3 ms·
There is not fine line we are just flat out dumber than rocks. Its incredibly simple in fact. Lets talk about subject of the article disability income. Someone
by michaelmrose 4y ago
There is not fine line we are just flat out dumber than rocks. Its incredibly simple in fact. Lets talk about subject of the article disability income.
Someone with a projected lifespan of 20-30 more years, 2000 a month income, and no projected time frame in which they are expected to be able to earn an income who is actually successfully subsisting on that income of 2000 a month needs an input of 24000 per year to go on subsisting indefinably adjusting for inflation.
If they had $48,000 in the bank it wouldn't meaningfully effect their need. In fact making them spend down everything they have before helping them is pretty stupid it renders their life very fragile and less likely to be stable long term and doesn't even save much money. The equation begins to change only when funds on hand are sufficient to meaningfully change inflow or pay for capital investment like buying a home outright or buying a second property for income.
The turnover figure where someone doesn't NEED to have an actual income is actually reasonable measured in YEARS of income whereas the actual figure is now a single month of income.
For an alternative look at health insurance. It's possible to go from free insurance to no insurance based on a 10c an hour raise at your part time job. Most reasonable upward economic trajectories move through successively better paying positions towards healthy finances. However if you can in a single small raise go from +2% wages to -50% actual economic health moving upwards might be a quick path to homelessness before you can actually complete your upward path. This is especially true when yourself + spouse costs not 2x the cost of insuring yourself but more like 3x.
A non moronic idea might be to allow poor people to keep the same insurance that used to be free at an increasing cost such that any raise at all was ALWAYS a step up.
> the people who pay may be legitimately resentful when their money is going to strangers who don't in fact need it.
Sane solutions are not found by appealing to the emotions of ignorant, selfish, hateful people. They are found by doing math and projecting the probable results of the effect of alternative policies.
- tablespoon 4y ago> If they had $48,000 in the bank it wouldn't meaningfully effect their need. In fact making them spend down everything they have before helping them is pretty stupid it renders their life very fragile and less likely to be stable long term and doesn't even save much money. It's one thing to give someone benefits to support their person, it's another to give them benefits to support their person AND their existing savings. It's pretty natural to be less generous to someone who already has the money to pay for what they're asking you to pay for. > Sane solutions are not found by appealing to the emotions of ignorant, selfish, hateful people. You're not going to get "sane solutions" with that attitude. You're going to get people to feel good about ignoring your ideas because you insulted them.
- guerrilla 4y ago> It's one thing to give someone benefits to support their person, it's another to give them benefits to support their person AND their existing savings. It's pretty natural to be less generous to someone who already has the money to pay for what they're asking you to pay for. Nope. This makes no sense. You're replacing their income because they can't generating any. That's it. You have no business in their rest of their life at all. Your job is to determine whether they can generate income or not and give them money if they can't, nothing else.
- tablespoon 4y ago> Nope. This makes no sense. You're replacing their income because they can't generating any. That's it. So, in your view, a disabled multi-millionaire should be able to collect government disability payments? You may think this is a problem narrowly scoped to income, and that's fine. However that doesn't mean that's the only way to look at it, and that anyone who looks at it differently is doing it wrong. > You have no business in their rest of their life at all. Your job is to determine whether they can generate income or not and give them money if they can't, nothing else. Sorry, no. That's not how it works.