3 ms·

> 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 Fra

by 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.

by dpark 9y ago

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.