201–210 of 294 posts
Instead we end up with a situation where we have arbitrary cutoffs, a large buerocracy just checking for eligibility and often even progressive subsidies (giving more to those with higher incomes)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm early-retired and all I can say is that it didn't work that way for me. I do have more time, but I'm not so bored that I want to tie up my schedule. I'll come up with a project I can do at my own pace. It's sort of like telling yourself that you'll go back to school. Some people do, but most don't.
> I'll come up with a project I can do at my own pace. Right, but wouldn't that be similar? Obviously there are going to be people who are going to say "screw it, I'm going to live like this" on a basic survival-wage UBI, but I doubt a majority would want to.
I do support UBI, but I also expect that it would have complicated effects.
Is this true? You can't mark cap losses against income to reduce income more than a few thousand. You have to actively make less, not make bad investments.
You can if a significant part of your income is capital gains.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would consider just taking the medicaid for a year. Medicaid can actually be very good quality healthcare, if you're located say, near a very good research hospital in a city with a structural oversupply of medical care due to having a lot of med schools. I'd rather have medicaid living next to a high quality (non profit) health system, than "nice" insurance living in a shithole. All the insurance in the world can'…
> I would consider just taking the Medicaid for a year. ACA subsidy eligibility may be annual, but Medicaid eligibility is based on current monthly income, and if you have a change that makes you ineligible, you lose it. You can’t just decide to “take Medicaid for a year” because you aren’t subsidy-eligible based on prior-year income.
That said, in my secondhand experience across multiple states I won't name, the medicaid office probably won't actually find out or do anything before 12 months are up.
Also, a few states are starting to officially enact "continuous eligibility" and intentionally not check your income for 12 months -- mostly for children[1] right now, but some states for adults[2] too.
[1] https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/enrollment-strategies/cont...
[2] https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The ones I've known with kids all seem to have it far worse. If they were getting a $16k tax credit or whatever it must not have been making up for the other costs involved with raising children. Worse than someone who doesn't have to pay raise a kid isn't the same thing as worse than someone else with kids who makes $8000 more and therefore loses the $16,000 credit. And the cliffs are only half the problem. Did yo…
> The entire welfare system should be vaporized and replaced with a tax credit for the poor (i.e. a UBI). Yep, call it a negative income tax if it goes down better than UBI, but many other things would be better than the system we have now.
A negative income tax might work out a lot better on the numbers, but it won't help the people that need it the most (the ones that can't get a job).
But hey, maybe it can work. The US has a deficit spending of $1.7 trillion in 2023, $1.4 in 2022, $2.7 in 2021. That $1.7 would cover almost half of a $12k ubi. But how long could that last?
The worst one of these that affected me was money helping people in the 2008 housing crisis. qualifying was based on what percentage of your income your mortgage payment was. So I would have got it if I had made a little less money, or if i had bought a house I knew I couldn’t afford. It felt like being punished for making the right decisions.
This is like saying, "If only my house had been destroyed by a hurricane too, and then I would have qualified for that sweet FEMA money." I mean, sure, but you were still better off to not have your house destroyed in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is a net good for the economy [for individuals to improve their lives] I agree. If you've just inherited $25 million, it would still be better for you and for society for you to get a job--even a job paying $50k a year if that is all you could get. But...are you going to be incentivized to do so? If you care about somebody not wanting to make $50k because they'd lose a $10k subsidy, how much MORE should you care…
> I advocate a 100% inheritance tax What sort of nonsense half-measure is this? I propose a 100% tax on parent-child resource transfers starting from the moment of birth! Although, you might just cut out the middleman, seize the children, and raise them in a state-run "Nurturing Center."
I don't know a parent who hasn't fantasized about this. I hadn't considered the inheritance angle; my kid's young yet.
I went to school at a relatively late age and started in community college. The school/state had a policy where any independent income earners making less than 35,000/year would not pay tuition. A single dollar over that would require paying full tuition of ~$60/unit or about $750 a semester. One year I worked a little more overtime during the holidays than usual and realized with a week to go in the year that I'd go…
An instructive image of the welfare trap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Welfare_trap.png People making $30K on welfare would need to make $81K at an actual job to have the same income after tax. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap
1) “making $30k on welfare”. What is the dollar amount here? Literal checks? All support including food stamps?
2) someone making $81k will take home something like $50k of their income. That’s _way_ more than $30k
At least in the government, there should be a law that any hypothetical scenario where someone making more money before government taxes/incentives would cause them to earn less after, must be quickly resolved by replacing hard cutoffs with gradients. No benefits should apply 100% for anyone making under a certain amount and 0% for anyone making over. Instead there should be a range they slowly decrease, so that if y…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you imagining the typical rate is in much of America. When we lived in the city we had a range of about 225 to 300 per week as of last year. Outside of the city we pay 160 per week. The real issue was the waiting list…
If you have a wait list, the price isn't high enough