[Newsbot]

Title: 'Homeless spikes' installed outside London flats
Category: Business
Posted By: Goober911
Date: 2014-06-08 16:26:13

[martin14]

So let those people who are appalled take the homeless into their houses.

[andyt]

IT's their property, let them do what they want. Just add a property surtax that goes toward homeless housing and problem solved. Those homeless who refuse the housing will find it harder to sleep in these doorways, but the ones that actually would like a place to stay won't be bothering these people anymore.

[Xort]

andyt andyt:

Just add a property surtax that goes toward homeless housing and problem solved.

Why not just skip the middle man and give the homeless the tools they need to rob people directly?

[andyt]

Because they might waste the money on drugs. Plus the people living in those apartments probably have robbing people perfected to a fine art and would hate the competition. A surtax seems a small price to pay for not having to encounter losers of their economic system.

[Xort]

andyt andyt:

Because they might waste the money on drugs. Plus the people living in those apartments probably have robbing people perfected to a fine art and would hate the competition. A surtax seems a small price to pay for not having to encounter losers of their economic system.

Given the massive amounts of money the UK already spends on the poor and homeless I'm not sure just a little bit more is going to help much of anything.

[andyt]

Providing housing for homeless helps a lot, providing health services, especially mental health services along with that housing, helps even more. The study in Vancouver found about at 10% saving doing that vs the costs of just leaving the homeless on the streets. They figured that 10% would probably increase the longer the program was in effect, as some people actually transition to becoming self-supporting and paying taxes. So not only do you help people, you actually save a couple of bucks doing it. It makes good business sense. I guess once you had a program like that in place, you could not only cut out the surtax, but actually reduce taxes a little bit.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

IT's their property, let them do what they want. Just add a property surtax that goes toward homeless housing and problem solved.

So people who don't want your friends crapping and urinating on their front stoop should be punished with a tax? And you call me an asshole?

[andyt]

You misunderstood - everybody should be punished with the same tax, spikes or not. Just supply the housing already, as I said in the end you save a bit of money so you can actually lower taxes.

You're an asshole because you tried to make a connection between me and the holocaust. Very slimey.

[stratos]

andyt andyt:

Providing housing for homeless helps a lot, providing health services, especially mental health services along with that housing, helps even more. The study in Vancouver found about at 10% saving doing that vs the costs of just leaving the homeless on the streets. They figured that 10% would probably increase the longer the program was in effect, as some people actually transition to becoming self-supporting and paying taxes. So not only do you help people, you actually save a couple of bucks doing it. It makes good business sense. I guess once you had a program like that in place, you could not only cut out the surtax, but actually reduce taxes a little bit.

In Vancouver housing is provided, medical assistance both mental and physical is provided and there are still homeless people in Vancouver. A simple tax across the board did not cure the problem for Vancouver how then will it cure the problem in England. Tax and spend and having the problem remain is not a solution.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

everybody should be punished with the same tax

Thank you for honestly stating your view on tax policy.

[Xort]

andyt andyt:

Providing housing for homeless helps a lot, providing health services, especially mental health services along with that housing, helps even more. The study in Vancouver found about at 10% saving doing that vs the costs of just leaving the homeless on the streets. They figured that 10% would probably increase the longer the program was in effect, as some people actually transition to becoming self-supporting and paying taxes. So not only do you help people, you actually save a couple of bucks doing it. It makes good business sense. I guess once you had a program like that in place, you could not only cut out the surtax, but actually reduce taxes a little bit.

It's funny because... their are still homeless people in Vancouver.

Also were are you getting your figure for a 10% savings? How much in total terms? Where was the money saved from?

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

Providing housing for homeless helps a lot, providing health services, especially mental health services along with that housing, helps even more. The study in Vancouver found about at 10% saving doing that vs the costs of just leaving the homeless on the streets. They figured that 10% would probably increase the longer the program was in effect, as some people actually transition to becoming self-supporting and paying taxes. So not only do you help people, you actually save a couple of bucks doing it. It makes good business sense. I guess once you had a program like that in place, you could not only cut out the surtax, but actually reduce taxes a little bit.

Yea, and maybe we could buy them houses and cars?

Let's tax the shit out of homeowners, those that work for the stuff they have, and give it all to the homeless.

There's a reason you spend your entire day on a forum posting these brilliant nuggets of wisdom and why they're not public policy.