Bookus's Reply to "Why Charging The Homeless is a Good Idea" by Jonathan Berr

This is my reply to Why Charging The Homeless Is A Good Idea by Jonathan Berr at WalletPop.com

If an establishment is running low on money, then they have the right to charge. It's their establishment, and I have no problem with that. They want to charge $7 a day, $5 for the shelter and $2 saved for the resident. That $5 will help cover the cost of housing an individual, and it will help offset whatever budget cuts are imposed by either less donations or pullbacks from the state.

The $2 I have a huge problem with. Homeless people are still people and they deserve basic human dignity and respect. They can save and manage their own money. There are plenty of view points one can take to argue that. But if it were my money, I would want to manage it. No one but me has the right to manage my money. This obviously excludes those with a mental illness who needs someone to manage their money for them. But homelessness does not automatically equal mental instability.

Some people will say that a homeless person will spend their money buying alcohol or cigarettes. It is their money, and therefore I would respect their choice on what to do with it. However I do not believe this to be the case. I believe that most homeless people are down and out. Not lazy drug addicts that could get a job if they wanted to. Granted, we do have those.

I was homeless once. It only lasted a couple of days when I moved to Arizona. I got there with no place to stay. With $200 or so and the first day after spending a night there, I went to a park to wash up in the park restroom with a rag. I shaved, and even got checked out by a park worker. However, he didn't bother me, and let me continue to make myself look presentable. I immediately went out looking for a job. You would never have been able to tell that I was homeless. I didn't beg for anything.

If a homeless person wants to learn to budget then someone can volunteer to teach them how. I would like to volunteer the person who suggested to do it for them whether they need it or not. It's the old "Teach a man to fish." adage.

In 30 days or roughly one month a homeless person will pay $150 dollars to the shelter when paying the shelter $5 a day. To a person who is going through a hard time, it may set them back a month or two in getting a new place. Since the article states it cost about $25 a day to house a single person, this may or may not make sense. To a person who is trying to get back on their feet as quickly as possible, this is a bad idea. To a person who is milking the homeless shelter for a cheap place to stay, it is a good idea to help cover the costs.

For a family of four paying $5 each at $20 a day is $600 dollars a month. They can have their own place for that, but if they get caught in the shelter paying their dues, they won't be able to get into an apartment very easily. So basically for the people who are just in a rut, it will cost more to charge them than it will to let them save their money and get out of being homeless. This is just using the information the article is giving.

To quote the bottom "Most are not destitute and have possessions such as cars. Those people should have to pay something toward their housing, even if it's a nominal amount. It teaches them self respect and that there is no such thing as a free lunch." What kind of prejudicial crap is that? The next line says something about most homeless people are willing to pay their own way. Most people do have self respect, and if they can help they will. I agree completely with that.

NOW HERE IS THE TRICK!!! This entire article is a manipulation. The first sentence of the last paragraph is "There has to be a limit to taxpayer generosity". Targeting the taxpayers right there, and everyone is concerned about their pocketbook.

Right now the government is doing cutbacks all over the place. One of the easiest places to cut is homeless shelters. Who cares about the homeless? So why not convince tax payers that we can "Help" the homeless "learn" good money saving values and other such things. That way the burden doesn't fall on the taxpayers as hard as it does now?

This is all a money ploy, and the article was written to ask the public for permission to tax the homeless a little more. Anything that can be exploited will be exploited. Please allow me to put on my tinfoil hat for a moment. With all the home foreclosures from the recession and high unemployment rates, there is a larger number of homeless people. Not drug addicts, but people going through a hard time. How many people did BP lay off?

According to the article, the homeless shelter admitted that it costs $25 a day to house a homeless person. So that is what they are asking from taxpayers.

$25X30=$750 a month. I'm no genius but I think some people actually live on $750 singly. However, the shelter has only 1 electric bill, 3 HUGE meals a day for everyone, and reusable things after people move on.

Lets say that a person pays their dues of $5 dollars a day and pays $150 dollars that month. The lack of funding makes them stay homeless for an extra 2 weeks. That's an extra $375 dollars the homeless shelter gets from the state for that one person alone. That means the tax payers have paid more money keeping this person housed, than the person paid to be housed.

Lets say that the homeless shelter has room for 50 people, and we already said that one person gets the shelter $750 a month. That would make the income of the shelter $37,500 per month.

That was $37,500 per month in expenses they asked the state for because that is what they claim it costs to house 50 people.

This is looking more and more like a con rather than philanthropic endeavor. What if it is a con? What if it only costs $15,000 dollars a month to house and feed 50 people in a controlled environment. That's a profit of $17,500 a month. Which is of course a guess, but my point is clear.

Now that I have actually ran the numbers. I'm appalled and outraged that the government has figured out a way to make money off of the homeless. After that they have figured out that they can make more money off of the ones that have jobs, and are getting out of the rut. Making money off them keeps them homeless for a little longer thereby making them more money.

This is dirty unethical business, and I'm outraged. Simply put, this is a business plan to keep the money coming in. A different plan could put these people back into society quicker thereby strengthening the economy faster. Worse yet, it would be cheaper for taxpayers to pay for an apartment for each individual and family than it would be to pay the shelter. I'm not saying that's what we should do, but it would be cheaper.

Disclaimer: There are true philanthropists that help the homeless. However, this article does us the favor of showing us how our corrupt government can even take advantage of people in the worst of situations.