6 ms·

At least in the government, there should be a law that any hypothetical scenario where someone making more money before government taxes/incentives would cause

At least in the government, there should be a law that any hypothetical scenario where someone making more money before government taxes/incentives would cause them to earn less after, must be quickly resolved by replacing hard cutoffs with gradients. No benefits should apply 100% for anyone making under a certain amount and 0% for anyone making over. Instead there should be a range they slowly decrease, so that if you make $1 more before the benefit you still get less than $1 after. Maybe even a lot less, like only $.30. But you should never lose money. This is obvious. It goes to show how bad beaurocracy and subtle misaligned incentives are that these hard cutoffs ever existed in the first place.

throwitaway222 3y ago
This is why people don't want to pay taxes at all
baggy_trough 3y ago
It all comes back to the fact that government is a low accountability sector, despite what many people seem to think.
- callalex 3y ago
  What is the point of saying something like this? Would you prefer that people just not bother to do anything and let poor people starve to death instead?
  - RhodesianHunter 3y ago
    The "starve the beast" propaganda has been wildly successful and is seeded deep in American culture and psyche.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      "Vote for me and I'll show you how bad I can make government" has been supremely effective, somehow
      - pierat 3y ago
        Republicans want to cut funding to programs, then point at how bad the underfunded program is doing, thus demanding more cuts. Either the result is the department is killed, or is on a shoestring budget and everyone hates them. Many were welcomed departments doing good works. People eventually tire of chronically underfunded gov depts, and vote the other side. Democrats want more taxes, which inevitable come from middle class, not being able to get it from the poor or rich. Then they set laws in those programs as "means testing", where the poor get the benefits, and the middle class doesn't. The rich never needed it. The middle class tire of paying for everything and getting nothing, and vote the other side. And, that pendulum swings back and forth. And that's how we get this horrible ass-backward system we have. And going back to first principles and doing is right is "against the other side!".
  - baggy_trough 3y ago
    It's important to deal with reality as it is. Perhaps government is not always the best way to prevent poor people from starving to death.
    - tomrod 3y ago
      If we anticipate the private or nonprofit providers might perform poverty alleviation more optimally, we (1) massively duplicate fixed costs for logistics (2) ignore that a primary reason governments exist at all is to help prevent people from starving to death, despite it often being hijacked by powermongers Just gotta say, that's a pretty extreme position to take.
    - mcculley 3y ago
      The private charities that fill the gaps left open by government are another form of government, just not democratically elected. (I realized I was contributing to that problem by donating to local charities.)
  - creer 3y ago
    That won't change until there is wide enough demand to change it. Broad recognition will come long before the changes.
euroderf 3y ago
Replace one number (the cutoff) with two (the start and end of sliding part).
throwaway59148 3y ago
[dead]
orangecat 3y ago
Right, and this is one of the reasons why I support a UBI that replaces most existing welfare programs. Amazingly some people criticize UBI on the grounds that it removes the incentive to work, when it's almost exactly the opposite.
- lannisterstark 3y ago
  Funnily, I'm okay with people not working if they didn't want to. Most people would end up getting bored doing nothing after a few months and work with what they like to do anyway.
  - GolfPopper 3y ago
    But, "what they like to do" isn't necessarily anything that will make billionaires more money.
  - gottorf 3y ago
    Devil's advocate: the longer you stay away from gainful employment, the more marketable skills you lose. (This is one of the arguments against a minimum wage; that it keeps low-skill and therefore low-pay labor from establishing a foothold in the labor marketplace that would enable them to up-skill over time.) So UBI would incentivize the creation of a permanently unemployable underclass. I'm OK with people not working if they don't want to, too, as long as those people are OK with subsistence-level living standards. I don't see why able-bodied people who are capable of working but just don't want to should live a comfortable life at the expense of the working taxpayer.
    - lannisterstark 3y ago
      > as long as those people are OK with subsistence-level living standards. I mean, UBI never meant "Extravagant money." It has always meant something akin to "basic standards for survival." The entire idea from what I understand is that you should be able to survive just fine, not have it pay for your 98" micro OLED :P > the longer you stay away from gainful employment, the more marketable skills you lose. I sorta relate to this as someone who's been coasting by at my current job for last year or so. But I'm also working to upskill myself actively. You bring a good point but I don't know what teh solution to that would be.
dclowd9901 3y ago
These kinds of anti patterns are quite intentional and meant to drum up resentment for government programs for all sides of the argument.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> At least in the government, there should be a law that any hypothetical scenario where someone making more money before government taxes/incentives would cause them to earn less after, must be quickly resolved by replacing hard cutoffs with gradients. Multiple programs, offered by different jurisdictions, with overlapping populations, each with sliding scale benefits that reduce less than $1 of benefit for each $ of income, still can (and do) end up with beneficiaries losing in net with additional income. But instead of doing so at particular cliff points associated with each program, they do so continually over a wide range. You replace a series of cliffs with a slide.

throwitaway222 3y ago

This is why people don't want to pay taxes at all

baggy_trough 3y ago

It all comes back to the fact that government is a low accountability sector, despite what many people seem to think.

callalex 3y ago
What is the point of saying something like this? Would you prefer that people just not bother to do anything and let poor people starve to death instead?
- RhodesianHunter 3y ago
  The "starve the beast" propaganda has been wildly successful and is seeded deep in American culture and psyche.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    "Vote for me and I'll show you how bad I can make government" has been supremely effective, somehow
    - pierat 3y ago
      Republicans want to cut funding to programs, then point at how bad the underfunded program is doing, thus demanding more cuts. Either the result is the department is killed, or is on a shoestring budget and everyone hates them. Many were welcomed departments doing good works. People eventually tire of chronically underfunded gov depts, and vote the other side. Democrats want more taxes, which inevitable come from middle class, not being able to get it from the poor or rich. Then they set laws in those programs as "means testing", where the poor get the benefits, and the middle class doesn't. The rich never needed it. The middle class tire of paying for everything and getting nothing, and vote the other side. And, that pendulum swings back and forth. And that's how we get this horrible ass-backward system we have. And going back to first principles and doing is right is "against the other side!".
- baggy_trough 3y ago
  It's important to deal with reality as it is. Perhaps government is not always the best way to prevent poor people from starving to death.
  - tomrod 3y ago
    If we anticipate the private or nonprofit providers might perform poverty alleviation more optimally, we (1) massively duplicate fixed costs for logistics (2) ignore that a primary reason governments exist at all is to help prevent people from starving to death, despite it often being hijacked by powermongers Just gotta say, that's a pretty extreme position to take.
  - mcculley 3y ago
    The private charities that fill the gaps left open by government are another form of government, just not democratically elected. (I realized I was contributing to that problem by donating to local charities.)
- creer 3y ago
  That won't change until there is wide enough demand to change it. Broad recognition will come long before the changes.

euroderf 3y ago

Replace one number (the cutoff) with two (the start and end of sliding part).

throwaway59148 3y ago

[dead]

orangecat 3y ago

Right, and this is one of the reasons why I support a UBI that replaces most existing welfare programs. Amazingly some people criticize UBI on the grounds that it removes the incentive to work, when it's almost exactly the opposite.

lannisterstark 3y ago
Funnily, I'm okay with people not working if they didn't want to. Most people would end up getting bored doing nothing after a few months and work with what they like to do anyway.
- GolfPopper 3y ago
  But, "what they like to do" isn't necessarily anything that will make billionaires more money.
- gottorf 3y ago
  Devil's advocate: the longer you stay away from gainful employment, the more marketable skills you lose. (This is one of the arguments against a minimum wage; that it keeps low-skill and therefore low-pay labor from establishing a foothold in the labor marketplace that would enable them to up-skill over time.) So UBI would incentivize the creation of a permanently unemployable underclass. I'm OK with people not working if they don't want to, too, as long as those people are OK with subsistence-level living standards. I don't see why able-bodied people who are capable of working but just don't want to should live a comfortable life at the expense of the working taxpayer.
  - lannisterstark 3y ago
    > as long as those people are OK with subsistence-level living standards. I mean, UBI never meant "Extravagant money." It has always meant something akin to "basic standards for survival." The entire idea from what I understand is that you should be able to survive just fine, not have it pay for your 98" micro OLED :P > the longer you stay away from gainful employment, the more marketable skills you lose. I sorta relate to this as someone who's been coasting by at my current job for last year or so. But I'm also working to upskill myself actively. You bring a good point but I don't know what teh solution to that would be.

dclowd9901 3y ago

These kinds of anti patterns are quite intentional and meant to drum up resentment for government programs for all sides of the argument.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> At least in the government, there should be a law that any hypothetical scenario where someone making more money before government taxes/incentives would cause them to earn less after, must be quickly resolved by replacing hard cutoffs with gradients. Multiple programs, offered by different jurisdictions, with overlapping populations, each with sliding scale benefits that reduce less than $1 of benefit for each $ of income, still can (and do) end up with beneficiaries losing in net with additional income. But instead of doing so at particular cliff points associated with each program, they do so continually over a wide range. You replace a series of cliffs with a slide.