For welfare, consider that a single parent with two school-age children who earns $11,000 annually from part-time work ends up qualifying for $64,128 in cash, aid, and benefits.

The same family earning $64,128 by actually working wouldn’t be eligible for any of these welfare benefits in four-fifths of the states.

The poor and homeless of Louisiana are already receiving massive benefits: 4th in the country for the share of households on welfare, 18% of the population on food stamps, $14B+ in FY23 of federal dollars went to welfare/TANF/Medicaid/etc.

Nobody is making them move, but moving out of New Orleans certainly seems like the better play, even if it carries risk.

Sell to whomever - but again, what property do they have if they are so poor they can’t afford a $75 bus ticket with notice?

It’s always a Schrödinger’s poor person who simultaneously has a valuable property that’s also worthless, tied to a job but has 0 income, has a car but can’t travel, and is broke but can’t qualify for the plethora of government benefits they can receive anywhere.

70% of the people in the lowest quintile have 0 adults working fulltime, and therefore produce effectively 0 labor value. They don't contribute, they take. Would you be OK with requiring a work, education, volunteer, or caretaking requirement for any welfare programs; to ensure that these people are actually working for society?

>Elon Musk would not be a hundred billionaire without government contracts and vast government subsidies. Likewise for Ellison and Palantir and whoever else gets to hoover up our defense spending. So too for any entity that receives the myriad benefits of 'public private partnership' in domains that used to be exclusively government run. Deloitte makes bank on 'administering' public programs. The Multi-billion dollar retail Tax prep exists entirely because the government is bribed not to compete. Private prisons/concentration camps are 'social programs' that produces billions in private wealth. etc. etc.. etc...

None of those are social programs: they required the person or company to "work" by providing a service or good that benefits people, rather than get a handout. There's a debate over the government mismanaging and misallocating the budget, but Lockheed selling a F-35 or Ellison providing compute to the government is not welfare.

> Government welfare: [The low income, underemployed family] would receive Treasury checks of $3,400 in refundable child tax credits and $4,400 in refundable earned-income tax credits.

>>... A person who make this little would not pay income taxes, so these credits cannot be realized.

You do know what a refundable tax credit means, right? "A refundable tax credit is a credit you can get as a refund even if you don't owe any tax. - IRS"

>All of these programs are difficult to retain access to. I've never met anybody among the working poor able to realize even half of these meagre benefits.

All these programs exist and receive billions of dollars at both the state and federal level. If people aren't receiving those dollars, all the more reason to abolish the program and stop the hemorrhage of cash.

>A random family in NYC would pay, on average, $20,439 annually, just on child care, per child, thus, this hypothetical single parent is contributing at least $40k in labor to produce future workers. It's not unreasonable to give them compensation for this thankless task.

NYC is 200% more expensive higher than the national average for COL and 400% higher when counting housing. It's a terrible place to try and raise a family on a low income. NYC's budget deficit varies, but is in the billions. Subsidizing a future barista or UberEats driver to the tune of $100K or more in childcare across 5 years is ludicrous, especially when you consider that again, about 40% of people pay 0 federal taxes. Stats aren't readily available for NYC taxpayers by income, but I can guarantee that NYC would literally lose money on this "investment" at a population level.

> As another point of comparison, Norway spends 18k per year for every kindergartener in their nation regardless of the parent's income. This is what is known as, under capitalism, an investment with a 50 year compounding return.

And the US spends $18,614 per public school pupil. Again, we're already spending the money but not getting the return (see: PISA scores, graduation rates, educational outcomes).

I completely agree that ROI should be considered when making government decisions. With that in mind, let's focus on reducing low ROI migration and illegal immigration. "Immigrants without a college education and all those who immigrate to the U.S. after age 55 are universally a net fiscal burden by up to $400,000... The average newly arrived immigrant who entered the country illegally is expected to have a net fiscal burden of about $130,000 in adjusted terms, so preventing future unlawful immigration is important...Using these figures, every refugee in FY 2022 is expected to increase the federal budget deficit of the U.S. by nearly $152,000 over his lifetime".

>Starving, homeless children produce negative externalities if they are not cared for, so the return on the investment is even more potent in this case.

The US already has SNAP, WIC, TANF, Section 8, and more. Again, these children aren't starving/homeless because we aren't paying for them, but because their parents are misallocating the money we give them.

>All this said, you've asserted that 53k, by itself, is 'lavish'. But you are speaking to someone who regularly makes that much money in between blinks on a half-decent day in the market, so I'm not really convinced that it is.

Now multiply that $53K across the population, and you'll see a major contributor to the $1.9 trillion deficit.

> This is why organized, sustained political action is required above and beyond elections. So that, in aggregate, these near-zeros can create change. It's not an invitation to check out and advocate for centrist reactionary nihilistic libertarianism, which is what I have to assume your true position is.

What action do you want to advocate for? More taxes, more wasteful spending, more people not contributing to society but just taking? Before you advocate for policy, learning some tax basics like what a refundable tax credit is would go a long way.

Yes, about 31% of returns in 2022 were for people who didn't pay federal income tax. By a massive, overwhelming majority, they are lower-income levels, who also receive the most direct cash and cash-like benefits from the government.

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-doesnt-pay-incom...

>You believe in the world's most expensive healthcare, the world's most expensive universities(/hedge funds), corrupt spending on corporations, wars on behalf of the empire, and our vassal states, and 'lavish' benefits for only corporations and white people (as has been the case since we invented whiteness)?

Surely you realize healthcare and university expense is, in part, driven by all the free money the government pumps into the system, right? How successful would universities be at charging $80K a semester if not for federally subsidized student loans? I'm arguing against all the things you just listed - you seem to be confused.

>Am I correctly understanding that this status quo is your preference?

The status quo for the last 20 years is a bad thing. Our ballooning debt, as a direct result of profligate spending on all the things I listed, is a problem. Again, you seem to be very confused about my position.

>I'm also curious which benefit is specifically 'lavish'. The only social programs I'd describe as such are the programs that create billionaires.

What social program do you think creates billionaires? Even being charitable to your position, Walmart's revenue is about 4% driven by foodstamps. Even big bad Walmart isn't successful because of social programs.

As for lavish: "The government’s failure to count its largess as recipients’ income allows welfare households to blow past the income level above which a working family no longer qualifies for government help. Take a single parent with two school-age children who earns $11,000 annually from part-time work. The government considers this household in poverty because its income is below $25,273. But this family would qualify for benefits worth $53,128. It would receive Treasury checks of $3,400 in refundable child tax credits and $4,400 in refundable earned-income tax credits. The family would also receive Food Stamp debit cards worth $9,216 a year, $9,476 in housing subsidies, $877 of government payments for utility bills, $16,033 to fund Medicaid, $3,102 in free meals at school and $6,624 in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. All this puts the family’s income at $64,128, or 254% of the poverty level.

A hardworking family earning anything like $64,128 in salary wouldn’t be eligible for any of these welfare benefits in four-fifths of the states. Meanwhile, the welfare family would be eligible for another 90 small federal benefits and sundry state and local welfare programs."

>Or do you just think that politicians shouldn't talk about rent, fuel, and food prices?

Considering politicians from both sides have repeatedly made each of these issues worse through things like rent-control and zoning restrictions or environmental restrictions and the Iran war, yes, I do think politicians should just be quiet and do less: they'd cause less damage.

>Or is your contention that the working poor just stupid for believing anything will ever get better in our two party system?

Basically any average citizen is silly for thinking their vote has an impact. Per "Testing Theories of American Politics", the preferences of the average citizen have a "near-zero, statistically non-significant impact" on public policy when the preferences of economic elites and organized interest groups are taken into account.

In your example, why aren’t all prices then fixed between different stores to ensure justice? Whole Foods shouldn’t be allowed to charge more than Discount Food Bin for the same can of beans, and WF in Oakland shouldn’t charge less than WF in Marin.

Regardless, the bigger point is that businesses already have a ton of levers to move for pricing: sales, loyalty programs, and regular price adjustments. None of those are considered discrimination. Why does the buyer's home address fall into this protected class; particularly for any service that involves transport, delivery, etc to that address? There's a clear relevancy of the address to the cost of a service based around that location.

For Uber/Lyft, booking a ride into the middle of nowhere carries a cost for the driver that isn’t present when booking a ride to the airport.

A flat fee per mile doesn’t make sense. A flat fee per seat doesn’t make sense. Grocery stores already price segment via coupons, sales, and loyalty programs - this is just an extension of that.

Detect and counter black hat SEO, build or acquire a new product you can spread ads to (Maps, YouTube), create a chatbot that can eventually get ads if search is supplanted. These things support or maintain that monopoly/equilibrium you’re talking about.