this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
144 points (94.4% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4694 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
144
How guaranteed basic income can reduce infant mortality (publicintegrity.org)
submitted 1 year ago by TokenBoomer@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

PublicIntegrity.org

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tallwookie@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

250 x 22 months (gestation + 1 year) x 1000 = $5,500,000/yr... plus whatever overhead/administration costs are needed for that. where are they going to get the extra money? a $3.5 mllion grant is mentioned - do they expect the public to cough up $2+ million? just for a trial program?

a 2021 study indicates that approximately 22,000 women give birth each year in Philadelphia - assuming that the program expands to include the percentage described as "non-hispanic black" (presumably, the metric valued by the article referenced in the post, though it's just "black" and "white" in the bar graphs) - 43% (9460 births), that'd be $212,080,000 per fiscal year - probably more since it's a 22 month program.

can Philly afford that?

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Sure. Tax the rich, tax the corporations, revoke all religious exemptions and let the IRS enforce it (so no more fancy bookkeeping and hidden offshore accounts).

[–] MiscreantMouse@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

It absolutely can.

Heck just the amount of tax money we know the US billionaires are currently failing to pay (~$160,000,000,000 / year)[1,2] would cover more than 754 Philadelphias using your math, to say nothing of what a fairer tax rate could do.

Idk why Americans are always pretending to be poor, it's the will that's lacking, not the funds.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/03/23/tax-avoidance-costs-the-u-s-nearly-200-billion-every-year-infographic/

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/20/the-wealthy-may-avoid-163-billion-in-annual-taxes-how-they-do-it-.html

[–] lasagna@programming.dev 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Fascinating how you have the ability to apply logic to the maths in question but not to what has caused the empty coffers.

Can humanity afford to prosper if it lets go of the overly greedy? Absolutely, mate. We have a wonderful, rich world and the ingenuity to use the resources wisely. What we lack is good governance.

[–] thoeb@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm confused on why your math is showing it's going to cost $5.5M/year over the nearly 2 year course of the program.

E: ah you're probably just extrapolating the continued cost if it ends up being renewed another year after this.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone -1 points 1 year ago

Then you have to question what is the lost productivity from all the sick kids who didn’t die, when they become adults. What about the loss of product of their parents now for sick or death.

Then you have to consider the health costs associated. It’s not as black and white as you think. Sure, it’s expensive, but lots of worthwhile things are.

How much could we cut spending on the arts, defence, politicians, other government programs for the needy to compensate?