The Wall

[wufwugy]

While it's troublesome to have some people blow their money on toys and then treat the rest of us like its our fault they have no savings, the alternative is uglier.

What is the alternative?

[MadMojoMonkey]

While it's troublesome to have some people blow their money on toys and then treat the rest of us like its our fault they have no savings, the alternative is uglier.

What is the alternative?

I guess it's absurd to say that anyone who owns any luxury item is therefore disqualified from any public aid or services.

Are you calling from a cell phone? Sorry 911 is only for people who don't squander their money on luxury items.

We've got a unconscious patient with a gunshot wound coming in through the ambulance bay, but we found a pack of gum in his pocket and no insurance card, so we are turning him away.

Welcome to the DMV. I see you have a Starbucks coffee cup, so you will not be permitted to share in the privilege of driving, to which non-frivolous citizens have access.

[BananaStand]

I guess it's absurd to say that anyone who owns any luxury item is therefore disqualified from any public aid or services.

It's like you're suggesting that we just suck it up when someone chooses to spend their food budget on a Cadillac and then applies for food stamps to cover the difference. It doesn't have to be like that. A more rigorous and nuanced method of means testing could solve that easily.

Say you take home $2,500 per month. Rent = $1,000, Utilities $250, Cable/Net = $200, Car payment = 750, Gas = $100, Cell phone=$200. That's all your money and you haven't bought any food yet. Say you need $600 more to buy food every month.

Should the government just give that away?

Or should the government be allowed to evaluate the finances, at least a high level, and determine if there is really a "need"? The government knows what shit costs, that's how they calculate CPI and other economic metrics.

the government could easily say that a reasonable car payment for someone of your income level and geographic region is more like $500 per month. The gov't could use that figure as a 'cap' on the expenditure claim. So now the numbers read like this

$2,500 - Rent - Utilities - Cable - Car (capped at $500) - Gas - Cell = $250

In this example, I believe the government should only give away $350. That plus the additional money that SHOULD be left over makes up a total of $600 needed for food.

Then that citizen has the choice of driving a nicer car but eating less, or eating reasonably and driving a reasonable car. People should not be free to make that choice at the expense of other citizens. The choice should be made at their own expense.

[MadMojoMonkey]

.

You are not my political rival.

[wufwugy]

It's like you're suggesting that we just suck it up when someone chooses to spend their food budget on a Cadillac and then applies for food stamps to cover the difference. It doesn't have to be like that. A more rigorous and nuanced method of means testing could solve that easily.

Say you take home $2,500 per month. Rent = $1,000, Utilities $250, Cable/Net = $200, Car payment = 750, Gas = $100, Cell phone=$200. That's all your money and you haven't bought any food yet. Say you need $600 more to buy food every month.

Should the government just give that away?

Or should the government be allowed to evaluate the finances, at least a high level, and determine if there is really a "need"? The government knows what shit costs, that's how they calculate CPI and other economic metrics.

the government could easily say that a reasonable car payment for someone of your income level and geographic region is more like $500 per month. The gov't could use that figure as a 'cap' on the expenditure claim. So now the numbers read like this

$2,500 - Rent - Utilities - Cable - Car (capped at $500) - Gas - Cell = $250

In this example, I believe the government should only give away $350. That plus the additional money that SHOULD be left over makes up a total of $600 needed for food.

Then that citizen has the choice of driving a nicer car but eating less, or eating reasonably and driving a reasonable car. People should not be free to make that choice at the expense of other citizens. The choice should be made at their own expense.

I caution that this could carry with it some substantial unintended consequences. This would likely open the door to greater intrusive power of bureaucracy and greater acceptance of dependency by citizens.


When we get down to brass tacks, the only reason the government should provide for somebody is to increase their productivity. Doing so for any reason that reduces their productivity is unfair to the productive since they are the ones paying for it (this means unfair to most people). I have been unable to develop a cohesive argument for how government can intervene into personal exchange to make them more productive than otherwise. I can't even recall seeing an economist do it. Given this, it is probable that people are better off when the government doesn't try to help them.

[Jack Sawyer]

It's like you're suggesting that we just suck it up when someone chooses to spend their food budget on a Cadillac and then applies for food stamps to cover the difference. It doesn't have to be like that. A more rigorous and nuanced method of means testing could solve that easily.

Say you take home $2,500 per month. Rent = $1,000, Utilities $250, Cable/Net = $200, Car payment = 750, Gas = $100, Cell phone=$200. That's all your money and you haven't bought any food yet. Say you need $600 more to buy food every month.

Should the government just give that away?

Or should the government be allowed to evaluate the finances, at least a high level, and determine if there is really a "need"? The government knows what shit costs, that's how they calculate CPI and other economic metrics.

the government could easily say that a reasonable car payment for someone of your income level and geographic region is more like $500 per month. The gov't could use that figure as a 'cap' on the expenditure claim. So now the numbers read like this

$2,500 - Rent - Utilities - Cable - Car (capped at $500) - Gas - Cell = $250

In this example, I believe the government should only give away $350. That plus the additional money that SHOULD be left over makes up a total of $600 needed for food.

Then that citizen has the choice of driving a nicer car but eating less, or eating reasonably and driving a reasonable car. People should not be free to make that choice at the expense of other citizens. The choice should be made at their own expense.

Can't ever realistically happen as all car companies will send armies of lobbyists to tackle this immediately. Heck, they will probably even sue the government.

[Savy]

Can't ever realistically happen as all car companies will send armies of lobbyists to tackle this immediately. Heck, they will probably even sue the government.

The UK government not that long ago put in a minimum scrapping price of cars and as a result the bottom end of the used car market just disappeared.

[Jack Sawyer]

The UK government not that long ago put in a minimum scrapping price of cars and as a result the bottom end of the used car market just disappeared.

LOL, doesn't that affect the cheapest shit cars? Better cars mean more money has to be spent on the procurement of those cars, right?

[Savy]

LOL, doesn't that affect the cheapest shit cars? Better cars mean more money has to be spent on the procurement of those cars, right?

What do you mean? I'm saying your car basically has a guaranteed scrap price, not so much a bad thing but market adjustments don't happen so it is, therefore any car you could buy that cost you less than x (x is scrap price of your car) you can no longer buy. We're talking old crappy cars at this point but that doesn't mean they aren't old crappy cars you can get time out of. The knock on effect of this is that EVERY car gets slightly more expensive because you don't just delete the cars worth less than that you also raise the value of every car slightly above that and that knocks on to every other car (decreasing as you go up). So that £400 car you might have bought is £450, etc.

[BananaStand]

Can't ever realistically happen as all car companies will send armies of lobbyists to tackle this immediately. Heck, they will probably even sue the government.

They would lose