4 ms·

That’s ridicilous. The system has clearly been setup to fraud the majority who needs welfare and is a political virtue signaling. I bet the mean salary was righ

That’s ridicilous. The system has clearly been setup to fraud the majority who needs welfare and is a political virtue signaling. I bet the mean salary was right in the Middle of the ”cliff” (around 55k$) when this was decided to ensure very few would get the benifit and cost on government would be minimal. The logical policy would perhaps be to equalize income to a certain treshold depending on available funds and budget on a particular year. This would also make investments in transits and housing more stable for everyone involved, simplyfing business decisions and quite possibly increase long term profitability.

usaar333 8y ago
> The system has clearly been setup to fraud the majority who needs welfare and is a political virtue signaling. It has this effect, but I'd blame the need to simplify over malevolence. SF's below market rate housing is a great example of a huge welfare cliff. Make under $60k? You can get a 1 bedroom for $1600/month. Don't? Join everyone else fighting at $3k/month or what not. So yah, it's a bit ridiculous that we have a system where someone making $59k does better than $70k. But it's really hard to administer everything as a phase-out system, especially with non-cash benefits. (currently the apartments are required to charge X rent.. so what should happen to the person making $70k/year?) Hence, these blunt-edge qualifications.
- sampo 8y ago
  > so what should happen to the person making $70k/year? They should ask they employer to only pay them $59k?
- kingaillas 8y ago
  >Make under $60k? You can get a 1 bedroom for $1600/month. Don't? Join everyone else fighting at $3k/month or what not. Sounds like SF should experiment with marginal rent, based on how marginal tax rates work. Something like: landlords charge a base $x rent, if you make above $50K a bit more is added one, make above $60K a bit more is added, etc. That was the person making $1 over some arbitrary cutoff isn't much worse off.

usaar333 8y ago

> The system has clearly been setup to fraud the majority who needs welfare and is a political virtue signaling. It has this effect, but I'd blame the need to simplify over malevolence. SF's below market rate housing is a great example of a huge welfare cliff. Make under $60k? You can get a 1 bedroom for $1600/month. Don't? Join everyone else fighting at $3k/month or what not. So yah, it's a bit ridiculous that we have a system where someone making $59k does better than $70k. But it's really hard to administer everything as a phase-out system, especially with non-cash benefits. (currently the apartments are required to charge X rent.. so what should happen to the person making $70k/year?) Hence, these blunt-edge qualifications.

sampo 8y ago
> so what should happen to the person making $70k/year? They should ask they employer to only pay them $59k?
kingaillas 8y ago
>Make under $60k? You can get a 1 bedroom for $1600/month. Don't? Join everyone else fighting at $3k/month or what not. Sounds like SF should experiment with marginal rent, based on how marginal tax rates work. Something like: landlords charge a base $x rent, if you make above $50K a bit more is added one, make above $60K a bit more is added, etc. That was the person making $1 over some arbitrary cutoff isn't much worse off.