Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 13 Oct '14 11:54 / 1 edit
    "The fact is that it appears giving homeless people a place to live saves taxpayers money.

    [...]each individual homeless person can cost taxpayers as much as $41,000 a year (particularly in cases where said homeless person has severe mental health issues, as many of them do). As a society, we've already decided that "let them die" isn't acceptable, but that means we have to bear the costs of a population with health problems caused by exposure to the elements and eating whatever food the rats have already rejected.

    [...]
    In areas such as Nashville, where some organizations are trialing the homes for hobos concept, they found that even the chronically ill or mentally unstable cost the government less if they're in a home than if they're on a park bench -- one estimate puts it at $16,281 less per year.

    [...]
    But let's face it: the real obstacle to this isn't the government, it's us. We simply can't stand the thought of somebody staying in a house rent-free while we bust our ass to pay our mortgage every month. So, we'll continue to pay the premium to keep them on the streets, out of spite."


    original article here: http://www.cracked.com/article_21329_5-tiny-common-sense-changes-that-would-save-world_p2.html
  2. 13 Oct '14 11:59
    ignore the "would save the world" part of the link, replace with "would improve it"
  3. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    13 Oct '14 12:11
    If a country has signed up to the UN's human rights charter, it is obligated to give someone a home.

    It's a basic human right (although I believe the term shelter is used...)
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    13 Oct '14 12:24
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "The fact is that it appears giving homeless people a place to live saves taxpayers money.

    [...]each individual homeless person can cost taxpayers as much as $41,000 a year (particularly in cases where said homeless person has severe mental health issues, as many of them do). As a society, we've already decided that "let them die" isn't acceptable, but t ...[text shortened]... : http://www.cracked.com/article_21329_5-tiny-common-sense-changes-that-would-save-world_p2.html
    ===We simply can't stand the thought of somebody staying in a house rent-free while we bust our ass to pay our mortgage every month. So, we'll continue to pay the premium to keep them on the streets, out of spite." ===

    I don't know what it's like in other countries, but in the US, there are homeless shelters available to people who need shelter. Granted, conditions in those shelters aren't always very good.

    Anyway, I don't think anyone would seriously dispute the desirability of making shelters available for the homeless. I get the feeling that what you're really arguing for is giving people rent money to choose their own homes (which Section 8 housing assistance does in the US to an extent). Am I right?
  5. 13 Oct '14 12:42 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    ===We simply can't stand the thought of somebody staying in a house rent-free while we bust our ass to pay our mortgage every month. So, we'll continue to pay the premium to keep them on the streets, out of spite." ===

    I don't know what it's like in other countries, but in the US, there are homeless shelters available to people who need shelter. Granted, con ...[text shortened]... se their own homes (which Section 8 housing assistance does in the US to an extent). Am I right?
    " in the US, there are homeless shelters available to people who need shelter"
    what is the % of coverage? is it 100%? even 90% would be good.

    the thing is you have a lot of homeless people, do they prefer freezing over getting in those shelters?


    "I get the feeling that what you're really arguing for is giving people rent money to choose their own homes "
    not at all. giving money to people with mental problems is not a good idea. i just wanted to present a problem where the solution is counter intuitive for most ayn rand, no government aid, disciples.

    socialism in this case actually saves money.
  6. 13 Oct '14 13:12
    Spite is a common theme among those opposed to "socialist" initiatives.
  7. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    13 Oct '14 13:34
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "The fact is that it appears giving homeless people a place to live saves taxpayers money.

    [...]each individual homeless person can cost taxpayers as much as $41,000 a year (particularly in cases where said homeless person has severe mental health issues, as many of them do). As a society, we've already decided that "let them die" isn't acceptable, but t ...[text shortened]... : http://www.cracked.com/article_21329_5-tiny-common-sense-changes-that-would-save-world_p2.html
    America provides billions of dollars in free money to wealthy oil companies as subsidies every year, but let some homeless person live rent free for a few months, many will cry "freeloading socialist scum!" Go figure...
  8. Standard member Quarl
    Quarl
    13 Oct '14 13:36 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "giving money to people with mental problems is not a good idea.
    A large part of the homeless problem you are speaking of is a direct result of the policy of transferring homeless, involuntarily hospitalised mental patients from state mental hospitals into psychiatric institutions administered by the federal government. These federally subsidised institutions began in the United States. Soon after that US policy change most Western governments followed suit.

    After the appearance of psychotropic drugs in the 1960's, there has been a policy of “community release.” It would be logical to conclude a major element of that decision was to cut costs, since drugs are less expensive than maintaining housing facilities and staff for the patients.

    This resulted in these people no longer having living quarters or having the support of health care staff. Obviously, after the fact, many of these same experts think this practise has been a failure.
  9. 13 Oct '14 13:42
    Originally posted by Quarl
    A large part of the homeless problem you are speaking of is a direct result of the policy of transferring homeless, involuntarily hospitalised mental patients from [b]state mental hospitals into psychiatric institutions administered by the federal government. These federally subsidised institutions began in the United States. Soon after that US poli ...[text shortened]... ously, after the fact, many of these same experts think this practise has been a failure.[/b]
    These federally subsidised institutions began in the United States. Soon after that US policy change most Western governments followed suit.

    Most Western governments don't even have (the equivalent of) "States."
  10. Standard member Quarl
    Quarl
    13 Oct '14 14:17 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    [b]These federally subsidised institutions began in the United States. Soon after that US policy change most Western governments followed suit.

    Most Western governments don't even have (the equivalent of) "States."[/b]
    The sentence (that you actually quoted) does not mention individual states. It clearly states "United States" which is the name of the entire country.

    quote: These federally subsidised institutions began in the United States. Soon after that US policy change most Western governments followed suit.

    Federally - as you can see, was the key topic in that sentence indicating what political body had taken control.

    In English one shouldn't take a keyword from a previous sentence and interject it into another. It could cause a misunderstanding of intent.

    EDIT
    OH! After posting this reply I realized the intent of your post. You are not lacking in ability to read and comprehend the written word.

    This is simply a common devious debating technique. If someone makes a point you don't like - Pick some obscure point and draw attention off his subject. I should have seen your intent immediately. Instead I foolishly and arrogantly attempted to correct your reading. NICE TRY!
  11. 13 Oct '14 15:33
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "The fact is that it appears giving homeless people a place to live saves taxpayers money.

    [...]each individual homeless person can cost taxpayers as much as $41,000 a year (particularly in cases where said homeless person has severe mental health issues, as many of them do). As a society, we've already decided that "let them die" isn't acceptable, but t ...[text shortened]... : http://www.cracked.com/article_21329_5-tiny-common-sense-changes-that-would-save-world_p2.html
    The great majority of homeless with mental problems are there because liberals thought that housing them in institutions was inhumane. Buildings like old schoolhouses could be re purposed as homeless shelters. Many homeless actually prefer their status to receiving a handout with its requirements.
  12. 13 Oct '14 15:43
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    " in the US, there are homeless shelters available to people who need shelter"
    what is the % of coverage? is it 100%? even 90% would be good.

    the thing is you have a lot of homeless people, do they prefer freezing over getting in those shelters?


    "I get the feeling that what you're really arguing for is giving people rent money to choose their own ...[text shortened]... or most ayn rand, no government aid, disciples.

    socialism in this case actually saves money.
    Socialism may appear in the short run to save money, but the addiction to government aid tends to create new and more expensive programs over time.

    For example the aforementioned Section 8 housing at first seems viable, but the people who pay only a small portion of the cost of renting their home tend to care for it poorly, and the houses often end up blighted or burned, and whole neighborhoods become disposed of, and have to be demolished. The real costs are often disguised or postponed past being recognized.
  13. 13 Oct '14 15:46
    Originally posted by bill718
    America provides billions of dollars in free money to wealthy oil companies as subsidies every year, but let some homeless person live rent free for a few months, many will cry "freeloading socialist scum!" Go figure...
    Specifically to what are you referring? Government regulations cost oil companies billions of dollars which they pass on to you in the cost of energy you use.

    Whether business of individual, government ought to butt out and let both alone.
  14. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    13 Oct '14 19:00
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Spite is a common theme among those opposed to "socialist" initiatives.
    Can you or anyone else point to any instance that anyone argued that the homeless should not be sheltered because they would be getting away with not paying rent?
  15. 13 Oct '14 21:01
    Originally posted by sh76
    ===We simply can't stand the thought of somebody staying in a house rent-free while we bust our ass to pay our mortgage every month. So, we'll continue to pay the premium to keep them on the streets, out of spite." ===

    I don't know what it's like in other countries, but in the US, there are homeless shelters available to people who need shelter. Granted, con ...[text shortened]... se their own homes (which Section 8 housing assistance does in the US to an extent). Am I right?
    The advantage to a home is the address which enables people to get employment. You cannot put a shelter down as your residence. without that address a homeless person must resort to standing with a cardboard sign looking for work at a busy intersection. People are only allowed to stay in shelters for a limited period of time.