6 ms·

It's also wild just how cost-effective interventions like this can be. You can pay a thousand here and there, or a few hundred thousand incarcerating these peop

It's also wild just how cost-effective interventions like this can be. You can pay a thousand here and there, or a few hundred thousand incarcerating these people when they turn to crime out of desperation.

jmward01 8mo ago
Totally agree. I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs but the reality is if we don't find effective policies I end up paying more in taxes for emergency treatment and society take major economic hits for the other secondary problems, like crime, that homelessness causes. Of course the other argument for this is that society clearly has a hand in the path that took these people to where they are at now so society has some responsibility. Both are reasons to support well researched evidence based policy decisions to deal with the problem.
- yunnpp 8mo ago
  You don't want to pay taxes for social programs as opposed to...what? Military and defense spending? What is there better than a social program?
  - jmward01 8mo ago
    There are several reactions to the 'I don't want to pay taxes' so I'll pick this one and respond. I hope you read the rest of the comment. I don't want to pay taxes because who does? Ever? But we -need- to pay taxes for programs that work because the alternative, massive social costs and damage to society, are far worse. So, sure, I don't want to pay taxes for social programs but I admit the need to and therefore I want the most effective, evidence based programs we can find. We need value for the effort and that involves doing research to figure that value out. If a program like this efficiently reduces the problems associated with homelessness I am all for it. As to what I would actually want to pay taxes for it is to build new things and achieve new things as a society. I never want to spend money on 'fixing', it is needed, it has to happen, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Building new things however I am 100% for. Get us to space. Find new particles. Help foster the arts. That is what I want my taxes to go for. So, yes, fund things like this if it is effective because we have to but you won't get me to say I want to spend money one this.
    - paulryanrogers 8mo ago
      I want to pay taxes. Just like I want to be paid for my work, and those who devote themselves to public service want to be paid for theirs. Ideally government work would pay well enough there would be no temptation to accept bribes, or declare bribes legal through awkward loopholes like campaign financing.
    - yunnpp 8mo ago
      You realize existing roads need maintenance, i.e. fixing, too, right? Your approach towards taxes is absurd and reflects a lack of understanding of how anything works. And why, of all things, should taxes send us to the moon? Subsidizing private enterprise is the worst use of taxes.
      - jmward01 8mo ago
        I'm not sure if you are intentionally missing the point or not. I'll try one last time. I have very clearly not said 'this shouldn't be done'. I haven't said 'we shouldn't pay for social services or roads'. In fact, I clearly said we should pay for social services, now twice. What I have clearly said is 'I don't want to', but I do a lot of things I don't want to because they have to be done. I don't want to go to work. I don't want to pay taxes. Most days I don't want to go to bed at a reasonable time, but I do it because the alternative is worse. We -should- do something doesn't me I -want- to do something. Yes. We will pay for roads because they are needed. Hopefully things are very clear now and if not, oh well.
  - johnny22 8mo ago
    The the whole thing can be summed up as "Paying taxes sucks, but if paying the taxes saves more money down then line, then we should do it"
- iamrobertismo 8mo ago
  > I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs This is such awild thing to say. What do you think the point of society is? Also, there is no way you "Totally agree" if at the same time you are saying this. Also if you understand the cost of incarceration and the negative social ills of poverty, then being against social programs, broadly, makes no sense.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - hellojesus 8mo ago
    Social programs are definitionaly nonpublic. That is, they do not provide nonrivalous and nonexcludable benefits. The proper method to administrate social benefits is via charity. In this way, there is no deadweight loss through unnecessary taxes.
    - fzeroracer 8mo ago
      > The proper method to administrate social benefits is via charity. In this way, there is no deadweight loss through unnecessary taxes. We've tried this for years, it doesn't work at scale. And the end result is that you and I are still taxed, just more expensively and differently. We pay more for cops, prisons, healthcare etc because we're unwilling to solve it at scale.
      - hellojesus 8mo ago
        When did we try this? I'd argue we haven't tried it since the 16th Ammendment went into effect. This isn't a problem that needs solving at scale. It's a problem that needs local/hyperlocal solutions with very strict strings attached. If we're not able to monitor the outcomes of each participant and ensure not a single drop of benefits aren't spent on no essentials (self improvement allowable), then we are wasting dollars on lazy.
        fzeroracer 8mo ago
- soco 8mo ago
  I'd be happy to pay taxes going to social programs also for my own benefit: not only as a form of insurance, but for getting a more pleasant day to day experience - like not having to step over homeless, less insecurity in darker areas, not having to live imprisoned in gated communities, and so on. A man can dream...
  - hellojesus 8mo ago
    How much would you have to pay to no longer enjoy the benefit? I think that's the major question. I wouldn't much mind 1% in income tax for that, for example, but when you start pushing 10% it's an entirely different story.
    - soco 8mo ago
      The thing really irking me is seeing how I pay much more taxes than the megarich and their corporations. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why this happens: they don't give a rat's ass on my safety concerns because they are very happy to live on their gated islands or travel between expensive resorts. But that we, the people (ha, ha) construct our society basically for them also basically holds me back from even discussing those numbers you asked.
      - hellojesus 8mo ago
        Corporations pay taxes on distributions. In fact, C Corporations pay double taxes: once for the profit and then again when those profits are distributed to shareholders. Every employee pays income taxes. Why on earth would we want to create greater economic drag by increasing their tax rate? All that does is reduce their ability to reward investors.
- apothegm 8mo ago
  Don’t worry. If the “right” people get their hands on it, you won’t have to cover the cost of their emergency treatment either! (/s because poes law)
another_twist 8mo ago
Yeah but then you cant pay Palantir to throw their "advanced" data analytics engine at the problem. And who will fund the military industrial complex that does the important job of defending the people of America from external threats that are absolutely totally coming for you.
qingcharles 8mo ago
We're paying ~$50K for every person that's incarcerated, BUT nobody takes into account the income we're losing from their taxes and spending if they were living a sane life in the free world. It is exceptionally difficult to move people from a life of crime and addiction back into society, though. And I have insane respect for the people that do it full time. I've worked in that space and it's a world of absolute unending chaos.
- lux-lux-lux 8mo ago
  It’s exceptionally difficult because we largely do not try; recidivism rates in the US are multiples of other countries.
  - Der_Einzige 8mo ago
    Maybe because the people getting arrested here really do commit more crime: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLwKFGjE2zY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLwKFGjE2zY
  - tbrownaw 8mo ago
    IIRC this is at least partly because we measure that differently (re-arrest in X years vs re-conviction in Y years I think it was?).
- newAccount2025 8mo ago
  100%. Even beyond the direct incarceration costs and the opportunity cost of their lost contributions, there is also the cost of the whole apparatus for arresting and charging folks with crimes and trying them. The police department alone is more than 1/3 of our budget in Austin. Add courts and forensics and it’s 40%. And that’s still just the money part, to say nothing of the moral impact and humanity we throw away.
- anon291 8mo ago
  50k is a pittance compared to the amount of suffering the average criminal causes. I'd pay $1 million /year to incarcerate more people so long as we got the right people. I'd pay any amount. The cost of being a victim is monstrously high it doesn't matter

jmward01 8mo ago

Totally agree. I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs but the reality is if we don't find effective policies I end up paying more in taxes for emergency treatment and society take major economic hits for the other secondary problems, like crime, that homelessness causes. Of course the other argument for this is that society clearly has a hand in the path that took these people to where they are at now so society has some responsibility. Both are reasons to support well researched evidence based policy decisions to deal with the problem.

yunnpp 8mo ago
You don't want to pay taxes for social programs as opposed to...what? Military and defense spending? What is there better than a social program?
- jmward01 8mo ago
  There are several reactions to the 'I don't want to pay taxes' so I'll pick this one and respond. I hope you read the rest of the comment. I don't want to pay taxes because who does? Ever? But we -need- to pay taxes for programs that work because the alternative, massive social costs and damage to society, are far worse. So, sure, I don't want to pay taxes for social programs but I admit the need to and therefore I want the most effective, evidence based programs we can find. We need value for the effort and that involves doing research to figure that value out. If a program like this efficiently reduces the problems associated with homelessness I am all for it. As to what I would actually want to pay taxes for it is to build new things and achieve new things as a society. I never want to spend money on 'fixing', it is needed, it has to happen, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Building new things however I am 100% for. Get us to space. Find new particles. Help foster the arts. That is what I want my taxes to go for. So, yes, fund things like this if it is effective because we have to but you won't get me to say I want to spend money one this.
  - paulryanrogers 8mo ago
    I want to pay taxes. Just like I want to be paid for my work, and those who devote themselves to public service want to be paid for theirs. Ideally government work would pay well enough there would be no temptation to accept bribes, or declare bribes legal through awkward loopholes like campaign financing.
  - yunnpp 8mo ago
    You realize existing roads need maintenance, i.e. fixing, too, right? Your approach towards taxes is absurd and reflects a lack of understanding of how anything works. And why, of all things, should taxes send us to the moon? Subsidizing private enterprise is the worst use of taxes.
    - jmward01 8mo ago
      I'm not sure if you are intentionally missing the point or not. I'll try one last time. I have very clearly not said 'this shouldn't be done'. I haven't said 'we shouldn't pay for social services or roads'. In fact, I clearly said we should pay for social services, now twice. What I have clearly said is 'I don't want to', but I do a lot of things I don't want to because they have to be done. I don't want to go to work. I don't want to pay taxes. Most days I don't want to go to bed at a reasonable time, but I do it because the alternative is worse. We -should- do something doesn't me I -want- to do something. Yes. We will pay for roads because they are needed. Hopefully things are very clear now and if not, oh well.
- johnny22 8mo ago
  The the whole thing can be summed up as "Paying taxes sucks, but if paying the taxes saves more money down then line, then we should do it"
iamrobertismo 8mo ago
> I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs This is such awild thing to say. What do you think the point of society is? Also, there is no way you "Totally agree" if at the same time you are saying this. Also if you understand the cost of incarceration and the negative social ills of poverty, then being against social programs, broadly, makes no sense.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- hellojesus 8mo ago
  Social programs are definitionaly nonpublic. That is, they do not provide nonrivalous and nonexcludable benefits. The proper method to administrate social benefits is via charity. In this way, there is no deadweight loss through unnecessary taxes.
  - fzeroracer 8mo ago
    > The proper method to administrate social benefits is via charity. In this way, there is no deadweight loss through unnecessary taxes. We've tried this for years, it doesn't work at scale. And the end result is that you and I are still taxed, just more expensively and differently. We pay more for cops, prisons, healthcare etc because we're unwilling to solve it at scale.
    - hellojesus 8mo ago
      When did we try this? I'd argue we haven't tried it since the 16th Ammendment went into effect. This isn't a problem that needs solving at scale. It's a problem that needs local/hyperlocal solutions with very strict strings attached. If we're not able to monitor the outcomes of each participant and ensure not a single drop of benefits aren't spent on no essentials (self improvement allowable), then we are wasting dollars on lazy.
      - fzeroracer 8mo ago
soco 8mo ago
I'd be happy to pay taxes going to social programs also for my own benefit: not only as a form of insurance, but for getting a more pleasant day to day experience - like not having to step over homeless, less insecurity in darker areas, not having to live imprisoned in gated communities, and so on. A man can dream...
- hellojesus 8mo ago
  How much would you have to pay to no longer enjoy the benefit? I think that's the major question. I wouldn't much mind 1% in income tax for that, for example, but when you start pushing 10% it's an entirely different story.
  - soco 8mo ago
    The thing really irking me is seeing how I pay much more taxes than the megarich and their corporations. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why this happens: they don't give a rat's ass on my safety concerns because they are very happy to live on their gated islands or travel between expensive resorts. But that we, the people (ha, ha) construct our society basically for them also basically holds me back from even discussing those numbers you asked.
    - hellojesus 8mo ago
      Corporations pay taxes on distributions. In fact, C Corporations pay double taxes: once for the profit and then again when those profits are distributed to shareholders. Every employee pays income taxes. Why on earth would we want to create greater economic drag by increasing their tax rate? All that does is reduce their ability to reward investors.
apothegm 8mo ago
Don’t worry. If the “right” people get their hands on it, you won’t have to cover the cost of their emergency treatment either! (/s because poes law)

another_twist 8mo ago

Yeah but then you cant pay Palantir to throw their "advanced" data analytics engine at the problem. And who will fund the military industrial complex that does the important job of defending the people of America from external threats that are absolutely totally coming for you.

qingcharles 8mo ago

We're paying ~$50K for every person that's incarcerated, BUT nobody takes into account the income we're losing from their taxes and spending if they were living a sane life in the free world. It is exceptionally difficult to move people from a life of crime and addiction back into society, though. And I have insane respect for the people that do it full time. I've worked in that space and it's a world of absolute unending chaos.

lux-lux-lux 8mo ago
It’s exceptionally difficult because we largely do not try; recidivism rates in the US are multiples of other countries.
- Der_Einzige 8mo ago
  Maybe because the people getting arrested here really do commit more crime: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLwKFGjE2zY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLwKFGjE2zY
- tbrownaw 8mo ago
  IIRC this is at least partly because we measure that differently (re-arrest in X years vs re-conviction in Y years I think it was?).
newAccount2025 8mo ago
100%. Even beyond the direct incarceration costs and the opportunity cost of their lost contributions, there is also the cost of the whole apparatus for arresting and charging folks with crimes and trying them. The police department alone is more than 1/3 of our budget in Austin. Add courts and forensics and it’s 40%. And that’s still just the money part, to say nothing of the moral impact and humanity we throw away.
anon291 8mo ago
50k is a pittance compared to the amount of suffering the average criminal causes. I'd pay $1 million /year to incarcerate more people so long as we got the right people. I'd pay any amount. The cost of being a victim is monstrously high it doesn't matter