Are you more idealistic or practical?

[Dave Gray]

I'm going to propose a situation.  I'm not saying this is true and it's completely 100% made up, but just for the sake of argument...

Let's assume that an individual being homeless puts a stress on the local economy of $8,000 per year.  This is due to the person not being able to keep a job, extra police and security, crime, drugs, etc.

Let's also assume that the cost to GIVE this person free housing who has done nothing to earn it costs the taxpayer $7500 per year.

Are you the kind of person that takes the hit of the $7500 because it's a better financial decision?
Or do you pay the $8000 because of the principle of it?

[Dolphster]

Must.  Resist.  Taking.  Bait.   

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Provide the housing. But not because it is more cost effective, but because I believe in compassion.

[Dave Gray]

No bait.

And this isn't about housing.  That was just a financial example.

Assuming you didn't believe in giving away housing, but it was cheaper.

Or change the example to whatever.  Is it worth giving clean needles to drug addicts...whatever.

[Fau Teixeira]

i say build the housing, it works .. 100% of people that get a home are no longer homeless

[masterfins]

For this scenario I would give them the housing for $7500; both because it's compassionate and practical.  However, realistically there would have to be strings attached, such as no drug use or criminal activity.

Is this topic in relation to the trial program by Finland for "basic income"?

[BuccaneerBrad]

For this scenario I would give them the housing for $7500; both because it's compassionate and practical.  However, realistically there would have to be strings attached, such as no drug use or criminal activity.

Is this topic in relation to the trial program by Finland for "basic income"?

And hopefully the person would be motivated to keep a job and fend for himself

[Dave Gray]

^ No...I was just thinking about different mindsets and where I fall.

I am OK with doing something less than ideal, but that is realistic. 

Like, I'd prefer high-schoolers not be having a ton of sex, but it's happening, so giving condoms is OK by me.  And giving needles to drug addicts.  ...or whatever other behavior that I might not support, but is a realistic view.

Some people find that as condoning the behavior, I guess.

[masterfins]

^ No...I was just thinking about different mindsets and where I fall.

I am OK with doing something less than ideal, but that is realistic. 

Like, I'd prefer high-schoolers not be having a ton of sex, but it's happening, so giving condoms is OK by me.  And giving needles to drug addicts.  ...or whatever other behavior that I might not support, but is a realistic view.

Some people find that as condoning the behavior, I guess.

Ok. I would want to tie the benefit to some sort of cost, so it's just not completely condoning the bad behavior.  The tricky part is to make the cost not too egregious, otherwise the beneficiary decides it's not worth it.

[Fau Teixeira]

Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001, social workers go around and give needles to junkies .. no strings attached. HIV rates plummeted, addiction rates went down, the money saved went to treatment and rehab programs

Portugal has the 2nd lowest rate of drug overdoses in Europe, and way way way way WAAAAAY below the US

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/05/why-hardly-anyone-dies-from-a-drug-overdose-in-portugal/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.048072b9ed46

[Spider-Dan]

Yeah, but Portugal also has universal healthcare... so they are saving money on drug treatment because they are also saving money on healthcare costs.  Here, we prefer the money to go towards incarceration for nonviolent drug offenses, and profit margins for healthcare middlemen (like insurance companies).

---

As for the original question: as phrased, I would rather pay the $7500.  But in political reality, you would never be able to prove the "$8000" cost of homelessness, and so the opponents of safety net programs would frame the discussion as free housing for young bucks & welfare queens that are leeching off the hard-working taxpayer.

However, I think that even if we grant the conditions of your question, it still doesn't make the real dilemma clear.  Fundamentally, what you're asking is whether people are OK with someone receiving benefits they haven't earned, even if the net cost is less-than-zero to the taxpayer.  And I'd say you're still being too cute by half: you could fund free housing for the homeless entirely outside of taxpayer contributions - say, by making Mexico pay for it - and millions of Americans would still object.

I think the basic error in such a question is presuming that people care about the source of the funding.  They don't; they care about what the money is being used for.  This is the same reason that the deficit only comes up when people are discussing funding for programs they already oppose ideologically.

[CF DolFan]

I'm going to propose a situation.  I'm not saying this is true and it's completely 100% made up, but just for the sake of argument...

Let's assume that an individual being homeless puts a stress on the local economy of $8,000 per year.  This is due to the person not being able to keep a job, extra police and security, crime, drugs, etc.

Let's also assume that the cost to GIVE this person free housing who has done nothing to earn it costs the taxpayer $7500 per year.

Are you the kind of person that takes the hit of the $7500 because it's a better financial decision?
Or do you pay the $8000 because of the principle of it?

I'll take the bait. I would prefer to pay the $7500 for the first year but that is it. After that it becomes an enabling situation that doesn't encourage them to change the behaviors that put them in these consequences.

I've had to take this same approach with family members and it can be very tough. Literally like punishments for children ... it's much easier to not punish them ... or in this case just give them the money ... and not force them to deal with their situation but that doesn't make it right. It also doesn't actually help them by continuously bailing them out.  

[Cathal]

You provide the housing because this has already been tested in Colorado and it works. In the end, it's more practical because they get off the street, get a job, get an education, and become productive people of society. It just works.

There's literally thousands of ways they became homeless, through no fault of their own. Whether it's a loss of a job, healthcare issues (can't pay exorbitant bills), etc... It's amazing what people can do when they no longer have to worry about shelter or where their next meal is coming from.

[stinkfish]

Pay the $7500 for housing for a year. That's more than enough time for someone to find work, learn a trade or a skill, and to get off of drugs or alcohol if that's a problem for this person. If none of those things happen in a year, get out of my house, and then take the $8000 yearly hit.

[masterfins]

Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001, social workers go around and give needles to junkies .. no strings attached. HIV rates plummeted, addiction rates went down, the money saved went to treatment and rehab programs

Portugal has the 2nd lowest rate of drug overdoses in Europe, and way way way way WAAAAAY below the US

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/05/why-hardly-anyone-dies-from-a-drug-overdose-in-portugal/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.048072b9ed46

That's great for Portugal, but Portugal's population is only 10.3 million (about the same as N. Carolina), and their population is decreasing.  Ethnicities and religions aren't very diverse in Portugal either.  So what can work on a small scale in a country like Portugal, doesn't necessarily transfer to a country as large and as diverse as the United States of America.