LogFAQs > #923835769

s0nicfan posted...

The problem with "tax the rich" as a solution is that it's a pot you can only dip in to so many times. Nearly all of Warren's proposals, for example, "only" require a few percent added tax on the rich, but that's per-proposal. Add it all up and suddenly you're looking at a MASSIVE hike. It's death by a thousand paper cuts and the hope that nobody notices.

I basically agree with Richard Reeves argument in "the Dream Hoarders" that the top 20% of people or so are under-taxed in various ways. I'm not quite as open to something like a national VAT that would be required to really implement a Nordic-style welfare state but I'm closer to that than Warren or Sanders.

s0nicfan posted...

I think that if you're going to start talking this sort of intentional wealth distribution, it needs to be more structured. "Throw more money at the problem" has never been a good answer and many people in poverty have simply never learned how to manage money well. One of the reasons why programs like SNAP have worked is because it's not just a paycheck you can use on anything, and honestly that's one of the biggest problems with UBI as a replacement for welfare programs. It creates a scenario where your safety net needs a safety net.

I take the exact opposite view, actually. I think SNAP looks better than it is on paper precisely because benefits are so easy to sell for cash. I think the financial literacy narrative is mostly a myth. That's not to say that money management isn't important, my objection is more along of the lines that poverty bakes bad decision-making into the process. The stress (and the effects that has on your mental and physical abilities) that is associated with living in poverty creates the conditions for intergenerational poverty, which includes bad money management, but giving people more money would help them make better decisions in the long run.

s0nicfan posted...

For example, rather than blanket loan forgiveness, I've argued that we should be offering discounted or free tuition to NEW students in select fields, ones that change every few years based on market demand. If we're really low on electricians, then you can become an electrician for free, but what's offered rotates frequently enough to avoid market saturation. You'll always get the "but my degree is valuable for society in an un-qantifiable way" people, but at some point if you're going to invest in your own people, you need to actually treat it like an investment and make sure there's a ROI. The ROI case has been made for secondary education, but I haven't seen a compelling enough argument that every arbitrary degree has sufficient value to justify letting people pick whatever they want.

I like this idea, but I think it makes more sense on a local level. Actually I pitched almost this exact idea to my local chamber of commerce. "Customized worker training" is becoming a bigger deal in local economic development schemes because it's kind of a win-win for workers and businesses. Labor markets are local though, so that's why I think it makes more sense to do the subsidizing locally
---

But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.