|
|
#11
02-20-2006, 04:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Tax Dollars at Work
[ QUOTE ]
11,200,000 > 100,000 [/ QUOTE ] I shouldn't even bother responding to people who can't fuckng read or do math, but if you save $50,000 per year for each of 75 people, you save the entire cost of the facility in 3 years, and after that you save $3.75 million a year. 
|
|
#12
02-20-2006, 04:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tax Dollars at Work
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 11,200,000 > 100,000 [/ QUOTE ] I shouldn't even bother responding to people who can't fuckng read or do math, but if you save $50,000 per year for each of 75 people, you save the entire cost of the facility in 3 years, and after that you save $3.75 million a year. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, assuming that each of those 75 people costs the city $50,000/year. The thing you posted said this: [ QUOTE ] There was a recent article in the New Yorker that estimated their cost at around $100,000/year in emergency room visits alone. [/ QUOTE ] I have a feeling that means collectively (if they cost the city $100k EACH, which I doubt is the case, then tax dollars are being seriously, seriously squandered and that's the problem that needs more attention.) The truly cost-effective method would be to let them starve and die, or let private charities take care of them.
|
|
#13
02-20-2006, 04:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tax Dollars at Work
People need to read the housing agency's complete report before passing judgment on the project. The idea is to get the chronic homeless permanently off the street. The idea is that if better cared for they will actually cost the city less money than if the city left them on the street.
As Aviva pointed out, there is a New Yorker article in last week's issue by Malcolm Gladwell on this issue. The original link implies that this is government waste. Actually, if the theory is correct the government may be able to dramatically decrease the homeless problem and save money doing so. As Aviva also pointed out, the 11.2 million dollar complex is not just for one year, the building will be serving the homeless for decades to come.
|
|
#15
02-20-2006, 04:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tax Dollars at Work
[ QUOTE ]
People need to read the housing agency's complete report before passing judgment on the project. The idea is to get the chronic homeless permanently off the street. The idea is that if better cared for they will actually cost the city less money than if the city left them on the street. As Aviva pointed out, there is a New Yorker article in last week's issue by Malcolm Gladwell on this issue. The original link implies that this is government waste. Actually, if the theory is correct the government may be able to dramatically decrease the homeless problem and save money doing so. As Aviva also pointed out, the 11.2 million dollar complex is not just for one year, the building will be serving the homeless for decades to come. [/ QUOTE ] But don't you see that in Fairy Tale Land where there is no government, clearly this is a huge waste of money? If I had more time I'd give you seven links to mises.org, or better yet call you ignorant for not having read all 500 threads on Fairy Tale Land.
|
|
#16
02-20-2006, 04:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tax Dollars at Work
Hotel Study page
This link gives a lot of information on estimates of what the homeless cost the city. See page 6 where the top 20 homeless are estimated to cost the city $54,000 apiece in drug and alcohol services alone. The article in the New Yorker discusses Reno, Nevada. One of the men discussed in the article actually cost the city over $500,000 one year. [ QUOTE ] I have a feeling that means collectively (if they cost the city $100k EACH, which I doubt is the case, then tax dollars are being seriously, seriously squandered and that's the problem that needs more attention.) The truly cost-effective method would be to let them starve and die, or let private charities take care of them. [/ QUOTE ] They definitely do cost over $100K in aggregate. In fact, certain individuals are far over the $100K mark. The problem is not that they are starving, it is that they often get ill or hurt while living on the streets and end up costing the city a great deal of money. It is both compassionate and cheaper (in theory) to do things this way so I don't see what's not to like about it.
|
|
#17
02-20-2006, 04:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tax Dollars at Work
This post is about the city government of Seattle building a homeless public housing project that will better care for the homeless and potentially save the city money.
It's not about Fairy Tale Land whatever that is. An innovative plan to improve life for the chronically homeless that saves money is certainly better than the status quo.
|
|
#18
02-20-2006, 05:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tax Dollars at Work
[ QUOTE ]
It's not about Fairy Tale Land whatever that is. [/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Triumph was kidding about hmkpoker's obsession with Anarchocapitalism, the magical Fairy Tale Land where everything will work perfectly if we just get rid of all government.
|
|
#19
02-20-2006, 05:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tax Dollars at Work
...wow. I had no idea they cost so much. Thanks for the link, it was very informative [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
I do agree that this is safer and better for the alcoholics, and more likely to result in a possible recovery. I still have a problem with rewarding incompetance and punishing productivity, and while I would like a system that caps the amount of municipal resources the alcoholic is entitled to, if this is in fact more cost effective than the current system, then I guess it's a step in the right direction. My only real concern is its potential to demand an increase in funding, and I don't think that's unreasonable.
|
|
#20
02-20-2006, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tax Dollars at Work
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It's not about Fairy Tale Land whatever that is. [/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Triumph was kidding about hmkpoker's obsession with Anarchocapitalism, the magical Fairy Tale Land where everything will work perfectly if we just get rid of all government. [/ QUOTE ] hmmmm... I guess that's a little better than the comment you deleted before this one, where you just took me out of context and made an attempt at an insult. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The truly cost-effective method would be to let them starve and die [/ QUOTE ] You realize this makes you a despicable person, right? [/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
