• @thebrownhaze
    link
    13 months ago

    This is where you and I will disagree. I don’t want poor people paying for shit I can get myself without issue. That seems very unfair.

    Save that money for a useful social program that helps poorer people

    • @aesthelete
      link
      1
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It costs money to operate registers, take payments, etc as well.

      Means testing is terrible and why waste time and money rather than cooking the kids some food and having them focus on learning?

      Not every aspect of society should be about running some type of business. The whole thing is a distraction from what school ought to be about.

      The same goes for medicine, btw. The means testing and insurance gating there is even worse. Take the cash registers and insurance middlemen out of it and suddenly doctors can worry about the patient care instead of payments.

      • @thebrownhaze
        link
        13 months ago

        Perhaps. But what if it worked out vastly cheaper to target free lunches. Let’s say a billion was freed up for some important social program to help poor people. Would you agree with me if that were the case?

        • @aesthelete
          link
          1
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Means testing also makes it easier for the rich to target programs for removal because not everyone qualifies for them.

          We all need food, water, and sometimes medical care in order to survive. We all deserve even more, such as vision care, dental, and mental health support, and educational and training programs. Housing should even be a right. We have means tested versions of programs for some of these things, and people of meager means often slip through the cracks because they didn’t fill out the right paperwork or weren’t considered quite poor enough. It’s a shitty system and it starts with people coming from your viewpoint.

          If a rich kid actually wants to go to for instance a free city college, who cares? Most people that have the means to go elsewhere would, and ultimately the goal of these institutions is the good societal impact that you want. If rich people are going to free colleges or eating free meals or taking public transit, it means the quality is there, which is great for everyone.

          • @thebrownhaze
            link
            13 months ago

            Btw, reading our conversation back, I appreciate your tone and lack of condensation and insults

          • @thebrownhaze
            link
            13 months ago

            That was quite a far ranging number of issues. So,

            Education, food, housing and healthcare are all different issues.

            None of which can ever be a “right” imo. I don’t think an exhaustible resource can ever be a right, what happens when it runs out (i could tell you about how my father in law died during COVID. Healthcare definitely ran out then).

            housing is definitely not the business of the state in most cases, other than opting to be a moral landlord (as is the case with UK council houses). We should definitely have safety nets, and the housing market should be policed to be fair, but it’s not the states job to pay for my house, I’ve got that covered.

            I believe healthcare free at the point of need is the gold standard. But if I had to pay for GP appointments, that would be fine. Those who can’t afford it should get it fee. Our prescriptions never cost more than £7.50, which is actually amazing. We could run that number on a curve, if I had to pay 15, that would be fine. Whatever the system is, it has to work and the NHS is really struggling at the moment.

            free sub degree education for all is a no brainer for the whole country. If you want to do a degree is some obscure philosophy that won’t benefit society, feel free, but pay yourself. Getting a degree that provides skills the country needs, a system of grants is a good idea imo.

            And, as you know, food for those in need, sure. I don’t want to see people destitute and hungry, but giving that food to millionaires is crazy in principle. Even if it worked out cost effective to do so (which I would be open to examining) I have a fundamental objection to that in principle.

            • @aesthelete
              link
              1
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I understand your position as a neoliberal but that’s just one way of looking at the world.

              The problem with means testing is it erodes the programs and gets the rich to push to have the programs completely dissolved.

              Here in the states, nearly everything is means tested and it makes all of our public programs shitty and leaves them constantly on the chopping block for Republicans.

              • @thebrownhaze
                link
                13 months ago

                Trust me, I am no neoliberal. While I detest labels that require adherence to dogma, if you were to describe my politics, probably English liberal would do.

                Systems being imperfect is no reason to dismiss them. Pursuit of perfection is toxic imo. Good enough should be the standard imo. Surly they only options can’t be a) shitty means testing b) needless state benefit to the wealthy. We must be able to come up with something better

                • @aesthelete
                  link
                  13 months ago

                  Good enough for the poor becomes the standard and good enough for the poor is an extremely low bar.