3 ms·

Do you have a source that it isn't the cheapest way? (Not that I wrote anywhere that it even was the cheapest way, but that voters would pay more taxes. If yo

Do you have a source that it isn't the cheapest way? (Not that I wrote anywhere that it even was the cheapest way, but that voters would pay more taxes. If you think about it for a moment, you will see that these two statements aren't identical.)

bjornasm 3y ago
The way it normally works is that the one making the claim is the one having to provide the source. I'll take that as you don't have a source for it then.
- hello_computer 3y ago
  Why would I need to supply a source for something you equivocated and/or misread? I just remember from my readings of the county register, the prisons put these services up for competitive bid. The amount paid by the department of corrections was usually minuscule, if not zero, since the prisoners paid for these services directly out of their own earnings. And if you dig into the article itself, he mentions the JPay tablet: > Inmates can purchase the $69.99 tablet from a kiosk in their facility or someone can purchase it for them. To communicate with inmates, people can access JPay's web platform or get the free JPay app on iPhone or Android. To email or send video-messages, inmates and people on the outside need to purchase 40 cent stamps each time.[0] [0] https://money.cnn.com/2015/07/23/technology/jpay-prison-tablet/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2015/07/23/technology/jpay-prison-tabl...
  - bjornasm 3y ago
    Why do taxpayers have to pay more in a different system if that is cheaper?
    - hello_computer 3y ago
      This question, like most of the commenters here, is confounding the public-private prison issue with all contracted services. Private services are frequently contracted to public prisons. Public prisons here have been using private contractors for things like phones (ex: Global Tel-Link), meals, maintenance, etc for ages. The prison is still publicly run & funded. And like the JPay tablet, the phone charges were paid by the prisoner, not the taxpayer. Public prisons have switched to this model because a) US prisoners are rough on things, and if you try keep them fully-stocked without a cost mechanism, the correctional system will go bankrupt. b) in the long-run, it's cheaper to pull-in an outside contractor who is making a profit off of the prisoner and/or his relatives than to hire full-time public employees, who are very difficult to fire, and tend to have defined-benefit pensions instead of defined-contribution ones (like most of the private sector). That is to say, the public employee may end up being 20%-30% cheaper than the contractor while the work is being performed, but the public employee also comes with the open-ended obligation of his pension (i.e. defined benefit) however many years into the future, while the contractor doesn't (defined contribution). Short answer would be that JPay can pull a tremendous amount of money out of each prisoner's hide for a service that the government could have provided less expensively, and still be a net savings to the taxpayer, since the taxpayer isn't the one footing the bill. While if the government did provide the service, the taxpayer could be exposed to an obligation later on. The prisoner's wages are outside of the equation, since we have to pay those either way. I don't have a dog in this race. I'm just a guy who used to work for a county government and read the budgets and the contracts.
crooked-v 3y ago
> Not that I wrote anywhere that it even was the cheapest way, but that voters would pay more taxes. If you think about it for a moment, you will see that these two statements aren't identical. Why would voters pay more taxes?
- hello_computer 3y ago
  Take the JPay tablet in the article, for example. Currently it is paid for by the prisoner, through either his prison work wages, or stipends from friends & family. If the service is to continue, but the prisoner no longer has to pay, who picks up the tab?

bjornasm 3y ago

The way it normally works is that the one making the claim is the one having to provide the source. I'll take that as you don't have a source for it then.

hello_computer 3y ago
Why would I need to supply a source for something you equivocated and/or misread? I just remember from my readings of the county register, the prisons put these services up for competitive bid. The amount paid by the department of corrections was usually minuscule, if not zero, since the prisoners paid for these services directly out of their own earnings. And if you dig into the article itself, he mentions the JPay tablet: > Inmates can purchase the $69.99 tablet from a kiosk in their facility or someone can purchase it for them. To communicate with inmates, people can access JPay's web platform or get the free JPay app on iPhone or Android. To email or send video-messages, inmates and people on the outside need to purchase 40 cent stamps each time.[0] [0] https://money.cnn.com/2015/07/23/technology/jpay-prison-tablet/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2015/07/23/technology/jpay-prison-tabl...
- bjornasm 3y ago
  Why do taxpayers have to pay more in a different system if that is cheaper?
  - hello_computer 3y ago
    This question, like most of the commenters here, is confounding the public-private prison issue with all contracted services. Private services are frequently contracted to public prisons. Public prisons here have been using private contractors for things like phones (ex: Global Tel-Link), meals, maintenance, etc for ages. The prison is still publicly run & funded. And like the JPay tablet, the phone charges were paid by the prisoner, not the taxpayer. Public prisons have switched to this model because a) US prisoners are rough on things, and if you try keep them fully-stocked without a cost mechanism, the correctional system will go bankrupt. b) in the long-run, it's cheaper to pull-in an outside contractor who is making a profit off of the prisoner and/or his relatives than to hire full-time public employees, who are very difficult to fire, and tend to have defined-benefit pensions instead of defined-contribution ones (like most of the private sector). That is to say, the public employee may end up being 20%-30% cheaper than the contractor while the work is being performed, but the public employee also comes with the open-ended obligation of his pension (i.e. defined benefit) however many years into the future, while the contractor doesn't (defined contribution). Short answer would be that JPay can pull a tremendous amount of money out of each prisoner's hide for a service that the government could have provided less expensively, and still be a net savings to the taxpayer, since the taxpayer isn't the one footing the bill. While if the government did provide the service, the taxpayer could be exposed to an obligation later on. The prisoner's wages are outside of the equation, since we have to pay those either way. I don't have a dog in this race. I'm just a guy who used to work for a county government and read the budgets and the contracts.

crooked-v 3y ago

> Not that I wrote anywhere that it even was the cheapest way, but that voters would pay more taxes. If you think about it for a moment, you will see that these two statements aren't identical. Why would voters pay more taxes?

hello_computer 3y ago
Take the JPay tablet in the article, for example. Currently it is paid for by the prisoner, through either his prison work wages, or stipends from friends & family. If the service is to continue, but the prisoner no longer has to pay, who picks up the tab?