10 ms·

This is only "surprising" to those who think they know how other people should live. I've always favored this approach (a minimum income, or negative income tax

This is only "surprising" to those who think they know how other people should live. I've always favored this approach (a minimum income, or negative income tax .. whatever you want to call it) as a replacement to all other forms of welfare. If I am to spend my tax money on those in need, I do not want more than half of it going to upper middle class bureaucrats and middle class administrators.

logicallee 13y ago
I think with that last sentence you mean 80%. 20% payout to the end beneficiary is quite common.
- purplelobster 13y ago
  That's in charity organizations, doubt that's true for government. Anyone have actual numbers on typical government overhead?
  - thrownaway2424 13y ago
    Depends on the program, but generally it ranges from 0 to 20%, most being right around 10%. This changes when republicans win on their "voucher" planks, when suddenly the overhead skyrockets because there are for-profit entities in the loop.
    - thaumasiotes 13y ago
      As I understand it, the idea of a voucher is that the for-profit entity receives the money after the end beneficiary does, which wouldn't affect how much the end beneficiary gets. What are you talking about?
      - rsynnott 13y ago
        A lot of "voucher systems" (a) impose overheads, which are generally paid by the donor and not the participating company or (b) use hidden, non-open-market (and potentially higher) pricing.
      - thrownaway2424 13y ago
        Some programs, like schools, dispense services rather than cash. If you're talking about direct payment programs these are extremely efficient: 4.5% for SCHIP in 2005, for example. Other direct payment programs have higher overhead because they are means-tested (another conservative victory) and it costs money to administer means-tested programs. Amusingly, the US state of Florida in 2011 enacted another one of those republican favorites, the drug test for welfare recipients. In practice it cost more to administer the drug tests than they saved by throwing the positive results out of the program, because it turns out that welfare recipients are far less likely than the general public to use drugs.
        gnaritas 13y ago
        Republicans seem to despise moochers more than wasting money, despite all their claims to be doing it to save money.
- argumentum 13y ago
  I figured it was more like 80-90%, but didn't want to take the time to look up #s, hence .. "more than half".
grandalf 13y ago
Exactly, the idea that someone should buy food for their kid rather than a big screen TV is extremely paternalistic.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- waqf 13y ago
  The idea that people need to be told to buy food for their kid rather than a big screen TV is paternalistic, yes.
  - code_duck 13y ago
    Sadly, some people absolutely need to be told to buy their kid a jacket vs. a large bag of cocaine.
    - femto 13y ago
      The point of the study is that these cases are a minority, and that it works to initially assume that the money will be used to buy a jacket.
    - _delirium 13y ago
      I agree! This is why I've long argued that companies should be required to pay a portion of their employees' paychecks in nontransferable vouchers. If parents want to blow their I-Bank or Google paychecks on MacBooks, cocaine, and hookers, after responsibly buying jackets and healthy food for their kids, that's their prerogative. But the first $n0,000 should be paid out in restricted vouchers to make sure they provide for their kids first.
      - derefr 13y ago
        Another way to do this would be to have a Basic Income that pays out to minors separately from their parents, but into an account/card that, for minors, is restricted to certain products/services (somewhat like how foodstamps work, but more generally toward childcare/food/clothing/education-type products.) The parents would have power over the child's account, just as parents do today, but only given the same restrictions.
pmorici 13y ago
How do you feel about things like Social Security Disability benefits? By most accounts there is some very real abuse of that social welfare program that could cause it to not be there for people who legitimately need it. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50156574n http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50156574n
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  The cost of the abuse does not exceed the cost of losing the program entirely and leaving the non-abusers high and dry. It's not an ideal situation, but we are worse off if we throw the baby out with the bathwater.
  - Shivetya 13y ago
    No one suggests losing the program in its entirety, responses of like yours are straight up hyperbole. It is not a valid rebuttal to those looking to make corrective changes. Far too many abuses are allowed to go on simply because of such arguments thereby reducing the aid we could give to truly needed people. I am all for helping those in need, nearly 2% of my gross salary goes to CHOA each year, but damn if I am going to believe that there are people on one if not more of the hundred of government programs who don't deserve to be there. The best way to help people is to get more diligent about policing those we do help. Are they getting the right help is the question that we must answer.
    - mfringel 13y ago
      If your win condition is "eliminate all cheaters", you've already gone to "ditching the program in its entirety". Human systems have defectors, otherwise game theory wouldn't exist. If your win condition is "eliminate most of the cheaters", I'd like some proof that we're not already at the Nash Equilibrium for that with the current system.
    - rsynnott 13y ago
      > The best way to help people is to get more diligent about policing those we do help Would the cost of doing that exceed the savings? If so (and that seems rather likely; the vast majority of social welfare recipients do _not_ cheat), it seems rather impractical. In practice, people cheat in all systems, and a certain amount of cheating is built into the assumptions for any well-designed system. For instance, tax authorities do not audit everybody, because it would be impractical; in not doing so they accept a certain amount of tax fraud. Shops don't watch everyone who comes in the door all the time, because it would be impractical; in not doing so they accept a certain amount of theft (most of what accountants call 'shrinkage' is employee and customer theft).

logicallee 13y ago

I think with that last sentence you mean 80%. 20% payout to the end beneficiary is quite common.

purplelobster 13y ago
That's in charity organizations, doubt that's true for government. Anyone have actual numbers on typical government overhead?
- thrownaway2424 13y ago
  Depends on the program, but generally it ranges from 0 to 20%, most being right around 10%. This changes when republicans win on their "voucher" planks, when suddenly the overhead skyrockets because there are for-profit entities in the loop.
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    As I understand it, the idea of a voucher is that the for-profit entity receives the money after the end beneficiary does, which wouldn't affect how much the end beneficiary gets. What are you talking about?
    - rsynnott 13y ago
      A lot of "voucher systems" (a) impose overheads, which are generally paid by the donor and not the participating company or (b) use hidden, non-open-market (and potentially higher) pricing.
    - thrownaway2424 13y ago
      Some programs, like schools, dispense services rather than cash. If you're talking about direct payment programs these are extremely efficient: 4.5% for SCHIP in 2005, for example. Other direct payment programs have higher overhead because they are means-tested (another conservative victory) and it costs money to administer means-tested programs. Amusingly, the US state of Florida in 2011 enacted another one of those republican favorites, the drug test for welfare recipients. In practice it cost more to administer the drug tests than they saved by throwing the positive results out of the program, because it turns out that welfare recipients are far less likely than the general public to use drugs.
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        Republicans seem to despise moochers more than wasting money, despite all their claims to be doing it to save money.
argumentum 13y ago
I figured it was more like 80-90%, but didn't want to take the time to look up #s, hence .. "more than half".

grandalf 13y ago

Exactly, the idea that someone should buy food for their kid rather than a big screen TV is extremely paternalistic.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
waqf 13y ago
The idea that people need to be told to buy food for their kid rather than a big screen TV is paternalistic, yes.
- code_duck 13y ago
  Sadly, some people absolutely need to be told to buy their kid a jacket vs. a large bag of cocaine.
  - femto 13y ago
    The point of the study is that these cases are a minority, and that it works to initially assume that the money will be used to buy a jacket.
  - _delirium 13y ago
    I agree! This is why I've long argued that companies should be required to pay a portion of their employees' paychecks in nontransferable vouchers. If parents want to blow their I-Bank or Google paychecks on MacBooks, cocaine, and hookers, after responsibly buying jackets and healthy food for their kids, that's their prerogative. But the first $n0,000 should be paid out in restricted vouchers to make sure they provide for their kids first.
    - derefr 13y ago
      Another way to do this would be to have a Basic Income that pays out to minors separately from their parents, but into an account/card that, for minors, is restricted to certain products/services (somewhat like how foodstamps work, but more generally toward childcare/food/clothing/education-type products.) The parents would have power over the child's account, just as parents do today, but only given the same restrictions.

pmorici 13y ago

How do you feel about things like Social Security Disability benefits? By most accounts there is some very real abuse of that social welfare program that could cause it to not be there for people who legitimately need it. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50156574n http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50156574n

lawnchair_larry 13y ago
The cost of the abuse does not exceed the cost of losing the program entirely and leaving the non-abusers high and dry. It's not an ideal situation, but we are worse off if we throw the baby out with the bathwater.
- Shivetya 13y ago
  No one suggests losing the program in its entirety, responses of like yours are straight up hyperbole. It is not a valid rebuttal to those looking to make corrective changes. Far too many abuses are allowed to go on simply because of such arguments thereby reducing the aid we could give to truly needed people. I am all for helping those in need, nearly 2% of my gross salary goes to CHOA each year, but damn if I am going to believe that there are people on one if not more of the hundred of government programs who don't deserve to be there. The best way to help people is to get more diligent about policing those we do help. Are they getting the right help is the question that we must answer.
  - mfringel 13y ago
    If your win condition is "eliminate all cheaters", you've already gone to "ditching the program in its entirety". Human systems have defectors, otherwise game theory wouldn't exist. If your win condition is "eliminate most of the cheaters", I'd like some proof that we're not already at the Nash Equilibrium for that with the current system.
  - rsynnott 13y ago
    > The best way to help people is to get more diligent about policing those we do help Would the cost of doing that exceed the savings? If so (and that seems rather likely; the vast majority of social welfare recipients do _not_ cheat), it seems rather impractical. In practice, people cheat in all systems, and a certain amount of cheating is built into the assumptions for any well-designed system. For instance, tax authorities do not audit everybody, because it would be impractical; in not doing so they accept a certain amount of tax fraud. Shops don't watch everyone who comes in the door all the time, because it would be impractical; in not doing so they accept a certain amount of theft (most of what accountants call 'shrinkage' is employee and customer theft).