3 ms·
The key phrase here is “regardless of household income.” There’s a very simple way to make sure rich people don’t get free shit, and that’s capping stuff like t
by isykt 3y ago
The key phrase here is “regardless of household income.” There’s a very simple way to make sure rich people don’t get free shit, and that’s capping stuff like this so that rich people don’t get to take advantage of it.
I’ll give you an example: there is no universe in which I personally ought to have had my student loans forgiven. My household income tipped into the seven figures during the pandemic. But some debt forgiveness advocates insisted on cancelling “all student debt, no exceptions.” Absolutely not!
- InitialLastName 3y agoOn the other hand, it's entirely possible that adding a rule that requires an administrator to figure out who is too wealthy to deserve some benefit and an enforcement arm to chase down and punish people who utilize a benefit that they are too wealthy to deserve is more expensive than the benefit (some) wealthy people would gain if the benefit were universal.
- isykt 3y agoAnother poster in this comment thread said that the money is clawed back automatically through tax returns. So which is it?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> which is it? The answer obviously depends on the specifics of the system in question.
- isykt 3y agoThe system in question is the one linked in the article :)
- avgDev 3y agoCongrats on 7 figures! That is a pretty sweet income.
- foogazi 3y agoNow you are free to take those would be payments and donate them to someone not as lucky as you. You can help payoff someone else’s debt just as Uncle Sam paid for yours. It evens out in the end