5 ms·
This program was not for the "poor". I know because I got this discount, and I do not need it at all.
by silent_cal 3y ago
This program was not for the "poor". I know because I got this discount, and I do not need it at all.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 3y agoA program can be intended to help the poor and also create situations where people who have less need / no heed for help might be included. The world is complicated and sometimes it's easier and cheaper to allow this versus the kind of investigation, data analysis, and administrative overhead needed to more accurately target the benefit.
- silent_cal 3y agoMy family is at least 4x the poverty level income.
- hazmazlaz 3y agoIf you're in the US, this is still relatively poor. Not to be insulting to your family at all, just my opinion that the official Poverty Level criteria is ridiculous compared to actual cost of living in most places in the US.
- silent_cal 3y agoYes there is some truth to this. But I live in a State with very low cost of living compared to others. If I lived in Los Angeles on this income I might be in trouble.
- shadowfiend 3y agoJust to make sure I understand—you're saying that because your family, which is 4x the poverty level income, got this discount, and did not need it, you believe that this program did not help people under the poverty line? Or is it that because your family, which is 4x the poverty level income, got this discount, and did not need it, you believe this program was not meant to help people under the poverty line? Which is to say, can you make your point more precisely?
- silent_cal 3y agoThe second one - it's not meant to help the poor only. They just use that language to make it more popular. It should be more difficult to qualify for this program, such that people well over the poverty level like me would not receive it.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 3y agoWhat's the rate of error you're willing to tolerate in such a system, and what does it cost to achieve that rate? There is a breakpoint in those numbers where it becomes cheaper to allow some error.
- silent_cal 3y agoIt's not cheaper to allow error when the error is the only thing driving excess cost.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 3y agoWhat evidence do you have that erroneous benefits are the only thing driving excess cost? Do you feel that correcting the errors can be done with no cost whatsoever? We can argue about where that break point is, but the break point absolutely exists. There is a level of verification / enforcement that will cost more than what you're getting back through reduction of erroneously distributed benefits.
- jauntywundrkind 3y agoCongrats to this thread for intelligently considerately tugging at the thread here. I have such a hard time staying so level. It's so obvious to me what a a benefit internet connectivity is to this nation. Giving families access will set people on far better paths, will have economic returns for the nation. The costs here seem not bad. I'm definitely not worried about a couple arguably less deserving people getting access, especially given the relatively minor pay-out involved. It seems obviously not worth it to care so intensely about some borderline cases of oh you make $62k now (or whatever), sorry you are cut off now. Ideally we would be figuring out how to make connectivity a public utility, as so many municipalities have done over the world, greatly reducing cost and increasing speed. But in America we keep having to pay businesses to do things at enormous costs, protect their absurd profit margins, because in part there's so much fear & angst around government & public ownership.
- beardyw 3y agoYes, you don't understand. We get it.
- tharmas 3y agoThere's also the argument that your taxes paid for it so you're entitled to it too. Hence why Paul McCartney gets a monthly senior's bus pass in the UK. Its also cheaper to "dispense" it universally as you don't have to hire bureaucrats to means test if you're entitled to it. The problem with politicians on both sides of the aisle is they seem steeped in Ideological thinking rather than logical thinking. This I think is a sign of decline.
- silent_cal 3y agoYeah I think there's a great argument to be made for that. I wish all my tax money went to stuff like this. But in that case it's not a benefit for the poor, it's a benefit for the taxpayer. It's the false advertising that I take issue with.
- josefresco 3y agoWhat was your household income and how many occupants?
- silent_cal 3y agoOver 100k, 2 parents and a baby. But the baby came in December.
- josefresco 3y agoI'm no expert (and couldn't find income ranges) but on the calculator I believe the cut off for a family of 4 is $60K (it varies state-by-state). There are also other eligibility options. Source: https://verify.affordableconnectivity.gov https://verify.affordableconnectivity.gov
- silent_cal 3y agoMy ISP sent me an email and invited me to apply, so I did and was accepted. And yes, I filled out the form accurately.
- alphabettsy 3y agoSo you don’t qualify for the program according to the guidelines but it was still given how?
- silent_cal 3y agoI have no idea. My internet provider asked me to apply, so I did and was accepted. And no, I did not falsify my income.