
Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth - rjsamson
https://cardsagainsthumanityredistributesyourwealth.com/
======
FLGMwt
Oh 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?

~~~
lobotryas
>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.

~~~
FLGMwt
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.

~~~
edanm
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...](https://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-
soc-resp-business.html)

~~~
rficcaglia
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...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/06/economists-
economic-policy-brexit-crash-failure)

~~~
edanm
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?

~~~
rficcaglia
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

------
n0her0
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.

~~~
djsumdog
It really is. Way better than that Holliday hole.

~~~
notatoad
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.

------
ridgewell
>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.

~~~
throwawaycloud
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.)

~~~
fjsolwmv
Are you sure they are cancer symptoms? Seems you be dead by now if you and
them untreated for so long.

~~~
throwawaycloud
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://scottgriddle.com/blog/dealing-with-my-needle-make-that-all-
things-medical-relating-to-me-phobia)

[https://medium.com/@sgriddle/im-35-and-i-may-suddenly-
have-l...](https://medium.com/@sgriddle/im-35-and-i-may-suddenly-have-lost-
the-rest-of-my-life-i-m-panicking-just-a-bit-35d6a28dcbc)

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.

~~~
robbiep
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

~~~
throwawaycloud
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?

~~~
1123581321
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](https://www.colonoscopyassist.com/After_Colonoscopy.html)

For the sake of your health, please don't assume you have fully researched
your options yet.

~~~
jnbiche
> 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.

~~~
1123581321
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.

~~~
jnbiche
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.

~~~
1123581321
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.

------
fabianhjr
For anyone that liked this action, you can continue it trough GiveDirectly
([https://givedirectly.org/](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...](https://www.princeton.edu/~joha/publications/Haushofer_Shapiro_UCT_2016.04.25.pdf)
>

> 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.

~~~
RobinL
If you want a quick intro to GD and their philosophy, see here:
[https://www.ted.com/talks/joy_sun_should_you_donate_differen...](https://www.ted.com/talks/joy_sun_should_you_donate_differently)

They've been on GiveWell's list of recommended charities for 6 years now:
[https://www.givedirectly.org/blog-
post?id=434250678224991586...](https://www.givedirectly.org/blog-
post?id=4342506782249915867)

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](https://www.givedirectly.org/give-now)

Donate here (UK, with Giftaid):
[https://www.givedirectly.org/uk](https://www.givedirectly.org/uk)

$0.91 of every $1.00 dollar ends up in the hands of the poor.

------
rocqua
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. :(

~~~
cipherzero
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.

------
owenversteeg
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.)

------
djsumdog
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.

------
phantom_oracle
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/](https://www.cardsagainsthumanity.com/)

(and is definitely not as friendly to the eyes as something like: cah.[trendy-
extension])

------
fmavituna
Whenever I hear about wealth inequality, I think of Zakat (
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/practices/zaka...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/practices/zakat.shtml)
).

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](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.

------
FLUX-YOU
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?

~~~
moonka
Looks like it.
[https://cardsagainsthumanitystopsthewall.com/](https://cardsagainsthumanitystopsthewall.com/)

~~~
FLUX-YOU
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](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.

~~~
moonka
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.

~~~
FLUX-YOU
It was in the letter they sent to individuals:
[https://imgur.com/emSk75t](https://imgur.com/emSk75t)

------
CloudYeller
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.

------
FLGMwt
_pokes head out of curtain_

What if $15 means something different to people with fungible assets* vs.
those where money is tight.

*: HN population

------
akkat
> 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.

~~~
scott_karana
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.

~~~
akkat
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?

~~~
astura
[https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2017/03/27/pin...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2017/03/27/pink-
tax-forces-women-pay-more-than-men/99462846/)

------
bluthru
Much better than digging a hole in the ground or buying up property along the
border.

~~~
FLGMwt
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.

~~~
bluthru
>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...](https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Border-Wall-vs-Cost-Illegal-Immigration)

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](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxhhjfiSy2Y)

------
em3rgent0rdr
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.

------
bobcostas55
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.

~~~
jnbiche
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)

~~~
harryh
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...](https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-
jeffrey/census-americans-poverty-typically-have-cell-phones-computers-tvs)

~~~
jnbiche
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.

~~~
harryh
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?

~~~
jnbiche
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.

------
mberning
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.

~~~
FLGMwt
$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.

~~~
jquery
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.

~~~
petercampanelli
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.

~~~
jquery
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.

~~~
FLGMwt
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).

------
alexasmyths
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.

------
eutectic
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.

~~~
Strilanc
The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics [1] strikes again.

1: [https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-
eth...](https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/)

~~~
hactually
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.

------
MilnerRoute
How do we know this really is "Cards Against Humanity," and not just some
prankster's domain?

~~~
MilnerRoute
I found an NBC story about it, so it looks like it's confirmed.

[https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/cards-against-
humanity...](https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/cards-against-humanity-
redistributes-money-with-latest-promotion-463103443.html)

------
partiallypro
"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.

~~~
harryh
_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.

~~~
alexasmyths
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.

~~~
harryh
Lots of people that aren't working do pay taxes though. Social Security
benefits, for example, are taxable in a lot of cases.

