Politicians want to buy votes at the cheapest rate possible.
Votes / $ Spend = Efficiency
Since a marginal dollar is worth more to people with less money, spending on those with less money tends to be more efficient.
Since spending on services counts as both something the receiver wants and something the provider wants, you can buy votes twice over with the same dollar.
You need to have a narrative that makes it acceptable or even desirable for such redistribution. The people that receive it should reliably reward who butters their bread and the people that pay for it should not feel a strong desire to resist it.
It makes sense then that welfare would primary target the old, the poor, identifiable minorities with voting solidarity, and single moms. And that it would primary come in the form of in-kind services provided by credentialed members of politician aligned guilds.
It's just a basic outcome of democracy where voting power has no correlation with economic production.
"My later research found that Montgomery County spends far more per student than any other county in Maryland, but its test scores are mediocre. They track the test scores of other counties with similar percentages of students on free and reduced meals (a measure of the prevalence of low-income families)."
Good schools do not create good students. Good students create good schools. Well, ninety percent.
"I argued that people who want health insurance paid for by government or by employers were under the delusion that paying for something collectively makes it more affordable. I said that it is like going to a fancy restaurant with prices that are too high for everyone.
"Somebody pipes up and says, 'That’s ok. We can just split the check.' Does that make sense?"
To be fair, that is not what proponents are saying. Their claim is that collective bargaining will make healthcare more affordable. So, a better analogy is:
"Hey, restaurant manager. Everyone in the restaurant tonight is splitting the bill and we want a 20% discount, or you get nothing."
The welfare state, de facto, overlaps with the regulatory state. A wide range of regs predictably and reliably transfer resources to target groups. These transfers are equivalent to subsidies. The mechanism is "pre-distribution" via regs rather than "redistribution" via tax-and-transfer.
If, and only if, a UBI to replace all other gov't benefits were the proposal, I'd still only barely support it.
Because it doesn't seem politically stable.
We have too much confusion between justice and fairness -- insofar as justice is to correct an injustice, we might have a "just" society, but we'll never have a "fair" society, because so many characteristics are different, including IQs & height.
A far more feasible reform would be to create a govt Benefit Debit Card, which can then be used like current debit cards, but the money is deposited by the govt for all current benefits. Which should also hugely increase the possibility for consolidating benefits, but most importantly getting better statistics about who is getting how much, and how many folk are actually getting the amounts they're getting.
Politically, we who want smaller govt should be pushing to get govt programs that do more to reward good behavior, like getting married, finishing HS, holding a job for a year. Reality, consisting of carrot & stick incentives (+ or -), has resulted in govt programs to reduce the stick, negative consequences of bad decisions. Naturally, when bad results result in free govt money, the fun-but-often-costly bad decisions that more often have bad results will be far more often chosen. And society has more bad results -- tho the ones making the bad choices are protected somewhat. So more bad deciisions.
At this point, to get a better society, govt should be explicitly subsidizing the good behavior. So good choices get both the normal reality better results, but also get govt support, so there will be more of the good choices. Those living in poor areas should get the full benefit (bottom 2 income deciles), with decreasing support-reward for those living in less poor areas.
All HS public (govt) school districts should be the "poor area" borders, taking advantage of much easier mapping.
Philosophically, I like what you say, especially the parts about reducing disincentives for the poor to marry and to work.
Beyond that, I find your numbers rather absurd. I used an online calculator to find inflation in the last 20 years was 65.34%. I first thought maybe I'd increase the inflation adjustment to100% but then I thought, why? If the plan had been implemented 20 years ago, wouldn't we at best be at a ~66% increase? Even if we assumed it was 100% I think your numbers would still be a bit silly but let's check it out with simple inflation.
- A family of four get $46,295. Whatever positive effect your plan has on marriage, you're still going to have a lot of single parents so one parent and three kids. This parent makes federal minimum wage, somehow full time, gaining 60% of $15,000 ($9,000). $55,295 ($3,858/month) doesn't sounds all that bad except they have to pay for three kids in school or daycare and they get catastrophic health coverage instead of Medicare. Of course they no longer get housing and food assistance.
Looking at education, I first checked a local grade school. With three children, IF THEY ARE PRACTICING CATHOLICS, it's only $16,500/yr for all three. If not catholic, tuition is higher AND there's no multi-child discount so ~$32,000. The local catholic high school is more. I'm in a central Illinois college town. Expensive for central Illinois but not that bad nationally. I checked a Catholic high school in DC that's over $17,000/child. Will increased demand raise prices or lower them? Will it raise or lower quality for lower-priced options that might result? What about a special needs student?
- An individual beyond working age gets $11,574 ($965/month) to pay for food, housing, medical beyond Medicare or your catastrophic care, and everything else. Maybe there's a few like this now but there would be A LOT more under your plan.
- What about someone who is disabled? Do they get any additional assistance?
- While we are at it, let's look at taxes. They come from federal, state income tax, property tax, and sales tax. Is a 40% rate and increase or decrease? I suppose that depends on what state one lives in but it sounds like a pretty big cut for the rich living in NY or California.
I like the idea of raising the "retirement" age of SS, but more to help induce a societal shift toward less binary retired/not expectations. But whatever the benefits, I want to see them and Medicare/Medicaid/ACA/unemployment insurance and a child rearing allowance all funded with a VAT. If we could fold employer "provided" health insurance into ACA, even better. I'd say have ACA+ be greater than "catastrophic" and encourage preventive care.
Does anybody know of a good analysis breaking down the causes of administration growth in education over the past 3-4 decades? It seems too large to blame any one thing, whether that be regulatory mandates or DEI or student/parent demand for "para educational" services or whatever.
Politicians want to buy votes at the cheapest rate possible.
Votes / $ Spend = Efficiency
Since a marginal dollar is worth more to people with less money, spending on those with less money tends to be more efficient.
Since spending on services counts as both something the receiver wants and something the provider wants, you can buy votes twice over with the same dollar.
You need to have a narrative that makes it acceptable or even desirable for such redistribution. The people that receive it should reliably reward who butters their bread and the people that pay for it should not feel a strong desire to resist it.
It makes sense then that welfare would primary target the old, the poor, identifiable minorities with voting solidarity, and single moms. And that it would primary come in the form of in-kind services provided by credentialed members of politician aligned guilds.
It's just a basic outcome of democracy where voting power has no correlation with economic production.
"My later research found that Montgomery County spends far more per student than any other county in Maryland, but its test scores are mediocre. They track the test scores of other counties with similar percentages of students on free and reduced meals (a measure of the prevalence of low-income families)."
Good schools do not create good students. Good students create good schools. Well, ninety percent.
"I argued that people who want health insurance paid for by government or by employers were under the delusion that paying for something collectively makes it more affordable. I said that it is like going to a fancy restaurant with prices that are too high for everyone.
"Somebody pipes up and says, 'That’s ok. We can just split the check.' Does that make sense?"
To be fair, that is not what proponents are saying. Their claim is that collective bargaining will make healthcare more affordable. So, a better analogy is:
"Hey, restaurant manager. Everyone in the restaurant tonight is splitting the bill and we want a 20% discount, or you get nothing."
The welfare state, de facto, overlaps with the regulatory state. A wide range of regs predictably and reliably transfer resources to target groups. These transfers are equivalent to subsidies. The mechanism is "pre-distribution" via regs rather than "redistribution" via tax-and-transfer.
If, and only if, a UBI to replace all other gov't benefits were the proposal, I'd still only barely support it.
Because it doesn't seem politically stable.
We have too much confusion between justice and fairness -- insofar as justice is to correct an injustice, we might have a "just" society, but we'll never have a "fair" society, because so many characteristics are different, including IQs & height.
A far more feasible reform would be to create a govt Benefit Debit Card, which can then be used like current debit cards, but the money is deposited by the govt for all current benefits. Which should also hugely increase the possibility for consolidating benefits, but most importantly getting better statistics about who is getting how much, and how many folk are actually getting the amounts they're getting.
Politically, we who want smaller govt should be pushing to get govt programs that do more to reward good behavior, like getting married, finishing HS, holding a job for a year. Reality, consisting of carrot & stick incentives (+ or -), has resulted in govt programs to reduce the stick, negative consequences of bad decisions. Naturally, when bad results result in free govt money, the fun-but-often-costly bad decisions that more often have bad results will be far more often chosen. And society has more bad results -- tho the ones making the bad choices are protected somewhat. So more bad deciisions.
At this point, to get a better society, govt should be explicitly subsidizing the good behavior. So good choices get both the normal reality better results, but also get govt support, so there will be more of the good choices. Those living in poor areas should get the full benefit (bottom 2 income deciles), with decreasing support-reward for those living in less poor areas.
All HS public (govt) school districts should be the "poor area" borders, taking advantage of much easier mapping.
It just dawned on me you are proposing a flat tax. Sneaky.
So gut benefits for the poor and cut taxes on the highest earners. LOL.
Philosophically, I like what you say, especially the parts about reducing disincentives for the poor to marry and to work.
Beyond that, I find your numbers rather absurd. I used an online calculator to find inflation in the last 20 years was 65.34%. I first thought maybe I'd increase the inflation adjustment to100% but then I thought, why? If the plan had been implemented 20 years ago, wouldn't we at best be at a ~66% increase? Even if we assumed it was 100% I think your numbers would still be a bit silly but let's check it out with simple inflation.
- A family of four get $46,295. Whatever positive effect your plan has on marriage, you're still going to have a lot of single parents so one parent and three kids. This parent makes federal minimum wage, somehow full time, gaining 60% of $15,000 ($9,000). $55,295 ($3,858/month) doesn't sounds all that bad except they have to pay for three kids in school or daycare and they get catastrophic health coverage instead of Medicare. Of course they no longer get housing and food assistance.
Looking at education, I first checked a local grade school. With three children, IF THEY ARE PRACTICING CATHOLICS, it's only $16,500/yr for all three. If not catholic, tuition is higher AND there's no multi-child discount so ~$32,000. The local catholic high school is more. I'm in a central Illinois college town. Expensive for central Illinois but not that bad nationally. I checked a Catholic high school in DC that's over $17,000/child. Will increased demand raise prices or lower them? Will it raise or lower quality for lower-priced options that might result? What about a special needs student?
- An individual beyond working age gets $11,574 ($965/month) to pay for food, housing, medical beyond Medicare or your catastrophic care, and everything else. Maybe there's a few like this now but there would be A LOT more under your plan.
- What about someone who is disabled? Do they get any additional assistance?
- While we are at it, let's look at taxes. They come from federal, state income tax, property tax, and sales tax. Is a 40% rate and increase or decrease? I suppose that depends on what state one lives in but it sounds like a pretty big cut for the rich living in NY or California.
I like the idea of raising the "retirement" age of SS, but more to help induce a societal shift toward less binary retired/not expectations. But whatever the benefits, I want to see them and Medicare/Medicaid/ACA/unemployment insurance and a child rearing allowance all funded with a VAT. If we could fold employer "provided" health insurance into ACA, even better. I'd say have ACA+ be greater than "catastrophic" and encourage preventive care.
This jibes with that recently much shared article about enormous growth in the admin staff of liberal arts colleges like Pomona: https://isi.org/modern-age/somewhere-between-a-jeremiad-and-a-eulogy/
Does anybody know of a good analysis breaking down the causes of administration growth in education over the past 3-4 decades? It seems too large to blame any one thing, whether that be regulatory mandates or DEI or student/parent demand for "para educational" services or whatever.
It must have gotten better, or I am not finding the full data for Montgomery County. Top google result today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_County_Public_Schools_(Maryland)
Montgomery County Public Schools (Maryland)
M County Public Schools
Teachers 13,994 (2022-23)
(Total?) Staff 25,232 (2022-23)
This would indicate fewer non-teaching positions than teachers, so it does not seem as bad as indicated.
https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?Search=2&ID2=2400480
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/about/