Post Avy313H5e6DOoP7SfA by interfluidity@zirk.us
 (DIR) More posts by interfluidity@zirk.us
 (DIR) Post #AvxwumfzqTm9s3OgtM by interfluidity@zirk.us
       2025-07-09T19:00:37Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       “‘targeting’ is just taxing by another name. Means-testers have not figured out how to better spend a fixed amount of tax revenue. Rather, in these debates, they use national accounting rules to allow themselves to tax more in order to spend more while preventing universalists from doing the same thing.” #MattBruenig https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2022/11/11/universal-benefits-cost-less-than-means-tested-benefits/
       
 (DIR) Post #Avy0kO0Z6e8CHhJccy by williamthorpe@mastodon.nz
       2025-07-09T19:43:31Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Usually there isn’t such a clearcut tax surcharge identified when universal benefits are being discussed. @interfluidity
       
 (DIR) Post #Avy0kcB0QcnkE8J9qS by BenRossTransit@mastodon.social
       2025-07-09T19:43:33Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @interfluidity I don't buy this argument. It assumes the means-tested service is used involuntarily. You can't equivalently tax eg a library user fee or a bus fare because use is unpredictable & even depends on the fee.The political argument (which goes back way before 1998) is the real one. It also guides you in cases like bus fares where it's not clear which alternative constitutes means-testing.https://bsky.app/profile/benrosstransit.bsky.social/post/3ltkcmkqtv22o
       
 (DIR) Post #Avy1jFHMAwPgsNBo7k by interfluidity@zirk.us
       2025-07-09T19:54:34Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @BenRossTransit it doesn’t assume any service is used involuntarily, unless paying less taxes / accepting money is “using a service”.a child allowance with a phaseout is equivalent to a universal child allowance plus an extra tax oddly levied solely upon parents earning more than the cutoff.no one uses a service, nothing is “voluntary” beyond weird arguments people could choose to give the US treasury money to which you would otherwise by law be entitled.
       
 (DIR) Post #Avy1yOqEu7FmsTjQMS by BenRossTransit@mastodon.social
       2025-07-09T19:57:17Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @interfluidity Yes, because eligibilty for a child allowance is involuntary. But the argument doesn't apply to libraries or transit fares.
       
 (DIR) Post #Avy2IQDXUyGuw7B3TM by interfluidity@zirk.us
       2025-07-09T20:00:55Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @BenRossTransit That an argument doesn’t apply to everything doesn’t mean it’s wrong for everything. It is right for the cases discussed in the article, and for most welfare-state applications. And it’s worth thinking through in almost all cases, even where the equivalence is more disputable. 1/
       
 (DIR) Post #Avy2Y4lR1rk528UoyW by interfluidity@zirk.us
       2025-07-09T20:03:45Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @BenRossTransit In the case of bus fares, for example, you can decompose means-tested support into free/lower fares for everyone plus a special tax/fee on other transit users. You can absolutely argue that “tax” is the wrong word, “fee” is better, since transit use is “voluntary”. (That’s its own can of worms, since transportation is not really “voluntary”, and the nonsupported population and people who could afford a car are not necessarily exactly the same). 2/
       
 (DIR) Post #Avy2f3l3AViPwKe7zU by interfluidity@zirk.us
       2025-07-09T20:05:01Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @BenRossTransit But let’s concede/stipulate that the right word to use in the bus case is a universal service plus “fee” levied only on transit users. Then the question becomes is this a good “fee” policy, rather than tax policy. 3/
       
 (DIR) Post #Avy2pI1yxLyH6RRbP6 by interfluidity@zirk.us
       2025-07-09T20:06:52Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @BenRossTransit Arguments for are transit users directly get extra benefits from transit, so there’s prima facie moral and political legitimacy to the fee. Arguments against are that *nontransit* users impose large external costs relative to transit users, so narrowing to a fee-base rather than a broad tax base is penalizing virtue. 4/
       
 (DIR) Post #Avy313H5e6DOoP7SfA by interfluidity@zirk.us
       2025-07-09T20:08:59Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @BenRossTransit Both sides have good arguments! I’m not trying to adjudicate the question. But what I will say is it’s almost *always* a valid and useful exercise, whenever something is means-tested, to reconstitute it as universal plus a tax-or-fee, and then ask the question, if the program was universal, would that particular tax-or-fee stand on its own as a desirable way to raise funds? /fin