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

Togo made a digital government stimulus system in two weeks

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 128 posts

Re: Togo made a digital government stimulus system in two weeks

#101

Post by ClumsyPilot »

Chris2048 wrote: post #67
cycomanic wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that in the west, and particular in the US, being poor is considered a character flaw. Rudger Bergman goes into a bit of detail on the history of that perception, which he attributes to the opposition against Nixon's UBI (at least in the US). So what we now have in many western nations is a huge bureaucratic body to prevent fraud on social security systems which at the same time significantly increase hu…

> in the US, being poor is considered a character flaw The (modern) meaning of this is hard to discern without knowing if "poor" means the same in the two contexts. Is it not possible someone in the US who is considered to be "poor" (by wealth or QoL) might not be in Togo? > bureaucratic support to fight tax evasion Do you mean actual (legal) tax evasion, or tax fairness?

"Do you mean actual (legal) tax evasion, or tax fairness?"

Many tax schemes exist in a weired gray area and have not been tested in court sufficiently, because of how complex they are, how difficult they are to invetigate and expensive to prosecute

Re: Togo made a digital government stimulus system in two weeks

#102

Post by hellojesus »

shakna wrote: post #98
hellojesus wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but another way to justify it is that it's your money, and the utility you get from spending it on that random, asking person is less than you would get from the next best expenditure (opportunity cost). That's not to say I don't give charitably or believe in it. I just don't think that anyone has to justify not giving money to some random when asked. I don't believe it's the government's job to hand out money t…

> I don't believe it's the government's job to hand out money to people in need. I think private charities and churches do a lot better job of spending it than a bureaucratic government, and the auditability of where the money goes is way, way more transparent so long as you're not dealing with a shady organization (which you can easily vet). There are many "popular" charities for which auditing is as far from transp…

You would determine that specific charity is not trustworthy and move your giving to a charity that transparently releases their spending.

There are many charities that exist solely to shelter tax money and give kickbacks to the administration. My recommendation would be to avoid those.

You could also determine to give to your local church if you have evidence they're trustworthy. You could also start your own and have direct control over how the money is gifted.

Although the government does provide reports as to how money is spent, the individual has very little influence over how that money is actually spent other than via voting or running for office. Being not forced to be a victim of theft allows power to be retained by the individual and exercised with each dollar spent.

Re: Togo made a digital government stimulus system in two weeks

#103

Post by BizarroLand »

ByThyGrace wrote: post #72
gerbilly wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue is that in the west, and particular in the US, being poor is considered a character flaw. This is the Just world hypothesis in action.¹ 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

Voltaire's "Candide or the Optimist" is a classic literary novella with this subject as backdrop. Short and wonderful, a must read.

Just keep in mind that the story is weapons-grade satire for a world that doesn't really exist any more, and even though it is still extremely relevant and eye-opening it was written for a different time.

Without that reading Candide is akin to reading a serial killers' torturous fan fiction.

Re: Togo made a digital government stimulus system in two weeks

#104

Post by shakna »

hellojesus wrote: post #102
shakna wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't believe it's the government's job to hand out money to people in need. I think private charities and churches do a lot better job of spending it than a bureaucratic government, and the auditability of where the money goes is way, way more transparent so long as you're not dealing with a shady organization (which you can easily vet). There are many "popular" charities for which auditing is as far from transp…

You would determine that specific charity is not trustworthy and move your giving to a charity that transparently releases their spending. There are many charities that exist solely to shelter tax money and give kickbacks to the administration. My recommendation would be to avoid those. You could also determine to give to your local church if you have evidence they're trustworthy. You could also start your own and ha…

I specifically named a charity that is widely considered to be among the most transparent, with the most real-world effect.

It would appear, by your metric, that no such organisations actually exist. Hence the invitation to expand on the onus you require of individuals to prevent unnecessary deaths.

The utility of government exists to cater for the citizens, regardless of who they are. Referring to the underpinning mechanism for providing such utility as theft, is strongly indicative of either a lack of working theory, or a desire for anarchism.

Re: Togo made a digital government stimulus system in two weeks

#105

Post by refurb »

tylerhou wrote: post #91
refurb wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unemployment in CA went $23B in debt because of Covid (spent more in benefits than collected). $11B is estimated to be fraud. Your statement is quite trite to be honest.

What are you trying to advocate for; making it much harder to receive unemployment benefits? Then your statement demonstrates the exact point the parent commenter is trying to make. 89% of payments weren't considered fraudulent. I.e. it seems like you're suggesting that you'd rather sacrifice the well-being of the millions of people who received legitimate unemployment benefits just to prevent payments to a relativel…

What are you advocating for? Social programs that enrich organize crime to the tune of billions?

Re: Togo made a digital government stimulus system in two weeks

#106

Post by hellojesus »

shakna wrote: post #104
hellojesus wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would determine that specific charity is not trustworthy and move your giving to a charity that transparently releases their spending. There are many charities that exist solely to shelter tax money and give kickbacks to the administration. My recommendation would be to avoid those. You could also determine to give to your local church if you have evidence they're trustworthy. You could also start your own and ha…

I specifically named a charity that is widely considered to be among the most transparent, with the most real-world effect. It would appear, by your metric, that no such organisations actually exist. Hence the invitation to expand on the onus you require of individuals to prevent unnecessary deaths. The utility of government exists to cater for the citizens, regardless of who they are. Referring to the underpinning m…

> The utility of government exists to cater for the citizens, regardless of who they are.

This is more or less my point. Taxes used for food/housing of individuals is akin to wealth redistribution. It is not money going to a public good/service but rather to individuals via an involuntary transaction. While it may benefit the party receiving the redistributed wealth, it does not necessarily benefit the giving party (though it may).

Therefore the government is not catering to all citizens. In fact, it is actively harming some.

While the Salvation Army may be considered a great charity by many, it seems to fall short on transparency so you are correct in that I would recommend focusing elsewhere for giving.

Edit: it also leads to moral hazard in a variety of ways such as corporate subsidiaries for low wage positions because they know workers will qualify for government handouts and therefore the workers demand lower wages.

Re: Togo made a digital government stimulus system in two weeks

#107

Post by op00to »

pdonis wrote: post #97
jjoonathan wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite the opposite. Our instincts surrounding charity are to help when it won't directly hurt us -- but if everything is commoditized, all charity directly hurts us. A dollar we give to the poor today is a dollar we can't use to shelter our family on a future rainy day. Directly incentivizing against individual action and then insisting on individual action as the only path forward is a guaranteed recipe for continue…

> A dollar we give to the poor today is a dollar we can't use to shelter our family on a future rainy day So is a dollar you pay in taxes, ostensibly to help the poor but in reality it won't (see my post elsewhere in this thread on government bureaucracies). At least if you spend the dollar directly on a poor person, you know it's going directly to that poor person. > Directly incentivizing against individual action…

> government bureaucrats […] who are even less motivated to actually help people than you are

Can you explain how those who work in government are less motivated to help others than those employed outside of government?

Re: Togo made a digital government stimulus system in two weeks

#108

Post by op00to »

pdonis wrote: post #94
mschuster91 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> instead of being done by private individuals and charitable organizations Private, un-accountable entities deciding who deserves help and who does not is feudalism , not democracy. We already have this issue with religious/-associated organizations denying help to LGBT or nationalist organizations denying help to non-Whites. Government-ran operations may have their deficits, yes, but at least they are mandated to b…

> Private, un-accountable entities deciding who deserves help and who does not is feudalism, not democracy No, it isn't, it's freedom. Your definition of "democracy" is basically that if a 50.1% majority feels like it, they can commandeer your resources as they see fit. That is tyranny, not democracy. > We already have this issue with religious/-associated organizations denying help to LGBT or nationalist organizatio…

> Your definition of "democracy" is basically that if a 50.1% majority feels like it, they can commandeer your resources as they see fit. That is tyranny, not democracy.

You know neither tyranny or democracy.

Re: Togo made a digital government stimulus system in two weeks

#109

Post by tylerhou »

creato wrote: post #92
WarChortle wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am speaking in generalities because I don't know your exact stance on everything. The American military budget is so massively over-bloated its sickening. No only that, they made 35 Trillion dollars in adjustments in 2019 alone. The year before they made 30 Trillion dollars in adjustments. In 2018 the pentagon failed its first ever independent audit, instead of releasing the report, they changed their own rules to…

35 trillion is almost double the entire GDP of the US, and almost 10x the entire federal budget. I don't know where you are getting that number.

They're not saying that the US spends $35T on defense, they are saying that the budget is so complex that the aggregate value of internal transactions (i.e. budget allocation flowing down to sub-departments) is $35T. They use this complexity to claim (without evidence) that some money must be being skimmed.

Not a fan of the amount the US spends on defense, but I'm also not a fan of arguments that make claims without any proof.

Re: Togo made a digital government stimulus system in two weeks

#110

Post by shakna »

hellojesus wrote: post #106
shakna wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I specifically named a charity that is widely considered to be among the most transparent, with the most real-world effect. It would appear, by your metric, that no such organisations actually exist. Hence the invitation to expand on the onus you require of individuals to prevent unnecessary deaths. The utility of government exists to cater for the citizens, regardless of who they are. Referring to the underpinning m…

> The utility of government exists to cater for the citizens, regardless of who they are. This is more or less my point. Taxes used for food/housing of individuals is akin to wealth redistribution. It is not money going to a public good/service but rather to individuals via an involuntary transaction. While it may benefit the party receiving the redistributed wealth, it does not necessarily benefit the giving party (…

> it also leads to moral hazard in a variety of ways such as corporate subsidiaries for low wage positions because they know workers will qualify for government handouts and therefore the workers demand lower wages.

Easily overcome by simply having reasonable minimum wage laws. Whereby corporations are required to provide a living wage.

> Therefore the government is not catering to all citizens. In fact, it is actively harming some.

Failing to provide support for citizens _does_ actively harm citizens. The choice you're proposing is between "maybe harm" and "we know it harms". They're not equivalent.

> I would recommend focusing elsewhere for giving.

For the third and final time - Where?

Post reply on HN