"If government really wanted to help the poor, it wouldn’t tax everyone to fund everyone. It would raise only taxes required to help the genuinely poor, then say “mission accomplished.”"
Defenders of universal benefits are completely explicit about why they prefer this approach and the reason is pretty obvious: they think that broad-based benefits secure more support for the benefits (which in turn helps the poor). That's a perfectly reasonable instrumental argument for this being the best way to help the poor, given political feasibility. This is often called the paradox of redistribution in the literature.
As an aside the inference from the table that the government is splashing welfare state benefits on the wealthy is faulty. I believe a lot of this is social security and medicare (the former of which is partly driven by lifetime earnings). So these don't reflect a generic pool of general taxation that could be freely redistributed to the very poorest.
This is the famous argument that Wilbur Cohen made to Milton Friedman in their AEI debate titled "Social Security: Universal or Selective?" Interestingly, Milton himself took on that view later in life.
There is a large counterexample to your and Cohen's view, though: food stamps.
I agree that food stamps are not a universal benefit, but I don't think they're a counterexample: there's a clear reason why they're not universal (most people would not want to receive them). Indeed, in that sense, they could be seen as illustrating the universal welfare point: because food stamps are targeted at the poorest, they're seen as stigmatising. In any case, I understand the universal welfare side to be making a normative argument that this is how we should act, not a predictive/descriptive one.
I hadn't realized that your objection was about stigmatizing. You didn't actually make that objection in your initial comment.
I actually think two things about that: (1) stigmatizing is good and (2) when I see people in the Safeway line using SNAP, I don't see much stigmatizing. Maybe the latter is because I'm in California.
It's not 'my' objection, for two reasons. In my first comment, I just describe how welfare universalists explain the rationale for their position (I'm not arguing for universalism). In my second comment, I respond to your observation that food stamps aren't universalist (at least that's why I took you to be saying they are a counter-example), by noting that there's a specific reason why that particular benefit wouldn't be (most of the public wouldn't want to receive them): that's just narrow response explaining why that benefit would be expected to be non-universal, not saying that that is a reason why it is bad.
Because the government has purposes other than wealth transfer.
The things it needs to do cannot be done via private means - and the things it does even when they would be better done privately funnel money to government insiders to keep themselves alive.
You state “a stranger pattern emerges—a pattern neither liberals nor conservatives will expect. Look closely. While taxes are highly progressive, transfers have an upside-down U-shape.” The caption on your table specifies that those numbers are for households, as opposed to individuals. So, isn’t this pattern expected? The second quintile would include a higher proportion of households with more than one individual while the lowest quintile would include a higher proportion of households with one individual only—with the second quintile benefiting from tax break due to dependents (kid(s))?
Treating US system as a good example of welfare state is actively hilarious.
Also, I would _really_ want to see the math behind both "Yes, I know that rich households have more people, but the basic pattern remains." and how much of those transfers are artifacts of the (again, US-unique, non-welfarist, and destructive) healthcare system.
I mean, because US neither was founded as one nor consistently positions itself as one. The "universal healthcare is so difficult only 26 of 27 developed countries have it" meme replicates in area after area of what is traditionally considered welfare state output. The mere progressiveness of tax does not a welfare state make.
"If government really wanted to help the poor, it wouldn’t tax everyone to fund everyone. It would raise only taxes required to help the genuinely poor, then say “mission accomplished.”"
Defenders of universal benefits are completely explicit about why they prefer this approach and the reason is pretty obvious: they think that broad-based benefits secure more support for the benefits (which in turn helps the poor). That's a perfectly reasonable instrumental argument for this being the best way to help the poor, given political feasibility. This is often called the paradox of redistribution in the literature.
As an aside the inference from the table that the government is splashing welfare state benefits on the wealthy is faulty. I believe a lot of this is social security and medicare (the former of which is partly driven by lifetime earnings). So these don't reflect a generic pool of general taxation that could be freely redistributed to the very poorest.
This is the famous argument that Wilbur Cohen made to Milton Friedman in their AEI debate titled "Social Security: Universal or Selective?" Interestingly, Milton himself took on that view later in life.
There is a large counterexample to your and Cohen's view, though: food stamps.
Thanks for the reference!
I agree that food stamps are not a universal benefit, but I don't think they're a counterexample: there's a clear reason why they're not universal (most people would not want to receive them). Indeed, in that sense, they could be seen as illustrating the universal welfare point: because food stamps are targeted at the poorest, they're seen as stigmatising. In any case, I understand the universal welfare side to be making a normative argument that this is how we should act, not a predictive/descriptive one.
I hadn't realized that your objection was about stigmatizing. You didn't actually make that objection in your initial comment.
I actually think two things about that: (1) stigmatizing is good and (2) when I see people in the Safeway line using SNAP, I don't see much stigmatizing. Maybe the latter is because I'm in California.
Oh, and you're welcome re the reference.
It's not 'my' objection, for two reasons. In my first comment, I just describe how welfare universalists explain the rationale for their position (I'm not arguing for universalism). In my second comment, I respond to your observation that food stamps aren't universalist (at least that's why I took you to be saying they are a counter-example), by noting that there's a specific reason why that particular benefit wouldn't be (most of the public wouldn't want to receive them): that's just narrow response explaining why that benefit would be expected to be non-universal, not saying that that is a reason why it is bad.
Because the government has purposes other than wealth transfer.
The things it needs to do cannot be done via private means - and the things it does even when they would be better done privately funnel money to government insiders to keep themselves alive.
A rediscovery of Director’s Law.
If your quintile data does not break out by age (particularly those over 65), then it is quite deceptive.
How dare you! ... try to do politicians out of a job?
You state “a stranger pattern emerges—a pattern neither liberals nor conservatives will expect. Look closely. While taxes are highly progressive, transfers have an upside-down U-shape.” The caption on your table specifies that those numbers are for households, as opposed to individuals. So, isn’t this pattern expected? The second quintile would include a higher proportion of households with more than one individual while the lowest quintile would include a higher proportion of households with one individual only—with the second quintile benefiting from tax break due to dependents (kid(s))?
An open border is the best means to gain more welfare recipients.
Treating US system as a good example of welfare state is actively hilarious.
Also, I would _really_ want to see the math behind both "Yes, I know that rich households have more people, but the basic pattern remains." and how much of those transfers are artifacts of the (again, US-unique, non-welfarist, and destructive) healthcare system.
Why is it hilarious?
I mean, because US neither was founded as one nor consistently positions itself as one. The "universal healthcare is so difficult only 26 of 27 developed countries have it" meme replicates in area after area of what is traditionally considered welfare state output. The mere progressiveness of tax does not a welfare state make.