Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Suspicious Discontinuities

danluu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 307 posts

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#181

Post by hnuser123456 »

dTal wrote: post #174
btilly wrote: post #74

The perverse incentives around these discontinuities is one of the worst misfeatures of programs intended to help people. Here is a real example. My niece wound up with 3 kids, divorced, with inconsistent child support payments. So she went on food stamps. She was looking for a better job. She found one, interviewed, and they wanted to hire her. But the salary that they offered was $0.50/hour too much for her to stay…

>the salary that they offered was $0.50/hour too much for her to stay on food stamps, and was less than her current job I don't understand. How was she eligible for food stamps, if she already had a job that paid more ?

probably under table, waitressing tips etc

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#182

Post by thechao »

adrianN wrote: post #152
thrower123 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government paternalism is terrifying. People are going to screw up, and make bad choices, but having choices is better than being treated like a child your entire life.

Providing free healthcare, free education and free food to those who need it is quite different from being treated like a child.

Doubly so when a large fraction of the people receiving free healthcare, free education, and free food are, in fact, children.

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#183

Post by jonnycomputer »

btilly wrote: post #74

The perverse incentives around these discontinuities is one of the worst misfeatures of programs intended to help people. Here is a real example. My niece wound up with 3 kids, divorced, with inconsistent child support payments. So she went on food stamps. She was looking for a better job. She found one, interviewed, and they wanted to hire her. But the salary that they offered was $0.50/hour too much for her to stay…

I agree, and I have my own stories to tell (like my foodstamps admin telling me to spend my tax return as quickly as possible or I'd lose foodstamps; which is doubly perverse).

A for tax brackets, why do they exist. I think our mathematics is advanced enough that things like tax brackets could be replaced by continuous functions. So its either by design or by lack of imagination that these discontinuities exist.

I've a friend from Finland who is vehemently opposed to any sort of means testing for any social program or aid. I see his point. Means testing creates all of the problems mentioned above ... and encourages those not eligible for them to view them as some burden that other people get but they pay for--fostering resentment.

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#184

Post by ehnto »

stared wrote: post #172
ehnto wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is an official procedure that in the case of results on the edge, the person marking should mark an ambiguous score in the favour of the student Given that it's subjective, I find that a really generous and positive take on marking protocol. It takes some perspective to note that while you can't see the value in someone's work, there may still be value in it. edit: After reading through the article in full, I un…

I don't consider it virtuous! By pushing more to pass: - either the next year the problems will be more difficult, - or it devaluates the worth of passing an exam. Also, 30% is very low (especially as such cut-off are for the basic level exams, not advanced level exams). You get the high school diploma, but it is not something that is enough to get to any univ. that makes any sense (some will take such students, but…

Is it not a final exam for the entire schooling process? If it is, I don't think there's anything wrong with letting people who attended, tried and got close, a passing grade. As much as we value merit, the real world actually isn't a meritocracy, and high school isn't much of a measure for how successful someone has the potential to be.

I think you begin to be right as people move into academia though, certainly you want people who are actually good at the subject to be the ones passing university and going into the work force.

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#185

Post by iainmerrick »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #164
iainmerrick wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree, but I just realised -- there’s another cliff edge here! I surveyed opinions on tax brackets a while back, and it seemed like there was a big psychological barrier at the 50% rate. Most high earners would be willing to pay a 50% marginal tax rate (albeit some very grudgingly) but almost nobody was willing to go over 50%. What’s good enough for the rich should do for the poor as well. The benefit drop…

What does 'willing to pay' mean, exactly? Surely they're not turning down a raise out of stubbornness. And pay of that caliber is not often hourly.

This was in the context of a political discussion about what the tax bands should be, not about paying the current taxes in reality.

Some people want higher taxes and some want lower; what I’m saying is, 50% stood out as an arbitrary threshold that many people seemed possibly willing to agree on.

Some complained that rich people shouldn’t be expected to prop up the rest of society, but conceded that progressive tax bands might be okay as long as the top rate was no more than 50%. Others felt that highly progressive taxes were essential; they wanted at least 50% as the top rate.

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#186

Post by jonnycomputer »

glogla wrote: post #167
tjr225 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either that or a more progressive stance on socialist policies that provide basics to everyone. At least with socialist style policies there isn't the possibility of those spending their UBI on junk food or wine our whatever, but I really would prefer either to the current state of affairs.

I disagree strongly with your idea of "poor people would just spend on drugs" but there's a nugget of reason in it - there's a high risk that UBI without rent control would just be subsidizing the landlords, without actually helping the people.

For the most part people know best where there money needs to go; most of the financial advice people see from "experts" really is oriented toward people who have money left over after paying for necessities.

As for housing, I think that this would be standard econ, really. More money means more demand, which in the absence of more supply, means higher prices. Things like housing are harder to increase the supply of than say, TVs, so yeah, they'd probably go up more than the rest. But I suspect that everyone would still be better off.

I don't think rent-controls are a good idea. On the other hand, I do think that in the long run rich people gobbling up finite land is a problem;

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#187

Post by 2zcon »

peteretep wrote: post #161
iainmerrick wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree, but I just realised -- there’s another cliff edge here! I surveyed opinions on tax brackets a while back, and it seemed like there was a big psychological barrier at the 50% rate. Most high earners would be willing to pay a 50% marginal tax rate (albeit some very grudgingly) but almost nobody was willing to go over 50%. What’s good enough for the rich should do for the poor as well. The benefit drop…

In the UK there's already a higher-than-50% marginal tax rate between £100 and £120k because you lose your personal tax allowance.

It's over 50% at £50k if you have a plan 2 student loan

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#188

Post by iainmerrick »

peteretep wrote: post #161
iainmerrick wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree, but I just realised -- there’s another cliff edge here! I surveyed opinions on tax brackets a while back, and it seemed like there was a big psychological barrier at the 50% rate. Most high earners would be willing to pay a 50% marginal tax rate (albeit some very grudgingly) but almost nobody was willing to go over 50%. What’s good enough for the rich should do for the poor as well. The benefit drop…

In the UK there's already a higher-than-50% marginal tax rate between £100 and £120k because you lose your personal tax allowance.

Yes! That’s silly and should be fixed (although it’s hard to drum up any sympathy for those poor folks earning only 110K or so).

Edit to clarify: if your salary is £100K and you get a £10K raise, you see almost none of it in your payslip. But if you’re on £120K and get the same raise you get to take a good chunk of it home. That’s what seems silly to me.

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#189

Post by jonnycomputer »

thrower123 wrote: post #78
tjr225 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either that or a more progressive stance on socialist policies that provide basics to everyone. At least with socialist style policies there isn't the possibility of those spending their UBI on junk food or wine our whatever, but I really would prefer either to the current state of affairs.

Government paternalism is terrifying. People are going to screw up, and make bad choices, but having choices is better than being treated like a child your entire life.

I have friends who didn't pay for their house. They were lucky enough that their parents just gave it to them.

So bad to be treated like a child for their entire life. They're really suffering not having a mortgage to pay every month. Instead they're saving up for their kids college.

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#190

Post by honestoHeminway »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #157
adrianN wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Providing free healthcare, free education and free food to those who need it is quite different from being treated like a child.

Especially if they end up in a higher tax bracket. It's not government paternalism that's terrifying, but cultural demonisation and paternalistic contempt for the poor, combined with unthinking adulation of the extremely rich.

The winner (re)writes the history, so that the narrative makes one the good guy.
Post reply on HN