I'd love to see a breakdown of that 100k p/a costing.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Fri 15 May 2015, 15:48,
Reply)
I would too actually
edit
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7596/2200485.pdf
i think its the incidental costs such as higher offending rates among the homeless that's the real kicker. From that report " evidence suggests that homelessness and offending
behaviours are interwoven and mutually perpetuating. Costs to the criminal justice
system and policing may be significant. For example the total costs for a drug
offence conviction is estimated at around £16,000. "
I think maybe the 100k figure is still a bit high mind you but the data indicates, in the UK at least, the figure to be about 30-45k dollars
edit 2
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/12/shaun-donovan/hud-secretary-says-homeless-person-costs-taxpayers/
estimates 35-150k of keeping people homeless and $13,000 to $25,000 a year in supported accom.
(
colmcq2, Fri 15 May 2015, 15:51,
Reply)
That would seem to be the economic argument settled then.
(
wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Fri 15 May 2015, 16:08,
Reply)
No.
A) those links seem to suggest the 100k figure to be a large exaggeration.
B) where is the evidence that once housed offending ceases?
I'm not against housing the homeless, quite the opposite. What I am opposed to is economically illiterate lefties dressing it up as some kind of money saving step towards an affordable and viable socialist utopia.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Fri 15 May 2015, 16:35,
Reply)
hELLO SEXY BOY
A) those links seem to suggest the 100k figure to be a large exaggeration.
And I supplied data with a more conservative estimate. Agreed.
B) where is the evidence that once housed offending ceases?
Strawman. The argument is reiterated below.
"I'm not against housing the homeless, quite the opposite."
Great!
"What I am opposed to is economically illiterate lefties dressing it up as some kind of money saving step towards an affordable and viable socialist utopia."
Which is another strawman; the argument is that it is cheaper to house them than leave them on the streets and that's what the references demonstrably show.
(
colmcq2, Fri 15 May 2015, 17:04,
Reply)
You throw 'straw man' around a lot. I think you think it makes you sound clever.
I'm quite sure you don't know what it means. The data shows cost of law and order for criminal acts of homeless reduced. That does not mean that crime overall goes down, or that those former homeless cease engaging in criminal behaviour. It does show that less crime is committed by homeless people, unsurprisingly, because they are no longer homeless. This is a good thing, but let's not overstate the impact of crime by fiddling numbers, or the economics of it by similar methodology.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Fri 15 May 2015, 18:25,
Reply)
wasnt the central point you willfully ignorant goon
have you read the references? your point is dealt with there.
(
colmcq2, Fri 15 May 2015, 21:02,
Reply)
Why don't you post some sexualised oriental little girls like you normally do
You think anyone with two brain cells takes Huff Post seriously? Fuck off twat.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Fri 15 May 2015, 23:31,
Reply)
#KEYBOARDWARRIOR
(
Dawn Of The Bread $$$$ E-THUG 4 LIFE - THAT'S HOW I SCROLL $$$$, Sat 16 May 2015, 1:45,
Reply)
Huh?
You did read this part didn't you?
"But based on what we learned about the housing-first approach to ending homelessness, Donovan’s underlying point, as well as the dollar figure he cited, hold up."
Exaggeration or not, the short-term economic benefit is clear. The long-term aspect cannot be proven as the program hasn't been running long enough to provide useful data.
(
wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Fri 15 May 2015, 17:13,
Reply)