Fairfax county pilot program to give 750 a month to low income families

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Love how DCUM brings so many retrograde Reaganites out of the woodwork.

Cash transfers to low-income households are one of the best ways we have to fight poverty and improve the lives of the most vulnerable, especially children. Turns out giving money to impoverished people relieves poverty. What a concept!

Here’s one recent study finding that cash transfers are associated with reduced mortality among women and kids: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06116-2

Great! So tell us, where is the cash coming from? You? Me? All taxpayers? Do tell.

[Anonymous]

Of all the desperate needs in public spending right now, THIS is what FFX comes up with??

What an idiotic waste of money!

[Anonymous]

I was on welfare after I left my former husband, and had two kids under three. An extra $750 a month would have been life changing.

Happy to report that like most welfare recipients, I was off the doles after a couple of years. I am all for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Love how DCUM brings so many retrograde Reaganites out of the woodwork.

Cash transfers to low-income households are one of the best ways we have to fight poverty and improve the lives of the most vulnerable, especially children. Turns out giving money to impoverished people relieves poverty. What a concept!

Here’s one recent study finding that cash transfers are associated with reduced mortality among women and kids: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06116-2

Agree. This has been exceptionally successful in other jurisdictions. This is actually less of a traditional handout because it gives agency to people about how to spend rather than being infantalised by the government. Based on Maslows Heirarchy of Needs, this is essential to thriving. When individuals thrive, we all do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal here, I do not approve.

Give them food stamps. Health insurance.
Subsidize housing.
School Supplies. Clothes. Gas.
Education - skills, ESL, whatever is needed.

But not cash. I want to know exactly what my taxes are being used for.

With guaranteed income programs, you know exactly what your taxes are being used for: extra income for low-income families, to do what they believe will provide the most benefit for them.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/in-mississippi-a-long-running-guaranteed-income-program-is-helping-black-mothers

DP. A better plan would be to identify the gaps not covered by current programs and identify specific things that these low income families need the cash for and then supply those things rather than providing cash.

A lot of people are low-income because they are dysfunctional, can't manage budget, have misplaced priorities, addictions of various types whether booze/substances/gambling/etc.

What a horrible and inaccurate perception. As though wealth somehow denotes moral superiority?

Rich people are the most selfish, psychopathic people I’ve encountered. And you think people with money are immune from dysfunction? I have a beach to sell you in Arizona.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love how DCUM brings so many retrograde Reaganites out of the woodwork.

Cash transfers to low-income households are one of the best ways we have to fight poverty and improve the lives of the most vulnerable, especially children. Turns out giving money to impoverished people relieves poverty. What a concept!

Here’s one recent study finding that cash transfers are associated with reduced mortality among women and kids: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06116-2

Great! So tell us, where is the cash coming from? You? Me? All taxpayers? Do tell.

Yes, it’s coming from the taxpayers, including you and me. As well it should. Because decent people take care of others, especially those who are suffering. I seem to recall a whole testament being dedicated to someone who preached stories about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This program seems like an old idea. I am not sure what the point is.

The point is helping people improve their lives.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-28/for-more-than-20-guaranteed-income-projects-the-data-is-in

It’s not scalable to everyone who would be eligible, and I’m not sure how fair it is to help some and not others. If we “help” everyone, then nobody is helped.

We can't help everyone, so we should help nobody...

The pilot programs are not scalable and are not designed to be scalable. They are designed to be pilot programs. The policies suggested by the results from the pilot programs certainly are scalable. What they probably aren't, is politically feasible. That's because we're a country where policies favored by large majorities of the population are somehow politically impossible to implement.

The reason these programs are “successful” for those in the programs is because the same money is not being extended to everyone else. If everyone were getting this money, then prices go up, and they are stuck competing with everyone for the same amount of housing and resources, just with more money in the mix. In the end, the ones who win are those who own the capital, just as it has always been.

So compare this those who have the benefits to WFH as a government employee against those employees who cannot. Those who can save on commute cost, eating out, childcare, etc, you are in effect getting free money from the government that others are not getting. But this is considered an essential good, because you are upper middle class women raising the next critical generation and this should be supported (really you mean subsidized) as much as possible. It is important that you can conveniently have two upper middle incomes to support thr lifestyle you want to have, and WFH makes that possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/news/fairfax-county-pilot-program-provide-2m-guaranteed-income-180-eligible-families

Not that 750 a month is a ton of money, but hasn’t this already been tried other places? Is it scalable?

The nature of this program is that it only works if kept small-scale and it only helps the families selected.

If the county decides to tout the results of this program as a win for equity and decides to implement it for all eligible families, then housing and prices will go up and we will be in the same situation we were already in, except now you have a new welfare dependent population.

The county would be better served by examining the policies that make life unaffordable here in the first place.

FACT CHECK:


Which party came up with this plan to spend your tax dollars? Was it:

A) Democrats or

B) republicans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was on welfare after I left my former husband, and had two kids under three. An extra $750 a month would have been life changing.

Happy to report that like most welfare recipients, I was off the doles after a couple of years. I am all for this.

Right now the the general fund in Fairfax county takes in a bout 4.7 billion a year. Expanding this program to everyone up to 200% if the poverty line in the county would cost $1.5 billion. Do you cut 30% of the rest of the budget or do you raise every tax by 30%? Do you just hope that both people paying taxes don't flee and poor people don't flock?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/news/fairfax-county-pilot-program-provide-2m-guaranteed-income-180-eligible-families

Not that 750 a month is a ton of money, but hasn’t this already been tried other places? Is it scalable?

The nature of this program is that it only works if kept small-scale and it only helps the families selected.

If the county decides to tout the results of this program as a win for equity and decides to implement it for all eligible families, then housing and prices will go up and we will be in the same situation we were already in, except now you have a new welfare dependent population.

The county would be better served by examining the policies that make life unaffordable here in the first place.

Tax dollars going to a freaking Covid memorial. I just can’t

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was on welfare after I left my former husband, and had two kids under three. An extra $750 a month would have been life changing.

Happy to report that like most welfare recipients, I was off the doles after a couple of years. I am all for this.

Right now the the general fund in Fairfax county takes in a bout 4.7 billion a year. Expanding this program to everyone up to 200% if the poverty line in the county would cost $1.5 billion. Do you cut 30% of the rest of the budget or do you raise every tax by 30%? Do you just hope that both people paying taxes don't flee and poor people don't flock?

Or maybe instead we wait for the pilot to conclude, look at the results, and then scale the program consistent with budget and taxation constraints? Another poster was absolutely right that the difficulty of helping everyone doesn’t mean that we should help no one.

[Anonymous]

I thought we already learned the lesson that giving outright cash to people is a bad idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought we already learned the lesson that giving outright cash to people is a bad idea.

We learned the very opposite, and a academic research has confirmed it: giving money to people in poverty, relieves poverty. It’s just politically difficult because, as we see in this thread, conservatives -hate- giving money to people in poverty (tax breaks for rich people are just fine).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was on welfare after I left my former husband, and had two kids under three. An extra $750 a month would have been life changing.

Happy to report that like most welfare recipients, I was off the doles after a couple of years. I am all for this.

Great! You pay for it. Send your check to FFX county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love how DCUM brings so many retrograde Reaganites out of the woodwork.

Cash transfers to low-income households are one of the best ways we have to fight poverty and improve the lives of the most vulnerable, especially children. Turns out giving money to impoverished people relieves poverty. What a concept!

Here’s one recent study finding that cash transfers are associated with reduced mortality among women and kids: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06116-2

You can volunteer your tax dollars. According to the county, 167k residents are within 200% of the poverty line. Giving each of them 9k a year would cost $1.5 billion. Last year the entire county budget was $3.5 billion.

Not only that, but giving all 167k residents this cash would drive up housing and other costs considerably. We’d be right where we started, but worse.

And how is it fair to give this money to just a select few?

So you'd rather keep poverty high so you can stand on the necks of the working poor to afford your own luxuries. Got it.