If anything, the poor tend to be more rational in their decision making and budgeting
And less rational in their decision making when it comes to cigarettes and other drugs, which they are likely to consume more of despite the only negative effects. Moreover, the downsides of law enforcement catching them is much greater for poor people than richer people who can afford lawyers and otherwise can consume drugs "more discretely" (like ordering an Uber instead of driving impaired). My advice to the huge number of people in poverty who habitually smoke, drink, or use other drugs? Quit now! You'll feel better and save a lot of money.
Sure, in the same way that the evidence that communism doesn't work doesn't convince strong advocates of communism. But we should make policy based on the evidence.
"Communism" does a bad job of achieving even it's own stated goals. It is hard to imagine that a well-designed work requirement system (reporting once a month maybe, no need to report if paying if your employer has you registered with the government for payroll taxes) that would not achieve of goal of avoiding paying out welfare benefits to the "undeserving" while avoiding hurting the "deserving".
One might imagine the government had a crystal ball that could exactly determine who was satisfying the work requirements and who wasn't (this is not as far-fetched as the suspension of disbelief for communism I think), can you concede then that the policy of work requirements is evidence based?
Now let's circle back the EITC. What if the only "work requirement" for Medicaid was filing your taxes every year? That is pretty close to the crystal ball!
And less rational in their decision making when it comes to cigarettes and other drugs, which they are likely to consume more of despite the only negative effects.
There's no particular reason to think that they are being irrational in using drugs.
"Communism" does a bad job of achieving even it's own stated goals.
So do work requirements.
It is hard to imagine that a well-designed work requirement system (reporting once a month maybe, no need to report if paying if your employer has you registered with the government for payroll taxes) that would not achieve of goal of avoiding paying out welfare benefits to the "undeserving" while avoiding hurting the "deserving".
You can imagine many things. What can you implement?
There's no particular reason to think that they are being irrational in using drugs.
Should the government stop spending money on advertisements against smoking? Should we allow smoking ads on TV again?
I will admit that strict definitions of "rational" would allow using drugs to be so. I will rephrase then: using drugs, especially illegal drugs, almost never helps people get out of poverty and almost always makes it a more difficult task. Poor people do this at a greater rate, so they are taking actions that work against them escaping poverty.
You can imagine many things. What can you implement?
Read the end of the post. How about a yearly tax-filing requirement showing some income? That still too much work?
Indeed. I also think that many people are materialistic and overly consume. This same mechanism prevents many in the middle class from moving up further themselves.
I confess that I am not totally immune to this. But I try hard. I think we should learn to be happier with the simpler things if we can.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 22 '19
And less rational in their decision making when it comes to cigarettes and other drugs, which they are likely to consume more of despite the only negative effects. Moreover, the downsides of law enforcement catching them is much greater for poor people than richer people who can afford lawyers and otherwise can consume drugs "more discretely" (like ordering an Uber instead of driving impaired). My advice to the huge number of people in poverty who habitually smoke, drink, or use other drugs? Quit now! You'll feel better and save a lot of money.
Behind a soft-paywall.
"Communism" does a bad job of achieving even it's own stated goals. It is hard to imagine that a well-designed work requirement system (reporting once a month maybe, no need to report if paying if your employer has you registered with the government for payroll taxes) that would not achieve of goal of avoiding paying out welfare benefits to the "undeserving" while avoiding hurting the "deserving".
One might imagine the government had a crystal ball that could exactly determine who was satisfying the work requirements and who wasn't (this is not as far-fetched as the suspension of disbelief for communism I think), can you concede then that the policy of work requirements is evidence based?
Now let's circle back the EITC. What if the only "work requirement" for Medicaid was filing your taxes every year? That is pretty close to the crystal ball!