1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
discoursedrome
discoursedrome

So this came up and, like, I have mixed feelings about means testing but this is the worst argument against it. People aren’t advocating for means testing because they resent wealthy people getting social benefits, they’re doing it because there’s a finite, usually too-small budget, and there’s an obvious appeal to spending $2000 a person on the bottom 25% of earners instead of spending $500 a person on everybody, many of whom can the same service out-of-pocket. It’s commonly the case that the amount of service you could provide with the budget you have is so low that if you extend it to everybody it won’t actually serve the needs of the people it’s intended for, and the most common way of addressing this is “make the service so terrible that everyone who can afford it pays for something else”, which is not that far from means testing.

The better objection to means testing is that it creates a marginal tax on earning more income, and it stigmatizes the benefit in question. People will be more likely to want to retool or repeal it if it’s overtly redistributive rather than being pitched as a “dividend of citizenship.” I practice I don’t think this usually overcomes the practical benefit of having four to ten times as much money to work with, but it’s something.

mitigatedchaos

Well, the idea with these universal programs, such as some kind of healthcare voucher or a universal basic income, is that you just tax more to make up for it.  If it’s well-designed, then it will add on to the rich people’s personal spending rather than attempting to replace it with sub-par service, but they’ll still not come out ahead due to the higher taxes.

I would think this is sort of implicit in these kinds of arguments.  Maybe not, though?

Source: berniesrevolution politics