• 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

I support sheltering some, but not all of them. If a woman flees an abusive situation, setting them and their kids up in housing is acceptable. If someone is homeless because their parents kicked them out because they are a 24 year old thieving drug addict who has never had a real job, then I would not support providing them housing.
 
LeoVlaming said:
And do you take into account the cost of maintaing those appartments and constantly replacing them as they get thrashed?
Click to expand...

First, you're assuming that this is going to happen most or all the time. Some will, absolutely. But most won't.

Now how about doing some research of your own and find out how much it costs per month to keep someone in jail (it's over $100 per day...which means it's over $3000 per month per person, which is a heck of a lot more than a freaking studio apartment). Add to that the cost of additional police presence, and the costs of the lawyers and judges. And don't forget the costs of the emergency rooms where the homeless go so often, claiming they have this or that problem just so they can have a warm, safe place to sit down for a while.
 
Cephus said:
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?
Click to expand...
Using your logic, if one area of social services is saving money then they're all saving money. But I'm pretty sure the money is allocated according to an annual budget so that each department or agency gets its own funding.
 
Moot said:
Using your logic, if one area of social services is saving money then they're all saving money. But I'm pretty sure the money is allocated according to an annual budget so that each department or agency gets its own funding.
Click to expand...

No, I'm asking where this supposed savings is that people are claiming exists. If you can't demonstrate it, it doesn't exist. If you're spending exactly the same money on everything else, plus $20k for each apartment, that's not savings, that's losing money.
 

That's what we did. We waited until both of us were going well in our career, had a house, and our student loans were paid off before we had our first child when I was 33.
 

What I've read is the homeless that they have housed are spending way less time in emergency rooms and jails.

How Housing for the Chronically Homeless May Save Taxpayers Money | Fox Business
 

Well, the question is what works and what is most cost effective. The general attitude of conservatives appears to be that there is a moral imperative that they live poorly, even if that costs more and doesn't work to get them off the streets long term or that other options like an apartment work better and is cheaper in the long run.

And just one problem with the barracks type living arrangements is that they are very unsafe, especially for women and children, but many of the homeless I've known hated staying there because it was a good place to have what little stuff you had stolen, beaten up in the night. So the reason advocates reject that type arrangement isn't to spend more money but because it's been proven to not work. In our facility, for example, we could strip out the walls and house perhaps 20 men per house. Instead we have about 30 houses because having a room with one roommate or sometimes two works better than a dorm.

FWIW, I've known some homeless in government subsidized housing. I'm sure none of us would trade places with them, "free" housing or not. It's the reward of getting up and busting our asses.
 

Fine - if you want to include a certain amount of menial work as a requirement for them to stay there to earn their keep, I'm fine with that. My goal here isn't to give people a chance to sit on their butts and do nothing to earn their keep - my goal here is to cost the taxpayers less money while at the same time give the homeless a real opportunity to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
 

Thing is, study after study has found that yes, it IS cheaper to pay for apartments for homeless to live in than it is to pay for what happens because they're out on the streets (police, courts (and lawyers), jails, emergency rooms, increased insurance costs for businesses). I've seen nothing yet showing that it's more expensive to provide apartments than it is to leave them on the streets.

It's not a presupposition - it's a fact. A counterintuitive fact to be sure, but a fact nonetheless.
 

Alright, but the odds are pretty good that drug addict will steal from you or your neighbors to pay for his habit and his rent and food and all the rest. It's a choice, though!

Our charity requires them to stay sober, get a job, keep their room clean, divide up the meals and cook their share, etc. and that appears to work for some, so if the room comes with conditions I'm OK with that. But if "housing first" works, and instead of 49 of 50 drug addicts supporting their habit by stealing, 20 0r 10 or maybe even 5 of them use the services to get treatment and long term are contributors, and that's cheaper for society than kicking them to the streets, I'm OK with that too - whatever works.
 

Picture this, guy. You've got a family to support...and you can work that minimum-wage job. You don't like doing it...but even though you're applying time and time again for higher-wage jobs, you're not getting them. Maybe it's you, or maybe it's the economy, or whatever...but you still have to feed your family.

So your choice is this: work that minimum wage job...or quit and be unemployed.

THAT, sir, is the choice faced by millions of Americans.

And you're wondering how providing an apartment can be cheaper - how about looking into how much it costs to keep someone in jail for just ONE day - it's over $1000, or over $3000 per month. Add to that the cost of providing extra police, the costs of the judges and the lawyers, the increased insurance costs for businesses...and then there's the increased costs in the emergency rooms from the higher level of crime that involves homeless people.

Yeah, it's counterintuitive...but it's a fact. It DOES cost less to provide a freaking not-so-nice studio apartment to a homeless person than it does to pay for what happens because that person is out on the street 24/7.

And one last thing, guy - just because a study says something you don't like hearing, doesn't mean that study isn't accurate. Ah, but I forget - if scientists and researchers say something conservatives don't want to hear, those scientists and researchers MUST be wrong - see Global Warming, Evolution, Homosexuality...the list goes on....
 
cpgrad08 said:
Not what I said, I was referring towards taxpayer programs for the homeless.
Click to expand...

And my point was, are you willing to pay more for police, courts, lawyers, prisons, ER's for what happens because homeless people are on the streets 24/7...even though it has been shown in several studies that it really is cheaper for the taxpayer to pay for apartments for them?

You're going to pay more for one, or less for the other. If you insist that nothing at all be done for the homeless, then the costs of the police, courts, lawyers, prisons, and ER's automatically goes up...and you'll be paying for that.

You pay for one or for the other...but you will pay. Which one is in the best interests of the taxpayers?
 
JasperL said:
Alright, but the odds are pretty good that drug addict will steal from you or your neighbors to pay for his habit and his rent and food and all the rest. It's a choice, though!
Click to expand...

And if you put him in an apartment the odds are pretty good he will steal from his neighbors to fund the things other than rent by the same argument. It comes across like you are trying to extort money: Either pay us so we make sure he steals from someone other than you or he will steal from you instead. A thief is a thief. Put him in jail or a rehab facility against his will. Negotiating with addicts is codependency.


I would not consider a 10% success rate a success. As I suggested earlier, there are some types of homelessness I would support paying for their aid. There are other types I would not because I do not think that the odds favor them changing just because they have a free roof over their heads.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
And you're pretending that these people aren't going to be doing all of these same things in their new apartments. People keep pointing out how wrong you are, you just won't listen. Instead of costing $31k, it will cost $41k.
Click to expand...

And instead of examining how it worked out in real life, you're making a claim based on...what? Oh, yeah, your ASSUMPTIONS.
 

No, it's not extortion, I'm just pointing out that a junkie on the streets costs us all a lot of money. If he steals and is caught, you provide free housing, 3 meals a day, TV, healthcare in jail, and he comes out and usually starts using again, with a record, even harder to get a job, and so steals again. IMO, if it is cheaper and works better to provide free housing in an apartment instead of jail, I'll gladly support that effort. It's just a function of what works.


10% a success depends on the alternative. If that 10% is an avoided AIDS case or Hep C or whatever, and a lifetime of expensive medical care, and those cases in effect pay for the others who fail, no problem with me.

We just apply different standards to who should receive aid, which is understandable. I don't much care why they're homeless, only what works best and is better for them and society in the long run. Some here think the potential for abuse is high and maybe they're right. If so the programs long term might be a failure. All I have to go on are the studies to date, which are of mostly pilot programs, and certainly are only open to a small slice of the total homeless population. Perhaps these programs will work for only a small slice of that population. We know our little charity doesn't work for many because to stay they do have to follow some basic rules - look for work, cook, clean, stay sober, get treatment. Theft is permanent dismissal with no chance of return. Getting high gets you kicked out, but when sober can return. Etc. Those are our rules, but if different rules work better, OK.
 
Cephus said:
That's because people working minimum wage jobs and trying to support families are idiots. If you cannot afford a family, you have no business trying to have one.
Click to expand...

And that's one of the big problems with conservatives. Instead of saying, okay, let's fix the problem because it IS a problem, conservatives LOVE to say, "well, harumph, they shouldn't a-had a family to begin with!" Well, GUESS WHAT, guy, they DO have families that they DO need to support and the minimum wage job is ALL they can get...

...it's not a matter of "well, ya shouldn't a-done that!" It's a matter of, it DOES happen, it IS a problem and it will always BE a problem. You can either do something about it...or you can hide your head in the sand.

Another great example of this same kind of idiocy is in teen pregnancy. Liberals say, okay, kids are gonna do the nasty, let's educate them and tell them about birth control. Conservatives, on the other hand, say that "oh, y'all shouldn't oughta do that! Just say no until marriage!" And as a result, between red and blue states, guess which states have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy, hm?

These are problems that don't go away just because conservatives say that people shouldn't do this or that.
 
Your premise presumes that we put them in apartments, all issues are solved, everybody lives happily ever after, and it ends there.
 
Moon said:
How much cheaper would it be if they weren't being warehoused and had jobs instead?
Click to expand...

I'd love for them to have jobs! Of course I would! So take a look at that homeless person with that shopping cart. How exactly is he going to get a bath, get cleaned up, shaved, brush his teeth, get his clothes clean and pressed (assuming he has any clothes appropriate for the job), and get to work...and just as importantly, how's he going to do that day after day? It's not like he has a place to keep his clothes neat and clean until the next day.

This, btw, is one of the things that paying for apartments for the homeless does - it makes it easier for them to get and keep jobs.
 
And this is a fair point. It does exist, people do have families they shouldn't have, and so on. And these things should be addressed.

However, there is some legitimacy to the flip side, as well. If the consequences are known to be harsh, more people won't make irresponsible decisions to begin with. There will always be some, but the numbers will be fewer.

Where's the happy medium?
 

".... are there no prisons? are there no workhouses?..." .... are there no Christians amongst us?
 

Ah. So people are homeless because they CHOOSE to be homeless! What a brilliant observation! Why, I bet if I went down the street over in Seattle and asked, each and every one of them will say, "well, I'm okay with being homeless!"

But if you did something completely different and went and asked the homeless - or, failing that, ask those who work with the homeless every day - you'll find out that there's a whole passel of reasons people become homeless...and "lack of motivation" isn't usually one of them. You'll find that people who are homeless are often there because of addiction, yes. But there's a lot more out there who fled abusive homes, or who lost their jobs and couldn't pay for a place to stay, or who was bankrupted by medical costs.

It's so easy to look at someone on the streets and make assumptions about them. It's a lot harder to actually find out why they're there.
 

And the real-life experiences where this was tried showed that crime went down, costs went down. Research it yourself before making assumptions, willya?
 
countryboy said:
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
Click to expand...

And guess what, guy - with all the thousands of "Christian" churches in America, we still have a severe homelessness problem. Even in the deepest parts of the Bible Belt where I come from, there's still lots of homeless.

Sorry, but charity only goes so far. It's nice to think that charity can solve it...but in real life, no. Never has, not in all human history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…