4 ms·

The middle class in the USA is already paying for such a service! When you pay taxes, the bulk of it is just redistributed to people who don't work. All I'm pr

The middle class in the USA is already paying for such a service! When you pay taxes, the bulk of it is just redistributed to people who don't work. All I'm proposing is that we restructure things so that instead of getting nothing for your money you get something.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> When you pay taxes, the bulk of it is just redistributed to people who don't work. Okay, there's a sense in which that's true, but... > All I'm proposing is that we restructure things so that instead of getting nothing for your money you get something. The problem with that (aside from any other problems with the whole "basic job" idea) is that the only sense in which it the preceding claim is true is if you count medical and contribution-qualified programs for the aged and disabled (which are the bulk of payments "to people who don't work".) I mean, this characterization is ludicrous unless your plan is to drag people out of nursing homes to serve in your Basic Job Army.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Are you seriously claiming that the only non-working government dependents are the elderly and disabled? I've linked to this expose by NPR on disability fraud before: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Are you seriously claiming that the only non-working government dependents are the elderly and disabled? I'm saying that the overwhelming majority of government spending on the non-working is benefits to the aged and disabled. SS and Medicare alone are the majority of such spending, and go exclusively to that group, and overwhelming to the aged specifically; the next big chunk is Medicaid (at least, the portion that goes to people that aren't working, some Medicaid beneficiaries are low-income but employed) which, while income qualified, has a very significant fraction of its expenses go to Medicaid/Medicare dual eligibles. And, so, to the extent that your pointing to the share of government spending that goes to the non-working is intended as something other than a red herring, it only makes sense if you plan on dragging the aged and disabled into your forced labor army as a condition of their continued survival.
sanderjd 10y ago
I know this is an old thread that I'm unlikely to get a response to, but I can't tell whether you're proposing a federal make-work program or a free-market restructuring. If the latter, you seem to be ignoring the demand side of the equation, which makes your whole proposal unworkable - there isn't demand for this in the US, and not just for financial reasons, the middle class here is unlikely to employ (what we see as) servants for social reasons as well. If you're proposing a make-work program where tax dollars go toward putting people to work, maybe that's a good idea, but I'd rather see those people working on improving our crumbling infrastructure, or perhaps on creating new high-speed rail, than cleaning middle class houses.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> When you pay taxes, the bulk of it is just redistributed to people who don't work. Okay, there's a sense in which that's true, but... > All I'm proposing is that we restructure things so that instead of getting nothing for your money you get something. The problem with that (aside from any other problems with the whole "basic job" idea) is that the only sense in which it the preceding claim is true is if you count medical and contribution-qualified programs for the aged and disabled (which are the bulk of payments "to people who don't work".) I mean, this characterization is ludicrous unless your plan is to drag people out of nursing homes to serve in your Basic Job Army.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Are you seriously claiming that the only non-working government dependents are the elderly and disabled? I've linked to this expose by NPR on disability fraud before: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Are you seriously claiming that the only non-working government dependents are the elderly and disabled? I'm saying that the overwhelming majority of government spending on the non-working is benefits to the aged and disabled. SS and Medicare alone are the majority of such spending, and go exclusively to that group, and overwhelming to the aged specifically; the next big chunk is Medicaid (at least, the portion that goes to people that aren't working, some Medicaid beneficiaries are low-income but employed) which, while income qualified, has a very significant fraction of its expenses go to Medicaid/Medicare dual eligibles. And, so, to the extent that your pointing to the share of government spending that goes to the non-working is intended as something other than a red herring, it only makes sense if you plan on dragging the aged and disabled into your forced labor army as a condition of their continued survival.

sanderjd 10y ago

I know this is an old thread that I'm unlikely to get a response to, but I can't tell whether you're proposing a federal make-work program or a free-market restructuring. If the latter, you seem to be ignoring the demand side of the equation, which makes your whole proposal unworkable - there isn't demand for this in the US, and not just for financial reasons, the middle class here is unlikely to employ (what we see as) servants for social reasons as well. If you're proposing a make-work program where tax dollars go toward putting people to work, maybe that's a good idea, but I'd rather see those people working on improving our crumbling infrastructure, or perhaps on creating new high-speed rail, than cleaning middle class houses.