Section 8 housing: the epitome of liberal ignorance and unfairness

R2D3 wrote:

If you didn't subsidize housing in the cities there'd be no stores, no factories, transit systems would fall apart, no-one would take away the garbage. I wouldn't want to live there.

Says who?

In the face of a lower supply of labor, managers would need to increase wages to fill these jobs. Oh wait, that would solve the whole minimum wage issue too.

Liberals - are you getting the picture? Your policies create more problems than they solve and then you come rushing in with more 'solutions' that only perpetuate more problems. For everyone's sake, please stop voting.

What would you do about the problem of people who don't make enough money to afford a place to live?

50-50 split here HRE50% move to a lower cost area (or state) and find work that can support their life.The 50% that stay should see an increase in their wages considering the other 50% of the low-skill talent pool is no longer in the market.50-50 is obviously just an example; the market and people's decisions will determine the percentages. Perhaps it takes 90% to relocate elsewhere such that the remaining 10% labor market supply can command an adequate wage. Not my call - the market will determine this.As long as you subsidize the housing costs of the low-skill labor market, you'll be dooming the market to an over-supply of labor - and constantly depress their wages.Unfortunately, the liberal-solution to the liberal-created-problem is increase the minimum wage - which throws off the market equilibrium even further.

HRE wrote:

What would you do about the problem of people who don't make enough money to afford a place to live?

Also, I would never recommend changing policy in a binary manner. It would be crazy policy to all of a sudden pull out the rug on everyone.

Do it step wise. 2% reduction in housing/life subsidies next year; another 2% the next year, and so on.

After the first reduction, X% amount of people will say: "ok, this isn't worth it to me anymore to stay" and will leave. Others will stick it out another year. After the second reduction Y% of people will move/change behaviour/whatever and the market (housing & labor) will adjust.

Gradual changes - and let individuals make their own incremental decisions within the construct of a relatively free market.

The fact is mortgage interest deductions dwarf Section 8 housing, so the middle class and above benefit much more than the poor. What is your point exactly?

Honestly I don't know anyone but desperate people who want section 8 housing. If it provides their kids some stability and the kids go to good schools, grow up educated, and aren't a burden on society like their parents then I say it is a great program.

Let's be clear about one thing though, the rich receive far more benefits from our government than the poor. It is not close in comparison.

HRE wrote:

What would you do about the problem of people who don't make enough money to afford a place to live?

HRE - is it fair to allow people that can't afford to live in the world's most expensive cities, a tax-payer subsidized pass to live in new-construction, beach front property sitting on top of a beautiful park while the rest of us have to pay $2-3k to live in the same area (further from the beach, further from the park)??

I'm still waiting for a liberal's definition of fair in light of this perspective.

innocent observer wrote:

The fact is mortgage interest deductions dwarf Section 8 housing, so the middle class and above benefit much more than the poor. What is your point exactly?

Honestly I don't know anyone but desperate people who want section 8 housing. If it provides their kids some stability and the kids go to good schools, grow up educated, and aren't a burden on society like their parents then I say it is a great program.

Let's be clear about one thing though, the rich receive far more benefits from our government than the poor. It is not close in comparison.

Absolutely. Anecdotal. False.

I agree, incrementally reduce the mortgage interest deduction. Mission accomplished: we have a nation of homeowners. Time to gradual reduce the incentive that got us here.

Ok, desperate people - that's great but doesn't justify my tax dollars going to support their poor (in most cases) decisions. More brain, less heart.

False:

Bottom 10% receive +$10 for every dollar they put in.

Top 10% get ~$0.50.

Without the tax dollars of rich people in this country, we get real poor, real fast.

krispy kremlin wrote:

You work hard to have the ability to pay to live in a nice neighborhood surrounded by other people who make similar decisions and concessions in their life to be there.

Meanwhile, someone else, having not made similar decisions and concessions, gets subsidized housing on your tab. Multiply this by several thousand in a large city and all of a sudden an artificial ceiling gets put on low-skill, part-time labor and an artificial floor gets put underneath the cost of housing.

A. Is this fair?

B. Does this create more problems than it does solutions which will inevitably require more state/city intervention? (more subsidies/rent controls/minimum wage increases)

C. Who benefits more from Section 8 housing, the residents or the owners of the means of production (business owners, landlords)?

Hopefully, you and Shawn H and those like you will one day wind up with an especially aggressive form of cancer. That way, someone can whisper in your ear as you receive your last morphine drip, "You should have eaten a more healthful diet and made better decisions, loser."

Well, you see, you just completely changed the subject. Policy decisions regarding healthcare are nothing, in my estimation, related to policy decisions regarding housing.

I understand the liberal bias to distill issues and perspectives into simple terms but life and society are too complex for such laziness. You've spent your entire life indoctrinated with liberal propaganda that has taught you to hate and name-call anyone with opposing ideas - so much for being "open minded".

Successful people don't whine about this sort of thing. Just saying.

Fair is a subjective concept. Subsidized housing is ALWAYS going to be cheaper, where ever it's located, than the non-subsidized units in that same area. I don't live near a beach or park. Why is it fair to me to have someone across the street from me paying much less in rent than I pay in house taxes? (That's hypothetical. I don't think we have any Section 8 neighbors.)

You can't argue this on fairness because you cannot prove what's fair and what isn't empirically. No one can. If a landlord believes s/he is fairly compensated by the Section 8 program that's maybe as close to fair as you'll get. You need to look at what the objective of the program is, how well the program is meeting the objective and whether the objective is desirable.

Homeless people have always been recognized as a social problem and the problems are compounded when children are homeless. It's been the case for centuries and Section 8 housing does address that problem. If people don't like the system they need to create a better one.

You mention relocating recipients as a solution. Mostly, people do relocate when they get a Section 8 certificate, sometimes pretty dramatically. And then they end up in a neighborhood where their neighbors pay more to live than they do and it's still not fair as you're defining the term.

It's naive to think doing away with Section VIII would create social change, where former residents would suddenly get educated, get better-paying jobs and contribute to the economy. There are too many circumstances.

You have single parents who didn't go to college, but now have kids and no education to get a decent-paying job. You have people who can't work because they're disabled. You have senior citizens. You have people who have been laid off and can only get work where they can find it. Or you have people on unemployment because they can't find a job at all.

Section VIII isn't just for people who choose not to work. That's a misconception thrown around by people who view Section VIII from afar. It's a subsidy. Without it, you'd have many more problems than you have now (significant increases in homelessness, crime, etc.)

People who say there should be drug testing for Section VIII residents never say where the money for that drug testing would come from. Do you know how much drug tests cost? It's a ridiculous cost that would only disqualify a small amount of Section VIII participants, ultimately resulting in more money than it's saving.

The bottom line is Section VIII is unfortunate, but it's here. I grew up in a neighborhood surrounded by it. We had shootings, robberies and burglaries fairly often. At the same time, I realize many of these people need the subsidy so their kids don't go hungry. People who criticize it need to take off the political blinders and actually visit with people who are benefitting from it. You'd be surprised how many are hard-working people that don't make a large enough salary to support a family without assistance.

P.S. I'm about as far from a liberal as you can get, and that's the truth. I've just seen Section VIII firsthand and, although it has plenty of flaws, it also helps millions of people.

Good post. I have the same experience - section 8 nearby, some negative experiences, some positive - overall, I'm slightly supportive. The OP's sweep it all away and it'll disappear stance is simplistic and naive.

krispy kremlin wrote:

Well, you see, you just completely changed the subject...

Well, see, idjit, actually I didn't. You are making the broad claim that people in Section 8 housing are there because of bad choices, period. I'm saying that it makes just as much sense to attribute the lethal cancer that one day takes you out to bad choices on your part. I'm sure you don't avoid each and every food that's been shown to have negative health consequences, as you're obviously very far from perfect in other ways.

The fella who observed that successful people don't whine in the manner you do is very astute. Instead of blaming the slacker minorities for your shortcomings, look in the mirror at the ugly, doughy-faced, cross-eyed twit staring back at you and try a little harder.

The underlying issue: is it fair to subsidize housing in some of the most expensive cities in the world (as an example: beach-front property in South Boston)?

The more difficult perspective to consider is the opportunity-cost of the people that have to pay market price ($2-3k) to live in the same area.

What do you say to these people? Thanks for waking up every day at 7 to make-up for the cost of your subsidized neighbor?

Liberals: I still haven't heard an argument as to how this is fair.

krispy kremlin wrote:

Also, I would never recommend changing policy in a binary manner. It would be crazy policy to all of a sudden pull out the rug on everyone.

Do it step wise. 2% reduction in housing/life subsidies next year; another 2% the next year, and so on.

After the first reduction, X% amount of people will say: \"ok, this isn\'t worth it to me anymore to stay\" and will leave. Others will stick it out another year. After the second reduction Y% of people will move/change behaviour/whatever and the market (housing & labor) will adjust.

Gradual changes - and let individuals make their own incremental decisions within the construct of a relatively free market.

How would the 2% reduction be accomplished? Would you simply not renew existing HAP contracts as they expire? Or would you reduce Section 8 rents by 2% across the board? If the latter, the result would just be deferred maintenance and creation of more slums (and worsening of existing slums). If the former, where exactly do you put the thousands of people who can\'t afford their apartments anymore? If you didn\'t like them living in Sec 8 housing in your neighborhood, you really aren\'t going to like them living in the streets of your neighborhood.

I\'m not sure why you think that people are going to gradually leave as a result of this decrease. A 2% decrease in HAP rents would just decrease the amount of money that the landlord receives. The tenant would still pay the same amount (limited to 30% of income). Are you saying that the decrease in payments would lead to such crappy living conditions that poor people with nowhere else to go would find the streets to be a preferable alternative to their current apartment? It would take a few years for this to take effect.

krispy kremlin wrote:

The underlying issue: is it fair to subsidize housing in some of the most expensive cities in the world (as an example: beach-front property in South Boston)?

The more difficult perspective to consider is the opportunity-cost of the people that have to pay market price ($2-3k) to live in the same area.

What do you say to these people? Thanks for waking up every day at 7 to make-up for the cost of your subsidized neighbor?

Liberals: I still haven't heard an argument as to how this is fair.

Well, I said some time ago that this should be a running forum, and that I didn't want to contribute to political discussions with the ignorant, but one thing I have to agree with is Krispy's point that it is NOT fair, but rather outright UNfair that MY tax dollars are paying for deadbeats to live in much nicer apartments than I do in the nicest parts of town--and often in the most convenient locations--and I can't even qualify to live in such relative luxury because some politicians decided that I'm above the magical cut-off line and make just a bit too much. I strongly believe that ANYONE on Section 8 housing should be living in just an average apartment building in the ugliest part of town, which might actually motivate them to get off their butts and get off the gravy train. The whole thing--and most of what's wrong with America--is that politicians STEAL from the middle and upper class to buy votes from the dregs of society. And with liberal nanny state policies, the dregs are increasing exactly as planned.

Shawn H wrote:

MY tax dollars are paying for deadbeats to live in much nicer apartments than I do in the nicest parts of town--and often in the most convenient locations--and I can't even qualify to live in such relative luxury because some politicians decided that I'm above the magical cut-off line and make just a bit too much.

Meaning that:

1. You'd accept government handouts in a heartbeat if only you were on the right side of that arbitrary line.

2. You've got a shitty job and obviously don't make much money and are unhappy about these things -- you might as well be advertising this on a billboard.

You should just accept that you're not going much, if any, further in life than you already have and quit whining about others.

You realize that buildings exist for a longer amount of time than neighborhoods remain "ugly," right? In NYC, they built public housing on the East River because the East River was a polluted working waterfront. Of course, today, the East River is prime real estate, but the public housing is still there. No one built the housing with the intent of letting people live cheap at great locations. They built the housing, and the location became great afterward.

The same thing is going to happen pretty much anywhere in the City. If you build an affordable building in the ugly part of the city today, there is a good chance that 20 or 30 years from now, that building will be in the middle of prime real estate. The Upper West Side was an ugly part of town not so long ago.

So do you want to demolish the buildings and rebuild them elsewhere every time a neighborhood gentrifies just so that we can make sure that affordable housing is always in the ugly part of town? That sounds like an even worse use of tax dollars to me.