281–290 of 433 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, if you agree with socialism for the rich and for the rich only this was great just like 2008.
It is bad to keep citing 2008 money as if it were a handout. Much of the money was paid back with interest, and the government MADE money on those loans. Look up the “maiden lane” loans for an example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Though to be fair you can make a very compelling argument that that wasn't the most moral choice
Avoiding a civil revolt and the subsequent death count probably undercuts any such claim to morality, if we're using "human suffering" as the metric.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am very confident that the modal welfare voter would prefer the current system, which was specifically designed to buy their vote, to any system which appeals to utilitarian-minded technocrats and costs within a factor of 2 of the current system.
Without justification. Look, well-minding paternalistic peeps are behind the current system of "you can only buy some kinds of food with SNAP" and "you must spend this particular money with only certain providers of housing!" It's not the benefit recipient demanding that they be restricted in how they spend their benefits. Less strings on the money is A) cheaper, and B) nicer for the recipient. I have no doubt that i…
It takes entire agencies scores of hours to receive, verify, investigate and cure deficient applications, handle appeals, and execute wage garnishment orders due to their own overpayment/accounting errors -- not to mention approvals.
"Oh we just figured out you made too much money 5 months ago. Sorry bub, you gotta pay back The State the past 5mo of benefits, and re-apply" (with a 90 day waiting period... && Watch out kid, next time this happens it'll be a 180day wait.)
After that's done, they then turn around and do it all again every 6 months because they're forced to re-collect(and vet/process/cure) the same information again via a mandatory "beneficiary 6mo survey".
I know a few upper-middle class small business owners (all non-retail sectors) whose businesses weren't substantially affected by the pandemic, but who basically got a free handout as part of the program. Two mentioned how they were initially hesitant to apply for money, but then worried that if they didn't, their business could take a downturn after it was too late. Then as long as they spent the money on payroll (w…
If you don’t show losses, and the loan was forgiven, it becomes taxable revenue. As a C corp, Trump got those taxes down to 21%, so it was only mostly free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Avoiding a civil revolt and the subsequent death count probably undercuts any such claim to morality, if we're using "human suffering" as the metric.
There may have been a population with more human suffering than former slave owners.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think we even really delayed them: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30167436
No death is avoided. All deaths are merely delayed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what about when you’ve exhausted every square inch of land to shove more housing on? Then the city isn’t worth anything to anyone and you move on to the next city to ruin. At some point, enough is enough and you have to accept that there’s no room for more housing without ruining the city. You could focus on reclaiming AirBNBs and vacant housing and you might be able to make a dent in the problem. Just announce t…
The city I lived in, in Italy has like twice as many people as the place I live in the US, in a slightly smaller footprint. This is accomplished by some clever technology the Italians use: they are able to stack dwelling units on top of one another. In many ways, it was a more pleasant place to live, since I could walk or bike to so many places.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without justification. Look, well-minding paternalistic peeps are behind the current system of "you can only buy some kinds of food with SNAP" and "you must spend this particular money with only certain providers of housing!" It's not the benefit recipient demanding that they be restricted in how they spend their benefits. Less strings on the money is A) cheaper, and B) nicer for the recipient. I have no doubt that i…
The cost of administering that $600 monthly award is way above $zero. It takes entire agencies scores of hours to receive, verify, investigate and cure deficient applications, handle appeals, and execute wage garnishment orders due to their own overpayment/accounting errors -- not to mention approvals. "Oh we just figured out you made too much money 5 months ago. Sorry bub, you gotta pay back The State the past 5mo o…
Sure-- not sure if you're agreeing with me or arguing? It is more costly to give aid with strings attached and complicated qualification requirements, and it is worth less to the recipients.
[Not to mention the costs that this bureaucracy imposes on the recipients. Time that they spend jumping through hoops in a bureaucracy is time and attention they can't spend on bettering their situation].
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is a wealth redistribution scheme. At first order it is, but at first order virtually any policy involves moving wealth around, and at first order any such thing is zero-sum. > from people who are self-evidently efficient capital allocators to people who are self-evidently not. Given that the biggest factor affecting income is parental class, that seems far from self-evident. More importantly, if we want to en…
> Given that the biggest factor affecting income is parental class This isn't actually true; it's one possible explanation that seems OK under cursory examination of the evidence, and it's compatible with American university social "science" dogma, but it falls apart under careful inspection. The overwhelmingly more likely (but incompatible with field political dogma) explanation is that income is most strongly media…
This can't explain the whole effect, because:
- The effect of parental income on later income remains even after controlling with standardized test scores.
- Further, parental income seems to increase child IQ a little bit, even after controlling for parental IQ scores.
Same story all over the world https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/aug/31/harve...
> Harvey Norman repaid all the wage subsidies for its “controlled entities”
The businesses that were claiming the cash were the franchisees of Harvey Norman. Not the publicly listed company (and it's owned subsidiaries). It could well be that those franchisees were indeed justified in claiming the Jobkeeper subsidies.
I love picking on Gerry Harvey/Harvey Norman us much as the next guy, but this time it is unwarented. Pick on the plenty of other ASX (publicly) listed companies that used the money, didn't repay, and still dished out dividends to their shareholders.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/dec/07/less-...
For example, Premier Investments (ASX: PMV) received $87m over two years, paid back $15.6m. In that period, they paid out $1.04 per share of dividends! They have as of writing 158.99M shares outstanding, so why did Just Jeans, Smiggle and Jay Jays need Jobkeeper? All that cash went straight to the shareholders pockets.