6 ms·

> The frustrating thing about this program is that it is not possible to avail of this unless you are ALREADY an artist. Frankly we don’t know the selection cr

by krisoft 8mo ago

> The frustrating thing about this program is that it is not possible to avail of this unless you are ALREADY an artist. Frankly we don’t know the selection criteria for the program this year. It will be only released in April. But we know the selection criteria for the pilot program, and for that this was not true. > So if you gave up art because you had bills and kids and needed to support yourself or a family, you're SOL. Again we don’t know the full program’s eligibility criteria yet. Under the pilot program there were two separate streams. Those who were recently trained, and those who were “practicing artist”. Your hypothetical “artist who gave up art” might fall into the “recently trained” stream and thus be eligible. Or if they gave up on art a long ago (more than 5 years), there are ways they can get back to it. They can start practicing their art on the side again, produce a portfolio of work and thus become eligible again. They don’t need to be full time artist for this. > The only person I know getting this money In the pilot program they randomly selected 2000 participants from those who where eligible. So to get the money in the pilot program you both needed to be eligible, have applied for it, and be lucky enough in the lottery. Because of this lottery whoever is getting it today is not representative of who is all eligible for it.

Azrael3000 8mo ago
Additionally i would argue that in every such programm there will be people that abuse the system. Just because gp knows one such person, does not mean that everybody will be doing that. The article also mentions that overall the program had a positive impact.
- Griffinsauce 8mo ago
  There is generally a heavy bias to focusing on abuse instead of outcomes. Who cares that there are some false positives if there is a net benefit, it's just noise.
  - bobim 8mo ago
    Then make it an universal income, because deep down everyone is an artist waiting to be revealed.
  - inglor_cz 8mo ago
    Every special interest will claim that "give more money to us" leads to better societal outcomes.
    - joe_mamba 8mo ago
      This. I've never met anyone in any setting that complained about receiving too much money. If you ask pensioners if they should get higher pensions, they'll say YES. If you ask students if they should get more subsidies, they'll say YES. If you ask unemployed people if they should raise unemployment benefits, they'll say YES. If you ask people on minimum wage if they should raise the minimum wage, they'll say YES. Everyone is quick to be very generous when it's from other peoples' money without accounting for the second order effects of those decisions, which is especially a big problem of the extended welfare state, since everyone pays taxes and so then everyone wants more and more subsidies so they can feel they're getting their money's worth out of the system, or else they feel cheated.
      - jasonkester 8mo ago
        I'm pretty sure I'm on record here on HN complaining about receiving covid relief checks that I don't need, and that I would much rather that money went to people who were actually struggling. Personally, I want people on the high end of earnings (such as myself) to be taxed more so that a basic income scheme like this can be available for anybody who wants it. Charge me an extra $300/month and give it to some random 24 year old so that he can smoke weed and play his guitar. He'll get more use out of it than I will. One day, that kid will decide that living in a crap shared apartment is getting a bit old and he'll grow some ambition, get a real job, and eventually start earning enough to help sponsor the next round of deadbeats.
        TheSpiceIsLife 8mo ago
        > One day, that kid will decide that living in a crap shared apartment is getting a bit old and he'll grow some ambition, get a real job, and eventually start earning enough to help sponsor the next round of deadbeats. Wow! You’re optimistic! The data shows that having at least one patent on welfare is a strong predictor that a child will grow up to spend their life on welfare. Having both parents on welfare almost guarantees it. Having single young men on welfare is one of the worst things a society can do for young men. They’d be much better off spending four years in compulsory service and learning to be useful.
  - waterhouse 8mo ago
    A general reason to focus on abuse instead of immediately visible outcomes: if the abuse is not dealt with properly, then that may lead to the abuse becoming increasingly widespread and blatant, which will affect future outcomes.
    - plastic-enjoyer 8mo ago
      That is a fairly common argument, but I have yet to see any evidence to support it. In Germany, we are having a similar discussion about the Bürgergeld, i.e. unemployment benefit, which is about people abusing the Bürgergeld to the detriment of taxpayers. However, there is no actual data that show that there are a significant number of people who abuse unemployment benefits in any systematic way. The money that the state loses through tax evasion or the exploitation of tax loopholes is much higher than the money that the state loses through unjustified claims for unemployment benefits. Nevertheless, there are constant calls to further reduce unemployment benefits or make it harder to get and the argument is always something like: There is a thing that is good and benefits people but is abused by a minority, thus we should abolish the good thing.
      - dontwannahearit 8mo ago
        In the UK since 2019–20, disability benefit spending has grown by 45% in real terms and incapacity benefit spending by 26%. https://ifs.org.uk/publications/health-related-benefit-claims-post-pandemic-uk-trends-and-global-context https://ifs.org.uk/publications/health-related-benefit-claim... You can argue that nobody is systematically abusing the system but numbers go up. To those paying the taxes to support these benefits that sort of growth looks like abuse.
        squigz 8mo ago
        What might have happened around 2020 that would result in more people not being able to work and requiring assistance?
        plastic-enjoyer 8mo ago
        > You can argue that nobody is systematically abusing the system but numbers go up. > To those paying the taxes to support these benefits that sort of growth looks like abuse. Yes, but for 'tax payers' everything looks like abuse until they benefit from the services for which they pay taxes. The favorite hobby of people whose identity is shaped by being a taxpayer is to complain about paying taxes.
  - deaux 8mo ago
    Crabs in a bucket.

by krisoft 8mo ago

Azrael3000 8mo ago

Additionally i would argue that in every such programm there will be people that abuse the system. Just because gp knows one such person, does not mean that everybody will be doing that. The article also mentions that overall the program had a positive impact.

Griffinsauce 8mo ago
There is generally a heavy bias to focusing on abuse instead of outcomes. Who cares that there are some false positives if there is a net benefit, it's just noise.
- bobim 8mo ago
  Then make it an universal income, because deep down everyone is an artist waiting to be revealed.
- inglor_cz 8mo ago
  Every special interest will claim that "give more money to us" leads to better societal outcomes.
  - joe_mamba 8mo ago
    This. I've never met anyone in any setting that complained about receiving too much money. If you ask pensioners if they should get higher pensions, they'll say YES. If you ask students if they should get more subsidies, they'll say YES. If you ask unemployed people if they should raise unemployment benefits, they'll say YES. If you ask people on minimum wage if they should raise the minimum wage, they'll say YES. Everyone is quick to be very generous when it's from other peoples' money without accounting for the second order effects of those decisions, which is especially a big problem of the extended welfare state, since everyone pays taxes and so then everyone wants more and more subsidies so they can feel they're getting their money's worth out of the system, or else they feel cheated.
    - jasonkester 8mo ago
      I'm pretty sure I'm on record here on HN complaining about receiving covid relief checks that I don't need, and that I would much rather that money went to people who were actually struggling. Personally, I want people on the high end of earnings (such as myself) to be taxed more so that a basic income scheme like this can be available for anybody who wants it. Charge me an extra $300/month and give it to some random 24 year old so that he can smoke weed and play his guitar. He'll get more use out of it than I will. One day, that kid will decide that living in a crap shared apartment is getting a bit old and he'll grow some ambition, get a real job, and eventually start earning enough to help sponsor the next round of deadbeats.
      - TheSpiceIsLife 8mo ago
        > One day, that kid will decide that living in a crap shared apartment is getting a bit old and he'll grow some ambition, get a real job, and eventually start earning enough to help sponsor the next round of deadbeats. Wow! You’re optimistic! The data shows that having at least one patent on welfare is a strong predictor that a child will grow up to spend their life on welfare. Having both parents on welfare almost guarantees it. Having single young men on welfare is one of the worst things a society can do for young men. They’d be much better off spending four years in compulsory service and learning to be useful.
- waterhouse 8mo ago
  A general reason to focus on abuse instead of immediately visible outcomes: if the abuse is not dealt with properly, then that may lead to the abuse becoming increasingly widespread and blatant, which will affect future outcomes.
  - plastic-enjoyer 8mo ago
    That is a fairly common argument, but I have yet to see any evidence to support it. In Germany, we are having a similar discussion about the Bürgergeld, i.e. unemployment benefit, which is about people abusing the Bürgergeld to the detriment of taxpayers. However, there is no actual data that show that there are a significant number of people who abuse unemployment benefits in any systematic way. The money that the state loses through tax evasion or the exploitation of tax loopholes is much higher than the money that the state loses through unjustified claims for unemployment benefits. Nevertheless, there are constant calls to further reduce unemployment benefits or make it harder to get and the argument is always something like: There is a thing that is good and benefits people but is abused by a minority, thus we should abolish the good thing.
    - dontwannahearit 8mo ago
      In the UK since 2019–20, disability benefit spending has grown by 45% in real terms and incapacity benefit spending by 26%. https://ifs.org.uk/publications/health-related-benefit-claims-post-pandemic-uk-trends-and-global-context https://ifs.org.uk/publications/health-related-benefit-claim... You can argue that nobody is systematically abusing the system but numbers go up. To those paying the taxes to support these benefits that sort of growth looks like abuse.
      - squigz 8mo ago
        What might have happened around 2020 that would result in more people not being able to work and requiring assistance?
      - plastic-enjoyer 8mo ago
        > You can argue that nobody is systematically abusing the system but numbers go up. > To those paying the taxes to support these benefits that sort of growth looks like abuse. Yes, but for 'tax payers' everything looks like abuse until they benefit from the services for which they pay taxes. The favorite hobby of people whose identity is shaped by being a taxpayer is to complain about paying taxes.
- deaux 8mo ago
  Crabs in a bucket.