this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
93 points (95.1% liked)
United States | News & Politics
1870 readers
378 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have learned to never trust the federal government when they use the word, "eligible."
Eligible in this case presumably has to do with income. Obviously people making 300k/year won't need any assistance.
Means testing is almost always a bad approach, but neoliberals love it. Verifying eligibility often adds administrative overhead costs that overwhelm the savings for the program. It also creates income traps where people are effectively punished for doing better, and such effects get worse over time as the eligibility requirements often don't get adjusted for inflation. Universal benefit programs are also harder for the right wing to vilify and terminate.
Progressive taxation policies are a much better way to address inequality issues.
For me the trap is the hours worked. I'm not at work long enough to be eligible for most federal programs, but if I found an employee who offered 40 hours of work per week at my rate, I would be above the income thresholds.
Means testing is the most expensive way of doing the least good. It also means they can exclude people who don't know about the program. An income check requires specific approval to access IRS data. Without means testing they can just mail a check to the people who need it. With means testing, the feds pay for billboards to tell people about the form they could fill out in order to be denied help on a technicality.