I think that one of the main reasons why the US has the complicated welfare state that it does, instead of simple cash transfers, is that unconditional cash transfers to the poor are unpopular among the general public.
I think that’s basically right. The unfortunate side is that lying about the nature of the programs makes the programs less effective. Rationalizations become implementations. A dishonest rationalization keeps people focused on the wrong things, and doing the wrong things.
I think there are two good arguments for a direct redistribution, one common, one not.
The common one is helping the poor. Yes, conservatives want to help the poor too.
The uncommon one is based on justice. Except for propertarian ideologues, I don’t think the proposition that everyone has an equal right to a share in natural resources is that controversial. It’s just that few talk about. As I related earlier, even a Bill OReilly can get on board with that. It’s a peculiarity that there is widespread support for the proposition with respect to “our” oil, whoever “we” might be, but few follow the implications, as Thomas Paine, Henry George, and others have.
There is a final political argument that “this is better than what we do now”. Not quite as satisfying to anyone, but it shouldn’t be dismissed thereby. Political compromise by definition doesn’t align exactly with everyone’s values—until you add in the value placed on having an agreed upon and supported solution, and not continually fighting about it.
(Although that implies something that hadn’t occurred to me before; those who want to fight always have that motivation to prevent a compromise.)
To fit into one of these four categories, cash transfers would either need to go to everybody (which would be a huge program, e.g. $10,000 per American would require collecting 20% of GDP in taxes and then redistributing it),
Much of that money is already collected in taxes, and much of the rest would be an accounting gimmick with withholding taxes. Money disappears from one account and appears in another.
It’s the net spending that matters, and how efficiently it is spent. There’s no particular theoretical difficulty in rejiggering tax rates and payment amounts.
To fit into one of these four categories, cash transfers would either need to go to everybody (which would be a huge program, e.g. $10,000 per American would require collecting 20% of GDP in taxes and then redistributing it),
Much of that money is already collected in taxes, and much of the rest would be an accounting gimmick with withholding taxes. Money disappears from one account and appears in another.
Around 70% of American safety net / welfare state spending goes to people who are elderly or disabled (including Social Security, Medicare, most of Medicaid, SSI, and chunks of various other programs). Keeping the amount of transfers to the elderly & disabled at their current level (either through the current programs or as cash), and giving everyone else in America $10,000 each, would require raising taxes by something like 10% of GDP (assuming that the rest of welfare spending was eliminated). I’d guess that plenty of people on the American left would support a proposal like that if it was on the table (although they’d probably prefer to keep some other components of the current welfare state as well, especially programs for children), but it is not currently a part of the mainstream political discussion and I do not think that Bill O’Reilly would respond favorably to it.
I think that’s basically right. The unfortunate side is that lying about the nature of the programs makes the programs less effective. Rationalizations become implementations. A dishonest rationalization keeps people focused on the wrong things, and doing the wrong things.
I think there are two good arguments for a direct redistribution, one common, one not.
The common one is helping the poor. Yes, conservatives want to help the poor too.
The uncommon one is based on justice. Except for propertarian ideologues, I don’t think the proposition that everyone has an equal right to a share in natural resources is that controversial. It’s just that few talk about. As I related earlier, even a Bill OReilly can get on board with that. It’s a peculiarity that there is widespread support for the proposition with respect to “our” oil, whoever “we” might be, but few follow the implications, as Thomas Paine, Henry George, and others have.
There is a final political argument that “this is better than what we do now”. Not quite as satisfying to anyone, but it shouldn’t be dismissed thereby. Political compromise by definition doesn’t align exactly with everyone’s values—until you add in the value placed on having an agreed upon and supported solution, and not continually fighting about it.
(Although that implies something that hadn’t occurred to me before; those who want to fight always have that motivation to prevent a compromise.)
Much of that money is already collected in taxes, and much of the rest would be an accounting gimmick with withholding taxes. Money disappears from one account and appears in another.
It’s the net spending that matters, and how efficiently it is spent. There’s no particular theoretical difficulty in rejiggering tax rates and payment amounts.
Around 70% of American safety net / welfare state spending goes to people who are elderly or disabled (including Social Security, Medicare, most of Medicaid, SSI, and chunks of various other programs). Keeping the amount of transfers to the elderly & disabled at their current level (either through the current programs or as cash), and giving everyone else in America $10,000 each, would require raising taxes by something like 10% of GDP (assuming that the rest of welfare spending was eliminated). I’d guess that plenty of people on the American left would support a proposal like that if it was on the table (although they’d probably prefer to keep some other components of the current welfare state as well, especially programs for children), but it is not currently a part of the mainstream political discussion and I do not think that Bill O’Reilly would respond favorably to it.