Hacker News Reader

Comment by hellojesus | Hacker News Reader

There are downsides both ways.

Person A: I save and live below my means, purchase elderly care insurance at a premium, and am set for later years.

Person B: I live a lavish lifestyle, spend my money on experiences or depreciating assets, and have nothing left saved for a likely future event, such as elderly care. But it's okay because the state will steal from Person A to pay for me.

I argue that Person B having to rely on charity, family, or ultimately starving is a better outcome than the present model.

View on HN

> both ways

> I save and live below my means

> I live a lavish lifestyle

This is a clear false dichotomy. You’re saying this as if everyone is able to find work that can actually pay the bills and provide a savings.

I’ll suggest a third “way”: 25 yo with medical problems working a full-time job, living with their 30 yo partner who is working a full-time job. 25 yo has medical issues with weak insurance coverage and their partner helps with expenses; they struggle to make rent every month (two thirds of the rent for their apartment because they live with a third person).

I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which side of the proposed false dichotomy these people land on.

These people land on neither side of what I proposed, except that their taxes are subsidizing Person B, causing them to have less money leftover for things like rent.

A 25 year old with medical problems that is able to work full time is good news; the fiscal penalty of the reality is likely just their yearly deductible and time lost to medical appointments. Thankfully they can work!

Losing 2/3 of their income to 1/3 of a rent share makes it seem like they should move, however. Our that they should try to find a better paying job.

Is ypur point that this person is in such a destitute situation that they cannot possibly save for retirement given 40+ years of career ahead of them? Does this person have no family upon which they can lean? Do they not belong to any community that can help? Do we expect someone with their medical condition to even make it to their golden years?

This situation seems unlikely for the majority of folk. And I always recommend LTD insurance to everyone, regardless of whether it would apply here.

We tried it for the first couple thousand years. Turns out it really sucked, which is why 100% of civilizations (in which you’d have any desire to live) figured out alternatives.

We tried what exactly? I think the mideval church, for all its well known bads, did a great job at encouraging charity for the less fortuned. Americans tend to be some of the most charitably giving on the planet as well.

The reposte I receive when suggesting that society utilize charity as a vessel for ensuring the poor get what they need instead of governmental violence is always: but someone might starve. Why is it preferable to steal under threat of imprisonment/death rather than let society funnel alms to where it is most needed, where most is dictated by those that actually give?

I thought the medieval church was adept at funnelling money towards the church - that's why so many Roman Catholic churches are dripping in gold and jewels. There was also the racket of them selling "indulgences" - salvation for a price.

Yes, hence my "bads". Luther did an excellent job of correcting that at the expense of a schism.

> Luther did an excellent job of correcting that at the expense of a schism.

Well, that was pretty much at the end of the medieval period, so for the vast majority of medieval times, the church let poor people starve and die whilst hoarding money, power and land. The church only really started to embrace charity and social care from around the 12th century or so. If we say that the medieval period was approximately 500AD to 1500AD, then it's a stretch to claim that the church was a bastion of social care.

Fair enough criticism. I was indeed thinking of the later times within the period when I made that statement.

> The reposte I receive when suggesting that society utilize charity as a vessel for ensuring the poor get what they need

Well you're kind of begging the question in your proposal. Sure, if we could ensure (the word you used) that needs would be met by private charity, that would be great. But the government IMO is a useful backstop to prevent the absolute worst case outcomes, and there's no reason private charity can't stack on top of that: which indeed it does.

If requesting private charity is sufficient to solve the problem (let's say... homelessness?), then why isn't it solved already? Is your contention that if people didn't have to pay taxes, they'd charitably give enough to solve the problems that today's combination of government and private charity cannot? It seems like if we're going to charity our way out of these problems (not that I believe that's necessarily the right directional solution), we need at least both of the forms we currently have.

I personally have not met anyone ever who believes private charity is undesirable, so not sure what change you're proposing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com