$750 a month, no questions asked, improved the lives of homeless people • Hacker News Board

Re: $750 a month, no questions asked, improved the lives of homeless people

#131

Post by ryuhhnn » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 10:03 PM UTC

Georgelemental wrote: post #119

ryuhhnn wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? Crime does not happen in a vacuum. The idea that people steal because it’s fun or commit fraud because they enjoy seeing their victims suffer is not supported by any sort of rigorous sociological or criminological understanding of social deviance. If you want to fix crime, you need to fix the social ills that cause people to turn to crime to begin with. Of course crime prevents people from improving…

When Nayib Bukele ignored the "experts" and locked up nearly 2% of El Salvador's population, not only did the homicide rate fall off a cliff—economic growth also increased. (Bukele also worked hard to woo foreign investors, without which this would not have been possible; but those investors only felt confident in investing due to the decrease in crime.)

Nobody should be surprised that removing an entire portion of the population would cause the homicide rate to fall the same way nobody would be surprised that there is less rainfall on a day that has less cloud coverage. This isn’t really addressing my point at all. The point is that crime happens because of a set of conditions. You cannot expect crime to be reduced if you remove the “criminals” without addressing the conditions that made them criminals in the first place. Homicide is not a good example here, a better example would be things like petty crime, vandalism, etc.

Re: $750 a month, no questions asked, improved the lives of homeless people

#132

Post by paulpauper » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 10:04 PM UTC

cwillu wrote: post #8

paulpauper wrote: post #2

Of course it did. The question or debate is not if unconditional money helps, but if it's better than alternatives which may be cheaper, such as food credits. Even middle class people would benefit, like $750 to buy groceries. Inflation obviously will erode some of this new purchasing power.

A lot of the debate is very sincerely arguing that it doesn't actually help, so making it clear that it really actually does is important to shut down some of the ignorance: “It may not be earth-shattering that providing money is going to help meet basic needs, but I do think it dispels this myth that people will use money for illicit purposes,” Henwood said. “We weren’t finding that in the study.”

Hey give me $10k. I won't use it for illicit purposes, but I want the money. This is not a justification for giving money.

Re: $750 a month, no questions asked, improved the lives of homeless people

#133

Post by everfree » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 10:05 PM UTC

monktastic1 wrote: post #121

everfree wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other reply to my comment proves that my question wasn't a provocation, but a successful intuition of some people's beliefs in this thread. Further, the US' lack of universal healthcare shows that it's a societally acceptable stance to not give aid to ill people just because they are ill. I'm not trying to provoke anyone, I'm trying to clarify their belief within a set of beliefs that are socially acceptable.

The other reply mentions that cash is not a good way to help such people, not that they shouldn't be helped. Are you sure you're not reading things into people's replies?

A politically tenable portion of the USA seems to be of the opinion that tax funds should not be used to help ill people just because they are ill, cash or not. This is not an extreme political opinion, nor something that is unreasonable to ask someone whether they believe.

Re: $750 a month, no questions asked, improved the lives of homeless people

#134

Post by ajmurmann » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 10:07 PM UTC

lukifer wrote: post #61

zrail wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government is very good at giving people money. It's less good at adjudicating whether people require that money. Replacing every government assistance program with direct, unconditional cash transfers would almost certainly be cheaper than the bureaucracy that must be maintained to ensure only "deserving" people get assistance.

I broadly agree with you, I favor UBI for similar reasons, though I'd maybe frame it less as "very good vs. less good", vs. just acknowledging the enormous overhead costs of means-testing, to say nothing of the consequences when bureaucracy turns corrupt or Kafka-esque. But devil's advocate: is there any reason the same outcome couldn't be accomplished with a negative income tax instead, leveraging a bureaucratic inf…

How would the negative income tax work in practice? Do I need to wait a full year for my tax return to get a lump sum payment?

Re: $750 a month, no questions asked, improved the lives of homeless people

#135

Post by KennyBlanken » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 10:07 PM UTC

ecommerceguy wrote: post #91

The top federal income tax rate was 91 percent in 1950 and 1951, and between 1954 and 1959. In 1952 and 1953, the top federal income tax rate was 92 percent. (USA) We need to go back to this. Wealth inequality is damaging society far more than ever. From Onlyfans to Bitcoins Scams, social media platforms has only exacerbated the issue. Will the pendulum swing back to morality and just cause away from lawlessness and…

Wealth inequality is not being caused or exacerbated by Onlyfans and Bitcoin scams or "lack of morality", whatever that means.

Corporate and high income taxes have been slashed. This has been going on for decades, but the prior president and congress gave the wealthiest Americans and corporations a two trillion dollar tax cut - a forty percent reduction in corporate taxes - and this was after one trillion dollars in Paycheck Protection Program "loans", most of which were 'forgiven' and a myriad of other pandemic programs - as well as a wholesale gutting of regulations.

In 1940 if you made $200,000 ($4M today) you were taxed at ninety percent to help out with the war effort because there was a long history of the wealthiest being expected to help out in times of societal emergency. The NY Times claims the Great Recession and COVID were the first exceptions but I'd say it's been going on since Vietnam or so. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/19/opinion/rich-billionaires...

Re: $750 a month, no questions asked, improved the lives of homeless people

#136

Post by WarOnPrivacy » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 10:07 PM UTC

soupfordummies wrote: post #125

ecommerceguy wrote: post #91

The top federal income tax rate was 91 percent in 1950 and 1951, and between 1954 and 1959. In 1952 and 1953, the top federal income tax rate was 92 percent. (USA) We need to go back to this. Wealth inequality is damaging society far more than ever. From Onlyfans to Bitcoins Scams, social media platforms has only exacerbated the issue. Will the pendulum swing back to morality and just cause away from lawlessness and…

Woah, had no idea it was that high. And that's in a decade that is considered one of the best in US history (if you were the "right" demographic of course). Any idea what the top tax bracket was that had that rate? Wonder what it would be now adjusted for inflation.

> And that's in a decade that is considered one of the best in US history

Amusingly, that's sometimes spun as what happens after a war - until you wonder what happened to Jimmy Carter's post-war economy.

Re: $750 a month, no questions asked, improved the lives of homeless people

#137

Post by ryuhhnn » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 10:07 PM UTC

rufus_foreman wrote: post #128

ryuhhnn wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is paying into a social safety net considered “free money” but usury is not? Why is it that when rich people as for money it’s a “loan” but when poor people ask for money it’s a “handout”. Free money is never free, money isn’t even real. You live in a society and if you want people to be there for you when you are down, you have a duty to return the favour.

>> money isn’t even real This is true, in the Philip K. Dick conception of reality ("Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away"), so maybe something we all shouldn't get worked up about? If we stop believing in our duty to return the favor, what happens? Or if we stop believing that there is such a thing as society? If we stop believing in usury, does it exist?

why are you assuming I’m “worked up”? I was simply asking some questions and just because I disagree with the original commenter’s characterisation doesn’t mean I’m necessarily upset. In fact, quite the opposite, I’m curious why so many people blindly accept things as “real” when they are only “real” insofar as we make it so.

Re: $750 a month, no questions asked, improved the lives of homeless people

#138

Post by ajmurmann » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 10:09 PM UTC

paulpauper wrote: post #127

eli wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Food credits" are an expensive and paternalistic Big Government approach to the problem. Is the idea that poor people don't know they need to buy food? Or that the government knows what you should be eating better than you do? SNAP spends something like $0.15 of every dollar on administrative and has complicated rules.

better and cheaper than the $750 going to drugs or alcohol? >Big Government Food credits or $750, you realize it's still coming from taxpayers either way? If someone is homeless it means that they already failed and need help. There is no way it cannot be paternalistic. The question is what is the best solution.

Sometimes people have bad luck and typically people have a better understanding of what would help them the most than someone in a government office who has never met them before.

Re: $750 a month, no questions asked, improved the lives of homeless people

#139

Post by nataliste » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 10:09 PM UTC

ryuhhnn wrote: post #131

Georgelemental wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Nayib Bukele ignored the "experts" and locked up nearly 2% of El Salvador's population, not only did the homicide rate fall off a cliff—economic growth also increased. (Bukele also worked hard to woo foreign investors, without which this would not have been possible; but those investors only felt confident in investing due to the decrease in crime.)

Nobody should be surprised that removing an entire portion of the population would cause the homicide rate to fall the same way nobody would be surprised that there is less rainfall on a day that has less cloud coverage. This isn’t really addressing my point at all. The point is that crime happens because of a set of conditions. You cannot expect crime to be reduced if you remove the “criminals” without addressing th…

>You cannot expect crime to be reduced if you remove the “criminals” without addressing the conditions that made them criminals in the first place.

Unless the creation of criminals is caused by being victimized by criminals. Then that's exactly the solution.

Re: $750 a month, no questions asked, improved the lives of homeless people

#140

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 10:09 PM UTC

advael wrote: post #7

ciguy wrote: post #3

The headline as written should surprise no-one. Anyone receiving free money would probably have their life improved along some dimension, even if it just means they're not doing as many dangerous things to get money to buy more drugs. The implicit assumption seems to be that giving homeless people money to improve their lives is inherently a moral good. Unlike many homeless advocates, I don't think it is a given that…

I think a lot of productive hardworking people's money has been spent on propaganda whose sole intention is to ensure that people equate homeless people to "mentally ill drug addicts" rather than, say, "private equity real estate buyup refugees"

What would the point of a propaganda campaign like that be?

What evil organization is paying on the backend to make sure homeless people do not receive money?

Argue in good faith. People are skeptical that their money should go to people that have not earned it. That is the reality of the argument. It isn’t a conspiracy that many people equate homeless to drug addiction, it’s fact. It is also fact that homelessness isn’t always the guy sleeping in the street, but the single mom sleeping on a friend’s couch for as long as possible.

This is just another “it’s really easy to spend other people’s money” issue.