9 ms·

So much entitlement. You want the free money, there are rules. The 2000 dollar limit is perhaps too low--so that's something that can be adjusted--but the who

So much entitlement. You want the free money, there are rules. The 2000 dollar limit is perhaps too low--so that's something that can be adjusted--but the whole point of SSI is for low income disabled people. That's the point. SSDI is a different but similar program without that 2000 dollar limit.

Retric 4y ago
The issue is these limits aren’t tied to inflation. 2k in 1920 was a significant chunk of change 2k in 2022 is close to the benefit being handed out. As such simply raising the limit doesn’t solve the problem, indexing the original limit to inflation would.
adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
Lot's of disabled people have medical bills in the 10s of thousands. If you have a cutoff below that amount, it makes it so that they can't afford to not be poor which is a shit deal for everyone.
- duskwuff 4y ago
  Not just medical bills -- even routine expenses (like paying rent, getting a car repaired, or replacing a household appliance) can easily run over the $2000 limit. People with disabilities shouldn't have to go out of their way to avoid having money.
softcactus 4y ago
The entitlement? Humans should be entitled to a life free of material suffering. Otherwise what is the point of creating governments and corporations if not to improve our quality of life. If you think the most vulnerable in society wanting help is entitlement then I suggest you stop using roads or visiting hospitals.
- djbebs 4y ago
  No, they should not.
- lazide 4y ago
  Roads and hospitals are paid for by taxes, usually paid by the people using them. Which equates to labor done by a great many people over time. How ‘free from material suffering’ entitlement going to be paid for, and what does that even mean? Houses for everyone? Gold bars for everyone?
  - paulmd 4y ago
    Is this the “poor people aren’t poor because they have refrigerators” 2.0 argument? Living standards can and will change over time. It’s not possible to live without a phone and internet access anymore, you can’t even do a lot of these papers and applications for government functions (let alone private employment) anymore unless you’re online. Our grandchildren won’t be able to live without their neurallink even though it was a “luxury” to us.
    - lazide 4y ago
      I’m 1) asking what that even means, practically, and 2) how it could be accomplished using any known economic means without, say, hyper-inflating everything first to the point we’d never get there. Does it mean a free Harvard education to everyone? Or a free Twinkie? Does it mean a free house 5 minutes from downtown SF? Or free drugs to make everyone happy no matter where they are?
      - softcactus 4y ago
        What it means practically is the basics like food, shelter, and healthcare. Beyond those basic needs, free education and basic financial security (no means testing or savings limit like for the example in the original post) The argument against this is that people will say "well what about internet access, is internet access a human right since it's now ubiquitous? What about refrigerators and microwaves?" The answer is yes. As the standard of living rises for the average person through innovation, it should also rise for the lowest in society.
        lazide 4y ago
lkbm 4y ago
They're demonstrably bad rules. You know how when kids first hear about tax brackets and misunderstand them to mean that someone earning near the top of one bracket could get a raise of $x and end up having their tax bill increase by more than $x? We don't do that because it's universally agreed to be a bad system: it encourages you to stay poor. Instead of diminishing returns for more work, you get negative returns for more work. Luckily, our tax system is (relatively) sane and uses marginal tax brackets to avoid this outcome. The SSI policy does not—it has this exact failure mode.
jokoon 4y ago

Retric 4y ago

The issue is these limits aren’t tied to inflation. 2k in 1920 was a significant chunk of change 2k in 2022 is close to the benefit being handed out. As such simply raising the limit doesn’t solve the problem, indexing the original limit to inflation would.

adgjlsfhk1 4y ago

Lot's of disabled people have medical bills in the 10s of thousands. If you have a cutoff below that amount, it makes it so that they can't afford to not be poor which is a shit deal for everyone.

duskwuff 4y ago
Not just medical bills -- even routine expenses (like paying rent, getting a car repaired, or replacing a household appliance) can easily run over the $2000 limit. People with disabilities shouldn't have to go out of their way to avoid having money.

softcactus 4y ago

The entitlement? Humans should be entitled to a life free of material suffering. Otherwise what is the point of creating governments and corporations if not to improve our quality of life. If you think the most vulnerable in society wanting help is entitlement then I suggest you stop using roads or visiting hospitals.

djbebs 4y ago
No, they should not.
lazide 4y ago
Roads and hospitals are paid for by taxes, usually paid by the people using them. Which equates to labor done by a great many people over time. How ‘free from material suffering’ entitlement going to be paid for, and what does that even mean? Houses for everyone? Gold bars for everyone?
- paulmd 4y ago
  Is this the “poor people aren’t poor because they have refrigerators” 2.0 argument? Living standards can and will change over time. It’s not possible to live without a phone and internet access anymore, you can’t even do a lot of these papers and applications for government functions (let alone private employment) anymore unless you’re online. Our grandchildren won’t be able to live without their neurallink even though it was a “luxury” to us.
  - lazide 4y ago
    I’m 1) asking what that even means, practically, and 2) how it could be accomplished using any known economic means without, say, hyper-inflating everything first to the point we’d never get there. Does it mean a free Harvard education to everyone? Or a free Twinkie? Does it mean a free house 5 minutes from downtown SF? Or free drugs to make everyone happy no matter where they are?
    - softcactus 4y ago
      What it means practically is the basics like food, shelter, and healthcare. Beyond those basic needs, free education and basic financial security (no means testing or savings limit like for the example in the original post) The argument against this is that people will say "well what about internet access, is internet access a human right since it's now ubiquitous? What about refrigerators and microwaves?" The answer is yes. As the standard of living rises for the average person through innovation, it should also rise for the lowest in society.
      - lazide 4y ago

lkbm 4y ago

They're demonstrably bad rules. You know how when kids first hear about tax brackets and misunderstand them to mean that someone earning near the top of one bracket could get a raise of $x and end up having their tax bill increase by more than $x? We don't do that because it's universally agreed to be a bad system: it encourages you to stay poor. Instead of diminishing returns for more work, you get negative returns for more work. Luckily, our tax system is (relatively) sane and uses marginal tax brackets to avoid this outcome. The SSI policy does not—it has this exact failure mode.

jokoon 4y ago