenezer Scrooge to not support this. Hell yes. Give them a modest shelter, clothing budget, and food budget. And enforce some rules regarding nuisance behaviors--quiet hours at 10 PM weeknights and 12 AM weekends, no loud music EVER, no smoking indoors, no loud arguments, etc.
 
It would be far cheaper, and better for the economy overall, for the homeless that were able bodied and mentally healthy to clean themselves up and use whatever opportunities are available to not be homeless anymore.
 
I think more and more people would just become homeless because life is hard and this would be an easy alternative.

Really? How about this: trying becoming homeless, and then try finding and keeping a job while being homeless. Seeing as how you can't wash and iron your clothes, and the only bath you can take is probably at a sink in a McDonald's restroom, it's pretty doggone hard for a homeless person to ever get and keep a job. Yet so many just look at them with scorn, telling them, "go get a job."

That's what providing an apartment allows them to do: take a shower, wash and iron clothes - even clothes from Goodwill, if they're clean and pressed, looks a heck of a lot more presentable (and job-worthy) than just what a homeless person has on his or her back.

Also, you're going on the assumption that if we give them a place to live, they'll suddenly become lazy. But if you'll check, most people want the dignity of a job. If a person's been on the streets, most of them would love the opportunity to get a job, to be able to do for themselves. YES, there will be some who will take advantage of the situation - the modern-day version of 'welfare queens'...but the great majority just need the opportunity to be able to get a job, as menial as that job may be...because even the most menial jobs are out of the reach of those who are homeless.
 
I always consider it disingenuous when someone tells me it's cheaper for the taxpayer to pay more taxes than to require a person to be responsible for himself.

I am especially skeptical of that story about the teacher who became homeless. But hey...maybe I expect too much intelligence from a person who's profession was to educate our youth. Maybe there is more to that story that's not being told...like maybe he lost his job because he's an alcoholic. I don't know, but it sounds fishy to me.

Thing is, the study linked to in the story isn't the only study. Google it - there's been several studies that also found that it's cheaper for the taxpayer to pay for apartments for the homeless than it is to pay for what happens because those people are homeless.
 
I'm not Scrooge..I'm just opposed to ANYBODY, using govt guns to take money from anybody. If you aren't able to provide for yourself, then either rely on charity or perish in and of your own void, or do the honorable thing and end your own worthless life.
 
It would be far cheaper, and better for the economy overall, for the homeless that were able bodied and mentally healthy to clean themselves up and use whatever opportunities are available to not be homeless anymore.

Okay, you're able-bodied...and you're homeless. Which means you can't wash and iron your clothes, you can't take a bath (unless it's at a sink in some fast-food joint's bathroom). So when you look like that, when you can't show up to work day after day bathed (and not stinky), with clean, ironed clothes, how the heck are you going to get a job, much less keep that job?
 
One would have to be a direct descendant of Ebenezer Scrooge to not support this. Hell yes. Give them a modest shelter, clothing budget, and food budget. And enforce some rules regarding nuisance behaviors--quiet hours at 10 PM weeknights and 12 AM weekends, no loud music EVER, no smoking indoors, no loud arguments, etc.

Since you support this, you do it.
 
Okay, you're able-bodied...and you're homeless. Which means you can't wash and iron your clothes, you can't take a bath (unless it's at a sink in some fast-food joint's bathroom). So when you look like that, when you can't show up to work day after day bathed (and not stinky), with clean, ironed clothes, how the heck are you going to get a job, much less keep that job?

I wish someone would start a business where they had rows of washers and dryers and for quarters you could rent these machines and clean your clothes

For 20 dollars a month you can get a membership at a low end gym with showers and a locker room too.

If you live near a truck stop 10 bucks will get you a shower as well

Any able bodied person can shower and clean cloths if they want to
It's not helping anyone to create silly no win scenarios where people can't help themselves
 
Last edited:
Really? How about this: trying becoming homeless, and then try finding and keeping a job while being homeless. Seeing as how you can't wash and iron your clothes, and the only bath you can take is probably at a sink in a McDonald's restroom, it's pretty doggone hard for a homeless person to ever get and keep a job. Yet so many just look at them with scorn, telling them, "go get a job."

That's what providing an apartment allows them to do: take a shower, wash and iron clothes - even clothes from Goodwill, if they're clean and pressed, looks a heck of a lot more presentable (and job-worthy) than just what a homeless person has on his or her back.

Also, you're going on the assumption that if we give them a place to live, they'll suddenly become lazy. But if you'll check, most people want the dignity of a job. If a person's been on the streets, most of them would love the opportunity to get a job, to be able to do for themselves. YES, there will be some who will take advantage of the situation - the modern-day version of 'welfare queens'...but the great majority just need the opportunity to be able to get a job, as menial as that job may be...because even the most menial jobs are out of the reach of those who are homeless.

Why don't you try becoming homeless then explain to me why you can't come up with $20 a month to shower and wash clothes ($10 gym membership to shower at Planet Fitness, $10 for laundromat)?

The only possible exceptions would be those who are severely physically and mentally handicapped.
 
Okay, you're able-bodied...and you're homeless. Which means you can't wash and iron your clothes, you can't take a bath (unless it's at a sink in some fast-food joint's bathroom). So when you look like that, when you can't show up to work day after day bathed (and not stinky), with clean, ironed clothes, how the heck are you going to get a job, much less keep that job?

Shelters, churches, missions, and other places allow the homeless to get cleaned up. Why do you act like becoming homeless is something people will never recover from? if someone wants to bad enough, they'll find a way. I'm not opposed to helping people when they fall on hard times, but I sure as hell don't think we need to make that existence comfortable enough that it can become a lifestyle. THAT is unhealthy for everyone involved.
 
I'm not Scrooge..I'm just opposed to ANYBODY, using govt guns to take money from anybody. If you aren't able to provide for yourself, then either rely on charity or perish in and of your own void, or do the honorable thing and end your own worthless life.

Are you willing to pay for taxes for police, for the court system, for prisons? Are you willing to pay extra at the stores?

I ask because this is what the studies found - they compared the cost of the apartments to the savings they saw in the decreased police work, decreased court burden, and decreased prison time, and they found that it really was cheaper to the taxpayer to just pay for their apartments than it was to just leave them in the streets.

What's more, when there's lower crime, the cost of insurance to the businesses lowers, too...which results in even more savings.

So you have to ask yourself as a libertarian - which is better - to pay more for the police/courts/prisons which you probably wouldn't mind paying anyway...or to pay LESS to give them a place to stay, where they could take a shower, get cleaned up, wash and iron their clothes, and maybe get a job...and raise kids to do something other than live on the streets.
 
As a liberal, I don't support this in anyway. It would be an excelant way of trashing apartment complexes.The homeless need to have shelter, but giving them an apartment is not the way to do it. I believe this has been tried before without any success.
 
sure, give them apartments.
 
Shelters, churches, missions, and other places allow the homeless to get cleaned up. Why do you act like becoming homeless is something people will never recover from? if someone wants to bad enough, they'll find a way. I'm not opposed to helping people when they fall on hard times, but I sure as hell don't think we need to make that existence comfortable enough that it can become a lifestyle. THAT is unhealthy for everyone involved.

sounds nice in theory...but in real life, not so much. Shelters only have so much capacity and turn people away on a regular basis. The others normally don't allow someone to sleep there. And how many of those places have facilities to allow the homeless person to wash, clean, and iron his or her clothes every single day so he or she can go to work?

I doubt any of them do.
 
Call me crazy but I think it would be cheaper for the taxpayers not to do any of that.

Google and read the studies - they found that providing apartments for the homeless is actually cheaper than it is to pay for the increased police presence, the use of the court system, and the extra prison capacity that comes with having those people on the streets.

Yes, that's counterintuitive...but one is cheaper than the other. And there's the rub - you do pay. One way or another, you pay anyway. You can pay more for cops and courts and prisons...or you can pay somewhat less for apartments to give them a place where they can take a shower, wash and iron their clothes, and get a job.

But you pay anyway. Do you want to pay more for the stick...or less for the carrot?
 
Call me crazy but I think it would be cheaper for the taxpayers not to do any of that.

You're crazy.
"The Homeless Task Force reported it costs Utah $19,208 on average per year to care for a chronically homeless person, including related health and jail costs. Pendleton found that to house and provide a case worker for the same person costs the state about $7,800."
Utah's Strategy for the Homeless: Give Them Homes - NBC News
 
sounds nice in theory...but in real life, not so much. Shelters only have so much capacity and turn people away on a regular basis. The others normally don't allow someone to sleep there. And how many of those places have facilities to allow the homeless person to wash, clean, and iron his or her clothes every single day so he or she can go to work?

I doubt any of them do.

Some do, but you might *GASP* have to hear about Jesus. Can't have that. It would be much better to soak the American tax payer, again. :roll:

American Rescue Workers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Google and read the studies - they found that providing apartments for the homeless is actually cheaper than it is to pay for the increased police presence, the use of the court system, and the extra prison capacity that comes with having those people on the streets.

Yes, that's counterintuitive...but one is cheaper than the other. And there's the rub - you do pay. One way or another, you pay anyway. You can pay more for cops and courts and prisons...or you can pay somewhat less for apartments to give them a place where they can take a shower, wash and iron their clothes, and get a job.

But you pay anyway. Do you want to pay more for the stick...or less for the carrot?

You don't get it would be be cheaper if the state did none of that stuff.
 
Back
Top Bottom