6 ms·

This is really interesting stuff. I know they touched upon it but these studies, if they really want to change things, need to do a much better job of showing a

This is really interesting stuff. I know they touched upon it but these studies, if they really want to change things, need to do a much better job of showing an "ROI". Too often these studies seem goaled around showing that poverty has a negative impact and assume the logical next step is so we'll address that. However, many people don't have an issue with others being in poverty; particularly if they believe they're being asked to have to take anything out of their pocket to solve that problem. Generalizing; those that are against wealth redistribution aren't going to be convinced otherwise based on the decrease in mental illness amongst the poor or higher grades in school. The numbers around the cost of someone spending a year or more incarcerated is well known. The cost of a transfer is well known. IF you can show "You really want to ensure that a family of 4 has this much coming into the household to ensure it doesn't cost you much more later" then you could go a long way to bringing new supporters into the fray.

chc 13y ago
No. Most staunch opponents of wealth redistribution oppose it on principle, not practical terms. You can tell them in very concrete terms that their tax dollars will benefit them more than it would hurt them and their reply will be, "Well, then you should let me distribute my money that way instead of taking it and doing it yourself."
- nickff 13y ago
  >" Most staunch opponents of wealth redistribution oppose it on principle, not practical terms." Please provide a citation for this claim, I have not seen any evidence either way.
  - quinnchr 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_as_theft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_as_theft
    - nickff 13y ago
      The post to which I replied said "[m]ost staunch opponents", not 'some opponents'; I would like to know where the 'most' comes from.
      - quinnchr 13y ago
        So... what's your point? You seem to be making a semantic argument, to what end? Sometimes there's not a germane statistic and you might just have to go off of your own lived experience.
- at-fates-hands 13y ago
  >>> Most staunch opponents of wealth redistribution oppose it on principle, not practical terms. Actually, most people don't like it because they've seen how the government "redistributes" their money and most of the time it's wasted. This is why religious institutions tend to get so much in donations. People trust their church more than their government.
  - splitrocket 13y ago
    Define wasted. Was it burned? Unless you are talking about military expenditures, which have some of the lowest economic multipliers, it paid someone's salary, who in turn went and participated in the economy. Was it ideally spent? No, but read some Edward Denning: you can spend more money ensuring that only the right people get money or you can just wrote checks and accept statistical levels of error.
    - at-fates-hands 13y ago
      Uh, just Google: "Wasteful Government Spending" and you'll find a few gems like this: http://www.policymic.com/articles/48003/14-ridiculous-ways-the-government-is-wasting-your-tax-dollars-you-won-t-believe http://www.policymic.com/articles/48003/14-ridiculous-ways-t... "Gitmo detainees also have a soccer field funded by American taxpayers. Don't worry, it only cost $750,000 to build." "The federal government pays pensions of deceased employees, costing $120 million. According to the Huffington Post: "One man, whose father died in 1971, continued to receive payments until 2008 when he himself died, costing the government $515,000, according to the report." "According to Senator Coburn's 2012 "Wastebook," in 2009, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) implemented a plan "to improve the economic competitiveness of Morocco" costing $27 million" "$516,000 of your money was spent to make a video game providing taxpayers with the opportunity to relive prom."
      - splitrocket 13y ago
        Arguably, still not actually wasted. Went back into the money supply, bought goods and services, contributed to the economy. Seriously, unless you have truly minimal savings rate like the dirt poor, when you pay taxes you are doing one of two things: building infrastructure or boosting the economy. Surely your taxes COULD be better spent, some government expenditures have higher economic multipliers than others, but wasted? You don't understand economics.
- wwweston 13y ago
  > Well, then you should let me distribute my money that way instead of taking it and doing it yourself." And AFAICT, the US tax code is at least half decent about recognizing charitable giving -- that is, letting people distribute their money that way or other ways -- as a legitimate offset to a personal tax burden. Possible it could be better. It looks to me like we don't see a lot of personal stipend style charitable giving, though. (There's a significant presumption in the phrase "my money", but that conversation usually goes about as well as threading the proverbial camel through the eye of a needle, probably for much the same reasons.)
_delirium 13y ago
I'm not sure that is really the best group to target though. The people who are simply against any redistribution, full stop, even if it works, are a minority in most countries and probably not necessary to a political coalition to do something about poverty. A pretty large group, however, are people who think that poverty-fighting schemes would be good in principle, but they are skeptical whether such schemes work in practice. A common criticism is that what seems like a good idea ends up backfiring, is abused, produces dependency, etc. Many economists are in that group, of people who would support a poverty-reduction scheme if they thought it worked and didn't cause larger problems. I see that as the class of objections that these studies are looking to corroborate or refute.
- jusben1369 13y ago
  Yes it's that second group I'm thinking of here. Show them that over an x amount of time period these programs resulted in Y and you might make more advances.
rtpg 13y ago
This is a nice theory, a narrative that might be difficult to prove in practice, however. On a more meta-level, though, people's political opinions influence their interpretation of statistics, so even if you did prove this ROI, cognitive disonance will fight you extremely hardly. Instead of trying to convince people who are against any form of wealth distribution, it's 1% as difficult to convice the people on the fence (of whom there are also 10x more) , those who are ok with some distribution, that this is a pretty effective replacement/complement for current services.
joelrunyon 13y ago
I'm always surprised people yell about the U.S. not wanting to help those in poverty. I think that's pretty well refuted by noting that the U.S. is #1 in charitable giving [1]. The bigger problem seems to be people trusting government imposed redistribution schemes rather than the rejection of them altogether. [1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/world-giving-index-us-ran_n_1159562.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/world-giving-index-...
- lostlogin 13y ago
  The are all sorts of ways to measure aid. Have a read of this if it interests you. I stumbled across it while looking to see if I could find a $ given per head of population graph I saw a while back. I didn't find it. http://kriswager.blogspot.co.nz/2007/03/is-usa-biggest-foreign-aid-donor.html?m=1 http://kriswager.blogspot.co.nz/2007/03/is-usa-biggest-forei...
- bosie 13y ago
  > I think that's pretty well refuted by noting that the U.S. is #1 in charitable giving [1] After browsing the PDF, it seems to not account for many things. No idea why you think it is 'well refuted'. E.g. It does not account for higher taxes, which are funneled to help the poor. It also seems to count everything binary, either you helped or you did not. No mention is given as to how much time/money you actually donated - and to whom. Additionally, weighing all three things (giving money/helping strangers/volunteering time) the same is rather odd. The us is #10 at giving money. And this does not even include taxes! Way to fight poverty. If it weren't for the dubious 'helping a stranger' the US would not be anywhere.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  The US is #1 in charitable giving because it's so easy to get a tax deduction for doing so. If people had to give out of their after-tax income I suspect you'd see a quite different picture.
  - joelrunyon 13y ago
    That's a pretty cynical viewpoint & doesn't account for the fact that other countries do or may have similar type tax laws. Can you provide some sort of proof of causation for your theory?
technotony 13y ago
This is good evidence to support a guaranteed minimum income: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Or a basic income: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income GMI is typically means-tested, which can mess up incentives.
  - prawn 13y ago
    And means testing adds to administrative overheads too.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      True, but probably less than would be disbursed to those excluded by means testing. If it had no other downside, it might well be a good idea.

chc 13y ago

No. Most staunch opponents of wealth redistribution oppose it on principle, not practical terms. You can tell them in very concrete terms that their tax dollars will benefit them more than it would hurt them and their reply will be, "Well, then you should let me distribute my money that way instead of taking it and doing it yourself."

nickff 13y ago
>" Most staunch opponents of wealth redistribution oppose it on principle, not practical terms." Please provide a citation for this claim, I have not seen any evidence either way.
- quinnchr 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_as_theft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_as_theft
  - nickff 13y ago
    The post to which I replied said "[m]ost staunch opponents", not 'some opponents'; I would like to know where the 'most' comes from.
    - quinnchr 13y ago
      So... what's your point? You seem to be making a semantic argument, to what end? Sometimes there's not a germane statistic and you might just have to go off of your own lived experience.
at-fates-hands 13y ago
>>> Most staunch opponents of wealth redistribution oppose it on principle, not practical terms. Actually, most people don't like it because they've seen how the government "redistributes" their money and most of the time it's wasted. This is why religious institutions tend to get so much in donations. People trust their church more than their government.
- splitrocket 13y ago
  Define wasted. Was it burned? Unless you are talking about military expenditures, which have some of the lowest economic multipliers, it paid someone's salary, who in turn went and participated in the economy. Was it ideally spent? No, but read some Edward Denning: you can spend more money ensuring that only the right people get money or you can just wrote checks and accept statistical levels of error.
  - at-fates-hands 13y ago
    Uh, just Google: "Wasteful Government Spending" and you'll find a few gems like this: http://www.policymic.com/articles/48003/14-ridiculous-ways-the-government-is-wasting-your-tax-dollars-you-won-t-believe http://www.policymic.com/articles/48003/14-ridiculous-ways-t... "Gitmo detainees also have a soccer field funded by American taxpayers. Don't worry, it only cost $750,000 to build." "The federal government pays pensions of deceased employees, costing $120 million. According to the Huffington Post: "One man, whose father died in 1971, continued to receive payments until 2008 when he himself died, costing the government $515,000, according to the report." "According to Senator Coburn's 2012 "Wastebook," in 2009, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) implemented a plan "to improve the economic competitiveness of Morocco" costing $27 million" "$516,000 of your money was spent to make a video game providing taxpayers with the opportunity to relive prom."
    - splitrocket 13y ago
      Arguably, still not actually wasted. Went back into the money supply, bought goods and services, contributed to the economy. Seriously, unless you have truly minimal savings rate like the dirt poor, when you pay taxes you are doing one of two things: building infrastructure or boosting the economy. Surely your taxes COULD be better spent, some government expenditures have higher economic multipliers than others, but wasted? You don't understand economics.
wwweston 13y ago
> Well, then you should let me distribute my money that way instead of taking it and doing it yourself." And AFAICT, the US tax code is at least half decent about recognizing charitable giving -- that is, letting people distribute their money that way or other ways -- as a legitimate offset to a personal tax burden. Possible it could be better. It looks to me like we don't see a lot of personal stipend style charitable giving, though. (There's a significant presumption in the phrase "my money", but that conversation usually goes about as well as threading the proverbial camel through the eye of a needle, probably for much the same reasons.)

_delirium 13y ago

I'm not sure that is really the best group to target though. The people who are simply against any redistribution, full stop, even if it works, are a minority in most countries and probably not necessary to a political coalition to do something about poverty. A pretty large group, however, are people who think that poverty-fighting schemes would be good in principle, but they are skeptical whether such schemes work in practice. A common criticism is that what seems like a good idea ends up backfiring, is abused, produces dependency, etc. Many economists are in that group, of people who would support a poverty-reduction scheme if they thought it worked and didn't cause larger problems. I see that as the class of objections that these studies are looking to corroborate or refute.

jusben1369 13y ago
Yes it's that second group I'm thinking of here. Show them that over an x amount of time period these programs resulted in Y and you might make more advances.

rtpg 13y ago

This is a nice theory, a narrative that might be difficult to prove in practice, however. On a more meta-level, though, people's political opinions influence their interpretation of statistics, so even if you did prove this ROI, cognitive disonance will fight you extremely hardly. Instead of trying to convince people who are against any form of wealth distribution, it's 1% as difficult to convice the people on the fence (of whom there are also 10x more) , those who are ok with some distribution, that this is a pretty effective replacement/complement for current services.

joelrunyon 13y ago

I'm always surprised people yell about the U.S. not wanting to help those in poverty. I think that's pretty well refuted by noting that the U.S. is #1 in charitable giving [1]. The bigger problem seems to be people trusting government imposed redistribution schemes rather than the rejection of them altogether. [1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/world-giving-index-us-ran_n_1159562.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/world-giving-index-...

lostlogin 13y ago
The are all sorts of ways to measure aid. Have a read of this if it interests you. I stumbled across it while looking to see if I could find a $ given per head of population graph I saw a while back. I didn't find it. http://kriswager.blogspot.co.nz/2007/03/is-usa-biggest-foreign-aid-donor.html?m=1 http://kriswager.blogspot.co.nz/2007/03/is-usa-biggest-forei...
bosie 13y ago
> I think that's pretty well refuted by noting that the U.S. is #1 in charitable giving [1] After browsing the PDF, it seems to not account for many things. No idea why you think it is 'well refuted'. E.g. It does not account for higher taxes, which are funneled to help the poor. It also seems to count everything binary, either you helped or you did not. No mention is given as to how much time/money you actually donated - and to whom. Additionally, weighing all three things (giving money/helping strangers/volunteering time) the same is rather odd. The us is #10 at giving money. And this does not even include taxes! Way to fight poverty. If it weren't for the dubious 'helping a stranger' the US would not be anywhere.
anigbrowl 13y ago
The US is #1 in charitable giving because it's so easy to get a tax deduction for doing so. If people had to give out of their after-tax income I suspect you'd see a quite different picture.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  That's a pretty cynical viewpoint & doesn't account for the fact that other countries do or may have similar type tax laws. Can you provide some sort of proof of causation for your theory?

technotony 13y ago

This is good evidence to support a guaranteed minimum income: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income

dllthomas 13y ago
Or a basic income: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income GMI is typically means-tested, which can mess up incentives.
- prawn 13y ago
  And means testing adds to administrative overheads too.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    True, but probably less than would be disbursed to those excluded by means testing. If it had no other downside, it might well be a good idea.