5 ms·

Nor is it created at the bottom, where it is spent or destroyed. It is created in the middle, by the middle class. The middle class is the class that feeds the

Nor is it created at the bottom, where it is spent or destroyed. It is created in the middle, by the middle class. The middle class is the class that feeds the unproductive classes at both the top and the bottom. And the unproductive have formed a political alliance where the bottom votes for the top in exchange for handouts, all paid for by the middle.

moomin 10y ago
You say that, but in American cities, it's the poor paying for municipal services, and the middle class consuming them.
- FreedomToCreate 10y ago
  Care to elaborate on that?
  - moomin 10y ago
    This was in HN a while back. Take a look at the graph. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason... Alternatively, read the DoJ report on Feeguson.
    - aaron-lebo 10y ago
      That doesn't suggest that the middle class is consuming and the lower classes are paying. The cited median house of $150k isn't owned nor are taxes paid for by the lower class. The middle class gets taxed as much or more than the lower and they put in more due to simple economics.
      - lacampbell 10y ago
        There's a bracket in many countries (which I'm in) where you're taxed the maximum amount on your earnings, but still don't have enough to afford an accountant to find some loop holes for you.
      - moomin 10y ago
        Actually, the idea that government revenues consist solely of taxes is pretty much a middle class conception. The reason I mentioned Ferguson was that the DoJ report laid out how law enforcement and the legal system are used as revenue generators (in the case of Ferguson in an extremely racist way, but the point holds even in jurisdictions that aren't as racist). And in case you thought Ferguson got fixed: the police have been curtailed, but revenue generation has moved to building code violations.
crooked-v 10y ago
> Nor is it created at the bottom, where it is spent or destroyed. You're ignoring the economic effects of money being immediately spent on consumer goods and services. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap/economic-linkages/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/su... > An increase of $1 billion in SNAP expenditures is estimated to increase economic activity (GDP) by $1.79 billion. In other words, every $5 in new SNAP benefits generates as much as $9 of economic activity.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  That doesn't discount the argument though. 1) SNAP is cyclical - so it's gonna naturally boost a struggling economy, as would most other expenditures 2) there's a natural limit - there's only so much food a family needs
  - cc439 10y ago
    "2) there's a natural limit - there's only so much food a family needs" There's also a point where a family may demand more food but providing them with it actually harms society. The obesity epidemic is the biggest health crisis this country has ever faced and when 40% of SNAP recipients are obese (compared to ~32% of nonrecipients), we're basically paying to sentence these people to a litany of expensive, chronic medical issues. Of course, merely reducing benefits does nothing to solve this and harms the 60% of recipients who are at a healthy weight, I'm just pointing out that the natural limit of demand is far beyond the optimal level of supply for a program meant to provide a net benefit to society. Source: https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/NHANES-SNAP07-10.pdf https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/NHANES-SNAP...

moomin 10y ago

You say that, but in American cities, it's the poor paying for municipal services, and the middle class consuming them.

FreedomToCreate 10y ago
Care to elaborate on that?
- moomin 10y ago
  This was in HN a while back. Take a look at the graph. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason... Alternatively, read the DoJ report on Feeguson.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    That doesn't suggest that the middle class is consuming and the lower classes are paying. The cited median house of $150k isn't owned nor are taxes paid for by the lower class. The middle class gets taxed as much or more than the lower and they put in more due to simple economics.
    - lacampbell 10y ago
      There's a bracket in many countries (which I'm in) where you're taxed the maximum amount on your earnings, but still don't have enough to afford an accountant to find some loop holes for you.
    - moomin 10y ago
      Actually, the idea that government revenues consist solely of taxes is pretty much a middle class conception. The reason I mentioned Ferguson was that the DoJ report laid out how law enforcement and the legal system are used as revenue generators (in the case of Ferguson in an extremely racist way, but the point holds even in jurisdictions that aren't as racist). And in case you thought Ferguson got fixed: the police have been curtailed, but revenue generation has moved to building code violations.

crooked-v 10y ago

> Nor is it created at the bottom, where it is spent or destroyed. You're ignoring the economic effects of money being immediately spent on consumer goods and services. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap/economic-linkages/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/su... > An increase of $1 billion in SNAP expenditures is estimated to increase economic activity (GDP) by $1.79 billion. In other words, every $5 in new SNAP benefits generates as much as $9 of economic activity.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
aaron-lebo 10y ago
That doesn't discount the argument though. 1) SNAP is cyclical - so it's gonna naturally boost a struggling economy, as would most other expenditures 2) there's a natural limit - there's only so much food a family needs
- cc439 10y ago
  "2) there's a natural limit - there's only so much food a family needs" There's also a point where a family may demand more food but providing them with it actually harms society. The obesity epidemic is the biggest health crisis this country has ever faced and when 40% of SNAP recipients are obese (compared to ~32% of nonrecipients), we're basically paying to sentence these people to a litany of expensive, chronic medical issues. Of course, merely reducing benefits does nothing to solve this and harms the 60% of recipients who are at a healthy weight, I'm just pointing out that the natural limit of demand is far beyond the optimal level of supply for a program meant to provide a net benefit to society. Source: https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/NHANES-SNAP07-10.pdf https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/NHANES-SNAP...