I am not familiar with US politics, but genuine question here. How effective is this? Does the respective representative have incentive to follow through or disincentive to not follow through?

The only incentive to follow through is to appeal to your voters to get them to vote for you in the next election. But since most election districts are rigged via gerrymandering, representatives need only to appeal to a certain region's demographics.

Only if you actually care enough to follow up.

This is what I’ve become. I don’t think I am racist, and I came to the US liking the diversity, that was about ten years ago.

Now I think I’ve had enough of it, and would rather have familiarity and harmony. I began to resent diversity actually.

It’s an international tournament? Diversity is inevitable in that situation. I get what you mean though. I grew up in then Rhodesia, followed by stints in South Africa as effectively a refugee followed by the UK, and honestly I miss having a community of people who all share the exact same experiences as you in the same place. It’s the small town feeling I guess.

I don’t resent the UK and US for becoming like this though: I feel you can have the best of both worlds. London for instance is a very international city, but even if you venture even half an hour out of the M25 you’ll find very homogenous neighbourhoods (in fact, this is even true within London now that I think about it).

This is precisely why I am still a crypto believer despite all its flaws.

A reminder:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30179483

In what way this is a flamebait?

I really don’t understand.

Edit: ok I get it, my comments aren’t substantive enough.

I won’t post anymore.

Why not just give everyone equally? Why just give to the people earning less than $35000.

I know the answer, no need to reply to me. Regardless. Give everyone equally.

It's a wash. If you "give the money to everyone equally", you'll just be clawing it right back by raising taxes on higher-income folks. Theory suggests that you'll want to phase out the aid quite aggressively as income increases (though not by anything near 100%) because this is where the tightest constraints on spending are no longer binding, so the potential benefit is not that worthwhile.

The result is the same but the details matter.

One is having to prove you are under threshold (documentation, paperwork etc) - the other, everyone gets it, so much less overhead for the poor (the overhead is on the side of the people who can afford it - the VAT tax or whatever is on the other side)

It’s about who has to deal with the paperwork

This is a tax credit, so there ought to be very little paperwork involved other than filing for your taxes - I agree that this kind of arrangement makes sense. It's just that describing it as a subsidy for lower incomes is inherently fairer and more accurate than trying to make it into something "universal".

Can you tell me how are you able to be very well rounded across the stack?

Can someone please archive this thread. So many gold comments here.

I lol’ed

What if it eventually does affect you in real life? I.e vaccine and mask mandates, Misgendering law, abortion, defunding the police, etc.

You need a life.

I have a life. Maybe you need a backbone?

I’m loving this article! Looks like there are many commenters that expressed negatives toward this article. But this article resonates with me!