I'm starting to understand why the two words "means testing" are so triggering over on Reddit:
Uncategorized
18
Posts
10
Posters
0
Views
-
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.
@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.
-
@codinghorror Deloitte is also just siphoning off our taxes through obscene amounts of consulting fees.
@codinghorror Here's the chart for Canadian federal government consulting spend for FY2024.
Source (Paywalled): https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-spent-record-amount-on-outsourcing-despite-vow-to-rein-in/
Archived: https://archive.ph/dR8aN
-
@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.
@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.
-
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.
@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?)
-
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.
@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.
-
@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.
It is not accidental that means testing results in these inefficiencies (and the inefficiencies are not the primary problem anyway). The outcomes you're seeing are the natural result of forcing struggling Americans to prove that they deserve care.
This is the end-state of over-broad means testing. It will always be the end-state of over-broad means testing.
-
It is not accidental that means testing results in these inefficiencies (and the inefficiencies are not the primary problem anyway). The outcomes you're seeing are the natural result of forcing struggling Americans to prove that they deserve care.
This is the end-state of over-broad means testing. It will always be the end-state of over-broad means testing.
"Don't abolish means testing, reform it" makes about as much sense as the slogan does in other contexts.
The purpose of a system is what the system does. And means testing consistently leads to these outcomes - it is not a problem with one or two companies, it is a perverse incentive structure for the government that systematically leads to abuse and financial waste.
Equifax is just one particular manifestation of that outcome.
-
@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.
@cwicseolfor @codinghorror@infosec.exchange exactly - part of the reason why it's "worth it" for the government to pay Equifax so wastefully is because the service Equifax is providing is not efficiency, the point is to be a punitive gatekeeper in front of aid for struggling Americans.
Inefficiency is if anything a benefit to multiple political actors, who can use the cost of Equifax to justify slashing programs.
The end result: a program that dehumanizes people who need help - is intentional.
-
@cwicseolfor @codinghorror@infosec.exchange exactly - part of the reason why it's "worth it" for the government to pay Equifax so wastefully is because the service Equifax is providing is not efficiency, the point is to be a punitive gatekeeper in front of aid for struggling Americans.
Inefficiency is if anything a benefit to multiple political actors, who can use the cost of Equifax to justify slashing programs.
The end result: a program that dehumanizes people who need help - is intentional.
@cwicseolfor fixing this requires going after the root causes that *lead* to Equifax and Deloitte being in this position in the first place.
And the root cause that leads to them is means testing.
-
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.
@codinghorror profit and cruelty are the point
-
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.
@codinghorror just one of the reasons the U in UBI is so important.
-
undefined oblomov@sociale.network shared this topic
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@lazysupper @dahukanna so, in a long conversation, the number of people who can see the responses gets smaller and smaller over time?
-
Just visible to Alice unless she accepts the post. And she controls the visibility on her posts.
-
@dahukanna
Oh... I need to change my answer. 😅
Other: the dark blue-grey.
@evan
-
@ori I think this is where I got on the merry-go-round.
-
@monnier you replied in the wrong thread!
-
@evan I think so. I think in an ideal world, I would prefer an audience that expands, but in the real world where people use followers-only to feel safe online, it is important that only followers appear downstream of a followers-only post. At least, that’s what I would expect absent some other cue.
-
@evan But Bob may want to reply something that he doesn't want to divulge to all of Alice's followers (he likely doesn't know them all) so he may want to explicitly shrink the set to the intersection
-
@joe
Sadly my server blocks newsie.social...
