undefined

points

[-]

Yup, Medicaid and SNAP are extremely efficient. Social Security is almost completely disbursement charges but those disbursements aren't means tested so even quite wealthy individuals receive them. Additionally you mentioned that Medicare gets money to medical providers but I suspect that was meant to mean medical insurance providers - rather than health care providers (like doctors) since the system is partially direct payments but mostly runs through intermediary privatized companies and, of extreme note here, is that Medicare is famously barred from cost negotiations so while our Canadian healthcare system can talk to a pharma manufacturer and tell them "The price for this drug is unreasonable, we won't cover it unless it's cost competitive to biosimilars" Medicare just needs to roll over and accept whatever made up numbers it's given.

The benefits that are intended to go exclusively to the impoverished though, those are extremely means-tested and often have work requirements or other hoops to jump through.

by RhysU8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> Social Security is almost completely disbursement charges but those disbursements aren't means tested so even quite wealthy individuals receive them.

Only to those who paid into the system and far less than they personally could have earned on investing the same dollars.

by renewiltord8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Yeah, one of the problems I have with taxes is that if I pay $100 into taxes I don’t get $100 of value back. Everyone should get at least as much as they put in back. Also, some other people should get more back. But we shouldn’t spend more than we make as a government.

by munk-a6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Assuming the presence of a sovereign wealth fund which does work somewhat logically for programs like social security - that would make sense. The government should sensibly invest money they're holding onto... however, it's unrealistic to ever expect the government to tolerate a level of risk and thus a rate of return above what you're personally comfortable with so it's unrealistic to assume that the government will be as efficient with money as you'd personally be if they'd never taken that money.

Additionally, a lot of these programs will pay out beyond what you've personally put in - programs like Medicaid are nearly entirely social subsidies to ease poverty and financial distress, so I'm not certain where you'd find the money to pay for them if not looking at either other people's taxes or debt.

As a taxpayer I expect the money I give to the government to be evident in some social projects but I don't personally expect that for each dollar I pay that I'd see a dollar in benefit to me personally. I have a belief that I indirectly benefit from the expenditure of charitable safety net programs even if I never expect to collect from them directly - the improvement in the lives of those around me is to my personal benefit by making society more just and egalitarian as well as reducing the incentive for crime which is a difficult to measure but observable direct benefit to myself.

The fact that so much of our budget goes to debt servicing is probably my personal biggest objection as it is effectively just a wealth extraction from our earn national budget to some select individuals.

by Ntrails4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> Everyone should get at least as much as they put in back

I don't even understand the thought process here. Taxes are not being used for productive investments. Some spending is growth, but probably not half.

I could see expecting the median citizen to be flat over their lifetime as a goal.

by RhysU5 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Many people do get more back than they put in. High earners do not:

> Most American workers receive significantly more from Social Security over their lifetimes than they contribute through payroll taxes.

https://legalclarity.org/is-social-security-worth-it-contrib...