Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Reelya]

And there's also the risk of some charismatic guy going in and crowdfunding all that money away from people for his own purposes, leaving those people with no money to live on.

If people are that weak minded they should be in a nursing home. It's not the states responsibility to protect idiots from themselves. And anyway, is someone on basic welfare income going to be constantly suckered by crowd-funding? To the point they have "no money to live on". Your examples are just getting more and more ludicrous and implausible. Poor people don't tend to spend one red cent on crowdfunding.

[Helgoland]

Stupidity must be punished - why should we care about people as dumb as that?

Pre-determined handouts are harder to do than you think as well. Try and come up with a set of rations that will do for everyone in an entire country. You obviously want something that doesn't spoil, so any fresh food is a no-no. But what if people don't want what you're handing out. I've had charity food before. About 70% of the weight is food you will never eat.

Also, what about clothes? It's not like you can hand out "units of clothes" in any reasonable way that everyone will want.

Stamps (like the rationing stamps used in Europe during and after the war) would be a solution; but that would just create humongous inefficiencies. Handing out cash is much easier, and more efficient to boot.

[Sergarr]

And there's also the risk of some charismatic guy going in and crowdfunding all that money away from people for his own purposes, leaving those people with no money to live on.

If people are that weak minded they should be in a nursing home. It's not the states responsibility to protect idiots from themselves. And anyway, is someone on basic welfare income going to be constantly suckered by crowd-funding? To the point they have "no money to live on". Your examples are just getting more and more ludicrous and implausible. Poor people don't tend to spend one red cent on crowdfunding.

Well, I probably should've used the other word - the financial pyramids. You know, the ones that promise insane profits quick. A poor person might be the best target for a scheme like that.

Stupidity must be punished - why should we care about people as dumb as that?

Because these people live in the same country as you do.

[Descan]

One point of giving them the money is to get away from the nanny-state thought patterns of most welfare. I'd like less control from above over what I do with my money, "For my own good."

[Reelya]

Poor people get welfare money now, and we don't hear much about them getting suckered into pyramid schemes. How much can a welfare recipient lose anyway? 2 weeks worth of payments.  They don't get into pyramid schemes because they can only afford a few hundred dollars at a time, so 10% or 15% returns means you starve for 2 weeks for a measly $50 profit - which you have to wait 12 months to even see. Nobody is going to do that. When you're surviving week to week on benefits, you can't afford to both invest and eat.

Your arguments aren't very logical given what we know about how people already act.

The type of scam a poor person might be suckered into will be like "give me $50 and I'll double your money in 1 week!", and it will probably be drug-related. But they're unlikely to be suckered repeatedly by scams like this, because those scammers hit one guy then move on. Poor people just don't have any capital to be scammed bigger than this.

[Helgoland]

One point of giving them the money is to get away from the nanny-state thought patterns of most welfare. I'd like less control from above over what I do with my money, "For my own good."

Freedom is the freedom to hurt oneself, yes.

[Sergarr]

One point of giving them the money is to get away from the nanny-state thought patterns of most welfare. I'd like less control from above over what I do with my money, "For my own good."

Freedom is the freedom to hurt oneself, yes.

But there's difference between freedom to hurt yourself willingly and hurting yourself because you didn't know that it would hurt you.

[SirQuiamus]

Stupidity must be punished - why should we care about people as dumb as that?

Pre-determined handouts are harder to do than you think as well. Try and come up with a set of rations that will do for everyone in an entire country. You obviously want something that doesn't spoil, so any fresh food is a no-no. But what if people don't want what you're handing out. I've had charity food before. About 70% of the weight is food you will never eat.

Also, what about clothes? It's not like you can hand out "units of clothes" in any reasonable way that everyone will want.

Stamps (like the rationing stamps used in Europe during and after the war) would be a solution; but that would just create humongous inefficiencies. Handing out cash is much easier, and more efficient to boot.

It would also be fairly easy to game the system by hoarding and reselling food rations and coupons. Capitalism will prevail.

EDIT: And people tend to greatly overestimate the prevalence of welfare fraud...

A poll conducted by the Trades Union Congress in 2012 found that perceptions among the British public were that benefit fraud was high - on average people thought that 27% of the British welfare budget is claimed fraudulently; however, official UK Government figures have stated that the proportion of fraud stands at 0.7% of the total welfare budget in 2011/12.

[Descan]

Another reason is do it is dignity. Improving the self esteem of people who need it to get a foothold on life. Telling them "No, we know best what you need, you'll just get suckered like a chump if we trust you with any decisions. Now put on your prison-issue jumpsuit and eat your nutri-cube," is exactly the same behavior that leads to the red queen effect of food-stamps, having it be cut by exactly the amount you earn. Or making buying a steak on foodstamps illegal. Treating people like animals makes them behave like animals, treating them with dignity and as if they actually know what it is they need to survive, they just lack the resources to do it? Then you'll actually get a humane society. This is actually one reason to make it for every citizen, and a blind process. You wouldn't be singling any one person out and going over their life with a fine tooth comb, squeezing them until they give up, but instead just another person to lift over the wall, no failing on your part, we know you're capable, we all need a hand now and then.

Poor people aren't stupid, they don't need to be handheld or lectured for every dollar.

[Frumple]

It would also be fairly easy to game the system by hoarding and reselling food rations and coupons. Capitalism will prevail.

*shrugs* Which happens, yes, but not enough for the administrative costs necessary to prevent it to be actually cost effective. Costs more to prevent the misuse than the misuse costs the system.* We actually have some fairly sizable food stamp programs faffing about the world, heh. Pretty aware of what the costs and side-effects and whatnot are. Somewhat different than a rationing system, but not substantively.

*This is fairly consistently true for most welfare systems currently in use, actually, last I checked. Turns out the majority of folks in situations that need the help don't actually want to abuse the system :V

[Reelya]

... They also don't need to be protected from spending money on the wrong things. Maybe they get suckered once in a while. But it's not like a middle class person who gets suckered out of tens of thousands of dollars that they saved up. At most, a poor person who gets suckered will be hungry for 1 week then they learn not to do it again. Also, to learn to manage money, you have to ... manage your own money.

Hand-holding people who are poor is detrimental. If there's one thing that welfare teaches you, it's effective budgeting. People who make lots of money are terrible at managing money compared to welfare recipients. Those money-makers are good at doing the job that gets them money, but tend to be shit at effective shopping and the like.

Isolating poor people from making financial decisions on some grounds that they're not capable of managing their weekly budget is wrong-headed.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And regardless, we have studies like the Mincome experiment to rely on. There's not much need to speculate on people's behavior when we can already know it.

[Sheb]

Again, I think you guys are just talking past each others due to different histories. Sergarr is Russian remember. Huge amount of people being handed money by the state and then getting suckered by charismatic pyramid schemer is not a hypothetical for him, it's what happened 20 years ago. Many Soviet companies for example were privatized through handing shares to citizens and workers. Those were then bought for a fraction of their value by the current oligarchs.

In a system with little financial regulation and a people that were no used to financial system, Ponzi scheme were also rampant. In Albania something like 15% of GDP were lost in Ponzi scheme, prompting a short-lived revolt that left nearly 4000 dead.

I'm not saying he's right, at least not if we're discussing a western context were stuff like financial regulators, deposit insurance and so on are a thing, just trying to explain why I think he defend that position.

Also, I find it funny to say we don't care about stupid people doing stupid things, when so much of our regulation is in place to insure people don't get suckered and/or take stupid decisions.

[Loud Whispers]

Man this story amuses me to no end; Maajid Nawwaz, "the Liberal Democrat candidate in Hampstead and Kilburn and a self-described “feminist”, was exposed in a newspaper attempting to touch a woman during two £20 dances at Charlie’s Angels strip club in east London. Mr Nawaz, a former Islamist radical who is now chairman of the anti-extremism Quilliam Foundation said the event was his stag party and that his wife was aware of the visit."
Bants

[Reelya]

Well you know there's no strict one thing that defines feminism. He can be his own strand of feminism. One that approves of getting lap dances from strippers.