Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth
cardsagainsthumanityredistributesyourwealth.comOh hey, on top of the prevalent skepticism and detractions in the current discussion, I'll just throw out that, on its own, this is objectively a Good Thing.
I won't dismiss the fact that this is good PR for CAH, but it is still morally-motivated positive impact for some fixed number of people. A company took some profit they had and exceptionally distributed to some of their less fortunate customers.
Don't immediately react and reply that this is gameable. Don't immediately react and reply that this isn't scalable.
Pause for a second and think about why this is necessarily coming from a game company that's small and makes a crude product. Think about why something like this shouldn't be coming from an entity with much more power to effect positive social or economical change.
And if you're part of one of those powers, can you do something?
They offer their base product as a download for free on their main page right below the buy button and it is licensed under the Creative Commons... And they give you instructions on how to do it most easily. They are an exceptional company, and have earned fans instead of customers.
> Don't immediately react and reply that this isn't scalable.
I agree that positivity is important. Certainly, let us take a moment to genuinely appreciate what they’ve done here to help 100 people!
Now, since this is such a good thing they’ve done on a small scale, let’s scale this kind of help to EVERYONE who is in need! That would be truly awesome.
Oh wait, sorry — it looks like we can’t actually have that problem-solving discussion here, because you shut down the dialog by banning the topic. What you did there — see, that is “objectively a bad thing”.
Seriously though, you cannot really expect people to shut down productive problem-solving discussion, on a forum meant for exactly that. In fact, I believe inspiring discussion and problem solving towards scaling this concept is exactly what Cards Against Humanity wants to happen as a result of this!
Hi! Thanks for responding!
I'll admit I was dismissive in my attempt at brevity so thank you for challenging me.
I didn't intend to shut down discussion. I was countering the flood of commentary around what I perceived as issues ancillary to the actual topic.
On the topic of scalability, I might been too dismissive, but I'd rather focus on the positivity of the topic as a whole, lamoon its impact, even if localized, and then secondarily bring up the topic of scalability.
I was intentionally stark because I recognize HN as being highly volatile. Top-level commentary often controls the conversation and I'd rather validate the topic than waste nuance in pessimistic challenges.
> I didn't intend to shut down discussion. I was countering the flood of commentary around what I perceived as issues ancillary to the actual topic.
I interpreted GPs comment as an indictment of NH's policy of banning political news items, not as blaming you for shutting down the current discussion.
I interpreted it as "don't shut down discussion with low effort comments like 'it doesn't scale'".
>objectively a Good Thing
Could you please defend this assertion? They themselves admit that their redistribution method is flawed (see the FAQ).
I see this as an empty publicity stunt and something that doesn't help in the least.
Happy to!
First, I chose the word "objectively" in the sense that win/wins are still possible in consumeristic markets. I think most businesses would have taken a flexible $100k USD and spent it on marketing or expansion or something. The fact that this was distributed freely to people who self-identified as having use of it is good.
Second, flawed/unfair/biased/imperfect does not mean that something can't have net gains. Just because a company recognizes and discloses their faults, that shouldn't dismiss them from credibility. I'd rather a service that promises 99.5% availability than no service at all (or worse, a service that doesn't disclose their reliability).
Third, I think that the public, publicized, monetary actions of a trendy business have an additional non-material benefit. On top of any fiscal commentary about this bit, CAH is quite popular, and they have enough financial leeway to make a statement. This statements is "we are a business. we have knowledge that some of our customers have a greater need than others. we are making a decision to help those people with greater need".
Their statement is no more prescriptive than that. But damn if it doesn't make me question every other wildly profitable business, including the corp I work for.
You're making a few assumptions that I disagree with.
'First, I chose the word "objectively" in the sense that win/wins are still possible in consumeristic markets.'
Well, I think most economists will tell you that almost every non-forced transaction in a consumeristic market is a win-win. Otherwise, it wouldn't happen! You have $x, but you want to have whatever I'm selling more than you want to have those $x, therefore we make the trade. I, alternatively, prefer the money. If there's no win-win here, then the transaction wouldn't happen in the first place.
"This statements is "we are a business. we have knowledge that some of our customers have a greater need than others. we are making a decision to help those people with greater need". Their statement is no more prescriptive than that. But damn if it doesn't make me question every other wildly profitable business, including the corp I work for."
That's sincerely very nice of them. It really is. They're giving up some of their own hard-earned money in order to give to others, and I applaud them for it.
However, don't give up on all corporations just yet. Corporations are in a very different position, at least large, public ones, because they're not wholly owned by a few people who can decide to give some of their money to charity. They're owned by huge numbers of shareholders. (A lot of which are members of the public, investing through pensions funds and the like).
Who exactly should be making the decision to e.g. donate money to charity, instead of making more money? The individual shareholders are completely free to do this with their own money, and many do - but why should the company itself do it? If I were a shareholder, I'd want the company to mostly maximize profit, then decide in private how I'd like to donate to charity. For many reasons, not least of which is that I'd probably donate to GiveWell or something similar, rather than to a few random people who happen to like CAH.
Anyway, I really can't say it better than Milton Friedman, so if you're interested, I suggest you read his words on the subjcet: https://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/f...
Having studied economics and married to a PhD in behavioral science, I would urge you to separately consider the academic utility of the models of “most economists” from real life. Economic theories and models have a lot of value, just not applied to anything to do with real humans.
Better said here [0]: “Economics is plagued by the spurious exactness of mathematics. It neglects human behaviour and grovels before its paymasters in government and commerce. Its forecasting is as much use as Mystic Meg and the astrologers.”
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/06/econom...
So instead of refuting my actual points, you're telling me that it's better I completely ignore an entire academic discipline?
Maybe economics, like most science, doesn't get everything right, and there are certainly still tons open questions. But how far would such an attitude take me for other disciplines?
Not ignore...apply very judiciously with careful consideration of the context and assumptions.
I don't refute your points. they may be valid. they may not. I merely urge reflection that actual human behavior that directly contradicts economic models.
As to Friedman: > "there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."
How's that going for the planet? While he dismisses social issues as "catchwords" we are now living with the very real repercussions.
>"The stockholders or the customers or the employees could separately spend their own money on the particular action if they wished to do so. "
This implies that organization doesn't add any multiplier and is merely a sum of its funds. Even the market sees beyond that argument by valuing companies at multiples of its cash and assets. So he's ignoring or discounting the disproportionate impact that an organization can have far exceeding the sum of the individual actors.
> "civil servants ... must be elected through a political process.
I wonder what Mr. Friedman would think of the influence of corporate funds in the US political decision of late. Seems to blur his lines quite a bit.
>"the great virtue of private competitive enterprise–it forces people to be responsible for their own actions and makes it difficult for them to "exploit" other people for either selfish or unselfish purposes."
When I was 17 I read Atlas Shrugged, too, and thought every individual could succeed on their own actions and effort. Then I lived in reality.
EDIT: typos and formatting
Hey buddy. Flawed != bad or net negative.
It helped at least 100 people.
> and something that doesn't help in the least.
You spoke to the 100 people and found it didn't help them?
This is definitely a good thing, especially when it's juxtaposed with Cards Against Humanity's Holiday Hole last year. It's as if they're not really against humanity after all. I wonder which publicity stunt is better for the company.
+100
Their whole schtick is that they did some private charity work and it went great so FUCK DRUMPF AND FUCK CAPITALISM. And you’re asking people not to talk about the main point of their shtick? I won’t argue what they did isn’t good but literally thousands of charities do this every day.
I guess I'm coming from: I feel like we're in a relatively cushy bubble so maybe let's talk bubble-external impact?
I think this is a good thing that a private company is doing. They're benefitting from PR, but they're also using their stance on the capital and renown front to make a statement that it's cool to help out people who need help. Oh and also they're using their own cash to do that.
They didn't say fuck anyone and they didn't say fuck capitalism.
If anything, they're optimizing for capitalism: "people who care about the emotional plight of individuals in need would probably react positively to us publicly helping them out... and be more likely to buy our product."
They took the money and put it where it seemed like it would have the biggest impact. The people who paid $15 should all be very happy to have been a part of this. For many, especially those with little income and high economic insecurity, holidays are very tough and actually result in working few days having less money at a time of greater need.
To those seeking to criticize, it was not meant to be a perfect example of anything. It is also very relevant that this was done by a company who could have kept that money and sent a Christmas card with something snarky, and it would not have hurt their bottom line.
One of the coolest things I've read in a long time.
> it was not meant as a perfect example of anything
+1 this
I feel like we tend to demonize incremental progress in favor of easy criticism.
Let's maybe ask: "Is this a Good Thing? Is it better than nothing? Is it better than than yesterday's suggestion?"
If you answer no to any of those, shut the fuck up with your criticism and start working on the next iteration.
Bought a few of these (for myself, and as gifts). Was happy to have been a part of just day 1 - well worth the money. Everything else is icing on the cake.
It really is. Way better than that Holliday hole.
i feel like this wouldn't have been as well received if it weren't preceded by the holiday hole. CaH has kind of built a reputation where they do silly things with silly amounts of money. Because they spent last november literally dumping money in a pit, they can fairly easily avoid criticisms about how this isn't a perfect scheme with the "it's better than throwing money in a pit" excuse.
And i don't in any way mean this as a criticism. There's a lot of benefit to be had in experimenting with non-perfect ways to help the poor, but way too often those projects are criticized harshly for being imperfect. I love that CaH is able to do this.
>We excluded all Canadians. They already have universal healthcare. They’ll be fine.
Yikes. I certainly got a laugh out of that, then an overly reflective period of what I'm grateful for, especially the benefits afforded from being north of the border.
Throwaway for privacy.
I've been concealing cancer symptoms for years, mostly because I can't afford to get a colonoscopy. Even the cheapest clinics run well over $1k, which is totally out of reach.
The secondary reason is an unhealthy fear of needles and a desire to live without a colostomy bag.
I know I need to see a psychiatrist or a therapist to help me get over these irrational fears, but you guessed it: I can't afford to. I make just enough not to be covered by any of the ACA's tiers, which means it'd be $400/mo for health insurance. It's like.. $400/mo? Do you have any idea what I could buy with $400/mo? I'd be able to afford to eat as much meat as I want to, let alone health insurance.
So yeah, just barely treading water down here in the good ol' USA. Cheers from down south.
(I'm not jealous, to be clear. Hopefully we'll get our stuff sorted out someday.)
> The secondary reason is an unhealthy fear of needles
I realise this isn't the only problem, but with a fear of needles you will be more likely to make bad decisions for your health than you would otherwise make.
I know because I resisted life changing medication for several years because it required regular blood tests.
About 18 months ago I decided I didn't want to do that anymore and sought help for my phobia. I was at the stage that one of my biggest fears was having an accident and waking up attached to IVs. I would likely have hit someone who would come at me with a needle. I would leave the room if someone had a fake needle pen (trigger warning: https://cdn.thisiswhyimbroke.com/images/syringe-pens1-640x53...). I would cover the backs of my hands involuntarily just having a conversation about needles.
I saw a therapist (on the NHS, free) for 8 sessions over the course of about 3 months, who guided me through a course of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), in my last session I held a needle (with it's cap on). Afterwards I was able to continue applying the techniques I learnt in therapy, and got better to the point where I started having blood tests in July. I've since had 7 blood tests and have been noticeably more able to cope with each one.
This is a fixable problem. This isn't part of you, it's just a bug in your brain, and CBT is a technique that you can learn to train your brain to work around the bug. There's a ton of evidence behind it, we know it works, it really is just this "one weird trick".
I highly recommend trying it, and while I was taught it by a trained professional, I suspect you'd be able to get significant value out of reading online. Find someone who can learn with you and have them keep you on track.
I say all this as someone who is skeptical of "therapy" and as someone who has seen very clear progress from CBT. It works, it's supported in research. Don't let a phobia be the reason you don't get medical help. If there are other reasons then tackle them, but a phobia will give you a reason not to even try so fix it.
Feel free to email me if you want to chat.
Consider a fecal occult blood test -- much cheaper than colonoscopy, has the same impact on mortality on a population level, non-invasive. If you get a "positive" on it you might be able to access care somehow.
Man, that's awful to hear, I'm sorry you're in that position.
If you haven't gone to see any doctor at all (and presuming one visit won't bankrupt you), you really should. They don't have to perform any procedure or examination you don't want them to and they're very understanding of people's phobias.
If you have gone and you know for sure you need a colonoscopy then yeah, I'm not sure what to say. It's an awful situation to be in choosing between debt and healthcare. I hope things work out for you and you can get some help.
Are you sure they are cancer symptoms? Seems you be dead by now if you and them untreated for so long.
Nope, I have no idea what the blood is from. I can't afford to see a doctor. :) TMI below, so stop reading.
Before I switched diets a month ago, I had blood about 80% of the time. It's ... Mixed in, and dark, as opposed to bright red and on the surface. Meaning whatever it is, it's deep inside my intestinal tract.
Since a month ago I've seen it only once. I'm holding out hope it's just a stomach ulcer or some weird thing involving sugar. Cutting that crap completely seemed to help.
But that's homeopathy, not medicine. I need to get scoped out to figure out what's up.
Those needles though...
https://scottgriddle.com/blog/dealing-with-my-needle-make-th...
https://medium.com/@sgriddle/im-35-and-i-may-suddenly-have-l...
I read that and think "I'd rather die of cancer," but then I read about what it's like and realize it's just a mental hangup. Pretty powerful one though. I think the author probably delayed getting checked for similar reasons.
Hi, Doctor here.
Go to a doctor immediately. There is no way that old blood mixed with stool is from a stomach ulcer. In fact, that’s not how it works anyway (upper gastrointestinal bleeds are modified by stomach acid and enzymes and have a characteristic effect on stool that we call Malena). You may have one of many different things, the most serious of which is, as you fear, a cancer, but the differentials run through benign polyps and vascular malformations.
I understand that you live in a country where you have to make practical choices about your engagement with healthcare VS putting food on the table but if you play your game slightly further out (ie add in the future value of the rest of your life VS the opportunity cost of a colonoscopy soon) it doesn’t make sense. You have a pressing and urgent need to attend to a doctor for referral for colonoscopy
You have no idea how much I want to, but $1k for a colonoscopy is wildly optimistic. It's probably going to be $3k or $4k minimum. I make $750 bimonthly, which barely pays the rent. My roommate pays the rest of our living expenses. There's $1,800 in the bank.
What do I do? Show up and say "There's no way I can ever pay for this, but see me anyway"? I literally have no idea, and I'd feel like a complete scumbag for doing that.
I know it's pressing and urgent, there's just... It's societal pressure. Am I really going to stare at the receptionist and say "No, I won't give you my debit card info; yes, I want you to see me anyway"? They'll tell me to GTFO.
Would it be ok if I send you an email?
More than happy to receive an email from you and take a consult. The large strokes of your history you’ve already given and whilst there is a lot of other information that would be useful for general picture (age, sex, family history particularly as it relates to bowel/GI issues, specifics of timing and actual dietary changes etc) it doesn’t overly change the story which is that further investigation is highly warranted and necessary for a definitive diagnosis to occur (even if underlying pathology is benign). Sorry I can’t help further, the unfairness of the US health system is beyond my comprehension
If your income is $18k/year like you said, it is low enough that you should qualify for a healthcare subsidy. I just checked.
If you won't get insurance, apply for financial aid in the healthcare system you use. They'll cover most or all of the cost based on hardship if your situation is that bad. Once you're received financial aid, it will probably apply for most of your medical expenses for several months to a year. Call various healthcare systems in your area to see what charity/financial aid programs they offer.
If you don't want to do that, at least call for quotes. $3-4k is possible to pay, but too high. It's worth driving a bit to save a few thousand dollars. Yes, you can get a quote for a colonoscopy; it's a standard procedure. Here is an example of a nationwide program that will do it for around $1,100 and that has several options in CA. It is not the only one. https://www.colonoscopyassist.com/After_Colonoscopy.html
For the sake of your health, please don't assume you have fully researched your options yet.
> If your income is $18k/year like you said, it is low enough that you should qualify for a healthcare subsidy. I just checked.
You checked? For a single adult? Most states don't even cove Medicaid for a single adult with no kids, regardless of income. And for those that do, I'd be surprised if $18,000 qualifies him in most of them.
> If you won't get insurance, apply for financial aid in the healthcare system you use
Healthcare system he uses? You realize he's in the US, right? What healthcare system are you referring to?
I'd recommend that the poster go to the ER and tell them his symptoms. I'd say they'll almost certainly do tests on you. Ask to talk with a social worker if needed, and ask them about payment plans, and then if you can't pay, don't worry about it. With you income, it's highly likely they'll be willing to write most of the cost off. It's our fucked up system that's left necessary medical care unaffordable to you. If you were in a reasonable country, either:
a) there would be universal health care or single-payer insurance and you'd not have to worry about paying, or
b) care would be much, much more affordable and you could afford it. In Mexico, a colonoscopy would be a few hundred dollars, and a fecal occult blood test maybe 20-30 dollars.
Because of the corruption of our political officials, and the greed of our insurance companies, pharma companies, hospitals, and doctors, you're left without the recourse that 90% of the world has. So go to the ER and get it taken care of. Even if you have cancer (and it doesn't necessarily mean you do), you won't always end up with a colostomy bag. But the longer you wait, the more likely that becomes.
Yes, $18k national average for a single adult should be low enough for a plan subsidy. I assume he is in a higher income state due to the rent cost.
Healthcare system meaning “St Jude” or “OSF” or “Kaiser.” These Are medium-to-large organizations in the US that many doctors and hospitals fit into to provide service. These orgs are large enough to provide charity if you do a little paperwork.
Why would you assume he had any association with a healthcare system like that? He's said he had no insurance.
That said, I agree that it would be good to check with any nearby large hospital to ask about their charity programs. Better yet, just show up at the ER of a large hospital and tell them the symptoms he's got. Given the urgency of the situation, I think they'd be obligated to treat, regardless of ability to pay. Then, once you're in the system, check on their charity programs.
I assumed that because most people interact with these systems if they have a doctor or go to the ER. That's not precluded by avoiding elective/preventative care.
If you are in the US you should call an organization that does healthcare enrollment. If you have no dependents you probably aren’t Medicaid eligible, but probably are subsidy eligible.
If you cannot find someone, Talk to a social worker at your local hospital.
> and I'd feel like a complete scumbag for doing that.
DON'T. Other people with less urgent medical matters are "cutting in line" before you because they don't have as much of a problem with it.
It might be our life on the scales, and maybe that's worth nudging your principles a little.
I sincerely hope you will get out of this better and more healthy.
Not an expert, and my apologies if you already know the following.
On costs: have you investigated going to an emergency room to be seen for blood in stool? Under Federal law, you have the right to screening, emergency care, and transfer to appropriate followup facilities regardless of ability to pay. It's possible you could at least get a diagnosis at an ER, and perhaps a full colonoscopy as part of that.
On needles: I don't have fear of needles, so I have no 'been there, done that' recommendations. However, there are effective oral anxiolytics that would probably reduce your anxiety enough to get past needle insertion. These might be combined with oral sedatives as well.
On the actual colonoscopy: I've had three. They've all been completely routine and painless. The first time, my doc asked me if I wanted to stay awake and follow the colono-tour on a video monitor, which I did. It was fascinating. For the others, I decided I'd seen it before and chose to not be a tourist, so I was sedated (Versed, I think).
My brother had intestinal cancer. He had a short bowel resection over 40 years ago and he's been fine since. No colostomy bag, no hassles, just 4 more decades of good life. Good outcomes do happen.
I hope you can get care very soon. Best of luck.
>I've been concealing cancer symptoms for years
You want to die? Because this is how you die. Even if you can be saved, the longer you wait, the more expensive the fix. You know, ounce of prevention, pound of cure.
I don't want to die, no, but see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15889950 for my situation.
If you have ideas, I'm all ears, believe me.
A lot of places have community clinics that offer income based prices for medical services. The three places I've lived (mind you, it's not a very geographically diverse three places) have had clinics of this sort, so there may be one where you live as well. They may or may not be able to perform it, but if they can't, there is a good chance they can point you in the right direction to get it done with your income level.
If you haven't already, I highly suggest you look into these clinics.
Yep with healthcare taken care of, Canadians have nothing to worry about.
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/congrats-canadians-youre-worl...
Yea, it's pretty insane. Six of the 13 recipients in the comments referenced medical bills as a primary concern in their life that the $1,000 will help ease.
America has truly failed these people.
For anyone that liked this action, you can continue it trough GiveDirectly (https://givedirectly.org/). It gives Direct Cash Transfers (DCTs) to those most in need and produces evidence of the impact of their models and actions.
The short-term impact of unconditional cash transfers to the poor< https://www.princeton.edu/~joha/publications/Haushofer_Shapi... >
> We find that treatment households increased both consumption and savings (in the form of durable good purchases and investment in their self-employment activities). In particular, we observe increases in food expenditures and food security, but not spending on temptation goods. Households invest in livestock and durable assets (notably metal roofs), and we show that these investments lead to increases in revenue from agricultural and business activities, although we find no significant effect on profits at this short time horizon. We also observe no evidence of conflict resulting from the transfers; on the contrary, we report large increases in psychological wellbeing, and an increase in female empowerment with a large spillover effect on non-recipient households in treatment villages. Thus, these findings suggest that simple cash transfers may not have the perverse effects that some policymakers feel they would have, which has led to a clear policy preference for in-kind or skills transfers [...] and conditional transfers.
EDIT: Added link to GD.
If you want a quick intro to GD and their philosophy, see here: https://www.ted.com/talks/joy_sun_should_you_donate_differen...
They've been on GiveWell's list of recommended charities for 6 years now: https://www.givedirectly.org/blog-post?id=434250678224991586...
I particularly like their commitment to producing evidence on the effectiveness of direct cash transfers. They see direct cash transfers as an important benchmark against which other charities should compare.
Full disclosure: I'm one of the UK trustees.
Donate here (US, tax deductible): https://www.givedirectly.org/give-now
Donate here (UK, with Giftaid): https://www.givedirectly.org/uk
$0.91 of every $1.00 dollar ends up in the hands of the poor.
This is a great thing. Truly, hats of too cards against humanity.
I noticed something worrying about myself when reading these stories. A small voice in the back of my head judged a lot of these people. Those who say they will use it for gifts, travel or other things I apparently deem frivolous. It is not okay of me to think these things. These people deserve happiness, and these people can make their own choices. This disdain is something I really wanna work on. :(
I had the same moment of introspection... I remember thinking “you want to spend this money on gifts or car tires?”
And then I realized that these are the things they’re stressing about. It’s nice to think those will be one less stressor in a life full of stressful things. Which I think is good - if only for the mental win of not having to worry about X.
Way to go CAH - you got me thinking. And this time it wasn’t about something I had to go look up on urban dictionary.
Yeah honestly I think it’s good that some people spent it on gifts, travel, etc. rather than spending it all on bills/debt.
Reminds me of this classic track: http://www.metrolyrics.com/g00/underwear-goes-inside-the-pan...
Before you judge, ask yourself how you would spend the $15.
Anyone else want to discuss the wealth metric they created? That's fascinating to me, with just a handful of datapoints they were able to estimate people's income fairly effectively IMO.
The biggest 3 points were census information from addresses (median income/percentage below poverty line), race/gender/education plus BLS statistics, and occupation (combined with median income for that job from BLS.)
I think back to last year's Holliday Hole. One of the FAQs was, "Why don't you give the money to charity?" A: "Why don't you give the money to charity. It's your money."
I'm glad this year they're not literally throwing money into a hole...err..dig a hole.
This would probably fall into the off-topic area considering the content of the site, but I am quite impressed about the fact that they bought this long-ass domain and went along with it.
Does this give insight into the fact that under certain circumstances, we are post-dotcom (as a critical tool for branding)?
Their regular domain is quite long too: https://www.cardsagainsthumanity.com/
(and is definitely not as friendly to the eyes as something like: cah.[trendy-extension])
Whenever I hear about wealth inequality, I think of Zakat ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/practices/zaka... ).
It's one of the 5 pillars of Islam. One has to give 2.5% of their wealth to poor. It's compulsory unlike Sadaqah - Charity ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadaqah ).
I guess if everyone followed just this 2.5% rule, there wouldn't be any poor left in the world (I didn't do the math though).
P.S. When I say poor, I'm not referring to people who cannot afford the new iPhone.
Did they actually buy the land they said they were going to buy to keep an eminent domain lawsuit open so that The Wall can't be built?
Looks like it. https://cardsagainsthumanitystopsthewall.com/
I doubt a law firm would put their letterhead on a fake letter, but looking at the public map, most of the subdivision I got a letter for is already owned by the USA:
http://www.cameroncad.org/cadclientdb/propertymap.aspx
Tarpon Haven Subdivision
Edit: There's also two huge tracts of land above that subdivision that are also owned by the US. I'm not sure they even need to go through that subdivision if they wanted to just build a wall through the land the government already owns.
That's rather... ineffective.
Where did you find which property they bought? I probably missed it. I also imagine that if they built north of the property, walling off a part of property from the rest of the country in that fashion would fall into some legal issues.
It was in the letter they sent to individuals: https://imgur.com/emSk75t
that piece of property looks beautiful
Inspiring to see why $1000 makes so much of a difference for many recipients: the most common theme was spending time with family.
Sometimes work just seems like random people fighting tooth and nail to earn millions. It would be interesting to see everyone's reasons for acting that way. I bet it usually boils down to "it's for my family". But the real truth there is, having a happy family does not require millions.
pokes head out of curtain
What if $15 means something different to people with fungible assets* vs. those where money is tight.
*: HN population
> We used recipients’ race, gender, and education levels to estimate incomes using Bureau of Labor Statistics data from 2015.
I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that all pictures of the $1000 winners have women.
Women, especially single moms, make less and often need to spend more to survive.
Plus, while Pedro and Ian have women on the pictures, it sounds like those were sent after receiving the gifts, so that couldn't have been part of the selection process.
Plus the trans individuals, whose identity or desired direction of transition I won't guess.
At the end of the day, who even gives a shit who they're helping? It's a private, for profit company sacrificing profits and trying to do "good", as seen through their own lens. Power to them.
I'm not complaining. I just think that it's interesting to see the demographics of the winners.
On another note, I can understand why single moms would have more expenses. But why would a woman who is not a mom have more expenses?
Hmm. I just did a poor job combining two sentences into one. Not sure if that's the case at all for non-moms. :)
Much better than digging a hole in the ground or buying up property along the border.
I'll agree on the hole-in-the-ground schtick which I guess I attribute to a social experiment.
As far as the border property, I wish more people of consequential power/capital would follow their lead and buy up border property. The wall is preposterous and any form of resistance is credible in my eyes.
>The wall is preposterous
Why? This site is obviously biased, but it presents a case for the wall saving us money: https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Border-Wall-vs-Cost-Illegal-Immi...
I'd rather spend money on dumb, long-term tech like that instead of our ridiculous military budget.
The wall was certainly a success for San Diego: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxhhjfiSy2Y
What's preposterous about the wall? It's not useful but plenty of far more expensive government projects are useless (e.g. Joint Strike Fighter etc.) But I see people opposing the wall more than the Joint Strike Fighter.
CAH suggests they're making the case that the government should fund welfare. But it appears to me that they are unintentionally making the case that the private sector can fund welfare.
Literally every single poor person pictured is obese. That baby is almost certainly going to be overweight in a few years.
I'm amazed this isn't a bigger issue politically. Nutrition is a huge driver of health inequality. In 50 years the obesity rate has quadrupled. A return to the eating habits of the 1960s is perhaps the greatest possible welfare achievement right now (in the US), with impact far larger than universal healthcare. And it doesn't need to cost anything.
To fix poverty among the poor, you'll have to do a whole lot more than just convince them to eat healthy:
1) Healthy food where I live is much more expensive than unhealthy food. I get that in SF and NYC, it's possible to buy such food at Asian grocers for a reasonable cost, but not everyone is fortunate enough to have an Asian grocer on their corner. So they'll need more money.
2) On a related note, many poor neighborhoods don't even have a grocery store within walking distance, and many poor Americans own no car.
3) Unless somehow the food is pre-cooked (unlikely), they'll need the time to prepare it. Many poor people work 2 jobs, and I know of some single mothers working 2 FT minimum-wage jobs. These are investment banker hours. They don't have time to cook.
4) Many poor people also don't have working stoves/ranges, just microwaves or hot plates. It's much harder to cook healthy food in microwaves, although it can be done.
5) The also need to learn how to cook new healthy foods, which isn't always easy.
6) Finally, and this is a big one, but it's very stressful to live life as a poor American. Many people both rich and poor stress eat, so that is another factor here.
Anyway, not sure what you're suggesting, but if it's just that someone needs to tell those poor people to eat better, it's not always so easy. But I do agree with you it would be great if it were possible to work on some of the challenges above. 3)
Re #4:
96.6% of US households below the poverty level have a working stove.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/censu...
A lot of people living in subsidized housing will have a stove, because Section 8 requires it from landlords. However, I know a lot of people who may be slightly above the poverty line who don't have a working stove. That included me for a while.
It would be very unusual for access to an appliance to decrease as income rises. Do you have any data to support that claim beyond your individual experience?
Did you not read what I just wrote? Section 8 housing requires these appliances. But you have to be below a certain income level to quality for Section 8 housing. It would be very reasonable to assume that once your income is above that required for Section 8 housing ($36,000 for family of 4), then if your appliance broke, it might be difficult to replace it because you don't have several thousand dollars lying around. If you've never tried to raise a family of 4 on ~$37,000, let me assure you that you will likely run into that situation sometimes.
But no, other than my personal experience, I have no data to support my claim. Just as you have none to support your counter-claim.
Re #2:
You are talking about so called food deserts. There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical of this hypothesis. Here is a good academic article that is representative:
http://chicagopolicyreview.org/2015/10/26/if-you-build-it-th...
Yeah, in that article they basically say it's likely one factor among many, which is exactly what I'm saying.
They say that it is a very minor factor.
Well, thank god that we don't have the replication crisis hasn't engulfed economics, and that we can totally rely on the conclusions reached by a single working paper.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/about-40-economics-ex...
But in any case, among all the factors I listed, I agree that it's probably the smallest factors. In fact, I didn't even initially list that factor, and only came back and inserted it after my initial post. So the fact that it's a small factor doesn't refute any of the other ones.
Last comment from me. You go ahead and rebut all you want. But if you think getting poor people to eat better is just a matter of educating them and instilling a sense of self-discipline, you're quite wrong. Like many difficult problems, this one has multiple causal factors.
> A return to the eating habits of the 1960s is perhaps the greatest possible welfare achievement right now (in the US), with impact far larger than universal healthcare.
You are comparing a concrete policy with a policy outcome for which there is no even remote concept of a policy mechanism that would achieve it.
> And it doesn't need to cost anything.
Massive changes to behavior are not free; the changes in eating habits that happened since the 1969s were driven by a number of economic and other factors, and counteracting all those factors to drive people back to 1960s eating habits would not be cheap.
Actually there are plenty of policy mechanisms to improve nutrition. First repeal subsidy programs for corn and sugar, in particular remove the U.S. import tariffs that create a market for high fructose corn syrup. Next end food stamp coverage for junk food and sugar drinks. Further, allow insurers, medicaid, etc surcharge for the obese-- make them pay for the extra costs they are imposing on the system. Consider taxes on sugar drinks. Finally improve school lunch nutrition.
> Actually there are plenty of policy mechanisms to improve nutrition
I didn't say there weren't.
I said that there was no policy mechanism identified to acheive the goal of returning to 1960s eating habits.
> Further, allow insurers, medicaid, etc surcharge for the obese
Especially in the case of Medicaid, which is a safety net program for the medically indigent, this is nothing short of murderous.
I would also add:
- regulate advertisements for unhealthy foods, especially ads targeted at children
- ban vending machines (and candy sales) on school campuses
- implement sugar taxes similar to cigarette taxes
Cheap access to truly healthy food would be the most amazing social program, and probably have outsized benefits for its cost.
Wait... all these people paid $15 to begin with? Are you really that poor if you can flip out $15 for any little thing that comes along.
No, you're not "that poor", if by that phrase you mean that $15 is a life-or-death decision for you, and every last cent goes toward survival.
But there's a large distance between that and having enough money to fund every level on Maslow's hierarchy, and there's a larger distance between even that and not noticing a $15 expenditure at all. Maybe they have a budget for things that make life worth living, things other than ramen and a cardboard box, and they spent $15 out of that.
Maybe they have a budget for that kind of stuff. Maybe they don't. Based on personal experience growing up in actual poverty I would bet most do not. I certainly didn't. And neither did most of the people in my life. It's really no different than buying smokes by the pack or 20oz sodas at the gas station. Many people can easily come up with the money to buy these things, even people that are perpetually "broke". But it does all add up.
Anyway, my point was that I don't think "lack of money" is a very instructive way of looking at poverty. If these people are so poor yet have $15 for an impulse buy do you think giving them $1000 is going to change their life? Probably not. Education and building better habits would really help them a lot more. They could save $1000 or probably a lot more and really turn their life around.
Ever make chicken? 3lbs of chicken is $15 alone ($3.59/lb x 4 lbs, about 1lb of liquid). That's not a lot of food.
Oh, hmm.. How about hamburger then? Same story.
$1k would absolutely be a lifechanger. I'd be able to go get my colonoscopy that I desperately need, or be able to at least go to a therapist to help get over my fear of needles in preparation for that.
You bet I'll drop $15 on CAH. I'm not going to deny myself entertainment just because there are other things I need.
Look at it this way: $15 is a one-time expense. Health insurance is $400/mo.
And I'm not even that poor. I'd rather the $1k go to someone who needs it more than me.
Can you send me an email with a way to get money to you (Square Cash, address for a check, etc.)?
$1000 for a colonoscopy to tell you that you need $500K of treatment?
Or to tell you that you are "mostly fine" and just have a diet issue.
Not knowing what is happening to your own body is an extremely scary scenario
You may be suffering from the same thing I did: not understanding what this is about. I recommend taking a look at the FAQ (which is relatively difficult to get to from the original article): https://www.cardsagainsthumanitysavesamerica.com/#faq
It's a "complicated promotion" and in this phase they are redistributing wealth to the poorest of the group who paid -- not to the poorest people in the country. I had originally thought that people were signing up with the hopes of getting a payback -- some kind of horrible poorest person wins the pot kind of game. But this is literally, "Pay us $15 and we will do something crazy with it". So far the other things they have done is bought up land to try to interfere with Trump's wall between the US and Mexico (and built a trebuchet), and set up a "good news only podcast" (and sent out stickers).
Most people in the US have discretionary spending even if they are poor. $15 to participate in crazy stunts to "save America"? Certainly there are people who can not afford that, but I don't think that was ever the point.
Edit: Is $1000 potentially life changing for people who are not in abject poverty. I think point is: yes. They point out that half of Americans do not have any emergency money at all. So you don't even need to be in poverty to be living hand to mouth. Will $1000 realistically change that? Clearly not. But the whole thing is a bit tongue in cheek.
Past college, living hand-to-mouth is in the USA is largely an issue of financial education and self-control. I was living hand-to-mouth when I met my wife, who made half what I did and had substantial savings. Get housemates instead of keeping a house to yourself. Get roommates instead of a room to yourself. Get rid of your subscriptions. And so on. Sustenance is remarkably cheap unless you're in poor health.
I blame this lack of financial education on our failing high schools and bad parenting. And a stigma against judging others for poor financial choices (I see people in this thread lauding the gifts the charity recipients plan to buy).
The funny thing about skills is that they seem so trivial when you have them and so impossible when you don't. I've been happily "poor" in my life -- not poverty where I'm likely to die if I make a misstep, but poverty where I made a lot less than the "poverty line". That kind of poverty can be dealt with by skills -- but believe me: not everyone can master those skills.
Like you, I wish they taught a lot of these skills in high school, but just like the math they teach in high school -- it will be out of reach for a lot of people. Those are the people who need the skills the most. We could stand in judgement over those people, but to what purpose? The solution is far more complex than it appears.
As I get older, though, I am confronted with the spectre of real poverty. What happens when you get ill and you can't afford the treatment? What happens if you live in a country where there is no social net to fall back upon? And as I've watched friends that I grew up with start to suffer from mental illness, what happens when your own brain betrays you?
No amount of skills will save you from these plagues. Unless you are mercifully run over by a number 72 bus while you are in your prime, eventually you too will succumb. When you are beyond your ability; have reached the ends of your wits and don't know what to do; how do you want others to act?
Are you kidding me? What if someone is unable to go to college? How about someone making minimum wage?
$15 is a roughly a single meal. Are we suggesting that $15 spent towards entertainment is exceptional or excessive for anyone below middle-class, ? If that's true, than surely we're worse off than we're all aware of.
In large parts of America, $15 is a lot more than a single meal. I grew up in relative poverty, $15 for entertainment would seem like a very poor choice in my household.
Your comment makes me think we really are worse off than many people are aware of.
At a restaurant. Which you really shouldn't be indulging in very often or at all if $1000 is a major boon to your life.
When everything is going to shit, people are in the hospital and you barely have enough food stamps to feed your kids ...
You can go to a movie. Are you going to really fault someone for that, or taking their partner to a restaurant, using what little they have, to just try and forget how bad things are for a few hours?!
It's not like they can just stop being poor.
I don't begrudge anybody their small pleasures in life. I also think they can do what they want with their money.
But, when the topic of wealth redistribution comes up I do start to have a lot more questions about what people want to do with the money. After all, it's not their money. They didn't earn it. Somebody else did. I think it's pretty fair to at least have the conversation. I absolutely hate the "helpless poor people" trope and the idea that if they just had more money everything would be better. How often do good and well meaning ideas have horrible and long lasting consequences that were not intended.
For very poor people, just having more money can often make a huge difference in their lives:
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/08/23/214210692/the-...
There's actually a mounting volume of convincing evidence that cash grants to poor people are much more effective than random charity programs of equivalent value. Because poor people often know what they need more than some paper pusher in a faraway city.
I wonder whether there is a difference in attitudes or money usage for poor people in Kenya or other developing nations, vs those who are poor in developed nations like the US.
Although you did say 'very' poor people, this was the thought that popped into my mind.
I wonder the same thing. I think there is a study being done now in the US on cash grants, so there may be some data. But not nearly as much as there is from Africa.
> They didn't earn it.
And what exactly does Zuckerburge do earn the millions he makes every year? Personally, nothing. Everything him and Gates et. al. did was leverage the capital of people they convinced to work for them.
When I worked in an office in Seattle where a 1/bdr was $1800/month, I would watch a janitor come around each day and empty my trash can. I'm sure he made a fraction of what I did, but honestly, I'm sure he did more work .. or at least the same amount. What I do is more difficult, and I was lucky to be raised in a family that had the means to send me to college and I was lucky to pick a career field that earned me that money.
So much of what we have isn't earned. It's more by chance. The major determining factor in your succeeding (school, career, etc.) is determined before you are born. If you're born into poverty, it is very very difficult to get out.
To quote George Carlin, it's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe in it.
And you're suggesting that purchasing a funny card game that has value over time should be a disqualifying factor?
If $1000 is life changing money for you, you have no business spending $15 on a lottery ticket, unless you are terrible at managing money, which might have something more to do with their situation more than living in the richest nation on Earth.
You're casting so much judgement here. Anyone can spend money on whatever they choose, just like the recipients can spend the $1000 however they like. We have no business criticizing these people.
If Cards Against Humanity is going to demand wealth redistribution to support these people, you're goddamn right I can judge the financial choices of their champions.
Hi.
The "wealth distribution" is entirely at CAH's expense. They only surfaced that language because they made a point of communicating to the non-recipients that they wouldn't be receiving anything on top of their original contract (of getting the game for cash, which they totally got).
You've broken the guidelines a lot in this thread by commenting uncivilly and/or unsubstantively. Would you please re-read them and then stop?
Poor people are allowed to have fun, too.
They "Deserve To Taste Something Other Than Shame", by Ijeoma Oluo: https://theestablishment.co/poor-people-deserve-to-taste-som...
Thanks for the input!
I realize I didn't clarify explicitly. While I'd agree that a one-time $15 gamble would be an irrationally exorbitant expense if it was in place of a family meal, I think we're talking about different things.
Even if "poor people" were <$1000 away from financial ruin, $15 towards a reusable entertainment asset is quite different than $15 towards one-off lottery tickets.
That's an excellent point, really.
Wealth concentration is a problem but poor countries are not poor because some rich Westerners 'have a lot of power'.
Nice sentiment though, and that counts for something.
Why only consider within-country inequality (and, yes, I realize that the answer is 'because it's partly a publicity stunt, and humans are biased and parochial')?
The average American is incomparable wealthy compared to the average African, and you can on average save a life for only a few $thousand to one of Givewell's top recommended charities.
The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics [1] strikes again.
1: https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...
That was a fantastic read, thank you for sharing.
It's incredible how humans do this.
Doing something for some people and is better than the status quo but instead we lambast them for not doing even more.
Excellent read, thanks. Worth reading through the comments on that article too.
Previous discussion on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855
Is it mandated that every top level comment on HN has to be some kind of cynical, nit-picky whining? Lighten up. This is incredible.
Is it mandated..?
Actually, it's an emergent phenomenon!
Because people have a natural tendency to give when they have plenty.
A poor person can spare little, a comfortably off person can spare more. If you really want to increase the charitable givings of a population, decreasing wealth disparity and making more people feel comfortable about their finances (ie. redistributing wealth), is a pragmatic way to do it.
The more I have, the more I give. The more the general population has, the more they will give.
Everyone ultimately has to focus on themselves in hard times. Want to increase charitable givings? Make it easy to be charitable.
That has nothing to do with a choice to give money to cah customers vs the global poorest.
The poorest countries all have something in common, which is overpopulation. It seems as if the poorest have enough offspring so that they are always on the edge of starvation. I wonder if by giving them additional money, so they can have more kids, and even cause a greater strain on the local environment, have we actually done a good thing?
If there is an overpopulation of deer, we don't put big buckets of feed in the forest to support them. But for the human animal, that is exactly what we do.
I know this is a taboo subject, but I think that we may be creating more misery by giving charity, then by doing nothing.
Your comment actually got me thinking... By what metric have you decided that a country is overpopulated?
Using the absolute population size? If so, is America far more "overpopulated" compared to every other developed nation? If China were to split up into 20 sovereign nations, would it suddenly stop being overpopulated?
Or perhaps you're using population density? If so, Taiwan, South-Korea and Netherlands must be absolute cesspools to live in, since they all have population densities higher than India's.
Or more likely, you think that a country is overpopulated because it has a lot of poor people? If so, that sounds like a mighty fine circular reasoning. "Why is XYZ so poor? Because they are overpopulated." "What makes you say they are overpopulated? Because they are so poor."
Alright, maybe you're right about that.
But, what about the rest of it? Do you agree that people breed themselves to the natural edge of starvation? Would it be better to give them the means to have even more kids, perpetuating the cycle, or let them be?
It sounds like you're describing a malthusian trap, where providing people with resources would simply lead to higher population and a return to the baseline quality of life? If that were true, we would expect to see poverty and malnutrition remain relatively constant over the past decades. Instead, what we've seen is a dramatic reduction in both poverty and malnutrition, all over the world. At the rate we're going, extreme poverty and malnutrition will both be eradicated within our lifetimes.
Nicholas Kristof actually had a great article on this very topic, which will restore your faith in humanity: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/opinion/sunday/good-news-...
Education and better healthcare are correlated with lower birthrates.
Charity is very much better than doing nothing.
It can't be that simple...
I have a feeling that it's a smarmy communication for legitimate legal concerns. That doesn't make the relativism any less legitimate but, :shrug:
yes, why do something good when you could do something else?
they found a good thing to do. The fact that there are other good things they could have done doesn't make this less good.
It's a stunt to prove socialism is great. What it actually demonstrated is that charity works great. Charity is not socialism.
If charity works great, why doesn't government-mandated charity work even better?
There are a lot of things, like civil defense and firefighting and road building, that historically started working more reliably when they became government-run instead of depending on volunteers or private industry. What makes charity different?
Government-mandated things usually work worse than the fame things done without governmental intervention.
This is why government is best left to handle things that cannot be adequately done without a central command, like keeping the military forces, or collecting taxes. It can also step in where private or public efforts fail, but don't expect it to be as efficient.
I neither want nor expect it to be efficient, just reliable. Those are two vert different goals. By "efficient" I think you mean something like, as high a percentage of every dollar given as possible goes to where it's needed, and as low as possible goes towards overhead or corruption. By "reliable" I mean that everyone in poverty gets the resources needed to get out, whatever the overhead is needed to get people to that point. I find it a preferable outcome to have one million people worrying how they're going to pay for their next meal, and some guy skimming $1M for himself off the top, than ten million people worrying how they're going to pay for their next meal and nobody getting rich off the process.
I think that's the big difference with things like defense at scale. You don't need war to be cheap, or to optimize dead enemies per dollar; you just need a guarantee that if someone attacks you anywhere and in any manner, there will always be some sort of armed force to defend you. Central command is nice but not necessary. Same with roads; central command is certainly unnecessary, but having reliable nationwide roads is better for a society than intermittent roads where they're profitable.
Do you believe that govermment-run charity will be less reliable than the status quo; that is, do you believe it will help less people? Why?
(I'm not asking about whether it's moral, just whether it works.)
Being more expensive for the sake of reliability / guaranteed response is fine by me. But relatively often the efficiency is so low, that, given the required scale, a low-efficiency solution becomes infeasible, prohibitively expensive.
The expense is not always monetary. While US clinics ask exorbitant amounts of money, clinics in certain countries with universal healthcare ask for large amounts of time. You need a surgery? Please wait 4-6 months. (E.g. https://expathealth.org/healthcare-news/global-patient-wait-...)
As a matter of amoral public policy (optimizing for "long-term survival and happiness of the people"), it's entirely possible a scheme that gets everyone surgeries with 4-6 month delays is better than one that gets rich people surgeries with 1 month delays and poor people no surgeries at all.
(Your moral system might also find that better, but morality is hard to argue.)
Because socialism has been proven to fail, over and over and over. Roads are not socialism. Roads have not destroyed societies like Venezuela or Cuba. Socialism is when the government decides private property is illegitimate and it fails every time it’s tried. Some amount of socialism may not kill the host but it’s a thing to be feared and wielded carefully not lauded.
Banana and cotton plantations are capitalism. The US is wealthy because it extracted it's wealth from the suffering of others worldwide.
> Banana and cotton plantations are capitalism
and? I never said capitalism didn't require any guardrails. Stop straw-manning other people.
> The US is wealthy because it extracted it's wealth from the suffering of others worldwide.
Why is Japan wealthy? South Korea? European countries? Is this the social justice theory of economics? There's not much evidence for that theory. It's pretty clear that capitalism (with appropriate guardrails and the rule of law) is wildly more successful than its alternatives. I think you're trying to argue that capitalism is beside the point and it's war and oppression that creates wealth. That's obviously nonsense.
You’re right - war and oppression are tools used by Capitalists to secure and grow their wealth.
Japan, South Korea, and side swathes of Europe are wealthy because of their positions as client states in the American Capitalist Imperium.
And US military intervention, economic sanctions, etc. in Venezuela and Cuba aren't to blame at all, I guess?
The US has spent trillions of dollars over the years trying to convince everyone that socialism can't work by making sure it doesn't work. It seems absolutely unscientific to ignore that.
In any case, I am not asking about the abolition of private property, just about government-mandated charity at scale. Let's say you get a marginal tax of 100% on salaries over $200K, and on wealth over $10M. That's more private property than most Americans will ever have in their life. Is tbat proven to fail? Where and how?
> Because socialism has been proven to fail, over and over and over.
Except for Leninism and it's descendents, where has socialism of any kind been tried and failed?
Ah, the old "private charity will solve all our problems" meme.
How do we know this really is "Cards Against Humanity," and not just some prankster's domain?
I found an NBC story about it, so it looks like it's confirmed.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/cards-against-humanity...
"The US government actually knows how much money you have and has trillions of dollars to redistribute. Why don’t you get mad at the US government?"
A lot of hardworking people don't want handouts from the government. Though some do, but I believe they are a minority. I generally hate the mindset of wanting money from the government. I want off of the government if I can help it.
The fact is that most Americans pay virtually no federal income tax, and get money back during their returns. When I was starting out and made the median income level for the state I was living in at the time, I still paid no tax (outside of SALT) and got a return larger than what I paid in. People don't realize the government already heavily subsidizes the poor and as well as people well above the poverty line.
The fact is that most Americans pay virtually no federal income tax,
This is not really true. Especially when you also look at payroll taxes which are, for all intents and purposes, income taxes.
When I...made the median income level for the state I was living in at the time, I still paid no tax (outside of SALT) and got a return larger than what I paid in.
This is highly unlikely to be true. I'm sure you remember it this way but without supporting data it is very hard to believe.
Only about 1/2 of Americans at any given time work (very roughly - think kids, elderly etc.) so most Americans don't pay tax is technically kind of correct, but not very meaningful at all in any discussion.
Lots of people that aren't working do pay taxes though. Social Security benefits, for example, are taxable in a lot of cases.
Using 2015 as a reference, of the people that work in the US (represented by 141,204,625 tax returns), the top 50% paid 97.17% of all federal income taxes. The statement that about half of Americans don't pay federal income taxes is only for those that are filing taxes (and therefore probably working), so if you want to include the non-working, it's more like 75% of Americans don't pay income taxes. Here is the data from the IRS, look at the last table cell at the bottom all the way on the right. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/15in03etr.xls