Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well • Hacker News Board

Re: Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well

#91

Post by JulianMorrison » Mon, Oct 28, 2013, 2:26 PM UTC

goggles99 wrote: post #38

Here is a wild concept, mandate that people take care of people. Use the government only to enforce this. The government is full of corruption and waste, they are innefective in matters that require an actual soul (such as people who have made mistakes, people who have no reason to care, impoverished people, prisoners ETC.)... What if you could take the percentage of taxes that you spend every year and choose whom to…

> What if you could take the percentage of taxes that you spend every year and choose whom to help with it.

Then it would be spent on pet shelters and the national trust instead of homeless shelters and the national health, because middle class people fundamentally don't like poor people, and are mildly frustrated taxes go to them at all, except as a means to clear the streets of nuisance beggars.

Photogenically poor people in exotic places we can feel superior to are different, of course. Those, the middle classes will tithe to, provided it goes to "schools and infrastructure" to civilize them up.

Re: Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well

#92

Post by microcolonel » Mon, Oct 28, 2013, 2:37 PM UTC

goggles99 wrote: post #38

Here is a wild concept, mandate that people take care of people. Use the government only to enforce this. The government is full of corruption and waste, they are innefective in matters that require an actual soul (such as people who have made mistakes, people who have no reason to care, impoverished people, prisoners ETC.)... What if you could take the percentage of taxes that you spend every year and choose whom to…

>What if you could take the percentage of taxes that you spend every year and choose whom to help with it.

Kinda like just spending your own bloody money. The great thing about this alternative is that 100% of it goes where you want it, rather than the low tens of percentiles.

P.S. "ala the grinch" doesn't really make sense, it should be "a la grinch" since la handles the "the".

Re: Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well

#93

Post by mynewwork » Mon, Oct 28, 2013, 2:37 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #60

ekianjo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not just dismissive of Egalitarinism only because it's unnatural, but also because it goes against the individual's freedom in the end. There will be always be a point if you follow that line of thought where the power in place will crush your individual interests just for the sake of making your condition the same as everyone else (even on the basis of good intentions...). That, in itself, is against Human natur…

> I'm not just dismissive of Egalitarinism only because it's unnatural, but also because it goes against the individual's freedom in the end. Only if you define an individuals freedom as "freedom to deprive others of access to shared natural resources through violence" (I use the term violence since libertarians seems overly fond of referring to government interference as "violence"; except when it comes to enforcing…

I see a lot of attacks on any sort of libertarian (and for balance, many attacks at libertarian straw-men) on HN that use this same sort of inversion of force - the "stopping theft is violence" argument. Yours seems well-written enough that maybe you can answer one question I have about your viewpoint.

In your post, you refer to "shared natural resources" and then "deprive others of access to certain resources". Do you just mean "shared natural resources" as things like rivers, oceans, air, fossil fuels or does the argument really mean everything in existence because it presumably leveraged those things?

For instance, suppose I pick up a rock which everyone agrees has almost no value. I chip at it with another rock for a week until it now is in a shape of some useful tool, furniture or art. In your ideal system, who owns the value created through my labor? Do all people have equal claim to the item because it started out as a rock which was a shared resource? Do I own it? Something else?

Re: Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well

#94

Post by RodericDay » Mon, Oct 28, 2013, 2:45 PM UTC

wahsd wrote: post #86

Those who have for centuries fooled the rest of humanity into believing that their unearned, illegitimate, and unwarranted elevated status is justified know the findings of this painfully obvious fact to be true. Which is why they pull out all and every stop to prevent the majority from realizing it by vilifying anyone and anything that could spread that realization.

Also, if you agree with the above sentiment and are getting frustrated replying to all the shallow and cynical comments riffing on "wage slavery and welfare may be bad but it's the best system we can come up with", just read this other topic on the front page with people opening up about their skepticism towards something as banal as Dropbox: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6625306

Re: Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well

#95

Post by microcolonel » Mon, Oct 28, 2013, 2:47 PM UTC

JulianMorrison wrote: post #91

goggles99 wrote: post #38

Here is a wild concept, mandate that people take care of people. Use the government only to enforce this. The government is full of corruption and waste, they are innefective in matters that require an actual soul (such as people who have made mistakes, people who have no reason to care, impoverished people, prisoners ETC.)... What if you could take the percentage of taxes that you spend every year and choose whom to…

> What if you could take the percentage of taxes that you spend every year and choose whom to help with it. Then it would be spent on pet shelters and the national trust instead of homeless shelters and the national health, because middle class people fundamentally don't like poor people, and are mildly frustrated taxes go to them at all, except as a means to clear the streets of nuisance beggars. Photogenically poor…

Excuse me, but where does this generalization about the middle class come from?

Maybe they just want to do their part in a more effective way than having it stolen out of their income, then whittled down to a few percent, which is then distributed in obtuse ways which ruin the market forces which once made these people's lives easier year-over-year.

Re: Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well

#96

Post by Unnatural_Log » Mon, Oct 28, 2013, 3:02 PM UTC

"most of the payments went to mothers"

Because that's what we need: to incentivize reproduction.

Because we don't have enough people destroying the planet as fast as they possibly can with their arrogant, self-indulgent, human-centric, bullshit belief systems.

I'll say it once more: you are not the special darlings of a doting white god, you arrogant assholes, you are just another animal in a chaotic universe.

This planet was not put here for you to do whatever you want with it, and you are going to discover that shortly if you don't smarten up and realize the obscene waste and destruction you are perpetrating.

You are, collectively, so fucking stupid that you cannot even grok the simple concept, "don't shit where you eat". Fuckers.

Re: Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well

#97

Post by mseebach » Mon, Oct 28, 2013, 3:47 PM UTC

exit wrote: post #69

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

Read the article. It is about a single, one-time, no-strings-attached payment, requiring a business plan to qualify (Although there is no follow up on the plan). It is not an ongoing payment.

"Recipients spent a third of the money learning a trade (such as metalworking or tailoring) and much of the rest on tools and stock."

Re: Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well

#98

Post by giardini » Mon, Oct 28, 2013, 3:52 PM UTC

wahsd wrote: post #86

Those who have for centuries fooled the rest of humanity into believing that their unearned, illegitimate, and unwarranted elevated status is justified know the findings of this painfully obvious fact to be true. Which is why they pull out all and every stop to prevent the majority from realizing it by vilifying anyone and anything that could spread that realization.

"Those who have for centuries fooled the rest of humanity ..."

I don't understand the above. Are you speaking of economists, politicians, academia in general, or all of these perhaps? Please clarify.

Re: Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well

#99

Post by dublinben » Mon, Oct 28, 2013, 3:56 PM UTC

mynewwork wrote: post #93

vidarh wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not just dismissive of Egalitarinism only because it's unnatural, but also because it goes against the individual's freedom in the end. Only if you define an individuals freedom as "freedom to deprive others of access to shared natural resources through violence" (I use the term violence since libertarians seems overly fond of referring to government interference as "violence"; except when it comes to enforcing…

I see a lot of attacks on any sort of libertarian (and for balance, many attacks at libertarian straw-men) on HN that use this same sort of inversion of force - the "stopping theft is violence" argument. Yours seems well-written enough that maybe you can answer one question I have about your viewpoint. In your post, you refer to "shared natural resources" and then "deprive others of access to certain resources". Do y…

A socialist would say that you have complete ownership over the product of your labor.

Re: Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well

#100

Post by adwf » Mon, Oct 28, 2013, 3:58 PM UTC

Unnatural_Log wrote: post #96

"most of the payments went to mothers" Because that's what we need: to incentivize reproduction. Because we don't have enough people destroying the planet as fast as they possibly can with their arrogant, self-indulgent, human-centric, bullshit belief systems. I'll say it once more: you are not the special darlings of a doting white god, you arrogant assholes, you are just another animal in a chaotic universe. This p…

Your apparent misanthropy aside, every study I've ever heard of links increased wealth, health and prosperity with declining birth rates.

By improving the lot of these women, you decrease their need to have large numbers of children (to work for them), you increase their education (so they understand why large numbers of children are unnecessary) and you also put power into the hands of the women rather than the men (so that they have a choice).