15 ms·

California operates the largest, most efficient welfare program in the US

91 points by telotortium 4y ago

kepler1 4y ago
Oh fucking hell. I've never read an article that so made me want to slap the author. For having blinders half on, and making me read a story that has a headline about one thing and then completely turns it into another thing.
- olivermarks 4y ago
  Yes the actual original title should be 'What's Wrong with California? A defense of the Golden State, and a modest proposal' and it's essentially all about how taxation funds the benefits programs
  - duskwuff 4y ago
    > ... and it's essentially all about how taxation funds the benefits programs I suspect that either you didn't read down far enough, or you uncritically accepted the writer's "benefits program" language without thinking about what they're actually referring to.
- keybored 4y ago
  Dear reader. You have just read a polemical article. A polemical piece is political writing which clearly argues for one side or the other—it does not feign neutrality. In this case, the tell-tale is describing a “welfare program” which is not offically called that in order to juxtapose it with actual welfare programs—the author is implying that it is in effect a welfare program for homeowners, i.e. welfare for the moderate-to-dos. If you feel that your amygdala has become inflamed, then don’t worry! This is a common response to reading polemics from people that you don’t agree with, since they unabashadly argue for things that you don’t like.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cortesoft 4y ago
How would property taxes deferral work? Let’s say the value goes way up for 15 years, then goes way down again, and you sell your house… are you on the hook for those back taxes even though you didn’t make any money on the sale? If you are, then you are screwed… if you aren’t, then it seems more like a sales tax than a property tax.
- lostdog 4y ago
  As long as we limit the payable tax to the sale price of the home, then you're not screwed. It would suck to have all the money disappear, but if you didn't pay your mortgage then you would also owe the entire amount of the sale price too.
  - charlieyu1 4y ago
    I’m never a fan of any form of capital gains tax. When I earn money I’m liable for tax, but what if I lose money? I’d be responsible for the whole amount loss.
    - Our_Benefactors 4y ago
      You can claim capital losses a tax deduction up to $3000 per year and it carries over to subsequent years. So this isn’t entirely true.
      - leoqa 4y ago
        Does that imply an effective limit of $150k or so? I've definitely had capital gains tax higher than that.
      - medvezhenok 4y ago
        I believe that it's 3000 per year to offset other income (i.e. labor income). You can use capital losses to offset other capital gains without limit.
        4y ago
olivermarks 4y ago
'California operates the largest, most ambitious social welfare program in the entire country, funded entirely out of its own tax revenue. It costs California $68 billion per year, or $5,200 per household.3 Furthermore, it is unquestionably the most efficient welfare program in existence—the state automatically figures out your eligibility and sends you the exact amount you are entitled to, with 100% accuracy. There are no complicated applications to fill out, no bureaucratic overhead, no waste. The money just automatically flows to deserving Californians that need public financial support.' If only other states were richer and offered more support for their citizens. California is a magnet for benefits and mild weather seekers, and sadly those suffering from substance abuse dependencies. Equity should define this as a federal nationwide problem IMO but instead the word is out all over the world - if you sit down on the pavement in California and say you are 'homeless' the money starts flowing. https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/travel-stories/san-francisco-drug-addict-says-they-pay-you-to-be-homeless-here/news-story/2c92b6c564747a6c8f89fdb9731595ad https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/travel-stories...
- lostdog 4y ago
  > California is a magnet for benefits and mild weather seekers, and sadly those suffering from substance abuse dependencies. Equity should define this as a federal nationwide problem IMO but instead the word is out all over the world - if you sit down on the pavement in California and say you are 'homeless' the money starts flowing. The great thing about this article is that you can tell who didn't bother to read it.
  - olivermarks 4y ago
    'California has a lot of extremely rich people and a high income tax' The challenge here is that most 'extremely rich' people (including UK PM Rishi Sunak who has a large house in California) have all their money offshore. In the prooposals at the end: 'Write a software application that matches program beneficiaries with a household (or more likely, a combination of households) that paid an equivalent amount in the same year. For example, our San Francisco homeowner from earlier that received $16,500 might get matched with five middle class families that rent in Fresno who pay $3,300 each in sales taxes each.7 Now we have made it into an “adopt-a-property owner” program. This makes the benefit much more tangible for taxpayers'. This attempt at equity in a blisteringly expensive state makes more sense when viewed through the prism of the federal HUD 'housing first' laws around where money can be spent. Again it would be far better to have a nationwide match of properties to owners. A friend has calculated the billion+ spent by Cal on the unhoused could buy housing and wrap around services in other parts of the USA for virtually all the people asking for this.
twelve40 4y ago
a "welfare program" strictly for homeowners? this article is very weird.
- akavi 4y ago
  That's the joke. The article is intentionally being arch by using "welfare", a word that's usually used to refer to programs that give to the poor to refer to one giving money to the rich. It's making the point that "government handouts" are reviled when they go the poor, and accepted relatively uncritically when they go to the rich
  - giantg2 4y ago
    I'd hardly call a reduction in "money we take from you" a "handout". The logic likely used by many in the group doing the accepting or reviling is whether the end result is a net contribution or not.
    - 0xbadcafebee 4y ago
      There is no qualification that a handout must come from someone that you have not, are not, and will not ever pay money to. A handout from your landlord is still a handout.
      - ohCh6zos 4y ago
        A mugger deciding to take my watch instead of my wallet is not a handout even if it leaves me better off than the other situation.
        lostlogin 4y ago
        When the mugger paid for your healthcare, education, roads, services, safety and security, the equation is a little different. The above list will vary depending on your location.
treeman79 4y ago
My grandmother was on welfare. My mother was on welfare, my sister was on welfare. Sister wanted off welfare, but if she got a job she lost much more from welfare. So no reason to work. Then welfare got limited to 5 years or something. So she got a job as a bus driver. Been doing that for 20 years now. My dad got my mom off welfare and working. Welfare definitely was just keeping people in poverty and dependent on the government, and not being productive.
- iancmceachern 4y ago
  In some cases. In some cases the folks on welfare cannot be bus drivers, etc.
- lend000 4y ago
  Yep, another reason any welfare should be replaced with a UBI which isn't dependent on any circumstances.
  - xboxnolifes 4y ago
    Or just a sublinear reduction in welfare compared to income.
    - lend000 4y ago
      That would be better, but I prefer the simpler solution. It also ensures there is no incentive to stop working.
  - 8note 4y ago
    That's unrealistic -- some people, by their circumstances, have a more expensive life. Eg. If you need a wheelchair, that's another set of maintenance, with needed changes to all kinds of your living infrastructure, custom vs what somebody without a wheelchair needs.
    - lend000 4y ago
      Healthcare or disability welfare could be separate, perhaps, but for financial welfare we should never be giving cash handouts dependent on inevitably perverse incentives (staying impoverished).
noodlesUK 4y ago
This article is hilarious. It’s basically distilled flamebait that totally buries the fact that it’s satire until the very end.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pvg 4y ago
  'modest proposal' is right at the top.
- yonran 4y ago
  The article is not really satire. It is describing Proposition 13 seriously and accurately. It is Proposition 13 that makes a mockery of welfare programs, and he’s right that everyone in California should learn its regressive design and consequences.
  - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
    Why is Prop 13 welfare? This kind of logic results in net loss to citizens: https://time.com/5530386/aoc-amazon-new-york-hq2/ https://time.com/5530386/aoc-amazon-new-york-hq2/ Also, why are those against Prop 13 the most silent (usually) on corruption in the state?
    - yonran 4y ago
      > Why is Prop 13 welfare? When I talk to my dad about Proposition 13, the one thing he remembers about the ads is that it was supposed to keep widows and single moms from losing their house. In other words, he thinks of it as an entitlement program to help poor residents. But as the article points out, it is a subsidy not for the poor; it is instead a subsidy that regressively targets property owners (including landlords and commercial properties) at the expense of recent buyers and non-property owners (including widows and single moms who do not own an appreciating property). > This kind of logic results in net loss to citizens: > https://time.com/5530386/aoc-amazon-new-york-hq2/ https://time.com/5530386/aoc-amazon-new-york-hq2/ I agree with you that it is unfortunate that politicians such as AOC conflate economic development incentives with welfare. That has nothing to do with Proposition 13, which is not an incentive program. In fact, the incentives that Proposition 13 does contain (to avoid developing or selling which trigger reassessment) perversely exacerbate the housing scarcity that it was supposed to alleviate. > Also, why are those against Prop 13 the most silent (usually) on corruption in the state? Your final question seems to imply that opponents of Proposition 13 are a special interest who are ok with corruption. I disagree. I think an impartial observer can analyze the state’s largest entitlement program and complain about the obvious regressive aspects of it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
narrator 4y ago
More taxes are not the answer. In California, government employees get paid far more there than any other state and vs their private sector counterparts, have enormous pensions and are now the predominant members of the middle class in California. They live off the riches of the tech sector like the Saudis live off oil and benefit massively from prop 13 and other tax breaks. Peter Thiel did a great analysis of this. https://thepostmillennial.com/peter-thiel-on-the-tech-curse-of-california-at-the-national-conservatism-conference https://thepostmillennial.com/peter-thiel-on-the-tech-curse-... Besides, more tax revenue would make California worse. San Francisco used its huge tech windfall to spend $300 million a year on not that many homeless people. It did create a lot of those sweet government jobs and cost plus contracts though. All these government workers are now reliant on homelessness continuing to be a problem.
- germandiago 4y ago
  Reminds me of Spain. When public workers start to get more than private, bad things will start to happen. First: a bigger interest in intervention and keeping the system to keep votes. I know California has had a super strong economy but... if you go down this road it will be a matter of time. Even if it is decades. The problem with this is that once it starts it makes for a vicious circle that gets bigger and bigger and the ones who pay the increasing bills (private economy) get eventually pissed and leave. I heard many companies moving to Texas/Florida for having an increase in the tax that corporations pay.
  - rsj_hn 4y ago
    Curious, did you live through that era in Spain? Do you have some stories to share?
    - germandiago 4y ago
      Driving now but stay tuned.
      - telotortium 4y ago
dools 4y ago
The federal government operates an even bigger and more efficient welfare program called the bond market!
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Not to forget the military...
jasmer 4y ago
One of so many policies with a nice headline. but which falls short of working well due to obvious, quite enormous externalizations. It is truly a paradox that you can buy something, like a normal home, but if home prices rise rapidly you can be out on your rump. A small property tax is effectively a huge wealth tax. People live a long time, one would imagine that 'property' of all things can't be taken from you? Perhaps all taxes should be adjusted for land prices as the ultimate arbiter of inflation? And more pragmatically, like many states, a single party has dominated the legislature for many decades, and we can see what ensues from that.
- germandiago 4y ago
  IMHO taxes on property should not exist. Well, probably taxes neither but on property definitely no.
  - jasmer 4y ago
    They are form of wealth tax which is not nice, but they have pragmatic value for assessing consumption and also luxury consumption. A township might rightly charge more for services which are providing the economic value underpinning the property. And in many places, luxury taxes exist to tax 'non essential' forms of consumption in deference to things like investment, which is actually rational. Aka if your money is invested into value creating enterprise, it's not taxed the same way as your yacht or second mansion. That said, it can get excessive quickly.
dcow 4y ago
Why is this flagged?
- kweingar 4y ago
  I’m guessing that person who flagged this felt misled by the title, since Americans read the phrase “welfare program” as “benefits for the poor”, while this article describes a benefit for homeowners.
  - keybored 4y ago
    If so those users should be flagged for being politically illiterate. Reframing, satire, and turning the opponent’s talking points around on them are common rhetorical and polemical tools. Does someone who is in favor of welfare for the poor have to be obligated to blindly accept the Reaganite “welfare Queen” angle? Of course not. In fact, why not turn it back on the middle/upper middle class?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dang 4y ago
"Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22level%20playing%20field%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
- telotortium 4y ago
  Ok, understood.
hindsightbias 4y ago
It’s always humorous how HN hates a proposition which was basically a conservative backlash to big government growth. wiki: 71% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats, and 61% of independents; 54% of people age 18 to 34, 52% of people age 35 to 54, and 66% of people 55 and older; 65% of homeowners and 50% of renters. Everyone in utopia TX would vote for this prop today.

91 points by telotortium 4y ago

Oh fucking hell. I've never read an article that so made me want to slap the author. For having blinders half on, and making me read a story that has a headline about one thing and then completely turns it into another thing.

olivermarks 4y ago
Yes the actual original title should be 'What's Wrong with California? A defense of the Golden State, and a modest proposal' and it's essentially all about how taxation funds the benefits programs
- duskwuff 4y ago
  > ... and it's essentially all about how taxation funds the benefits programs I suspect that either you didn't read down far enough, or you uncritically accepted the writer's "benefits program" language without thinking about what they're actually referring to.
keybored 4y ago
Dear reader. You have just read a polemical article. A polemical piece is political writing which clearly argues for one side or the other—it does not feign neutrality. In this case, the tell-tale is describing a “welfare program” which is not offically called that in order to juxtapose it with actual welfare programs—the author is implying that it is in effect a welfare program for homeowners, i.e. welfare for the moderate-to-dos. If you feel that your amygdala has become inflamed, then don’t worry! This is a common response to reading polemics from people that you don’t agree with, since they unabashadly argue for things that you don’t like.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

cortesoft 4y ago

How would property taxes deferral work? Let’s say the value goes way up for 15 years, then goes way down again, and you sell your house… are you on the hook for those back taxes even though you didn’t make any money on the sale? If you are, then you are screwed… if you aren’t, then it seems more like a sales tax than a property tax.

lostdog 4y ago
As long as we limit the payable tax to the sale price of the home, then you're not screwed. It would suck to have all the money disappear, but if you didn't pay your mortgage then you would also owe the entire amount of the sale price too.
- charlieyu1 4y ago
  I’m never a fan of any form of capital gains tax. When I earn money I’m liable for tax, but what if I lose money? I’d be responsible for the whole amount loss.
  - Our_Benefactors 4y ago
    You can claim capital losses a tax deduction up to $3000 per year and it carries over to subsequent years. So this isn’t entirely true.
    - leoqa 4y ago
      Does that imply an effective limit of $150k or so? I've definitely had capital gains tax higher than that.
    - medvezhenok 4y ago
      I believe that it's 3000 per year to offset other income (i.e. labor income). You can use capital losses to offset other capital gains without limit.
      - 4y ago

olivermarks 4y ago

'California operates the largest, most ambitious social welfare program in the entire country, funded entirely out of its own tax revenue. It costs California $68 billion per year, or $5,200 per household.3 Furthermore, it is unquestionably the most efficient welfare program in existence—the state automatically figures out your eligibility and sends you the exact amount you are entitled to, with 100% accuracy. There are no complicated applications to fill out, no bureaucratic overhead, no waste. The money just automatically flows to deserving Californians that need public financial support.' If only other states were richer and offered more support for their citizens. California is a magnet for benefits and mild weather seekers, and sadly those suffering from substance abuse dependencies. Equity should define this as a federal nationwide problem IMO but instead the word is out all over the world - if you sit down on the pavement in California and say you are 'homeless' the money starts flowing. https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/travel-stories/san-francisco-drug-addict-says-they-pay-you-to-be-homeless-here/news-story/2c92b6c564747a6c8f89fdb9731595ad https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/travel-stories...

lostdog 4y ago
> California is a magnet for benefits and mild weather seekers, and sadly those suffering from substance abuse dependencies. Equity should define this as a federal nationwide problem IMO but instead the word is out all over the world - if you sit down on the pavement in California and say you are 'homeless' the money starts flowing. The great thing about this article is that you can tell who didn't bother to read it.
- olivermarks 4y ago
  'California has a lot of extremely rich people and a high income tax' The challenge here is that most 'extremely rich' people (including UK PM Rishi Sunak who has a large house in California) have all their money offshore. In the prooposals at the end: 'Write a software application that matches program beneficiaries with a household (or more likely, a combination of households) that paid an equivalent amount in the same year. For example, our San Francisco homeowner from earlier that received $16,500 might get matched with five middle class families that rent in Fresno who pay $3,300 each in sales taxes each.7 Now we have made it into an “adopt-a-property owner” program. This makes the benefit much more tangible for taxpayers'. This attempt at equity in a blisteringly expensive state makes more sense when viewed through the prism of the federal HUD 'housing first' laws around where money can be spent. Again it would be far better to have a nationwide match of properties to owners. A friend has calculated the billion+ spent by Cal on the unhoused could buy housing and wrap around services in other parts of the USA for virtually all the people asking for this.

twelve40 4y ago

a "welfare program" strictly for homeowners? this article is very weird.

akavi 4y ago
That's the joke. The article is intentionally being arch by using "welfare", a word that's usually used to refer to programs that give to the poor to refer to one giving money to the rich. It's making the point that "government handouts" are reviled when they go the poor, and accepted relatively uncritically when they go to the rich
- giantg2 4y ago
  I'd hardly call a reduction in "money we take from you" a "handout". The logic likely used by many in the group doing the accepting or reviling is whether the end result is a net contribution or not.
  - 0xbadcafebee 4y ago
    There is no qualification that a handout must come from someone that you have not, are not, and will not ever pay money to. A handout from your landlord is still a handout.
    - ohCh6zos 4y ago
      A mugger deciding to take my watch instead of my wallet is not a handout even if it leaves me better off than the other situation.
      - lostlogin 4y ago
        When the mugger paid for your healthcare, education, roads, services, safety and security, the equation is a little different. The above list will vary depending on your location.

treeman79 4y ago

My grandmother was on welfare. My mother was on welfare, my sister was on welfare. Sister wanted off welfare, but if she got a job she lost much more from welfare. So no reason to work. Then welfare got limited to 5 years or something. So she got a job as a bus driver. Been doing that for 20 years now. My dad got my mom off welfare and working. Welfare definitely was just keeping people in poverty and dependent on the government, and not being productive.

iancmceachern 4y ago
In some cases. In some cases the folks on welfare cannot be bus drivers, etc.
lend000 4y ago
Yep, another reason any welfare should be replaced with a UBI which isn't dependent on any circumstances.
- xboxnolifes 4y ago
  Or just a sublinear reduction in welfare compared to income.
  - lend000 4y ago
    That would be better, but I prefer the simpler solution. It also ensures there is no incentive to stop working.
- 8note 4y ago
  That's unrealistic -- some people, by their circumstances, have a more expensive life. Eg. If you need a wheelchair, that's another set of maintenance, with needed changes to all kinds of your living infrastructure, custom vs what somebody without a wheelchair needs.
  - lend000 4y ago
    Healthcare or disability welfare could be separate, perhaps, but for financial welfare we should never be giving cash handouts dependent on inevitably perverse incentives (staying impoverished).

noodlesUK 4y ago

This article is hilarious. It’s basically distilled flamebait that totally buries the fact that it’s satire until the very end.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pvg 4y ago
'modest proposal' is right at the top.
yonran 4y ago
The article is not really satire. It is describing Proposition 13 seriously and accurately. It is Proposition 13 that makes a mockery of welfare programs, and he’s right that everyone in California should learn its regressive design and consequences.
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  Why is Prop 13 welfare? This kind of logic results in net loss to citizens: https://time.com/5530386/aoc-amazon-new-york-hq2/ https://time.com/5530386/aoc-amazon-new-york-hq2/ Also, why are those against Prop 13 the most silent (usually) on corruption in the state?
  - yonran 4y ago
    > Why is Prop 13 welfare? When I talk to my dad about Proposition 13, the one thing he remembers about the ads is that it was supposed to keep widows and single moms from losing their house. In other words, he thinks of it as an entitlement program to help poor residents. But as the article points out, it is a subsidy not for the poor; it is instead a subsidy that regressively targets property owners (including landlords and commercial properties) at the expense of recent buyers and non-property owners (including widows and single moms who do not own an appreciating property). > This kind of logic results in net loss to citizens: > https://time.com/5530386/aoc-amazon-new-york-hq2/ https://time.com/5530386/aoc-amazon-new-york-hq2/ I agree with you that it is unfortunate that politicians such as AOC conflate economic development incentives with welfare. That has nothing to do with Proposition 13, which is not an incentive program. In fact, the incentives that Proposition 13 does contain (to avoid developing or selling which trigger reassessment) perversely exacerbate the housing scarcity that it was supposed to alleviate. > Also, why are those against Prop 13 the most silent (usually) on corruption in the state? Your final question seems to imply that opponents of Proposition 13 are a special interest who are ok with corruption. I disagree. I think an impartial observer can analyze the state’s largest entitlement program and complain about the obvious regressive aspects of it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

narrator 4y ago

More taxes are not the answer. In California, government employees get paid far more there than any other state and vs their private sector counterparts, have enormous pensions and are now the predominant members of the middle class in California. They live off the riches of the tech sector like the Saudis live off oil and benefit massively from prop 13 and other tax breaks. Peter Thiel did a great analysis of this. https://thepostmillennial.com/peter-thiel-on-the-tech-curse-of-california-at-the-national-conservatism-conference https://thepostmillennial.com/peter-thiel-on-the-tech-curse-... Besides, more tax revenue would make California worse. San Francisco used its huge tech windfall to spend $300 million a year on not that many homeless people. It did create a lot of those sweet government jobs and cost plus contracts though. All these government workers are now reliant on homelessness continuing to be a problem.

germandiago 4y ago
Reminds me of Spain. When public workers start to get more than private, bad things will start to happen. First: a bigger interest in intervention and keeping the system to keep votes. I know California has had a super strong economy but... if you go down this road it will be a matter of time. Even if it is decades. The problem with this is that once it starts it makes for a vicious circle that gets bigger and bigger and the ones who pay the increasing bills (private economy) get eventually pissed and leave. I heard many companies moving to Texas/Florida for having an increase in the tax that corporations pay.
- rsj_hn 4y ago
  Curious, did you live through that era in Spain? Do you have some stories to share?
  - germandiago 4y ago
    Driving now but stay tuned.
    - telotortium 4y ago

dools 4y ago

The federal government operates an even bigger and more efficient welfare program called the bond market!

Ekaros 4y ago
Not to forget the military...

jasmer 4y ago

One of so many policies with a nice headline. but which falls short of working well due to obvious, quite enormous externalizations. It is truly a paradox that you can buy something, like a normal home, but if home prices rise rapidly you can be out on your rump. A small property tax is effectively a huge wealth tax. People live a long time, one would imagine that 'property' of all things can't be taken from you? Perhaps all taxes should be adjusted for land prices as the ultimate arbiter of inflation? And more pragmatically, like many states, a single party has dominated the legislature for many decades, and we can see what ensues from that.

germandiago 4y ago
IMHO taxes on property should not exist. Well, probably taxes neither but on property definitely no.
- jasmer 4y ago
  They are form of wealth tax which is not nice, but they have pragmatic value for assessing consumption and also luxury consumption. A township might rightly charge more for services which are providing the economic value underpinning the property. And in many places, luxury taxes exist to tax 'non essential' forms of consumption in deference to things like investment, which is actually rational. Aka if your money is invested into value creating enterprise, it's not taxed the same way as your yacht or second mansion. That said, it can get excessive quickly.

dcow 4y ago

Why is this flagged?

kweingar 4y ago
I’m guessing that person who flagged this felt misled by the title, since Americans read the phrase “welfare program” as “benefits for the poor”, while this article describes a benefit for homeowners.
- keybored 4y ago
  If so those users should be flagged for being politically illiterate. Reframing, satire, and turning the opponent’s talking points around on them are common rhetorical and polemical tools. Does someone who is in favor of welfare for the poor have to be obligated to blindly accept the Reaganite “welfare Queen” angle? Of course not. In fact, why not turn it back on the middle/upper middle class?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dang 4y ago

"Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22level%20playing%20field%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

telotortium 4y ago
Ok, understood.

hindsightbias 4y ago

It’s always humorous how HN hates a proposition which was basically a conservative backlash to big government growth. wiki: 71% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats, and 61% of independents; 54% of people age 18 to 34, 52% of people age 35 to 54, and 66% of people 55 and older; 65% of homeowners and 50% of renters. Everyone in utopia TX would vote for this prop today.