14 ms·

People at 30k are not "dependent" on government subsidies in any socially meaningful sense. They're likely paying more taxes than receiving subsidies - and eve

by emn13 7y ago

People at 30k are not "dependent" on government subsidies in any socially meaningful sense. They're likely paying more taxes than receiving subsidies - and even if they aren't, there's arbitrariness in that "zero" line in this accounting. E.g. you might call public transit subsidies in cities a subsidy, but... it's a social good, so who exactly is that subsidizing? These kind of workers have next to no leverage, so they're payed the minimum they (as a group) need. If you "subsidize" fixed costs, pay is likely to drop. Many of those subsidies might equally be called investments, or plain old payment. This isn't in this sense equivalent to charity, where people really can't take care of themselves. I don't think you're wrong or anything - as individuals they're obviously relying on those subsidies, it's just the perspective is weird. These people are clearly adding value to society (of the monetary kind, I don't want to get sidetracked by the moral aspect here) - they're just not in a position to claim it for themselves. Being unable to make long term plans is destabilizing: yep! The fact that the government happens to "pay" you, largely from your own tax bill: why is that destabilizing? That must be due to stigma or something, because there doesn't seem to be any underlying mechanic that makes sense. Am I missing something?

bumby 7y ago
I know the $30k mark is germane to the original article but I deliberately refrained from putting a quantifiable value on where this "dependency" tipping point may be. For one, I don't know and two, it probably changes with other variables like location, number of dependents etc. In some areas, I imagine $30k is enough to need no assistance while in others life becomes unmanageable without it. I would say that most/all subsidies are in place because they are viewed as a social good. I would also say regardless of where that subsidy qualification point is, it can be destabilizing in the fact that it moves people away from self-sufficiency. When people feel financially insecure, they tend to avoid the kinds of choices that may lead to a more stable society...buying a house, starting a family, starting a business, etc. Maybe I'm 180 degrees off here. There's certainly been an argument that government subsidies make a society more stable and not less. I've heard some even refer to it as "revolution insurance" for that same reason. Here's a different take on it: subsidies tend to help both the upper and lower ends of the economic strata. The lower benefits directly and, in cases of business elite, they may benefit from effectively being able to maintain lower wages. So who gets pinched? The middle class, which I think most would feel are necessary for a stable society. Some of our biggest gains as a country came from when the middle class made the largest strides. Not sure I know enough to make that claim, but it's one that's bandied about.
- emn13 7y ago
  > Here's a different take on it: subsidies tend to help both the upper and lower ends of the economic strata. The lower benefits directly and, in cases of business elite, they may benefit from effectively being able to maintain lower wages. So who gets pinched? The middle class, which I think most would feel are necessary for a stable society. Some of our biggest gains as a country came from when the middle class made the largest strides. Not sure I know enough to make that claim, but it's one that's bandied about. Makes a lot of sense - but like you, not sure whether sense implies truth.

by emn13 7y ago

bumby 7y ago

I know the $30k mark is germane to the original article but I deliberately refrained from putting a quantifiable value on where this "dependency" tipping point may be. For one, I don't know and two, it probably changes with other variables like location, number of dependents etc. In some areas, I imagine $30k is enough to need no assistance while in others life becomes unmanageable without it. I would say that most/all subsidies are in place because they are viewed as a social good. I would also say regardless of where that subsidy qualification point is, it can be destabilizing in the fact that it moves people away from self-sufficiency. When people feel financially insecure, they tend to avoid the kinds of choices that may lead to a more stable society...buying a house, starting a family, starting a business, etc. Maybe I'm 180 degrees off here. There's certainly been an argument that government subsidies make a society more stable and not less. I've heard some even refer to it as "revolution insurance" for that same reason. Here's a different take on it: subsidies tend to help both the upper and lower ends of the economic strata. The lower benefits directly and, in cases of business elite, they may benefit from effectively being able to maintain lower wages. So who gets pinched? The middle class, which I think most would feel are necessary for a stable society. Some of our biggest gains as a country came from when the middle class made the largest strides. Not sure I know enough to make that claim, but it's one that's bandied about.

emn13 7y ago
> Here's a different take on it: subsidies tend to help both the upper and lower ends of the economic strata. The lower benefits directly and, in cases of business elite, they may benefit from effectively being able to maintain lower wages. So who gets pinched? The middle class, which I think most would feel are necessary for a stable society. Some of our biggest gains as a country came from when the middle class made the largest strides. Not sure I know enough to make that claim, but it's one that's bandied about. Makes a lot of sense - but like you, not sure whether sense implies truth.