3 ms·

One has to consider both sides. If it takes the net of a 1 person around the clock for life to support another person, you're at about break even because it co

One has to consider both sides. If it takes the net of a 1 person around the clock for life to support another person, you're at about break even because it cost you one life to 'save' the other life. Any more than that and the alternative of "let the homeless person live life on their terms however they're able to survive" starts to look more attractive. You wouldn't sacrifice two lives to save one.

piva00 5y ago
There are much fewer homeless people than productive ones. Even if it costs the production of a whole person to support a homeless one to have a chance in life, isn't it worth it?
- notch656a 5y ago
  So go devote the rest of your life and all your money to saving some homeless person, no one is stopping you. It's your life to live as you choose. I'm just asking that at some point of spending a certain amount of resources without successfully getting a person of their feet, it become an option for someone like you to volunteer to fix the problem rather than a tax forced at gunpoint. Remember there is finite money and there are hard decisions about whether to spend some money on say a homeless adult person that has been given many chances vs a young child who may be even more influenceable with the same amount of money. In many case these taxes are coming from families who no longer have the choice to spend that money on their young child or own family members. Given infinite resources it may be worth it, but at the cost of robbing say a young child of these resources or multiple life-times of labor it may not.
- Msw242 5y ago
  What? No. Homeless people aren't helpless animals in need of coddling. They are human beings with intelligence, perfectly capable of exploiting incentives and your kindness. They terrorize eachother, and those who interact with them. It only takes attempting to help a homeless person 2-3 times in person to see and understand that. Needle exchanges, supervised injection sites, and cash stipends to addicts are going to be looked back on as hideously poor policy, and their supporters have blood on their hands.

piva00 5y ago

There are much fewer homeless people than productive ones. Even if it costs the production of a whole person to support a homeless one to have a chance in life, isn't it worth it?

notch656a 5y ago
So go devote the rest of your life and all your money to saving some homeless person, no one is stopping you. It's your life to live as you choose. I'm just asking that at some point of spending a certain amount of resources without successfully getting a person of their feet, it become an option for someone like you to volunteer to fix the problem rather than a tax forced at gunpoint. Remember there is finite money and there are hard decisions about whether to spend some money on say a homeless adult person that has been given many chances vs a young child who may be even more influenceable with the same amount of money. In many case these taxes are coming from families who no longer have the choice to spend that money on their young child or own family members. Given infinite resources it may be worth it, but at the cost of robbing say a young child of these resources or multiple life-times of labor it may not.
Msw242 5y ago
What? No. Homeless people aren't helpless animals in need of coddling. They are human beings with intelligence, perfectly capable of exploiting incentives and your kindness. They terrorize eachother, and those who interact with them. It only takes attempting to help a homeless person 2-3 times in person to see and understand that. Needle exchanges, supervised injection sites, and cash stipends to addicts are going to be looked back on as hideously poor policy, and their supporters have blood on their hands.