[Antibabelic]

Libertarians who want the impoverished to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" don't realize what that takes. Nobody deserves to live without a home. We need successes like these so that as many people as possible can get assistance.

[gameman144]

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.

[qingcharles]

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.

[newAccount2025]

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.

[lux-lux-lux]

It’s exceptionally difficult because we largely do not try; recidivism rates in the US are multiples of other countries.

[tbrownaw]

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?).

[Der_Einzige]

Maybe because the people getting arrested here really do commit more crime:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLwKFGjE2zY

[anon291]

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

[OkayPhysicist]

That depends on the crime, now doesn't it. When I got my car stolen the first time, the kid who stole it went on a joy ride, dumped the car, got caught. I got my car back, and the whole experience was largely an inconvenience. Most painful part was paying the impound lot. Dude ended up spending over a year behind bars.

Now, what did society gain from locking that kid up? Not $50,000 worth, that's for sure. Definitely not a million dollars' worth. No, it just fucked up some dude's life, and made some jackass at the tow yard $600 richer. If anybody had asked me, my idea of justice would be a few weekends community service, maybe a small fine, and a molotov through the tow-yard office's window.

Don't get me wrong, there are crimes worth the societal cost to punish. Violent crimes, crimes that cause serious emotional or financial damages. Abuses of power. But that isn't most criminals. In my book, if a victim wouldn't seriously consider killing the perpetrator, we probably shouldn't be in the business of incarcerating them.

Because incarceration basically carries the message of "We the people want to fuck your life up, but don't have the stomach to kill you".

[jmward01]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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"

[soco]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[iamrobertismo]

> 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.

[hellojesus]

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]

> 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]

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.

[apothegm]

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]

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.

[insane_dreamer]

The books "Evicted" helped me understand all of this much better. I highly recommend it to anyone who has a hard time comprehending why "just pull yourself up" is often BS

[Adiqq]

Ostrom provided the solution to the tragedy of the commons: self-organizing, collective governance. It is no coincidence that Agile is a convergent solution to the exact same principles. We were told for decades that the only options are the state or the market, Ostrom proved that false.

But we don't live in an evidence-based world, we live in one shaped by power dynamics. We have the blueprint for collective prosperity, but we choose extraction. In the US, this has gone so far that Christianity has been twisted into a prosperity gospel, a heresy that serves as a moral shield for raw capitalism. It allows the system to pretend that business interests are actually virtues.

The world is in a mess because we ignore the mechanics of the systems we build. Be it capitalism, feudalism, or authoritarian communism, they all fail the same way, they lead to elite overproduction (Turchin).

When you funnel all resources to the very top, you create too many aspiring elites with no productive role to play. They inevitably turn on the system and each other. These systems are mathematically destined to collapse. Ostrom polycentric governance is one of the few ways out.

[paulryanrogers]

Christianity had plenty of problems before capitalism became a thing. IMO both need to be heavily regulated, certainly not given special privileges or a blank check to consolidate power.

[engineer_22]

Who is Ostrom and what is their thesis?