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

Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 142 posts

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

#61

Post by vidarh »

wikiburner wrote: post #57
vidarh wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's only viable if you also force salaries up dramatically for low earners, or what you are doing is requiring people to starve.

No, I'm saying individuals would invest in lieu of social security. Those low earners are already losing part of their income to social security. There would obviously have to be a transitionary period where the government makes up the shortfall, in order to honor the commitments made to retirees. It would be painful, but only a small addition to the 87 Trillion in current liabilities of the U.S. government. http://o…

No, most low earners are receiving more back in benefits of various types than anything they pay into the system.

Thus if you replace these systems with mandatory investments, you are reducing their available cash.

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

#62

Post by noonespecial »

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…

With the possible exception of some sort of enforcement, I think you may have just described what I always hoped churches(1) would be to their communities. So few seem to care for much more than a bigger parking lot and a taller... whatever the hell they build on the front of those things these days.

(1) Mosques, Synagogues, Temples, etc.

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

#63

Post by vidarh »

ekianjo wrote: post #42
Crake wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Education goes to the lowest common denominator and becomes basically crap for everyone involved >health services which are subpar, with waiting lines and mediocre equipment >the middle-class and the poor are forever restrained to a diminished quality of life Are you sure you aren't talking about present day America? All of these things have become widespread here as a result of income inequality--something you've s…

> Are you sure you aren't talking about present day America I'm just talking about the world I know. I don't live in America. I can't say whether it's better or worse.

Most of Europe at least is doing far better than the US on most of these metrics, through socialized systems.

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

#64

Post by subsystem »

emiliobumachar wrote: post #11
frank_boyd wrote: post #2

As a matter of fact, society has not a single valid reason to allow concentration of excessive wealth on some kind of restricted group or "elite" (as, by the way, also promoted erroneously by the idea of the "American Dream"). Here are a few facts to explain that this concept is not sane at all: - Excessive wealth is usually hoarded (in bank accounts), not used: But if you want the economy to work the most (creating…

pg once pointed out there may be far fewer startups in a society that does not allow concentration of excessive wealth. That's at least one single valid reason. http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html "People start startups in the hope of becoming much richer than they were before. And if your society tries to prevent anyone from being much richer than anyone else, it will also prevent one person from being much richer…

It would be a much better argument without the strawman of absolute equality.

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

#65

Post by vidarh »

emiliobumachar wrote: post #11
frank_boyd wrote: post #2

As a matter of fact, society has not a single valid reason to allow concentration of excessive wealth on some kind of restricted group or "elite" (as, by the way, also promoted erroneously by the idea of the "American Dream"). Here are a few facts to explain that this concept is not sane at all: - Excessive wealth is usually hoarded (in bank accounts), not used: But if you want the economy to work the most (creating…

pg once pointed out there may be far fewer startups in a society that does not allow concentration of excessive wealth. That's at least one single valid reason. http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html "People start startups in the hope of becoming much richer than they were before. And if your society tries to prevent anyone from being much richer than anyone else, it will also prevent one person from being much richer…

Some people start startups in the hope of becoming much richer than what they were before. Most of the people for whome that is a major motivator are gambling, as your risk of failure is massive, and chance of that big payoff is ludicrously small.

If you want to become much richer than before, the more rational approach for most people is likely to be to work harder, live frugally, and invest everything they possibly can set aside.

I'm not so sure we'd be worse off without those few people whose only motivation for a startup is that they care so much about the potential payoff that they'd not start a company if they couldn't strike it big.

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

#66

Post by pron »

ekianjo wrote: post #33
boomlinde wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nature is unfair. [...] The only thing society should do is ensure everyone has the same rights in regard to the Law no matter how rich, how poor, how different you may be. Since you are so readily dismissing egalitarianism on the basis of being unnatural, I'm sure you have a great natural explanation for things like property rights and law. For all I care, you can have libertarian or egalitarian ideals, but make n…

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…

No one is trying to "make everyone the same as everyone else". Where did you get that? Even communism doesn't attempt do that (the communist ideal is that every individual should contribute their particular, unique talents to society, and the fruits of their labor will be shared by all).

> libertarian ideals are more respectful of individuals

Libertarianism, at least in its current incarnation in America, is the most hypocritical and abusive of all political ideologies, because it insists that "one governmental body" (as you call republican democracy) exert violence to uphold property rights. So the rich's source of power – their money – would be protected by governmental violence, while the poor cannot exert their own power – their numbers. This is hypocrisy, and is disrespectful to intelligence. What about this, though: remove all regulation and central control, but in order not to deprive the poor of their power while upholding the rich's, why not dismantle the police, too? Let the rich amass their wealth, and let the poor rob them. This is the only intellectually honest libertarianism: it's called anarchy, and personally, I like it. But barring that, if you want the government to protect your wealth, I think it's only fair to let the poor exert their power by forcing you to share some.

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

#67

Post by aaron695 »

Gustomaximus wrote: post #13

Would this reduce administration cost also? We always hear of charities where 20 cents on the dollar actually makes it to the people. If this can reduce admin cost by not having to make, control or follow up on conditions it could really help more money get to where it is needed.

The article states the UCT's have less admin costs but are still not as good as CCT.

Which is the point of admin costs, the money goes where's it's needed and not wasted.

This article is just about the fact UCT's are not a total waste of money, they are not the best way, but people are quite surprised they are better than just burning it.

Perhaps it can be used as food for thought for future CCT hybrids.

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

#68

Post by wikiburner »

vidarh wrote: post #61
wikiburner wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm saying individuals would invest in lieu of social security. Those low earners are already losing part of their income to social security. There would obviously have to be a transitionary period where the government makes up the shortfall, in order to honor the commitments made to retirees. It would be painful, but only a small addition to the 87 Trillion in current liabilities of the U.S. government. http://o…

No, most low earners are receiving more back in benefits of various types than anything they pay into the system. Thus if you replace these systems with mandatory investments, you are reducing their available cash.

I think you're either misunderstanding me or how social security works. I'm only talking about replacing social security, not "these systems".

Everyone who gets a paycheck pays their 6% in social security, regardless of income level.

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

#70

Post by logn »

pron wrote: post #58
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…

But "the government" is people. Society said, "let people take care of people", and government is the answer to how to do that. The government is "full of corruption and waste" because people are. We constantly try to find ways to organize society (and government as a crucial part of society) in ways that minimize corruption and waste, or mitigate their effects. > That is something that no government could ever accom…

> And if you're American, then it would be doubly great because we haven't seen any political revolutions in America since its founding (though if you're American you probably won't, because Americans like complaining about their government and alienating themselves from it, but they tend to do very little to improve it; at the end of the day, they're just too docile).

Some notable events in American history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_history_of_the_United_St...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement

Post reply on HN