Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday January 31 2019, @06:20PM   Printer-friendly
from the three-hots-and-a-cot dept.

Jail is not top of most people's bucket list of places to visit, but for some it is becoming increasingly attractive. I had heard anecdotal stories of homeless in the UK committing petty crimes in the hope of being given a warm bed and a meal, but in Japan it seems that the elderly are taking things to a whole new level:

Japan is in the grip of an elderly crime wave - the proportion of crimes committed by people over the age of 65 has been steadily increasing for 20 years. The BBC's Ed Butler asks why.

At a halfway house in Hiroshima - for criminals who are being released from jail back into the community - 69-year-old Toshio Takata tells me he broke the law because he was poor. He wanted somewhere to live free of charge, even if it was behind bars.

"I reached pension age and then I ran out of money. So it occurred to me - perhaps I could live for free if I lived in jail," he says.

"So I took a bicycle and rode it to the police station and told the guy there: 'Look, I took this.'"

The plan worked. This was Toshio's first offence, committed when he was 62, but Japanese courts treat petty theft seriously, so it was enough to get him a one-year sentence.

Small, slender, and with a tendency to giggle, Toshio looks nothing like a habitual criminal, much less someone who'd threaten women with knives. But after he was released from his first sentence, that's exactly what he did.

"I went to a park and just threatened them. I wasn't intending to do any harm. I just showed the knife to them hoping one of them would call the police. One did."

Altogether, Toshio has spent half of the last eight years in jail.

I ask him if he likes being in prison, and he points out an additional financial upside - his pension continues to be paid even while he's inside.

"It's not that I like it but I can stay there for free," he says. "And when I get out I have saved some money. So it is not that painful."

Toshio represents a striking trend in Japanese crime. In a remarkably law-abiding society, a rapidly growing proportion of crimes is carried about by over-65s. In 1997 this age group accounted for about one in 20 convictions but 20 years later the figure had grown to more than one in five - a rate that far outstrips the growth of the over-65s as a proportion of the population (though they now make up more than a quarter of the total).

To my mind, there is something wrong with the way we take care of the elderly or those who are significantly poorer than the average when their most attractive option is jail.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by turgid on Thursday January 31 2019, @08:50PM (10 children)

    by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 31 2019, @08:50PM (#794702) Journal

    Basically, the more wealthy are going to have to pay a little bit more tax to keep society functioning rather than continually coming up with excuses why every last penny should be hoarded.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 31 2019, @10:45PM (9 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 31 2019, @10:45PM (#794759)

    Basically, the more wealthy are going to have to pay a little bit more tax

    If you're talking about the top half of society paying more taxes, that might work. If you're talking about those making $300K+/yr and more, there just aren't enough of them for a little bit more tax to make any difference.

    The reason the ultra-wealthy get these political tax breaks is because their numbers are small enough that it minimizes the impact of the tax breaks, and, importantly, the ultra-wealthy are in a position to kick-back to the politicians who "take care" of them. With only 535 critters in congress, it's not much surprise when tax breaks go to the Forbes wealthiest 1000 list and not many others.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday January 31 2019, @10:58PM (4 children)

      by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 31 2019, @10:58PM (#794766) Journal

      Most people understand that civilisation costs money, and I'd certainly be willing to pay a little more tax

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 31 2019, @11:27PM (3 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 31 2019, @11:27PM (#794783)

        I don't mind paying more tax, but I really think that tax should be based on disposable income rather than total income.

        Folks who aren't making enough money on their own to pay for food, clothing, shelter, transportation and medical care... really shouldn't be paying any tax, particularly because that tax just gets circulated back to them in inefficient social support programs.

        Above whatever that arbitrary "tax floor" is, I'm all for flat-tax. I'm also "for" FICA deductions, even from the working poor, to fund future retirement benefits - but not to fund the massive social security programs that it currently does.

        Unfortunately, in today's system, Warren Buffet's effective tax rate is lower than his secretary's - and that's just upside-down.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 1) by Gault.Drakkor on Friday February 01 2019, @09:57PM (2 children)

          by Gault.Drakkor (1079) on Friday February 01 2019, @09:57PM (#795204)

          I don't mind paying more tax, but I really think that tax should be based on disposable income rather than total income.

          That is what progressive income tax systems are designed to do. Especially when they have a base tax credit. I know the Canadian tax system is set up that way.

          Above whatever that arbitrary "tax floor" is, I'm all for flat-tax

          In my opinion this is contradictory to your other statements. ie "tax based upon disposable income", and your comment about Warren Buffet.

          I want a system where people support the country/society proportional to their ability to pay. From your other statements you seem to want that. A flat income tax all but guarantees rich getting richer. Because the higher the income, the higher absolute disposable income and more critically the higher relative disposable income. Cost of living is not proportional to income.

          For an example flat tax with mostly butt pulled numbers living in same region: Household with 100k income 30k house 30k tax 20k food transport health so 20k disposable. vs 1000k income 300k house(easily could be less) 300k tax 60k food transport health so 340k disposable. I know i am wrong on some of those numbers(mostly health). But I am hoping it illustrate my point that wealthy people have more then proportionally more disposable income.

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday February 02 2019, @01:35AM (1 child)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday February 02 2019, @01:35AM (#795272)

            Above whatever that arbitrary "tax floor" is, I'm all for flat-tax

            In my opinion this is contradictory to your other statements. ie "tax based upon disposable income", and your comment about Warren Buffet.

            Then you misunderstand what I mean by flat tax. Warren Buffet's income is so large compared to the disposable income threshold that he would effectively pay near the flat tax rate. His secretary might have only 50% of her income above the threshold, so her effective overall tax rate would be 50% of the flat tax rate.

            Still, government tries to shape the behavior of the wealthy by providing tax incentives for certain activities, and these programs end up lowering their effective tax rates, rather dramatically as compared to the average citizen.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 1) by Gault.Drakkor on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:28AM

              by Gault.Drakkor (1079) on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:28AM (#797545)

              It reads like you are arguing an income tax setup with two brackets. The low bracket of say 0% tax below and say 20% above .
              It is the equivalent of saying flat tax of 20% for everybody and non-refundable tax credit of for everybody. That to me, that is close enough to flat tax to call it so.

              Under that setup as income approaches infinity the marginal tax rate and effective tax rate converge on the flat rate. Which you did not say in the post I replied to. But do in your reply to me.

              But you also say: "tax based upon disposable income." So I am am saying that flat tax even with a large 0% tax threshold is not a tax based upon disposable income. Mostly because cost of living is not proportional to income. People like Warren Buffet have a more then proportional disposable income.

              Or ignoring income tax: a person with 30K income pays all to living expenses person with 60k is pretty similar. 100k they could have 100k-80k of disposable income 1M they could have 1M-100kof disposable income. 1G income could have 1G-200k of disposable income. If you want a flat income tax of 20% after 50k income; the people above 200k income have potentially greater and greater disposable incomes.

              In my opinion if you want to tax based upon disposable income, progressive tax system is the way to go. So as long as the system ensures that for each marginal income dollar earned, the net after tax is a positive value along the whole tax function, people will have incentive to earn more income. Progressive income tax is the easiest approximation of being able to do a fixed tax of disposable income.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday January 31 2019, @11:37PM (3 children)

      by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Thursday January 31 2019, @11:37PM (#794792) Homepage Journal

      Trump's tax cuts for the rich results in the US deficit having hit one trillion dollars.

      A survey or corporate and trade association economists made it resoundingly clear that the tax cut did _not_ affect hiring decisions in any way.

      If we had a marginal - that is, an incremental - tax cut on Capital Gains that was only paid by those who earned one million or more on such gains, that all by itself could house every American homeless person within a year or two. That marginal rate would only need to be a few percent.

      --
      Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 31 2019, @11:49PM (2 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 31 2019, @11:49PM (#794795)

        only paid by those who earned one million or more on such gains, that all by itself could house every American homeless person within a year or two. That marginal rate would only need to be a few percent.

        I'd like to see the math on this. The number of people earning $1M or more on capital gains per year is quite small, but, then, so is the number of homeless, by some forms of accounting.

        2% tax on $1M is $20K/yr, and if your idea of housing the homeless is 4+ people per low-rent house, that only costs maybe $3000 per year per homeless housed - just for the roof (still gotta eat, etc. and that actually costs more.)

        So, sure - it doesn't cost much just to provide roofs, but, ask yourself: would you take that roof if it was offered? Would you have taken it two years ago?

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday February 01 2019, @12:43AM (1 child)

          by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Friday February 01 2019, @12:43AM (#794806) Homepage Journal

          ... who did not know how to sleep on the street. Consider that there's been a blind man, who when he wins the lottery about one of out three nights, sleeps at The Portland Rescue Mission.

          Some homeless people flatly refuse housing or even shelter. "Jesus did it, I can too!", "I CAN'T SLEEP INDOORS!"

          Some homeless people when actually placed in housing return to the streets. One such was a woman who slept on a certain LA bus stop bench for decades. She _often_ got housing, then right back to her bench.

          Putting them all aside: consider Utah's discovery, now supported by some other US States like Washington that it is tens of thousands of dollars cheaper to house _everybody_ then to provide services to the homeless or to keep them in jail.

          Consider also that forty percent of US jail inmates are mentally ill; most US jails therefore _also_ contain $$$ mental hospitals with psychiatrists and everything.

          Now, how many US residents get one million or more from capital gains? If I can't just turn that up in a few searches, I'll research it more diligently, write up an article for my site then post its link in a reply...

          ... and there is so much _other_ info about Capital Gains online that I'm unable to found how how many people pay how much.

          However, some of my very best friends are ardent leftists; Jimmy Carter reads Dave's Blog [seeingtheforest.com].

          I'll ask Dave then link my article in a reply, likely this weekend.

          --
          Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday February 01 2019, @03:04AM

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday February 01 2019, @03:04AM (#794856)

            it is tens of thousands of dollars cheaper to house _everybody_ then to provide services to the homeless or to keep them in jail.

            This is true of so many neglected social programs - see the successful social programs in other countries for some solid evidence to back up the studies...

            If I were homeless, I think I would prefer the "predictability" of always being able to sleep on the street as compared to the insult of waiting for hours in a line for the chance of maybe getting an inside room for a night or two. If I could get _reliable_ housing that was better than being on the street (and some house-mates I've had in the past could drive one to prefer sleeping outside), I do think I would prefer that, particularly if I didn't have to waste my life waiting to talk to a social worker to secure it.

            I've been unemployed a few times, and one of the lasting impressions from that experience is having to show up and interview with the social worker to keep the unemployment benefits flowing while looking for actual work. On the one hand, it's a ridiculous waste of time... on the other, the 3-4 hours required to jump that hoop unleashes thousands of dollars in benefits before the next waste of time interview is required, so, with the right attitude/perspective, that's better hourly pay than anything I've made working "real jobs."

            Still, at what point is interviewing with social workers too costly as compared to the benefit of free housing? A couple of hours every couple of months would seem to be a no brainer, worth it... but several hours of queueing for a chance of a single night's sleep indoors? - hell no, that's no way to live.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]