Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j32nvvy wrote

Reply to comment by ZeekLTK in $450 checks to help Mainers with heating costs expected to be sent starting in mid-January by wheresmycaketester

[deleted]

2

ZeekLTK t1_j32ok5e wrote

It costs to figure out stuff like that. I bet it would cost more than $450 for them to figure out that you specifically “don’t need” $450.

Therefore, they actually are saving money by just giving you $450 and not paying to determine that you don’t need it.

2

[deleted] t1_j32ovtl wrote

[deleted]

0

ZeekLTK t1_j32r49n wrote

No, all they figured out was that you make less than the limit they set (which is why they did it that way, it was the easiest way). You are saying it should be distributed based on who “needs” it the most.

“People who need the most get the most, etc.” That can’t be determined just by looking at someone’s income, so whether you realize it or not, you are talking about hiring a team to design and implement some algorithm that takes into account various metrics, which would have to be collected, in order to decide “this person needs $550, this other person needs $345, this other person needs $120, this other person needs $0, etc.” The only way that would actually be “more efficient” is if you completely disregard the cost of setting it up. But if you factor in how much work that would be, it does end up being cheaper to just give the benefit to everyone (or at least, like in this case: a group with a very large cutoff) and being okay with the fact that some people who “don’t need it” will wind up getting it.

3

[deleted] t1_j32rh7i wrote

[deleted]

1

Sufficient_Risk1684 t1_j32s7w4 wrote

Except alot of people making 10k a year live in free or subsided house and pay nothing for heating.....

1

ZeekLTK t1_j340nwb wrote

But again, you're only looking at income and that's not the best measurement.

Like let's say there are two families, one who makes $95k/year and the other who makes $65k/year. You are saying just based on that, the $65k/year family needs more assistance.

But what if the $95k/year family has 5 young kids who are all in sports and dance and some in childcare and the family's average annual expenses is about $90k/year whereas the $65k/year family is just a couple with no kids and they only average annual expenses of around $45k/year? The $95k/year family only has about a $5k buffer from living beyond their means whereas the $65k/year family has a $20k buffer, so it seems like the $95k family probably needs assistance more than the $65k one in this specific case, but how would that be determined unless there was some way to collect and process all that information (which would be very costly to do)?

And even if you had a way to collect and process all that info, would it still be able to make such a determination? It seems unlikely, so giving everyone something like this is probably still the best way to make sure it gets to as many people who need it as possible.

1

[deleted] t1_j32p5xi wrote

Republicans wanted to raise the income limits. Dems wanted it lower but republicans negotiated it higher. They had to allow it to get this passed. Also if you really want to feel sick, take a look at the Facebook posts from some of the Republican senators who originally voted against this. Their constituents were essentially commenting that they shouldn’t allow this to pass if it was only going to help the poor.

2