African family move into Swiss village, forced to raise taxes

[Exian]

Kudos to the community for turning a bullshit troll thread into an intelligent conversation.

[Bibliofagus]

This is nothing like that. This is a community that pays only 120 swiss things per capita a month for their local facilities.
This is extremely sharply budgetted in a country where a roadworker or cleaner (whom the community needs to rent for maintenance and stuff) makes over 4000 euros a month. And where costs of immigrants are apparently allocated to local taxes.

That's irrelevant, if you wish to stay you have to pay your cost, the state isn't there to babysit you with taxes. It doesn't matter if you are cheap or expensive, would it make things different? It's still unethical and economically inefficient - I wouldn't be able to live being supported by other people unless I had no absolute choice.

Ah. Okay. I kinda feel the same. But I'm a guy with a working wife and zero kids from one of the wealthiest countries in the world.
I don't have to choose to either go to work or take care of my 7 kids (or send them to kindergarten, which would cost the community even more, at least, it would in my country.)
Knowing all this about myself kinda colours my thinking. Would I pay tax to support a - lets say - jezudi family that just escaped IS and is traumatized too much to be a real asset to my community right away?

My answer is yes. I will if I can. Yet it should be within reason. In Holland we got the same system as in switzerland. Lots of costs of immigrants are being allocated locally. I lived in a place with lots of them, and paid for the costs. Now another community, that isn't carrying - any - of said costs starts whining that they have to carry some of the costs as well. And they do so by telling me they used to pay a lot less than me!
This does not go over well with me.

What's your perspective on these things?

[TaraJo]

Might also point out in here, it's kinda been proven that it costs communities far less to help people who need it than to just leave them to their own devices. I mean, Utah implimented a program to end homelessness by giving everyone in the state who needed one a home and it's been wildly successful (not to mention it's saved them money on emergency room trips and policing of the homeless and the laws they tend to violate).

http://www.nationofchange.org/utah-endin...1390056183

I have to imagine, if this community just decided to dump this family, the penalties would be worse than just helping them out.

[Anomalocaris]

This is nothing like that. This is a community that pays only 120 swiss things per capita a month for their local facilities.
This is extremely sharply budgetted in a country where a roadworker or cleaner (whom the community needs to rent for maintenance and stuff) makes over 4000 euros a month. And where costs of immigrants are apparently allocated to local taxes.

That's irrelevant, if you wish to stay you have to pay your cost, the state isn't there to babysit you with taxes. It doesn't matter if you are cheap or expensive, would it make things different? It's still unethical and economically inefficient - I wouldn't be able to live being supported by other people unless I had no absolute choice.

It is fucking relevent. Evidently the state set rules in place to permit immigration and the community set rules in place to pay for needy immigrants. So the state and the community judged the cost of supporting immigration provides a return beyond immediate cashflow considerations. So it then becomes completely relevent to evaluate the magnitude of the perceived benefit against the magnitude of negative cash flow, normalized by the population over which the benefit and the cost are spread.

[Jackalope]

That's irrelevant, if you wish to stay you have to pay your cost, the state isn't there to babysit you with taxes. It doesn't matter if you are cheap or expensive, would it make things different? It's still unethical and economically inefficient - I wouldn't be able to live being supported by other people unless I had no absolute choice.

It is fucking relevent. Evidently the state set rules in place to permit immigration and the community set rules in place to pay for needy immigrants. So the state and the community judged the cost of supporting immigration provides a return beyond immediate cashflow considerations. So it then becomes completely relevent to evaluate the magnitude of the perceived benefit against the magnitude of negative cash flow, normalized by the population over which the benefit and the cost are spread.

Come now, Chuck. This is no place for reasonable pragmatism.

[Dystopia]

That's irrelevant, if you wish to stay you have to pay your cost, the state isn't there to babysit you with taxes. It doesn't matter if you are cheap or expensive, would it make things different? It's still unethical and economically inefficient - I wouldn't be able to live being supported by other people unless I had no absolute choice.

It is fucking relevent. Evidently the state set rules in place to permit immigration and the community set rules in place to pay for needy immigrants. So the state and the community judged the cost of supporting immigration provides a return beyond immediate cashflow considerations. So it then becomes completely relevent to evaluate the magnitude of the perceived benefit against the magnitude of negative cash flow, normalized by the population over which the benefit and the cost are spread.

Except that I doubt accounts and calculations are always made well - But I don't think an entire family could spend so much public funds, it has got to be a mistake.

My State, for instance, judged wrongly the cost of immigration and social aid. The cash flow is negative. Our social security has been near bankrupt.