5 ms·

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

• 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.
        • ZeroGravitas 4y ago
          And you also send the same "mugger" to evict people from property you own, to reclaim debts you are contractually owed, and to tax people who use your intellectual property.
        • ohCh6zos 4y ago
          Does that imply that any amount of money received came from the government, because the government had the ability to take more but decided not to pursue taking more?
          • lostlogin 4y ago
            Why would it? The analogy is pointless. Discussing the actual situation is more productive.
        • cscurmudgeon 4y ago
          Same logic the mafia uses as you are paying for "protection" > When the mugger paid for your healthcare, education, roads, services, safety and security, the equation is a little different. Why did you leave out corruption? Are you implying none of our tax dollars go to waste and corruption? https://calmatters.org/commentary/2021/10/california-sees-wave-of-political-corruption/ https://calmatters.org/commentary/2021/10/california-sees-wa... https://missionlocal.org/2021/03/san-francisco-corruption/ https://missionlocal.org/2021/03/san-francisco-corruption/ I am okay not having million dollar toilets https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/bayarea/heatherknight/article/million-dollar-toilet-17518443.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/bayarea/heatherknight/article... Interestingly, the article does not classify money lost to corrupt state officials as welfare. Why? A slightly intelligent satire piece would have used corruption as welfare :)
          • lostlogin 4y ago
            > Why did you leave out corruption? In New Zealand this is a very small problem and we are arguably the least corrupt place on earth. I forgot it exists. https://www.transparency.org.nz/corruption-perceptions-index https://www.transparency.org.nz/corruption-perceptions-index
            • cscurmudgeon 4y ago
              Yes, but the article is about California. I am not sure how that is relevant. Also, New Zealand's population is less than that of SF Bay Area and one of the lowest density states in the world (hence more per capita access to resources). There will be similar sized patches in the US with similar levels of low corruption.
    • JamesianP 4y ago
      I'm guessing the IRS won't buy this logic. Also reminds me of some infamous accounting scandals.
  • kweingar 4y ago
    > I'd hardly call a reduction in "money we take from you" a "handout". This always ends up being a metaphysical debate. It’s all relative. Suppose I make $100,000 and after taxes $80,000 is left. After a new law is passed, I now take home $81,000 after taxes on the same income. Does it really matter if the government gave me an untaxed $1,000 “handout” check or if they “reduced the money they take from me” by cutting my taxes by $1,000? Politicians play this game all the time, implementing social spending as tax credits and rewarding the wealthy with tax breaks.
    • RhysU 4y ago
      > Does it really matter if the government gave me an untaxed $1,000 “handout” check or if they “reduced the money they take from me” by cutting my taxes by $1,000? Yes, it matters. First, reducing what they take is more efficient than inventing new bureaucracy to send out checks. Second, I cannot rely on a random bonus but I can rely on the taxation tables therefore I am more likely to plan on doing something useful with reduction.
      • anonyme-honteux 4y ago
        Actually sending money directly to the poor is a very efficient form of government program. It's the exact contrary of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is deciding for the poor what they are allowed to do with the money on the wrong assumption that they wouldn't know better than you what to do with it. In fact the less money you have, the more careful you are with it. Obviously. And at the extreme end of the spectrum, if you are rich like Elon Musk, you spend 44 billions on something dumb.
      • cool_dude85 4y ago
        >First, reducing what they take is more efficient than inventing new bureaucracy to send out checks. No, this depends on the specifics. If they are sending every tax filer an extra 1000 then that would be very efficient (setting aside those people who do not file federal taxes). If the tax reduction is complex, requires knowledge of complicated eligibility criteria, going in person to a local SS office or for a notary public, it's very inefficient. As a general rule, then, this claim is bogus.
• bioemerl 4y ago
  I understand the joke, but it's really bad choice of title. California also probably runs one of the largest most efficient welfare programs in a literal sense, and if I hadn't seen these comments that's what I would have assumed this article was about.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • JamesianP 4y ago
    Does it? I wouldn't be surprised if it's horrifically inefficient with all that money to play with.