3 ms·

Hm, I'm wondering why "paid family leave" is listed as if anyone is suggesting the government pay for it. When I have heard discussion of paid leave, it's alwa

Hm, I'm wondering why "paid family leave" is listed as if anyone is suggesting the government pay for it. When I have heard discussion of paid leave, it's always been "mandate companies provide it", not "federal government pays a stipend". In "Build and support affordable housing", it lists a large increase in debt. Does that calculation take into account likely savings for local and state entities and hospitals? I get it's a federal calculator, but it feels somewhat myopic. I guess the same could be said by a military hawk, who may assert "Sure, cut spending by $450B in ten years, but World War 3 will cost $10T!"

roenxi 2y ago
> Hm, I'm wondering why "paid family leave" is listed as if anyone is suggesting the government pay for it. This vaguely reminds me of that classic "Americans will eventually do the right thing after thoroughly exploring all the alternatives" quote. The issue, at the highest level, is that the political process has agreed how much redistribution needs to happen and how much taxation is reasonable. The two numbers don't match, the situation is impossible to sustain and needs to be renegotiated - either more taxation or less redistributing. It doesn't really matter if the redistributing is officially handled via the government or forced to happen as a direct payment from taxee to welfare recipient. That is still settling the negotiation by saying that the taxpayers need to pay more. It is a little less administratively efficient to officially route it through the government but frankly I think that is a better idea. The US political consensus seems to be heading towards "we'll settle this by raising taxes, but we'll do it through payroll, inflation and corporate tax to try and disguise who is paying". That is a lousy strategy that will result in people getting poorer, not understanding why and lashing out randomly because they can sense at some level that they are worse off.
- velcrovan 2y ago
  > It is a little less administratively efficient to officially route it through the government but frankly I think that is a better idea. It is massively more efficient at a macro level for the government to handle it, than to make every single employer manage it redundantly and often poorly. The SSA already handles payments to millions of Americans monthly with low operational overhead. Have them send out these and other safety net checks, and if you want to means test it, claw it back from high earners after the fact at tax return time.
- pkaye 2y ago
  > This vaguely reminds me of that classic "Americans will eventually do the right thing after thoroughly exploring all the alternatives" quote. Apparently this quote originates from another quote that didn't refer to any specific country. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/11/11/exhaust-alternatives/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/11/11/exhaust-alternative...

roenxi 2y ago

> Hm, I'm wondering why "paid family leave" is listed as if anyone is suggesting the government pay for it. This vaguely reminds me of that classic "Americans will eventually do the right thing after thoroughly exploring all the alternatives" quote. The issue, at the highest level, is that the political process has agreed how much redistribution needs to happen and how much taxation is reasonable. The two numbers don't match, the situation is impossible to sustain and needs to be renegotiated - either more taxation or less redistributing. It doesn't really matter if the redistributing is officially handled via the government or forced to happen as a direct payment from taxee to welfare recipient. That is still settling the negotiation by saying that the taxpayers need to pay more. It is a little less administratively efficient to officially route it through the government but frankly I think that is a better idea. The US political consensus seems to be heading towards "we'll settle this by raising taxes, but we'll do it through payroll, inflation and corporate tax to try and disguise who is paying". That is a lousy strategy that will result in people getting poorer, not understanding why and lashing out randomly because they can sense at some level that they are worse off.

velcrovan 2y ago
> It is a little less administratively efficient to officially route it through the government but frankly I think that is a better idea. It is massively more efficient at a macro level for the government to handle it, than to make every single employer manage it redundantly and often poorly. The SSA already handles payments to millions of Americans monthly with low operational overhead. Have them send out these and other safety net checks, and if you want to means test it, claw it back from high earners after the fact at tax return time.
pkaye 2y ago
> This vaguely reminds me of that classic "Americans will eventually do the right thing after thoroughly exploring all the alternatives" quote. Apparently this quote originates from another quote that didn't refer to any specific country. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/11/11/exhaust-alternatives/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/11/11/exhaust-alternative...