• Wanderer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    I don’t mean one off payments.

    Tax cuts I can get behind. The other things I do not agree with. Like I said economists are pushing more and more for cash transfers not for payments on behalf of others. That’s just saying some economist miles away knows how a person needs to spend their money better than them. If you give them cash individuals can spent it on what they need to spend it on, not what you think they need to spend it on.

    A lot of things your propose are just market distortion which isn’t good.

    • thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      What you call ‘market distortions’ are at times the only other means of getting additional money into the hands of low income earners.

      If someone’s already paying $0 in income tax, either because they are on disability payments, a student, or caring after a loved one - then providing them with supplemental rental and nutritional payments are sometimes the only thing standing between them becoming unhoused and going hungry.

      • Wanderer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Not if you just give them money.

        They can still buy food or rent with that money.

        Let’s say they live with a family member for free or they have a small allotment. Maybe they don’t need rental help or food help. By giving them that they might not get what they really need. They might need gas money, or small starter money for a business or an eduction certificate.

        Money still allows them to do what they want but also more. That’s why cash is becoming more popular. It has more value for the same cost to government