4 ms·

This is an especially hard read given what's happening right now to the tax system. I wish more people understood just how easy it is to end up in those kind of

This is an especially hard read given what's happening right now to the tax system. I wish more people understood just how easy it is to end up in those kind of circumstances, but most seem either secure enough that they don't see it as a realistic outcome for them or too frightened to consider just how close to the razor's edge they themselves are to accept it.

alexanderstears 9y ago
It's a hard read given what's happened with all the waste and excess in the social safety net. The social workers in my neighborhood live in nicer houses than me and lease vehicles that people purchase when intelligence isn't the limiting factor (e.g FCA products), and they leave for work after me and arrive home before I do. Yet I see stories about their clients needing winter coats and socks. I look at how much of my paycheck goes to taxes and it seems like there should be enough to ensure that kids don't go hungry but apparently not. But the solution remains the same as always. The bureaucrats bleat "we need more money" - I don't think I've ever heard one say "we need to do a better job with the budget".
- thriftwy 9y ago
  That's the beauty of UBI. On UBI, those bureaucrats are on UBI immediately, and out of work.
  - FussyZeus 9y ago
    In theory anyway, yes, it would be a much more efficient system that directly benefits the people under it. I'm sure you'd still need some staff but it would be drastically lower, and a fraud department wouldn't be required.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  I hear what you're saying, but the fact is the roles of poor being helped by these systems are ever growing, therefore them constantly needing more money makes perfect sense. Especially after the housing crash in '08, from which many many households never recovered. The fact is though we spent something on the order of 13 trillion dollars on a plane for the USAF that's not yet flown a single mission since it was purchased in what, 2008? Until that type of stuff starts getting cut, I refuse to buy the argument that "we can't afford it." BS we can't. Right now we won't afford it but that's not the same thing.
  - alexanderstears 9y ago
    Are you talking about the F-35? The latest estimates peg our total expenditures on the F-35 at 1.5 trillion through 2055: https://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/31/how-dods-15-trillion-f-35-broke-the-air-force.html https://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/31/how-dods-15-trillion-f-35-br... We've spent less than a trillion on it so far. I don't know where you got your 13 trillion dollar expense, but I'd like to know more about the claim. I don't argue that we don't have the money to take better care of the poor. I'm just reluctant to advocate for more money until our welfare system demonstrates its efficiency. If it kicked butt, I'd want much more money going into the welfare system. But it's awful that so many good intentioned people run a system so poorly and the most vulnerable take the hit.
- EADGBE 9y ago
  Be careful judging others based on your quality of life standards. You might get angry realizing everyone has it better than you; but perhaps debt, lost love, resentment and bitterness is funding those extravagant purchases.
Turing_Machine 9y ago
The post below yours got flagged into oblivion, but I think it raises an important issue. Nationwide, less than 30% of the money spent on welfare actually winds up as cash in the hands of the needy it's supposedly benefiting. Most of it is spent on other things (some of which are no doubt good, others of which may not be so good). Surely one can suggest taking a hard look at these other expenditures without being accused of taking bread out of the mouths of children? https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-welfare-dollars-dont-go-directly-to-poor-people-anymore/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-welfare-dollars-do... In California (one of the better states) only about 45% of the money supposedly spent to help poor people actually winds up in their hands. Some states are much, much worse. The guy who got flagged suggested (in a rather combative manner, true) that too much of the welfare budget is spent on the salaries of bureaucrats. I don't know about you, but > 50% overhead seems like too much to me.
- papaver 9y ago
  i've wondered the same thing about the overhead. the argument given to me by some friends in non-profits is that raising money is an art and they have to compete with profit companies for the same people. hence they offer high salaries for c-level positions who can bring in money. there are only so many people that are willing to do it for a under industry salary. not sure i agree one way or another, but penny for your thoughts.
  - icc97 9y ago
    Do they set some kind of limit of how much of the donations can go to management and administration?
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  The post below yours got flagged into oblivion, but I think it raises an important issue. My impression was that it showed up dead. I vouched for it, to no avail. Assuming you mean this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15848548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15848548

alexanderstears 9y ago

It's a hard read given what's happened with all the waste and excess in the social safety net. The social workers in my neighborhood live in nicer houses than me and lease vehicles that people purchase when intelligence isn't the limiting factor (e.g FCA products), and they leave for work after me and arrive home before I do. Yet I see stories about their clients needing winter coats and socks. I look at how much of my paycheck goes to taxes and it seems like there should be enough to ensure that kids don't go hungry but apparently not. But the solution remains the same as always. The bureaucrats bleat "we need more money" - I don't think I've ever heard one say "we need to do a better job with the budget".

thriftwy 9y ago
That's the beauty of UBI. On UBI, those bureaucrats are on UBI immediately, and out of work.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  In theory anyway, yes, it would be a much more efficient system that directly benefits the people under it. I'm sure you'd still need some staff but it would be drastically lower, and a fraud department wouldn't be required.
FussyZeus 9y ago
I hear what you're saying, but the fact is the roles of poor being helped by these systems are ever growing, therefore them constantly needing more money makes perfect sense. Especially after the housing crash in '08, from which many many households never recovered. The fact is though we spent something on the order of 13 trillion dollars on a plane for the USAF that's not yet flown a single mission since it was purchased in what, 2008? Until that type of stuff starts getting cut, I refuse to buy the argument that "we can't afford it." BS we can't. Right now we won't afford it but that's not the same thing.
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  Are you talking about the F-35? The latest estimates peg our total expenditures on the F-35 at 1.5 trillion through 2055: https://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/31/how-dods-15-trillion-f-35-broke-the-air-force.html https://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/31/how-dods-15-trillion-f-35-br... We've spent less than a trillion on it so far. I don't know where you got your 13 trillion dollar expense, but I'd like to know more about the claim. I don't argue that we don't have the money to take better care of the poor. I'm just reluctant to advocate for more money until our welfare system demonstrates its efficiency. If it kicked butt, I'd want much more money going into the welfare system. But it's awful that so many good intentioned people run a system so poorly and the most vulnerable take the hit.
EADGBE 9y ago
Be careful judging others based on your quality of life standards. You might get angry realizing everyone has it better than you; but perhaps debt, lost love, resentment and bitterness is funding those extravagant purchases.

Turing_Machine 9y ago

The post below yours got flagged into oblivion, but I think it raises an important issue. Nationwide, less than 30% of the money spent on welfare actually winds up as cash in the hands of the needy it's supposedly benefiting. Most of it is spent on other things (some of which are no doubt good, others of which may not be so good). Surely one can suggest taking a hard look at these other expenditures without being accused of taking bread out of the mouths of children? https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-welfare-dollars-dont-go-directly-to-poor-people-anymore/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-welfare-dollars-do... In California (one of the better states) only about 45% of the money supposedly spent to help poor people actually winds up in their hands. Some states are much, much worse. The guy who got flagged suggested (in a rather combative manner, true) that too much of the welfare budget is spent on the salaries of bureaucrats. I don't know about you, but > 50% overhead seems like too much to me.

papaver 9y ago
i've wondered the same thing about the overhead. the argument given to me by some friends in non-profits is that raising money is an art and they have to compete with profit companies for the same people. hence they offer high salaries for c-level positions who can bring in money. there are only so many people that are willing to do it for a under industry salary. not sure i agree one way or another, but penny for your thoughts.
- icc97 9y ago
  Do they set some kind of limit of how much of the donations can go to management and administration?
DoreenMichele 9y ago
The post below yours got flagged into oblivion, but I think it raises an important issue. My impression was that it showed up dead. I vouched for it, to no avail. Assuming you mean this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15848548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15848548