undefined | Better HN

0 pointschristiansakai6y ago0 comments

This is stale discussion already, but going by that logic, why would you sacrifice the majority mom and pop (average person who also lives paycheck to paycheck) for the minority poor? For example right now in NYC, most people find it really hard to buy their first home (not everyone is SWE in FAANG). It isn't like they have spare money to buy bigger toys. Once they worked hard for that why take that away?

I'm not saying not help the poor. We should treat our most vulnerable people, but economically I think it doesn't work out. The poor will always be there, the sick will always be there, the unemployed will always be there no matter what. Even if you help them, they will always be there.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

Arbalest6y ago

Well, the poor need the most government handouts, and if you make the people who need the most government handouts have to give away most of their income in this manner, you've essentially just taken government debt and given it to the landlords. That doesn't make economic sense either.

As for discussion being stale, I have children, my ability to monitor threads is impaired. It might not be much of a discussion easily visible to outsiders, but we are both continuing to engage. Or will up to a point.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse