I have a considerable amount of sympathy with the views expressed by Greg Kaufmann in his post at Talk Poverty criticizing the incipient tax reform:
It doesn’t seem to matter that our antipoverty programs cut poverty in half—that poverty would have been as high as nearly 30 percent in recent years without them; or that girls who had access to food stamps (SNAP) saw increases in their economic self-sufficiency as adults—including less welfare participation—compared to their disadvantaged peers who didn’t have access; or that a little assistance for children up to age 5 is associated with boosted educational performance, and increased work and earnings as adults; or that children under 13 who were able to use a housing voucher to move to a low-poverty neighborhood were 32 percent more likely to attend college and earned 31 percent more annually as young adults, compared to their peers in families that didn’t receive a voucher. Or even that expansion of Medicaid eligibility has reduced infant mortality and childhood deaths, and that children eligible for Medicaid are more likely to go on to graduate college.
I think that the U. S. needs a “safety net”, as it’s called and I think that most Americans would agree. The areas of dispute are how extensive that safety net should be and how we can pay for it. If you define “safety net” as just the six major means-tested public assistance programs (Medicaid, SNAP, housing assistance, SSI, TANF, and general assistance), about 20% of Americans receive benefits from one or more of them. To some, presumably including Mr. Kaufmann, that isn’t nearly enough. To some it is far too many.
If you extend the notion of “safety net” to what are referred to as “entitlements”, another 20% of Americans receive benefits from just two of them, Medicare and SSRI, for a total of something like 40%.
Is there any practical way to reduce the amount of money being spent on these programs without reducing what we’re paying for health care? If there is, I don’t see it.
Rather than dwelling on the things about which we disagree, let’s try to forge some agreement. The extent of government benefits and how much we should be spending on them seems like a pretty good place to start.
The country does not need a safety net. It needs to eliminate control of national income by a small group who give a disproportionate amount to themselves. Giving all the ice cream to one child and then taking some ice cream from them to give others is ridiculous. You don’t let one child take all the ice cream in the first place so you don’t need to redistribute.
Say what? So we need a Bureau of Correct Compensation. We can put it next to the Ministry of Silly Walks. Rappers? Average baseball shortstops and .500 pitchers. And of course government workers. (Its public service you know). Min wage. A million a year for McDonalds clerks and Wal-Mart greeters. 10 million a year for snotty retail clerks and baristas.
Oh hell. Just pay everyone the same. It will be liberating, and glorious and…..Venezuela.
Huge disparity in wealth aggravates me too, bot it seems to be a natural outgrowth of our economic system, or of human nature. Not a good reason to drop our system for socialism.
As I continually tell my wife in these arguments , If ice cream WERE free, how much would be available tomorrow? Think that through.
I agree with Ben in one particular. I think it’s wrong to give those who are already rich money. It’s why I don’t agree with present intellectual property law, occupational licensing, zoning, captured regulatory agencies, and the entire long list of welfare for the rich.
I also think we should reverse the treatment of executive compensation to its pre-Clinton era reform standards but that’s changing the subject a bit.
“, bot it seems to be a natural outgrowth of our economic system, or of human nature.
Given that the disparity varies a lot over time and place, I don’t think it is all that natural (depending upon how you define natural). I do think that once the wealthy control enough money, and hence power, they are able to make sure that the government favors their interests in policy so that they are able to grow their wealth even further, and secure it for their family and friends. OTOH, maybe it is just a coincidence that many of the changes in the tax cut specifically benefit people in real estate and I am sure it was an oversight that the varied interest issue was not addressed even though it was promised many times that would change.
Steve
Could concur, it would be helpful to have uniform payment levels (and uniform standards) but can be expensive. How about a uniform federal payment for medical services so providers know say tricare, Indian Health Service, VA, federal workmen’s comp, medicare, medicaid, FBOP, et al will all pay the same amount (and have roughly the same requirements). Throw in negotiation for pharmacy benefits might save a nickle or two. Though the Law of Unintended Consequences applies.
Power begets power and therefore wealth begets more wealth.
I’ve heard that with great power comes great responsibility, but that would require integrity which makes a man a laughing stock these days.
All I can say is husband your own wealth responsibly, and that includes your time. Most of the products on the shelf, most of the movie tickets, tickets to sporting events, concerts, cable T V, smartphones, fashions, restaurant dining, new clothes, a long list of things that don’t deserve my money and only enhance the wealth of those already so provisioned.