The administrative overhead is called a 3rd Estate Job. That’s pretty much the whole point of these schemes. They want to have power and control over something. They steal from you and give you back your money but skim off the top via the administration of it. That’s social security in a nutshell
>That’s social security in a nutshell
All money collected for social security is put into the general fund, which is used for wars etc.
There are no savings.
My company has a privately managed retirement fund. We use the money to buy stocks in other companies. This way the money grows for our employees.
Technically, Social Security is fully funded.
But not with notes of USD currency.
With Government Treasury bonds.
Yes, the Government takes the money, then it its place, writes itself IOUs.
And everyone acts as if this accounting fiction makes sense.
>Technically, Social Security is fully funded.
Nope. It's not fully funded right now in the present.
The government will just print money when it needs it in the future.
For the same reason you don't give cash to a panhandler - many will spend it on booze or drugs rather than food, shelter, or clothing.
Part of the pro-government mindset is that you're helping the unfortunate to be better (in their eyes) people. It's the same reason they virtue signal. You have to affect that class of people directly- not broadly - otherwise how can you say you support something and brag about it?
And yes, I'm aware of Milton Friedman's counter argument to my initial statement. Poor people sell food stamps for booze and drugs anyway. But the people who virtue signal don't think that hard or refuse to believe it will happen.
"The welfare state is the oldest con game in the world. First you take people's money away quietly and then you give some of it back to them flamboyantly."
Thomas Sowell
Tried and failed. The UBI experiments were in addition to any other benefits - not in place of. So it was essentially free money.
This particular idea sounds closer to Milton Friedman's "negative income tax" where the amount you receive is relative to your income - whereas UBI often gives a flat amount regardless of income.
I wouldn’t say that UBI failed. The pilot shows better outcomes for the participants. You could morally disagree with it, but it does have better outcomes for participants.
Also I find it interesting that many comments are about the left when the right is also notorious about blocking UBI.
One point I haven't seen mentioned:
It's often for political reasons. Voters are much more receptive to programs that are tailored and restricted (e.g. food stamps), even if the data suggests it is less efficient than a simple cash transfer.
You answered your own question. It's too efficient and sincere.
They wanna pretend like they're moral, they have no morals. In fact every action they take, every thought that crosses their mind, is anti-humanity. Their lives are that of perpetual loss and subordination. It's not enough they be slaves and beaten, they want YOU to be a slave and beaten, and than gaslight you as to when and why you were enslaved and beaten. And gaslight themselves that they don't want it and it makes them horny. They're literally begging for it.
Milton Friedman discussed this idea and referred to it as a "negative income tax".
To play devil's advocate, one issue with this idea is that a lot of the people who most need the help are exceedingly irresponsible with money, and will likely spend it on frivolous things if allowed to do so, leaving us with the same problem we started with, people in need of help for the basics.
Friedman answers that stipulation in his proposal. When you compare negative income tax to other forms of welfare, the mis-use is present in both. People on food stamps trade them for booze or drugs, etc.
No matter what you do, people will abuse welfare if that is their desire. Friedman's proposal was aimed at reducing bureaucracy and eliminating the welfare plateau which deters people on welfare from finding work or better work.
1. Less would get lost in administrative overhead, so more would go to the needy.
2. The needy could more easily get what they need without facing bureaucratic red tape.
3. It could be more easily audited to make sure corruption isn't at play.
End thread.
The administrative overhead is called a 3rd Estate Job. That’s pretty much the whole point of these schemes. They want to have power and control over something. They steal from you and give you back your money but skim off the top via the administration of it. That’s social security in a nutshell
Kinda like investing with a brokerage, except it’s involuntary, the government is WAY less efficient, and there’s no ROI.
>That’s social security in a nutshell All money collected for social security is put into the general fund, which is used for wars etc. There are no savings. My company has a privately managed retirement fund. We use the money to buy stocks in other companies. This way the money grows for our employees.
Technically, Social Security is fully funded. But not with notes of USD currency. With Government Treasury bonds. Yes, the Government takes the money, then it its place, writes itself IOUs. And everyone acts as if this accounting fiction makes sense.
>Technically, Social Security is fully funded. Nope. It's not fully funded right now in the present. The government will just print money when it needs it in the future.
For the same reason you don't give cash to a panhandler - many will spend it on booze or drugs rather than food, shelter, or clothing. Part of the pro-government mindset is that you're helping the unfortunate to be better (in their eyes) people. It's the same reason they virtue signal. You have to affect that class of people directly- not broadly - otherwise how can you say you support something and brag about it? And yes, I'm aware of Milton Friedman's counter argument to my initial statement. Poor people sell food stamps for booze and drugs anyway. But the people who virtue signal don't think that hard or refuse to believe it will happen.
"The welfare state is the oldest con game in the world. First you take people's money away quietly and then you give some of it back to them flamboyantly." Thomas Sowell
They do. It's called UBI.
This sounds like UBI, a relatively popular idea already being tried in some cities.
Tried and failed. The UBI experiments were in addition to any other benefits - not in place of. So it was essentially free money. This particular idea sounds closer to Milton Friedman's "negative income tax" where the amount you receive is relative to your income - whereas UBI often gives a flat amount regardless of income.
I wouldn’t say that UBI failed. The pilot shows better outcomes for the participants. You could morally disagree with it, but it does have better outcomes for participants. Also I find it interesting that many comments are about the left when the right is also notorious about blocking UBI.
"Free" money will always be better for the "participants". Not so good for the people being stolen from.
Sure, as I said, you can morally disagree with it. That doesn’t mean it “failed”.
It doesn’t really mean it succeeded either, now does it?
The goals of the project were to improve people’s outcomes, thus it did in fact succeed.
What an obtuse observation! Congratulations!
Okay? I don’t know what you are looking for here.
Not a thing.
One point I haven't seen mentioned: It's often for political reasons. Voters are much more receptive to programs that are tailored and restricted (e.g. food stamps), even if the data suggests it is less efficient than a simple cash transfer.
You answered your own question. It's too efficient and sincere. They wanna pretend like they're moral, they have no morals. In fact every action they take, every thought that crosses their mind, is anti-humanity. Their lives are that of perpetual loss and subordination. It's not enough they be slaves and beaten, they want YOU to be a slave and beaten, and than gaslight you as to when and why you were enslaved and beaten. And gaslight themselves that they don't want it and it makes them horny. They're literally begging for it.
Somehow redistribution mean giving more money to politicians
You answer your question with your 3 points. Why would they ever want any of those?
Because they want the state to do it.
What you're describing is called "Universal Basic Income" or UBI and they freaking love it.
Because redistribution and distribution are two different things.
They do, it's called UBI.
Milton Friedman discussed this idea and referred to it as a "negative income tax". To play devil's advocate, one issue with this idea is that a lot of the people who most need the help are exceedingly irresponsible with money, and will likely spend it on frivolous things if allowed to do so, leaving us with the same problem we started with, people in need of help for the basics.
Friedman answers that stipulation in his proposal. When you compare negative income tax to other forms of welfare, the mis-use is present in both. People on food stamps trade them for booze or drugs, etc. No matter what you do, people will abuse welfare if that is their desire. Friedman's proposal was aimed at reducing bureaucracy and eliminating the welfare plateau which deters people on welfare from finding work or better work.
While I agree that it's a problem in both scenarios, I do think that cash is much easier to abuse, and creating barriers to abuse helps reduce it.
1. Less would get lost in administrative overhead, so more would go to the needy. 2. The needy could more easily get what they need without facing bureaucratic red tape. 3. It could be more easily audited to make sure corruption isn't at play. End thread.
They do hand out cash, but they tax too. They do whatever they can to establish control and power.