this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
721 points (98.9% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
232 readers
8 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' etc.
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I was something like $250 over the annual income threshold to qualify for Medicaid for my first son's birth. My employer was "kind" enough to allow me unpaid time off long enough to get me under the threshold, but having an "all or nothing" threshold just to qualify was a little frustrating.
It is ridiculous that assistance programs are all or nothing. No, it is moronic. It damn near acheives the opposite of its intended purpose, to be a safety net or lift up so people can get back on their feet and prosper. Instead, it incentivizes people to remain poor if they can't manage a big enough jump in income to make up for the loss of assistance. You can pick up an extra shift here and there, or get a modest raise, and end up LOSING income as a result. That's absurd.
Those programs should gradually taper such that when you make more income at work, you always also still net more income overall. Past a certain point, instead of dropping to nothing, the assistance lowers gradually the more you make from other income. Progress is a bit slowed that way, but it is still progress, not a pit.
It’s ridiculous that we means test our safety nets at all, instead of providing for all and just clawing back from those who don’t need it at tax time, or giving people who make above a certain amount (like idk 150k single 200k married?) the option to pay it back through W-2 tax automatically, similar to claiming exemptions and stuff. It would be easier, and achieve the same outcome, but would help a ton more people, as targeted support tends to be socially stigmatized, in addition to nearly guaranteeing a life of extreme poverty to use.
Heck, with the number of people we need to handle current social safety net programs, there’s a solid chance it would be cheaper to just give it to everyone.
Morally speaking, I’m 100% with you
Would probably want to do automatic payment plans for a portion of the population