4 ms·

The solution is to limit the expense of non-contributing people in our cities. Fact of the matter is is that certain lifestyles require a certain amount of abil

The solution is to limit the expense of non-contributing people in our cities. Fact of the matter is is that certain lifestyles require a certain amount of ability to produce value. No one gets upset when you say that a middle-class person can't buy a luxury automobile without greatly increasing the ability to earn, but the same principle applies to the basics as well. Seattle and King County were spending a cumulative $100,000/year per homeless person. That's higher than the per capita income of the county. No way to sustain that in the long term. If you aren't prepared to tell high-school dropouts, drug addicts, and the lazy, that they shouldn't aim for more than an ultra-high density apodment and generic brand everything and no kids, then you can't have a high standard of living city for anyone.

scotty79 3y ago
> per homeless person Oh, I thought that by non-contributing you meant tax dodging millionaires that incentivise vast array of useless luxury services and extract undue rent from the populace through their various schemes.
- wang_li 3y ago
  Your average unemployed homeless person is dodging enormous amounts of taxes simply by not having an income. Do you also complain about them or is your bitterness simply a result of envy?
  - scotty79 3y ago
    You can't dodge something you don't owe. Homeless pay all taxes they owe. Mostly salea tax I imagine.
    - telotortium 3y ago
      And they get $100k/year of services. Their life is still not particularly good, but mismanagement can burn even the largest resource pile.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - beaeglebeached 3y ago
        Christ. At that point just hand them the 100k. The addicts will quickly end the public problem and those who just needed a starting seed will emerge anew with at least a van to live in .
    - wang_li 3y ago
      The vast majority of wealthy people who are commonly accused of not "paying their fair share" and of dodging taxes are simply structuring their financial lives in ways that allow them to reduce their tax obligations. Very few are engaged in actual tax evasion and all the rest pay all the taxes they owe.
      - soco 3y ago
        Structuring by moving their wealth to Bahamas which is indeed fully legal because they are the ones writing same laws (or golfing with the authors) - something the homeless cannot. So this legal trick allows them to fully enjoy their wealthy status locally while paying close to zero taxes. While supporting the Bahamas economy, yay I guess.
  - nerb 3y ago
    This reeks of being an outside observer. WA has no income tax, but has a sales taxes which homeless people are subjected to. The only taxes are from property which renters also don't pay. When people complain about the rent seekers it's from a place of empathy, not envy. The extraction of wealth done by them always has and always will be more negatively impactful than homeless folks.
    - pnutjam 3y ago
      Renters pay property taxes. I know I do.
      - fragmede 3y ago
        You also pay for your landlord's vacations, and their food. And their drug and alcohol and gambling addictions.
wing-_-nuts 3y ago
While I agree homelessness is a problem, it's a small financial burden compared to the unsustainable growth of infrastructure. Maybe it's time to finally get serious about treating mental health? Whenever I see comments like this, I always note there doesn't seem to be any broader solution than 'ship them somewhere else and make them someone else's problem'
- beaeglebeached 3y ago
  You would have to make benefits conditional on satisfaction of mental health treatment compliance to get anywhere.
  - wing-_-nuts 3y ago
    I think you could follow a carrot and stick approach to reduce the largest harms of homelessness. Get caught using drugs or alcohol in public, or harassing people? Jail, with deferment into a mental health program (which is also available to all homeless folks). Stay in the mental health program, and you get housed, for free at first, and then a small percent of your income once you get a job.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  > it's a small financial burden compared to the unsustainable growth of infrastructure. American cities aren't really growing their infrastructure that much (that's one of the problems), they are just maintaining what they already have. But ya, we will spend billions on a link from Ballard to West Seattle here, and it won't be ready until sometime after 2040. > Whenever I see comments like this, I always note there doesn't seem to be any broader solution than 'ship them somewhere else and make them someone else's problem' That's because while the problem is national, the resources expected to solve it are local. Since the problem is also mobile (as anyone taking a greyhound bus to Seattle could see), at least not being a preferred destination for the problem is a valid strategy. Shipping it off is also valid, but mostly the chronic homeless will go places where they can survive (looking for better weather, generous social services, and police that aren't going to throw them in jail for doing fent on the bus).
soco 3y ago
100k/per year for homeless person? Do you realize that by giving that amount to most of them would get them OUT of the homelessness by next year (or sooner)? Yes there are the ones unable to get out of the pit, but most would. I would think if the measure of your services is how many homeless you support, then you'd increase the number of homeless,right? It's all KPIs and perfectly in the spirit of the OC.
- beaeglebeached 3y ago
  I would pass law, average public spend per homeless can't exceed average public spend per public school student without annual public vote. Let them explain, ever year, why your child is less deserving of the public investment.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  That isn't true. The really bad cases will trash/burn down their housing in a few months of obtaining it without lots of live in resources to make that not happen (or renovate/rebuild after it does happen). If it were just housing, we could solve this problem more easily, but we have decided as a society to combine it with our drug abuse problem and have decided for some odd reason to treat the harder cases first and wait for the easier cases (just need housing) become hard cases (now addicted to drugs) before doing anything about it.
  - soco 3y ago
    Yes I get it, we shape our policies based on "the really bad cases". This reminds me of a - probably largely exaggerated - comparison: one party denies help to 10 persons out of worry one might be a fraud, the other gives help to 10 persons out of worry one might need it badly.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      > Yes I get it, we shape our policies based on "the really bad cases". This reminds me of a - probably largely exaggerated - comparison: one party denies help to 10 persons out of worry one might be a fraud, the other gives help to 10 persons out of worry one might need it badly. You are ignoring the 9 people they did help that way, but they didn't stay homeless for very long and aren't counted as chronically homeless. The one person that did burn down their hotel room is chronically homeless and very difficult to help...well, they are chronically homeless after all. Not really exaggerated at all, I'm guessing you live in a nice suburb or somewhere without a chronic homelessness problem? Or you are just trying to gaslight us into thinking our property crime/drug problems aren't as extreme as we see them to be?
DemocracyFTW2 3y ago
just burn the lazy and roast the rich then?

scotty79 3y ago

> per homeless person Oh, I thought that by non-contributing you meant tax dodging millionaires that incentivise vast array of useless luxury services and extract undue rent from the populace through their various schemes.

wang_li 3y ago
Your average unemployed homeless person is dodging enormous amounts of taxes simply by not having an income. Do you also complain about them or is your bitterness simply a result of envy?
- scotty79 3y ago
  You can't dodge something you don't owe. Homeless pay all taxes they owe. Mostly salea tax I imagine.
  - telotortium 3y ago
    And they get $100k/year of services. Their life is still not particularly good, but mismanagement can burn even the largest resource pile.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - beaeglebeached 3y ago
      Christ. At that point just hand them the 100k. The addicts will quickly end the public problem and those who just needed a starting seed will emerge anew with at least a van to live in .
  - wang_li 3y ago
    The vast majority of wealthy people who are commonly accused of not "paying their fair share" and of dodging taxes are simply structuring their financial lives in ways that allow them to reduce their tax obligations. Very few are engaged in actual tax evasion and all the rest pay all the taxes they owe.
    - soco 3y ago
      Structuring by moving their wealth to Bahamas which is indeed fully legal because they are the ones writing same laws (or golfing with the authors) - something the homeless cannot. So this legal trick allows them to fully enjoy their wealthy status locally while paying close to zero taxes. While supporting the Bahamas economy, yay I guess.
- nerb 3y ago
  This reeks of being an outside observer. WA has no income tax, but has a sales taxes which homeless people are subjected to. The only taxes are from property which renters also don't pay. When people complain about the rent seekers it's from a place of empathy, not envy. The extraction of wealth done by them always has and always will be more negatively impactful than homeless folks.
  - pnutjam 3y ago
    Renters pay property taxes. I know I do.
    - fragmede 3y ago
      You also pay for your landlord's vacations, and their food. And their drug and alcohol and gambling addictions.

wing-_-nuts 3y ago

While I agree homelessness is a problem, it's a small financial burden compared to the unsustainable growth of infrastructure. Maybe it's time to finally get serious about treating mental health? Whenever I see comments like this, I always note there doesn't seem to be any broader solution than 'ship them somewhere else and make them someone else's problem'

beaeglebeached 3y ago
You would have to make benefits conditional on satisfaction of mental health treatment compliance to get anywhere.
- wing-_-nuts 3y ago
  I think you could follow a carrot and stick approach to reduce the largest harms of homelessness. Get caught using drugs or alcohol in public, or harassing people? Jail, with deferment into a mental health program (which is also available to all homeless folks). Stay in the mental health program, and you get housed, for free at first, and then a small percent of your income once you get a job.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
> it's a small financial burden compared to the unsustainable growth of infrastructure. American cities aren't really growing their infrastructure that much (that's one of the problems), they are just maintaining what they already have. But ya, we will spend billions on a link from Ballard to West Seattle here, and it won't be ready until sometime after 2040. > Whenever I see comments like this, I always note there doesn't seem to be any broader solution than 'ship them somewhere else and make them someone else's problem' That's because while the problem is national, the resources expected to solve it are local. Since the problem is also mobile (as anyone taking a greyhound bus to Seattle could see), at least not being a preferred destination for the problem is a valid strategy. Shipping it off is also valid, but mostly the chronic homeless will go places where they can survive (looking for better weather, generous social services, and police that aren't going to throw them in jail for doing fent on the bus).

soco 3y ago

100k/per year for homeless person? Do you realize that by giving that amount to most of them would get them OUT of the homelessness by next year (or sooner)? Yes there are the ones unable to get out of the pit, but most would. I would think if the measure of your services is how many homeless you support, then you'd increase the number of homeless,right? It's all KPIs and perfectly in the spirit of the OC.

beaeglebeached 3y ago
I would pass law, average public spend per homeless can't exceed average public spend per public school student without annual public vote. Let them explain, ever year, why your child is less deserving of the public investment.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
That isn't true. The really bad cases will trash/burn down their housing in a few months of obtaining it without lots of live in resources to make that not happen (or renovate/rebuild after it does happen). If it were just housing, we could solve this problem more easily, but we have decided as a society to combine it with our drug abuse problem and have decided for some odd reason to treat the harder cases first and wait for the easier cases (just need housing) become hard cases (now addicted to drugs) before doing anything about it.
- soco 3y ago
  Yes I get it, we shape our policies based on "the really bad cases". This reminds me of a - probably largely exaggerated - comparison: one party denies help to 10 persons out of worry one might be a fraud, the other gives help to 10 persons out of worry one might need it badly.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    > Yes I get it, we shape our policies based on "the really bad cases". This reminds me of a - probably largely exaggerated - comparison: one party denies help to 10 persons out of worry one might be a fraud, the other gives help to 10 persons out of worry one might need it badly. You are ignoring the 9 people they did help that way, but they didn't stay homeless for very long and aren't counted as chronically homeless. The one person that did burn down their hotel room is chronically homeless and very difficult to help...well, they are chronically homeless after all. Not really exaggerated at all, I'm guessing you live in a nice suburb or somewhere without a chronic homelessness problem? Or you are just trying to gaslight us into thinking our property crime/drug problems aren't as extreme as we see them to be?

DemocracyFTW2 3y ago

just burn the lazy and roast the rich then?