6 ms·

> They earn too much to qualify for state health care, but not enough to afford the health insurance offered by their employer. They frequently struggle to find

> They earn too much to qualify for state health care, but not enough to afford the health insurance offered by their employer. They frequently struggle to find enough money for basics like food and clothes for their children. Victor recently borrowed money from his mother to hold a birthday party for one of his daughters, and from a friend to pay for a dentist appointment. This one might be a little unpopular but it needs to be said. I have an ax to grind / pet peeve here. What we need to do is get rid of means testing for entitlements and government services in general. I want to live in a world where the excelsior scholarship[1] does not ask how much your parents (or you!) make. If we can afford a program to feed the poor, we can afford a program to feed everyone (who meets residency requirements I guess if we are talking state or city level funding). The real devil is means testing and nobody talks about it because we are essentially using it as a vote bank / scare tactic. "Don't vote for Republicans or they'll starve you and/or let you die without health care." we say. tl;dr we should get rid of means testing. [1] https://www.ny.gov/programs/tuition-free-degree-program-excelsior-scholarship https://www.ny.gov/programs/tuition-free-degree-program-exce...

dpark 9y ago
> If we can afford a program to feed the poor, we can afford a program to feed everyone This isn't actually true, which is why means testing exists. If San Francisco gave every resident just $200/month for food, it would cost the city over $2 billion/year. And that's assuming only $200/month and no other assistance programs. The only way to get rid of means testing while maintaining existing social services would be to drastically raise taxes.
- bryanlarsen 9y ago
  "drastically raise taxes." Sure, on paper it would drastically raise taxes, but the net effect would be nil. The average taxpayer would have taxes raised by $200 and receive a benefit of $200/month. And the raise should be substantially less than $200 because you no longer have to pay for the old food assistance program, nor most of the bureaucracy for it.
  - dpark 9y ago
    I kind of doubt anyone would vote for a tax increase spread across the population evenly, even if it hypothetically was offset by equivalent benefits. In reality, the tax burden would be progressive, and upper middle class people would rightly ask why they're paying extra taxes for this. I don't know why you think giving everyone money is going to "substantially" reduce net cost, either. The bureaucracy isn't where most of the cost goes.
    - thanksgiving 9y ago
      > In reality, the tax burden would be progressive, and upper middle class people would rightly ask why they're paying extra taxes for this. Will they ask? Sure. Will they rightly ask? Absolutely not. I didn't mean to imply that eliminating (or as someone pointed out a gradual ramping down) means testing would save us money. That gets us to basic income territory and there are a lot of unknowns especially with whether "people with vulnerabilities" will be better off with a small amount of cash and a salute every month. I'm not saying most people will have trouble (I love basic income) but that it is not a one size fits all solution. Back to the topic at hand, if we want to expand entitlements to cover more people then we absolutely need to either: 1. reduce what we cover 2. increase taxes on the wealthy. We have the most generous poor people in the entire world. The poor (yes, if a family makes say under $60k a year with two adults working full time I consider them poor) oppose tax increase on the wealthy.
      - dpark 9y ago
        > Will they ask? Sure. Will they rightly ask? Absolutely not. Considering that we're discussing doing away with means testing and giving benefits to people who literally do not need them, it seems quite right for someone paying extra taxes to question this.
  - sealthedeal 9y ago
    The state would still be at a negative loss with your example.
dullgiulio 9y ago
You are delusional or you have serious maths problems: if you can afford to give 100 to 10 people, you automatically afford to give 100 to 100,000 people? What logic is that? Then you just say "the evil is means testing" but not why. tl;dr you have no arguments to back up your slogan.
- sctb 9y ago
  Please make your point civilly without calling names, like the guidelines ask: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Sounds more like the problem is means-testing with strict cutoffs. Mean-testing is good in helping to even the field, the problem is that (some of) our current programs don't slowly fade out as you climb up.
alextheparrot 9y ago
Do you have any idea of a situation where means testing results in better outcomes? I tend to be wary of hard and fast rules regarding most anything, so I'm hoping you can round out your comment and, by proxy, possibly my opinion.
- thanksgiving 9y ago
  > I tend to be wary of hard and fast rules regarding most anything, so I'm hoping you can round out your comment and, by proxy, possibly my opinion. As you should be. I tend to be wary of absolutes as well. The "right" has been very efficient with dog-whistling and the window of discourse (Overton window) by taking things to the extreme and tugging on people's heart strings using fear and hatred as driving forces. I am sure means-testing is good in a lot of scenarios. It is definitely more efficient than my crude "proposal"[1]. It makes "sense", right? Nobody has infinite resources so we should try to focus where we need it most. If humans were rational, this would be a good answer. Unfortunately, we are not rational, level-headed beings. We are emotional, irrational, overgrown infants living in our own bubbles. What do you think? [1] It is not actually a proposal, more of a thought experiment.
thanksgiving 9y ago
> You are delusional or you have serious maths problems: if you can afford to give 100 to 10 people, you automatically afford to give 100 to 100,000 people? What logic is that? Ah, yes this is what the economists say. They are the delusional ones. Means testing breeds resentment and separates people. No, Scandinavians you don't get a say in this until you have as much "diversity" as we do in the United States. Here is what I say to the economists (no offense to the news outlet): seriously, screw you. They have to disown Alan Greenspan before I will listen to a word of "logic" from the "economists". We have two options: eliminate entitlements or raise taxes (or a combination of both). I am OK with either option. What I am not OK with is divisive politics, fear-mongering, hypocrisy. Raise income taxes as much as you need to and/or lower entitlements as much as we can but let us agree to get rid of means testing. Let us aspire to what Barack Obama said in his speech, > There is not a liberal America and a conservative America—there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America—there's the United States of America. Thank you. (PS I didn't flag you)
- humanrebar 9y ago
  A more middle ground solution would be to keep means testing but turn hard cut-offs into smoother ramp-downs. Making a few grand more shouldn't lose you benefits worth much more.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    They are objecting to wealth transfer, I doubt making it more effective matters to them.
    - thanksgiving 9y ago
      > They are objecting to wealth transfer, I doubt making it more effective matters to them. There are some "well-meaning" people who support shutting down all government entitlement programs. They will never admit to it but they see it as competition to religious "charity" and that more people would "find" {{ $deity }} if they had nowhere else to turn. There is no I can to say to these "well-meaning" people.

dpark 9y ago

> If we can afford a program to feed the poor, we can afford a program to feed everyone This isn't actually true, which is why means testing exists. If San Francisco gave every resident just $200/month for food, it would cost the city over $2 billion/year. And that's assuming only $200/month and no other assistance programs. The only way to get rid of means testing while maintaining existing social services would be to drastically raise taxes.

bryanlarsen 9y ago
"drastically raise taxes." Sure, on paper it would drastically raise taxes, but the net effect would be nil. The average taxpayer would have taxes raised by $200 and receive a benefit of $200/month. And the raise should be substantially less than $200 because you no longer have to pay for the old food assistance program, nor most of the bureaucracy for it.
- dpark 9y ago
  I kind of doubt anyone would vote for a tax increase spread across the population evenly, even if it hypothetically was offset by equivalent benefits. In reality, the tax burden would be progressive, and upper middle class people would rightly ask why they're paying extra taxes for this. I don't know why you think giving everyone money is going to "substantially" reduce net cost, either. The bureaucracy isn't where most of the cost goes.
  - thanksgiving 9y ago
    > In reality, the tax burden would be progressive, and upper middle class people would rightly ask why they're paying extra taxes for this. Will they ask? Sure. Will they rightly ask? Absolutely not. I didn't mean to imply that eliminating (or as someone pointed out a gradual ramping down) means testing would save us money. That gets us to basic income territory and there are a lot of unknowns especially with whether "people with vulnerabilities" will be better off with a small amount of cash and a salute every month. I'm not saying most people will have trouble (I love basic income) but that it is not a one size fits all solution. Back to the topic at hand, if we want to expand entitlements to cover more people then we absolutely need to either: 1. reduce what we cover 2. increase taxes on the wealthy. We have the most generous poor people in the entire world. The poor (yes, if a family makes say under $60k a year with two adults working full time I consider them poor) oppose tax increase on the wealthy.
    - dpark 9y ago
      > Will they ask? Sure. Will they rightly ask? Absolutely not. Considering that we're discussing doing away with means testing and giving benefits to people who literally do not need them, it seems quite right for someone paying extra taxes to question this.
- sealthedeal 9y ago
  The state would still be at a negative loss with your example.

dullgiulio 9y ago

You are delusional or you have serious maths problems: if you can afford to give 100 to 10 people, you automatically afford to give 100 to 100,000 people? What logic is that? Then you just say "the evil is means testing" but not why. tl;dr you have no arguments to back up your slogan.

sctb 9y ago
Please make your point civilly without calling names, like the guidelines ask: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

Sounds more like the problem is means-testing with strict cutoffs. Mean-testing is good in helping to even the field, the problem is that (some of) our current programs don't slowly fade out as you climb up.

alextheparrot 9y ago

Do you have any idea of a situation where means testing results in better outcomes? I tend to be wary of hard and fast rules regarding most anything, so I'm hoping you can round out your comment and, by proxy, possibly my opinion.

thanksgiving 9y ago
> I tend to be wary of hard and fast rules regarding most anything, so I'm hoping you can round out your comment and, by proxy, possibly my opinion. As you should be. I tend to be wary of absolutes as well. The "right" has been very efficient with dog-whistling and the window of discourse (Overton window) by taking things to the extreme and tugging on people's heart strings using fear and hatred as driving forces. I am sure means-testing is good in a lot of scenarios. It is definitely more efficient than my crude "proposal"[1]. It makes "sense", right? Nobody has infinite resources so we should try to focus where we need it most. If humans were rational, this would be a good answer. Unfortunately, we are not rational, level-headed beings. We are emotional, irrational, overgrown infants living in our own bubbles. What do you think? [1] It is not actually a proposal, more of a thought experiment.

thanksgiving 9y ago

> You are delusional or you have serious maths problems: if you can afford to give 100 to 10 people, you automatically afford to give 100 to 100,000 people? What logic is that? Ah, yes this is what the economists say. They are the delusional ones. Means testing breeds resentment and separates people. No, Scandinavians you don't get a say in this until you have as much "diversity" as we do in the United States. Here is what I say to the economists (no offense to the news outlet): seriously, screw you. They have to disown Alan Greenspan before I will listen to a word of "logic" from the "economists". We have two options: eliminate entitlements or raise taxes (or a combination of both). I am OK with either option. What I am not OK with is divisive politics, fear-mongering, hypocrisy. Raise income taxes as much as you need to and/or lower entitlements as much as we can but let us agree to get rid of means testing. Let us aspire to what Barack Obama said in his speech, > There is not a liberal America and a conservative America—there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America—there's the United States of America. Thank you. (PS I didn't flag you)

humanrebar 9y ago
A more middle ground solution would be to keep means testing but turn hard cut-offs into smoother ramp-downs. Making a few grand more shouldn't lose you benefits worth much more.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  They are objecting to wealth transfer, I doubt making it more effective matters to them.
  - thanksgiving 9y ago
    > They are objecting to wealth transfer, I doubt making it more effective matters to them. There are some "well-meaning" people who support shutting down all government entitlement programs. They will never admit to it but they see it as competition to religious "charity" and that more people would "find" {{ $deity }} if they had nowhere else to turn. There is no I can to say to these "well-meaning" people.