[fzeroracer]

> 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]

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]

> 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 It's out of date by about 15 years.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]

> 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]

> 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.

[hellojesus]

Fair enough. I would concede that universal programs with progressive taxation is probably the best solution if we ignore the deadweight loss.

Providing universal food, healthcare means the gov increases demand. This leads to higher prices. Maybe more producers jump in to drive supply up and the equilibrium neutralizes back at the initial level. Suddenly the capital that was redirected to increase that supply reduces supply in other markets and drives up costs. The gov has manipulated the market, and they have the power to continue doing so on a whim. Consumers, especially those who are taxed at much higher progressive levels, lose purchasing power and those markets must adjust.

Maybe this is better than the outcome where we do the same thing but force cops to lock up everyone that is stealing for free food. After all, when everyone is in jail you have the same problem of gov interference in food, healthcare, and housing markets. But the additional overhead of law enforcement administration. Plus the total loss of economic contribution from those imprisoned.

But those dollars redistributed from the wealthy hurt. They really do. Especially since the progressive taxation hits middle income earners so fiercely. For example, I pay a little over $50k/year for two kids in daycare. The state wants to tax 1% of my (married) income above $200k to let other people send their kids to daycare for free. So suddenly demand increases, raising the $50k price I already pay, and now I lose $x dollars a year from my ability to spend freely. Why? So somebody can enter the labor market and drag down wages?

Maybe it's better. It probably is. It sounds a lot nicer. I don't think I earn enough to feel good about it though. I feel like it's throwing money into the pit of dispair as my ability to pursue my life's passions slips further away from the present (e.g., fire).

But maybe society will be nicer.

Edit: I forgot to mention that the 1% tax doesn't provide free daycare to all. It's really quite selective. So a universal program would be orders of magnitude more expensive, and taxation rates would be tremendous.

I already pay a little over 30% effective rate. It's demoralizing that, of the annual income, I don't get to keep it until approximately Easter. Society would have to be much, much nicer for me to work for free until June or July without being permanently grouchy. Plus wealth taxes, apart from being bad policy, are not federally legal because wealth isn't income, so the state would have to implement it, and we all know some states wouldn't so they could attract the wealthy, which means that those low wealth, medium to high earners would be paying even more.