3 ms·

> I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs This is such awild thing to say. What do you think the point of society is? Also, there is no way you "T

> I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs This is such awild thing to say. What do you think the point of society is? Also, there is no way you "Totally agree" if at the same time you are saying this. Also if you understand the cost of incarceration and the negative social ills of poverty, then being against social programs, broadly, makes no sense.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
hellojesus 8mo ago
Social programs are definitionaly nonpublic. That is, they do not provide nonrivalous and nonexcludable benefits. The proper method to administrate social benefits is via charity. In this way, there is no deadweight loss through unnecessary taxes.
- fzeroracer 8mo ago
  > The proper method to administrate social benefits is via charity. In this way, there is no deadweight loss through unnecessary taxes. We've tried this for years, it doesn't work at scale. And the end result is that you and I are still taxed, just more expensively and differently. We pay more for cops, prisons, healthcare etc because we're unwilling to solve it at scale.
  - hellojesus 8mo ago
    When did we try this? I'd argue we haven't tried it since the 16th Ammendment went into effect. This isn't a problem that needs solving at scale. It's a problem that needs local/hyperlocal solutions with very strict strings attached. If we're not able to monitor the outcomes of each participant and ensure not a single drop of benefits aren't spent on no essentials (self improvement allowable), then we are wasting dollars on lazy.
    - fzeroracer 8mo ago
      > This isn't a problem that needs solving at scale. If it's a problem across the US, in multiple states then yes. It's a problem that needs to be solved at scale, because it's a problem innate to the US. > It's a problem that needs local/hyperlocal solutions with very strict strings attached. Means-testing doesn't work either. It's been tried. It usually means 'convert to our religion or you get no benefits' or 'gays do not apply'. See: Salvation Army. > If we're not able to monitor the outcomes of each participant and ensure not a single drop of benefits aren't spent on no essentials (self improvement allowable), then we are wasting dollars on lazy. This is just the usual 'lazy poor' rhetoric. It's out of date by about 15 years.
      - hellojesus 8mo ago
        > It usually means 'convert to our religion or you get no benefits' or 'gays do not apply'. See: Salvation Army. I fail to see how this is a problem. Beggers can't be choosers. If you need help, it may not be the worst thing to follow some guidance from folks that have figured things out. Note: Christian faiths would likely preach against queerness but not use it as a disqualifying event. At most they would state that the lifestyle isn't consistent with scripture. (of course extremes exist). I'll have to look up on literature about means testing. I still fail to see how some person's poor decisions across the country should affect me. It should be a local issue to resolve governmentally. I'm sure the country would open their arms voluntarily if prompted. See Grover Cleveland and the farm disaster.
        fzeroracer 8mo ago
        > I fail to see how this is a problem. Beggers can't be choosers. If you need help, it may not be the worst thing to follow some guidance from folks that have figured things out. Note: Christian faiths would likely preach against queerness but not use it as a disqualifying event. At most they would state that the lifestyle isn't consistent with scripture. (of course extremes exist). No, but charities can be choosers and beggers don't get a choice. I literally just pointed out a charity which does exactly what I said, one of the biggest charities in the US and the greatest example of how just relying on charity doesn't work, especially as they behave contrary to the literal scripture. > I'll have to look up on literature about means testing. I still fail to see how some person's poor decisions across the country should affect me. It will always affect you. Who do you think pays for when people have to go to the hospital and seek aid? Or when our 'charity' fails and people that would otherwise be fine with things like unemployment aid end up homeless? Or when we need more police because people who need medication or food can't afford it? It's you and me.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

hellojesus 8mo ago

Social programs are definitionaly nonpublic. That is, they do not provide nonrivalous and nonexcludable benefits. The proper method to administrate social benefits is via charity. In this way, there is no deadweight loss through unnecessary taxes.

fzeroracer 8mo ago
> The proper method to administrate social benefits is via charity. In this way, there is no deadweight loss through unnecessary taxes. We've tried this for years, it doesn't work at scale. And the end result is that you and I are still taxed, just more expensively and differently. We pay more for cops, prisons, healthcare etc because we're unwilling to solve it at scale.
- hellojesus 8mo ago
  When did we try this? I'd argue we haven't tried it since the 16th Ammendment went into effect. This isn't a problem that needs solving at scale. It's a problem that needs local/hyperlocal solutions with very strict strings attached. If we're not able to monitor the outcomes of each participant and ensure not a single drop of benefits aren't spent on no essentials (self improvement allowable), then we are wasting dollars on lazy.
  - fzeroracer 8mo ago
    > This isn't a problem that needs solving at scale. If it's a problem across the US, in multiple states then yes. It's a problem that needs to be solved at scale, because it's a problem innate to the US. > It's a problem that needs local/hyperlocal solutions with very strict strings attached. Means-testing doesn't work either. It's been tried. It usually means 'convert to our religion or you get no benefits' or 'gays do not apply'. See: Salvation Army. > If we're not able to monitor the outcomes of each participant and ensure not a single drop of benefits aren't spent on no essentials (self improvement allowable), then we are wasting dollars on lazy. This is just the usual 'lazy poor' rhetoric. It's out of date by about 15 years.
    - hellojesus 8mo ago
      > It usually means 'convert to our religion or you get no benefits' or 'gays do not apply'. See: Salvation Army. I fail to see how this is a problem. Beggers can't be choosers. If you need help, it may not be the worst thing to follow some guidance from folks that have figured things out. Note: Christian faiths would likely preach against queerness but not use it as a disqualifying event. At most they would state that the lifestyle isn't consistent with scripture. (of course extremes exist). I'll have to look up on literature about means testing. I still fail to see how some person's poor decisions across the country should affect me. It should be a local issue to resolve governmentally. I'm sure the country would open their arms voluntarily if prompted. See Grover Cleveland and the farm disaster.
      - fzeroracer 8mo ago
        > I fail to see how this is a problem. Beggers can't be choosers. If you need help, it may not be the worst thing to follow some guidance from folks that have figured things out. Note: Christian faiths would likely preach against queerness but not use it as a disqualifying event. At most they would state that the lifestyle isn't consistent with scripture. (of course extremes exist). No, but charities can be choosers and beggers don't get a choice. I literally just pointed out a charity which does exactly what I said, one of the biggest charities in the US and the greatest example of how just relying on charity doesn't work, especially as they behave contrary to the literal scripture. > I'll have to look up on literature about means testing. I still fail to see how some person's poor decisions across the country should affect me. It will always affect you. Who do you think pays for when people have to go to the hospital and seek aid? Or when our 'charity' fails and people that would otherwise be fine with things like unemployment aid end up homeless? Or when we need more police because people who need medication or food can't afford it? It's you and me.