Print

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

[smjjames]

How is #2 impossible? Is that due to the scarcity problem? And if taking away welfare removes safety nets, then I'm against removing that.

[wierd]

A safety net is intended to provide a failsafe, to assure that the people can perform optimally.

However, when those nets are being abused, they are not performing *THAT* function, and are contributing to a problem that diminishes the optimal function of the people in the society. ("Function" being much MUUUUCH more than just how well you work. It covers how healthy, and fullfilled you are as well.)

As such, a person who takes position #1, like me, will critically look at abuses of these nets, and take them seriously.

Due to there being two modes of operation to scarcity (including the problem with actively preventing access, to increase value-- a concept I find perverse), any solution that seeks to increase availability while removing access to another group, is literally creating inequality, de-facto.

[Reelya]

1) We just want to assure that our citizenry is able to perform optimally
(In which case, welfare may not be the best/most efficient/effective way to accomplish it, so protecting it so closely is irrational.)

Given the lack of alternatives you're offering it's much like the statement "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". While democracy sucks, it's the best idea we have. Similarly, lets here these great proposals that are going to make supporting welfare look irrational.

You can support welfare purely on macroeconomics however. Food stamps has about 6 times the fiscal multiplier of taxes on the top 1%. An algorithm who's sole purpose was to maximize GDP would tax the rich and give to the poor, purely on that basis. No other rationale needed. The fact that welfare stabilizes society (people sitting at home on welfare is better than incentivizing pickpockets and beggars and drug dealers) is an incidental benefit (but it plays a part in why GDP rose), as is the fairness thing.

But there's also the effects of removing welfare. You act like money paid to people is like powering up their "money bar" thus draining all other money bars. But the fact is, $1 billion paid in welfare benefits is $1 billion that ends up as wages. Sure, you could take that money away and give more back to a billionaire so he can invest more in the stock market, but fighting over the stock market doesn't create as many jobs as feeding people.

[Descan]

Neither of those are obvious from your discussion of zero-sum wealth-from-physical matter/impossibility of doing-more-with-less (or discounting that as "not wealth" and therefore doesn't mean anything in terms of providing for people...?) or anything else.

Also, you got a bit of a false dichotomy there. I can think of a third one: Moral imperative. Allowing people to die from exposure when it's within our power is villainous. (And it's not like it'd even take that MUCH power; the public cost of homelessness is much less than the cost of just paying their rent, among other inefficiencies related just to homelessness, let alone other aspects) I'm sure there are others but that's just one. (I'm sure you'll take the tack that it falls under the purview of your number 2, but I don't agree that it is the same thing.)

Edit: Also, your number 2 feels fallacious by way of "not being perfect, therefore do nothing." It may create some unfairness, a la wealthy parents taking advantage and not paying their own way on food (though if the lunch is provided via tax money or tuition, then yes, they did pay for it, just not directly) but just because it doesn't result in 100% perfect fairness, doesn't mean it's better to just allow maximal unfairness. Allowing kids to starve/be less effective at schooling due to hunger and have a lesser quality of life after dropping out, because we don't want wealthy people to not pay for lunch... Those aren't on the same level of fairness.

[Reelya]

Yup, there does seem to be some opportunistic definitions of fairness going around.

e.g. if the rich also eat the school lunch, then isn't that itself more fair than not letting them eat it, since they did pay taxes? Certainly if taxing the rich was unfair in the first place, then letting them have some of the food paid for with said taxes can't also be unfair. Letting everyone eat, regardless of wealth is fairer, no matter what. And it avoids the stigma of poverty, and avoiding the stigma of poverty eliminates one more barrier to social mobility.

[smjjames]

Except that the rich (well, the REALLY rich anyway, I'm talking higher than middle class) try not to pay taxes, or as little as possible. Some of them anyway.

Edit: I posted before I saw your edit reelya.

[Descan]

The really rich also probably don't go to public school, but private school. And probably would try and get "the best" food for their little Timmy, and would think eating "public school lunch" would be beneath them. So when we say "rich" here, we mostly mean "able to buy their kid lunches every day." A high bar to pass, I'm sure, but I think do-able for enough people.

[muldrake]

Yup, there does seem to be some opportunistic definitions of fairness going around.

e.g. if the rich also eat the school lunch, then isn't that itself more fair than not letting them eat it, since they did pay taxes? Certainly if taxing the rich was unfair in the first place, then letting them have some of the food paid for with said taxes can't also be unfair. Letting everyone eat, regardless of wealth is fairer, no matter what. And it avoids the stigma of poverty, and avoiding the stigma of poverty eliminates one more barrier to social mobility.

The rich should obviously be able to take advantage of the benefits from taxes they pay, especially in a progressive tax system with brackets, and shouldn't be limited to that, i.e. they should be able to opt out of the school lunch, and everything about the school, by buying their own alternative service.

There are obvious exceptions where some particular service, like food stamps, is specifically to alleviate the suffering of the poor, but school lunches wouldn't be that.  Every kid who went to public school when I was a kid could eat those, even if they were rich.  The purpose of school lunches is pedagogical.  It's to ensure every child is well nourished enough to be educated.  You can't learn much on an empty stomach.

[Reelya]

My personal preferred ideal concept is the combination of a flat tax / basic income. Probably with a tax rate of e.g. 35%. Since there would be no tax brackets, no politician could proposes a tax hike or tax break on anyone without also passing it on to everyone else, all taxes would be collected on the spot, so no tax returns, which would even out the money flow across the year more evenly) and the basic income would both simulate progressive taxation and replace welfare payments, without suffering from "welfare trap" syndromes where your marginal earnings per hour  are virtually nil for those going into low-paid jobs.

So you can in fact make a system in which everyone is treated the same, but you get the positive effects attributed to the safety net.

[wierd]

School lunches cost most students a non-zero amount.

Only for the impoverished, is the "free lunch program."  That is exactly the 'wealthy' getting less subsidy, for higher taxes. (the impoverished often no only dont pay taxes, they get a tax CREDIT.)  Thus, the impoverished get PAID instead of paying, AND get the free lunch-- where the normal student's family gets a partial subsidy.

As mentioned, the wealthy do not often use public education, so moot.

[Reelya]

the impoverished often no only dont pay taxes, they get a tax CREDIT.

Do you even know what a tax credit is? Hint: it's not actual money they give you.

A tax credit is a discount on your taxes. You only "get" it as a tax deduction.

[smjjames]

Isn't 35% the tariff that Trump threatened to slam on China or something about companies offshoring?

Going to sleep now for real, about 1 am here

[wierd]

https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax-credit

Yes it is.

[Reelya]

The Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC or EIC, is a benefit for working people with low to moderate income. To qualify, you must meet certain requirements and file a tax return, even if you do not owe any tax or are not required to file. EITC reduces the amount of tax you owe and may give you a refund.

^ The tax credit reduces the amount of tax you owe, and if you already paid too much, you can get a refund. They don't give you the excess to take home like a doggy bag from a restaurant.

[wierd]

Which, at best, is still getting a benefit of taxes paid, (free lunches), for free (because the tax they did pay is refunded.)