Hacker News Reader

Comment by _wwz4 | Hacker News Reader

I'd be okay with some bare subsistence level income, but the reality is that politicians will buy votes by redefining "bare subsistence" over time.

Eventually these types of programs all get out of control. See medicare, social security, student loans, food stamps, etc.

View on HN

>Eventually these types of programs all get out of control. See medicare, social security, student loans, food stamps, etc.

I don't know what you see as "out of control" about medicare, social security, or food stamps, but it doesn't really matter.

The more important question is why you think the minimum income should be limited to bare subsistence. Once the system is in place, you can use it to control job availability. Not enough jobs? Raise the minimum income and people will work fewer hours.

Out of control means $184,000 total government debt per CITIZEN. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Regarding "subsistence", make NOT working attractive and you get more of it. It's simple human nature.

"Our debt is really high, therefore social programs must be out of control" is not a sound argument.

Actually, given how much these programs participate in the formation of the debt and given what the projections are for these costs in the future, it's pretty close. Of course, any debt by itself does not mean that, but this particular one is heavily related to spending (see how state revenues and outlays changed lately) and spending is heavily related to welfare. "Out of control" is a matter of opinion, spending and debt pattern are out there for all to see.

I would propose the description of unsustainable and incapable of delivery as better than out of control.

I guess if you didn't know or care that entitlements are the largest identifiable chunks of government spending you might feel that way.

Isn't the largest identifiable chunks of government spending defense?

Entitlements (not in the Constitution) are twice as large as defense (in the Constitution).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY...

The argument "our debt is really high, therefore there is too much spending" is also not a sound argument.

'x is not a sound argument' is not a sound rebuttal.

Do I really have to waste my time explaining that debt accumulates when revenue is less than spending, and so in order to say "the debt is too high, therefore spending is too high", you must first establish that the problem is not low revenue?

The low revenue is a problem too, but raising revenue enough is very hard - since just raising taxes suppresses economic activity and breeds evasion, and making economy produce more by government decree is a secret not yet unlocked.

Well, you could google and look at actual economic data to see that spending as a percentage of GDP is now over 24%, only outstripped by World War II era spending. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2010...

So where does your condescension come from regarding others' knowledge of spending vs taxation?

Yes, it helps the flow of the thread. At least that way I know what line of thinking you are using. Otherwise, why even post?

I think the argument was more like "our unfunded social programs' costs require out-of-control payments to be made in the future, therefore social programs are out of control."

Maybe it is our military programs that are unfunded. Like the ones passed as non-budgetary "emergency" appropriations.

The military budget is funded, except possibly military pensions.

Edit: What I mean is, the amount they are obligated to spend is set on a yearly bases (maybe tri-yearly in some cases), not on a 60-year horizon in which entire generations expect a future payment.

Forget about the use of "funded" vs not -- wouldn't you say the above is a pretty substantive difference? If we have to cut the fat, we have the option at any time of slashing military spending. In contrast, slashing other spending means stiffing pensioners who predicated their whole lives on it. We have an obligation to give them a realistic estimate of how much will be around when we hit a serious fiscal cliff -- in addition to cutting military spending.

Not enough jobs? Raise the minimum income and people will work fewer hours.

Where does this money come from, if GDP and thus gov't revenue is not increasing?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com