Discussion
Loading...

Post

Log in
  • About
  • Code of conduct
  • Privacy
  • Users
  • Instances
  • About Bonfire
Jeff Atwood
Jeff Atwood
@codinghorror@infosec.exchange  ·  activity timestamp 21 hours ago

I'm starting to understand why the two words "means testing" are so triggering over on Reddit:

The "Means-Testing Industrial Complex": Private contractors like Deloitte and Equifax make billions running the eligibility systems for Medicaid and SNAP.

The Profit Incentive: In the business world, efficiency means "profit." For these contractors, complexity is profitable. The more complicated the eligibility rules, the more expensive the software and verification services they can sell to the state.

  • Copy link
  • Flag this post
  • Block
Aaron In Minnesota
Aaron In Minnesota
@aeischeid@mastodon.social replied  ·  activity timestamp 18 hours ago

@codinghorror just one of the reasons the U in UBI is so important.

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Jeff Atwood
Jeff Atwood
@codinghorror@infosec.exchange replied  ·  activity timestamp 3 hours ago

@aeischeid it's a liability. You'll give money to rich people over my dead body. I will do everything I can to stop that. The idea that it is "impossible" to build any kind of remotely efficient means testing is completely absurd. It's the "means testing industrial complex" that is the problem. So let's route around that damage

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
axleyjc
axleyjc
@axleyjc@federate.social replied  ·  activity timestamp 19 hours ago

@codinghorror profit and cruelty are the point

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
jack
jack
@jackeric@beige.party replied  ·  activity timestamp 21 hours ago

@codinghorror Here in the UK, there are government services (not brokered through Deloitte et al) where the means-testing cost more to administer than just providing the service to anyone who asks - and a hard core of political advisors and activists who'd like to waste money on means-testing admin out of some perverse moralist principle

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Neo Ehproque
Neo Ehproque
@ehproque@neopaquita.es replied  ·  activity timestamp 21 hours ago

@codinghorror I'm by no means an expert, but have talked to a couple of them and they say this is pretty accurate: the bureaucracy costs *a lot* more than the supposed fraud it avoids. This, in a country where this is ruin by the state, and not by consulting firms.

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Jeff Atwood
Jeff Atwood
@codinghorror@infosec.exchange replied  ·  activity timestamp 21 hours ago

Well you know what? fuck Equifax and Deloitte. If you want to be pissed off, there's your actual target. Kill 'em all.

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
May Likes Toronto
May Likes Toronto
@mayintoronto@beige.party replied  ·  activity timestamp 21 hours ago

@codinghorror Deloitte is also just siphoning off our taxes through obscene amounts of consulting fees.

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Jeff Atwood
Jeff Atwood
@codinghorror@infosec.exchange replied  ·  activity timestamp 21 hours ago

When a worker loses their job and applies for Medicaid, SNAP, and heating assistance, the state might pay Equifax three separate times to verify that same person's income for each different department. That is "efficient" for Equifax's bottom line, but terrible for the taxpayer.

Again: target Equifax, not your fellow Americans struggling just to merely exist in this country. "means testing" is not your enemy... Equifax and Deloitte are.

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
normy foxyoreos
normy foxyoreos
@foxyoreos@mastodon.social replied  ·  activity timestamp 20 hours ago

@codinghorror@infosec.exchange means testing is the *reason* why the state is paying Equifax and Deloitte.

If means testing didn't exist, Equifax and Deloitte would not be paid to verify income.

And there's every indication that large swaths of the government are *happy* with this arrangement, because the purpose of means testing for those parties is to punish struggling Americans who are trying to get help. Inefficiency is acceptable to them if the system is punishing enough.

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
#?.info :commodore:
#?.info :commodore:
@poundquerydotinfo@forum.virctuary.com replied  ·  activity timestamp 20 hours ago

@codinghorror Means testing is by and large unnecessary if the tax system actually does its job and taxes people. I don't care if Jeff Bezos collects unemployment between gigs if the taxation system is fair because he'll pay for it anyway. But even if we don't reform taxation, is he (1) likely to ever claim it and (2) likely to make a dent in the cost of such programs?

Means testing may be extra bad in the American model, but that doesn't mean it's not at least somewhat bad in a normal model too. Having to prove you're poor is humiliating and adds extra bureaucracy at a time you're likely desperate.

(And as for your example, suppose you reformed the situation so Equifax was paid once... wouldn't they just charge 3x as much per check? Doesn't the bottom line ever enter the equation when companies are bidding for these kinds of contracts?)

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Jeff Atwood
Jeff Atwood
@codinghorror@infosec.exchange replied  ·  activity timestamp 3 hours ago

@poundquerydotinfo Great! Explain to me exactly how we are gonna tax billionaires, with details, lay out a step by step plan of how this will actually happen. Because it ain't happening AT ALL right now, and the current regime seems EXTREMELY unlikely to do anything about that. Hell even with a winning ballot of Bernie, AOC, and every pet "progressive" Dem you can think of.. I highly doubt they could make the billionaire taxes happen in practice. I'd love to be proved wrong. Wake me up when I am. Otherwise, "actually taxing people/billionaires]" is just a fantasy that does severe harm by making people believe it is possible (it is not).

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
cwicseolfor
cwicseolfor
@cwicseolfor@zeroes.ca replied  ·  activity timestamp 21 hours ago

@codinghorror Maybe I’ve missed something in your rhetoric, but means testing is absolutely the enemy. It would be *cheaper* to universalize these benefits or just give them out to all comers than to continue to dissect and punish people for seeking help. The whole system is garbage, the credit scoring bastards just found a way to insert themselves as middlemen seeking additional profit and friction in a system designed to be performatively cruel & degrading.

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Jeff Atwood
Jeff Atwood
@codinghorror@infosec.exchange replied  ·  activity timestamp 2 hours ago

@cwicseolfor data doesn't support that, though. You don't hate means testing. You hate the means testing industrial complex. and I agree, KILL THE MEANS TESTING INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE.. and build something far simpler not perversely motivated to become as complex and arduous as possible to extract max dollars from governments

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
cwicseolfor
cwicseolfor
@cwicseolfor@zeroes.ca replied  ·  activity timestamp 20 hours ago

@codinghorror Having read your top profile post on favoring GMI over UBI I begin to see what you’re about but disagree unless it’s directly integrated into the tax system as a negative bottom income tax bracket, and everyone, and I mean everyone, is integrated into said tax system - which is an exceedingly hard sell - though I can see it being very useful as a transitional step toward universal income (which can be taxed right away again for those of us with more than we need.)

Meanwhile, means testing as currently executed remains punitively intrusive, expensive to administer, and typically enshrines rather than breaking down divisions between haves and have nots - just look at the intense pressure on many people experiencing disability to *divorce* simply to become eligible to access care which they aren’t considered poor enough to receive otherwise, but are still too poor to afford. The cliffs and mismatches are deliberate; politicians brag about them. It would be much simpler to run the risk of giving Jeff Bezos $15k once a year which he doesn’t need (which he’s earning every what, two seconds anyway?) and *ensure* we’ve covered every person who can’t keep the lights on or a roof overhead.

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Jeff Atwood
Jeff Atwood
@codinghorror@infosec.exchange replied  ·  activity timestamp 3 hours ago

@cwicseolfor lol the "tax system" in this country is already so gutted as to be meaningless. It's the first thing the current regime did. Look up the details. Show me otherwise. I don't think you will be able to, but again, take it as a challenge: prove me wrong with recent facts and data. Because all the facts and data I've looked at recently say the same thing: maybe if you have a w-2, but for everyone richer than that, their effective tax rate is close to 0%

Meanwhile, means testing as currently executed remains punitively intrusive, expensive to administer

Then how is GiveDirectly able to do it for 90+ cents on the dollar, compared the government a 70+ cents on the dollar. (hint: politicians have to insist on wildly complex, massively expensive anti-fraud systems, otherwise one "welfare queen" can sink their political career forever) Why would we give money to people who are well off? That seems FAR more wasteful than building a simple means testing system... and GD has already done that. Look at the stats.

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
troy_friz_zell
troy_friz_zell
@troy_frizzell@mstdn.social replied  ·  activity timestamp 21 hours ago

@codinghorror

It's the entire "financial industry."

The problem is right there in the name.

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block

bonfire.cafe

A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate

bonfire.cafe: About · Code of conduct · Privacy · Users · Instances
Bonfire social · 1.0.2-alpha.7 no JS en
Automatic federation enabled
Log in
  • Explore
  • About
  • Members
  • Code of Conduct