4 ms·

Don't we already heavily subsidize poverty via welfare programs? I don't see how throwing even more money at a problem would have a different outcome.

Apocryphon 7y ago
https://www.fastcompany.com/3049642/how-to-fight-poverty-its-simple-give-cash-to-poor-people https://www.fastcompany.com/3049642/how-to-fight-poverty-its...
- frockington1 7y ago
  Interesting article, thanks for the link. Would you be in favor of scrapping all social programs and instead and replacing them with something similar to a negative income tax? It seems reducing regulatory burden and possible points of corruption could really help those in need
semi-extrinsic 7y ago
If "we" == "USA", then no you don't "heavily subsidise poverty". As for empirical evidence that "throwing more money" at it gives an improved outcome, you can look at basically any country in Western or Northern Europe.
- frockington1 7y ago
  I did some quick research by googling poverty rate in {country} USA: 12.3% Spain: 12.1% France: 14.1% Norway: 0.2% Germany: 15.7% Besides Norway, they all seem relatively consistent. I initially thought this might be due to their oil reserves but it seems oil rich US states are still in the 11-12% range
  - charwalker 7y ago
    Of those, Norway probably has the strongest social programs. It also has the lowest population by a lot.
  - semi-extrinsic 7y ago
    Poverty rates are almost by definition useless metrics to compare by here, because they are computed from the gross income distribution. Poverty aid programmes are almost all focused on reducing the cost of living for poor people, which has literally zero effect on poverty rates. Subsidized housing/childcare/healthcare, food stamps, progressive taxation, you name it, they all leave gross income unaffected yet give a large increase in quality of life and discretionary income.

4 ms·

Don't we already heavily subsidize poverty via welfare programs? I don't see how throwing even more money at a problem would have a different outcome.

by frockington1 7y ago

Apocryphon 7y ago
https://www.fastcompany.com/3049642/how-to-fight-poverty-its-simple-give-cash-to-poor-people https://www.fastcompany.com/3049642/how-to-fight-poverty-its...
- frockington1 7y ago
  Interesting article, thanks for the link. Would you be in favor of scrapping all social programs and instead and replacing them with something similar to a negative income tax? It seems reducing regulatory burden and possible points of corruption could really help those in need
semi-extrinsic 7y ago
If "we" == "USA", then no you don't "heavily subsidise poverty". As for empirical evidence that "throwing more money" at it gives an improved outcome, you can look at basically any country in Western or Northern Europe.
- frockington1 7y ago
  I did some quick research by googling poverty rate in {country} USA: 12.3% Spain: 12.1% France: 14.1% Norway: 0.2% Germany: 15.7% Besides Norway, they all seem relatively consistent. I initially thought this might be due to their oil reserves but it seems oil rich US states are still in the 11-12% range
  - charwalker 7y ago
    Of those, Norway probably has the strongest social programs. It also has the lowest population by a lot.
  - semi-extrinsic 7y ago
    Poverty rates are almost by definition useless metrics to compare by here, because they are computed from the gross income distribution. Poverty aid programmes are almost all focused on reducing the cost of living for poor people, which has literally zero effect on poverty rates. Subsidized housing/childcare/healthcare, food stamps, progressive taxation, you name it, they all leave gross income unaffected yet give a large increase in quality of life and discretionary income.