Immodest Proposal: Tax The Homeless

Remember how Governor Greg Abbott said he was going to clear homeless camps out from under bridges and highway overpasses in Austin? TxDOT was supposed to enforce that edict for state highway underpasses, but I can tell you that every time I drive under the McNeil/183 underpass, that’s not being done.

If highway underpasses are indeed state property, then I have an immodest proposal for solving the problem: The state of Texas should pass a law taxing homeless camping under state highway overpasses.

After all, subsidize something (like the Austin City Council has done for homelessness) and you get more of it. Tax it, and you get less of it.

Want to pitch a tent under a state overpass? Fine. then you can pay $10 a night for the privilege. That’s still cheaper than renting an apartment, but no longer free, and it helps to offset the considerable expense of cleaning up those homeless camps. But contrast, designated homeless areas like Camp RATT in East Austin would remain free, theoretically providing incentives for the homeless to take up legal residence elsewhere.

Gov. Abott has once again been warning Austin that if they don’t reinstate the camping ban, he’ll take action:

All well and good, but we’ve heard this before, and the problem continues to get worse:

Something certainly needs to be done about the situation. Issuing press releases and throwing more money at the problem to be siphoned into the pockets of leftwing activists isn’t going to solve the problem.

Tags: , , , ,

10 Responses to “Immodest Proposal: Tax The Homeless”

  1. Greg says:

    Throwing money at a problem is rarely a solution unless your problem is “I’m trying to build a fire using money as fuel.”

  2. joe hill says:

    What a cruel and stupid idea!

  3. This is an idea so crazy it might work! Hope you’ve passed it on to the Gov. All he has to do is tweet it, and the whole Wokester Mafia will go ballistic.

  4. Jack from Clarksville says:

    This is not one problem, it is many little problems. Unfortunately, most people attack it with ideological blinkers on. I’d like to see the mayors of the big cities, at least ATX, SA, Houston, and Dallas, to sit down and agree on an identical level of support. That would at least diminish the migration, and prevent Austin from becoming a target for more.

  5. R.C. says:

    Hmm.

    OK, so designated homeless areas like Camp RATT in East Austin are free, which is less expensive than the $10 overnight. But are they reasonably safe and healthy places to go? (I know nothing of Camp RATT save the, uh, charming name. I know even less about any of the others.)

    Presuming that they’re reasonably safe and healthy, is transportation to and from them free (or, low-cost), safe, and widely-available?

    And, what do you do if you approach a homeless person and say, “Gimme a $10,” and he turns his pockets inside out and says, “I don’t have a cent.” Is he compelled to go to a designated camp at that point? Is that constitutional? What about his property? Does he have a grocery cart or tentful of stuff that he needs to bring?

    I can imagine a situation where a penniless homeless person has a right to not be transported against his will, plus a giant tentful of stuff, and a child they’re caring for, and the only transport the city can provide between his current campout-location and the nearest “designated homeless area” is a $30 Uber ride in a small compact car (such that the tent and other belongings don’t fit). In a situation like that, who’s going to make them fork over the $10? A cop? A city worker hired for the purpose?

    These objections are not unanswerable. And it isn’t helpful to take a brand-new, half-baked idea and shoot it down while it’s still in the oven. If the details are fleshed out this could be workable…perhaps.

    But it needs the fleshing-out.

  6. R.C. says:

    I notice “joe hill” says, “What a cruel and stupid idea!”

    That’s not helpful, or even quite true.

    It’s an incomplete idea. If no further details are added, and someone tried to implement it as-is, the impact might be both cruel and stupid…but, of course, it really can’t be implemented as-is, since critical details are missing (like who collects the fee). So it’s not being presented as a finished plan.

    That makes it a straw-man plan, a mere germ of an idea. It’s one of those ideas you “float” in its unfinished version, to solicit comment and to try to crowdsource your way to a better version. This is how human communities problem-solve.

    Since it’s currently unfinished, you should try to contribute ways of improving it. If you feel that the germ is entirely wrongheaded from the start, then you should propose an alternative germ-of-a-plan, to which others may contribute suggestions.

    But saying “cruel and stupid” and walking away in a huff just leaves the problem entirely unsolved. And that’s stupid, and potentially cruel to everyone affected.

  7. Lawrence Person says:

    1. My understanding is that RATT is notably safer and more organized than non-sanctioned homeless camps. But it’s not like I’ve run an inspection.
    2. As envisioned, this would be a state law applying to state highway overpasses or bridges, so the tax would be collected and evictions enforced by state troopers.
    3. As I envision it, notices would go up under every overpass the week before the tax starts getting collected, with visits from state troopers.
    4. Those paying the tax would have confirmation notices with their pictures taped to their tents (via some sort of pad and printer gizmo).
    5. Those unable to pay would be evicted, with a choice of multiple possible transportation locations (Camp RATT, ECHO, the bus station, etc.) via trooper vehicle.
    6. Repeat offenders would be at risk of having their equipment seized and sold to pay fines in addition to imprisonment.

  8. cap'n fast says:

    don’t tax the homeless camper. their homeless because they are penniless/mentally ill/stupid/don’t care whatever.
    tax the city. If the city taxpayers feel so much need to house the homeless in tents on state owned land inside city limits, the city taxpayer should pay for the privilege.
    If the homeless are camping on state owned land outside city limits, that is an act of trespass and the homeless will be provided housing of a different sort, for the length of time statute’s state is required penalty for the act of trespass. Act accordingly and enforce the existing law or rescind it.
    Holding a child in a homeless camp under conditions of squalor, unsanitary filth, unsafe and fearful conditions for the child meets Texas’ definition of child abuse. Act accordingly and enforce the law or rescind the law.

    but, democrats…

  9. Jack says:

    I thought the China virus killed all the homeless? No? Maybe there’s an Austin anti-body out there. We should make a vaccine from it, think of the grants and funding we’ll get…..anybody got Hunter’s phone #?

  10. […] State Security BattleSwarm: Biden’s CIA Pick Runs Think Tank Filthy With ChiCom Money, also, Immodest Proposal – Tax The Homeless Behind The Black: The Lie That Was COVID, also, Red China’s Tianwen-1 Enters Mars Orbit Cafe […]

Leave a Reply