4 ms·

> "the inequality debate needs to shift from individuals to businesses and communities." It seems like the inequality debate is stuck between either doing more

by mgalka 11y ago

> "the inequality debate needs to shift from individuals to businesses and communities." It seems like the inequality debate is stuck between either doing more for education or redistributing more tax from someone/somewhere else. There is rarely any discussion of the other side of the equation -- ending government policies that might be exacerbating the problem. For the bottom 20% of households, about 5% of their collective before tax income gets spent on the lottery, and get redistributed upward. * http://metrocosm.com/could-the-lottery-be-the-largest-tax/ http://metrocosm.com/could-the-lottery-be-the-largest-tax/ 40% of their income is spent on housing. Yet, nobody ever talks about the fact that the government explicitly restricts the housing supply via zoning laws. I understand that people want to maintain the character of their neighborhood, but is that really a good justification when other people struggling to afford a place to live? * https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-racist-or-microaggressive-actions-in-urban-planning/answer/Max-Galka https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-racist-or-mi... Why are we still spending $601 billion per year on the military? Are more fighter planes really the country's top priority? For comparison, the combined income of the bottom 20% of households is only about $200 billion. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-us-military-spends-its-billions-2015-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-us-military-spends-it... * The first two posts were written by me. Not meant to be promotional and no reason to click unless you want to check my sources.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
The military sometimes works as the social program of last resort. We have a not-too-bad program for housing subsidy in place today - Section 8. The government that operates Section 8 is not the same one that operates zoning commissions. And at some point , we do need to talk about land rents and taxation. If lotteries could quietly be subsidized, the effect on monetary velocity would doubtless be significant. I am nearly certain that this cannot be quietly done, and it may have adverse effects that aren't clear at first blush. It also smacks of 1984.
- mgalka 11y ago
  Agree. Not saying we should get rid of the military, just questioning whether all $600 billion of that spending is really where we should be spending it. I don't have any particular criticisms of Section 8, but it's an inefficient bandaid for a much bigger problem. It only accommodates about 5m households (while adding to socioeconomic segregation). For everyone else, it doesn't do anything. Why not fix the root of the problem by doing what we do with every other market, and let the free market determine housing prices. Not sure I understand your point about subsidizing the lottery. I think we should either get rid of it, or at least turn it over to private businesses and heavily regulate it. At the moment, it's a predatory state-sponsored monopoly. In any case, not trying to say that these are the solutions, only that the criticism of government policies like these are largely left out of the inequality debate.
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    I dunno about the "should" there w.r.t the military. I just really don't know. Gah, let the free market decide! What a concept! We don't, you know. We subsidize the foo out of people who can afford to pay enough interest spending to qualify for a deduction. People control zoning to drive up land rents. My version of "subsidizing the lottery" would be to pump up the payouts as a helicopter drop of money. But as it is, so little of the money actually goes back to the players that it's quite bad. It's probably a terrible idea for some reason I haven't thought of yet.

by mgalka 11y ago

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

The military sometimes works as the social program of last resort. We have a not-too-bad program for housing subsidy in place today - Section 8. The government that operates Section 8 is not the same one that operates zoning commissions. And at some point , we do need to talk about land rents and taxation. If lotteries could quietly be subsidized, the effect on monetary velocity would doubtless be significant. I am nearly certain that this cannot be quietly done, and it may have adverse effects that aren't clear at first blush. It also smacks of 1984.

mgalka 11y ago
Agree. Not saying we should get rid of the military, just questioning whether all $600 billion of that spending is really where we should be spending it. I don't have any particular criticisms of Section 8, but it's an inefficient bandaid for a much bigger problem. It only accommodates about 5m households (while adding to socioeconomic segregation). For everyone else, it doesn't do anything. Why not fix the root of the problem by doing what we do with every other market, and let the free market determine housing prices. Not sure I understand your point about subsidizing the lottery. I think we should either get rid of it, or at least turn it over to private businesses and heavily regulate it. At the moment, it's a predatory state-sponsored monopoly. In any case, not trying to say that these are the solutions, only that the criticism of government policies like these are largely left out of the inequality debate.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  I dunno about the "should" there w.r.t the military. I just really don't know. Gah, let the free market decide! What a concept! We don't, you know. We subsidize the foo out of people who can afford to pay enough interest spending to qualify for a deduction. People control zoning to drive up land rents. My version of "subsidizing the lottery" would be to pump up the payouts as a helicopter drop of money. But as it is, so little of the money actually goes back to the players that it's quite bad. It's probably a terrible idea for some reason I haven't thought of yet.