Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Fooj]

Mind you I'm not a polysci major or anything, but I've seen more than a few people here who seem to be on top of their game politically and economically.

So I was walking home from work, and passed yet another homeless person. This one was legit and asking for non-perishable food straightup, not just some ass panhandling for money. I got to thinking and this is a summation of my thoughts:
+Essentials should be exempt from a laissez faire economy. They should be rationed by the government as a constitutional right. All luxury goods and excess essentials can remain capitalistic.

How?
+Shift people's spending on essentials to spending on taxes to fund the provisions, essentially forcing everyone to be doing what is currently considered donating.

Why?
+So no-one falls through the cracks like with the current system that relies on generous donations.

I defined "essentials" as the following:
+Sufficient food and nutrition
    -Can taste like crap
    -Healthy and nutritious and provides at least 1800-2000 calories a day
+Utilities
    -Water
    -Heating
    -Electricity
+Acceptable shelter
    -Stays dry and warm
+Birth Control
    -Free and available everywhere
    -Multiple methods (Condoms and morning after pills etc)

You may or may not agree with some of those essentials, but let me continue:

+Food: The current farming system is retarded. Farmers make money NOT growing food because of capitalism applied to food. Farmers should be government employees, paid on a government payroll.

+Utilities: People oppose communistic governments. Instead, they'd rather a company extort them for the same goods and services. You pay for it with your money in taxes or you pay for it with your money in bills. The difference? People seem to hate the idea of paying taxes for something that doesn't go to them. In some cases, that's justified, but in the case of holding back so you can have luxury goods while someone goes without basic utilities is just asinine.

+Shelter: Habitat for humanity with solid backing. I'm not talking free houses, but at least you can stay somewhere dryer and warmer than a cardboard box (like an insulated wooden box! With a working lavatory!)

+Birth Control: Subtle population control. This is what really makes this work.

Now, this would never work given the amount of revenue it would cost the government with existing taxes. How much do you spend on food? Utilities? House payments? Add it all up. Would you pay that much in taxes instead? Figure out the minimum for living with those. Make 101% of that a tax to cover the taxed and the unfortunate.

Now this would never happen if it required the dissolving of existing monopolies. Can you imagine big companies like GE just bending over and accepting their demise? All existing enterprises on food and utilities and real-estate would actually continue, although they probably wouldn't like it. Only the minimum would be given for free and it would be rationed. Anything beyond that will cost whatever the market can bare from existing companies. Kind of like being charged for going over your monthly limit on your phone.

So what if you don't work, and thus can't really pay? This would replace welfare. I've noticed people (at least I've met) on welfare aren't smart with money. Giving them what they need rather than direct money takes away the responsibility from them.

Now this really would never happen because this would be labelled communism, every corporation that ever existed would oppose it, people don't like taxes, and it probably would cost somewhat more than the current system.

I think surprisingly little would change for the taxed. You'd pay slightly more for the minimum of the essentials. Everything else would remain, except all the bums on the street wouldn't be.

So imagine you were forced to donate for the less fortunate through taxes. Thoughts?
I know at least someone will agree that birth control should be eagerly provided to everyone for free

[Dwarf]

I am, basically, having the same idea as you.
This is called Socialism, and IS NOT communism or fuck, even stalinism.
I personally think it's the way to go, some don't - I accept these - and then there are the rich SOBs who don't because they ARE the very extortionists.

While we're at it, universities and other schools should be tax-payed, so that anyone can visit them, poor or rich. AFAIK, the university situation in the USA is... well bullshit. The poorer people have to rely on stipendiates, which are hard to get.

[Fooj]

While we're at it, universities and other schools should be tax-payed, so that anyone can visit them, poor or rich. AFAIK, the university situation in the USA is... well bullshit. The poorer people have to rely on stipendiates, which are hard to get.

I almost included education in there, but we do have mandatory education up to high school at least. It is possible to live off a high school degree.

Though I do agree the current university situation is FUBAR, I was trying to keep this down to the minimum minimum of "livable". Much more and the amount it would cost would become unacceptable to most people.

Ha! Just noticed:
"Escaped Lunatic". Sounds about right.

[Earthquake Damage]

I haven't finished reading the OP, but I can think of two problems that you'd need to address:

1.  People need an incentive to contribute to society.  Too many free riders will collapse the system.  You may think everyone would want to work to afford excess/luxury goods and services, but a great many folks would be content with the essentials and spend the rest of their time leisurely.

2.  With guaranteed essentials, you'd likely face a population boom.  Especially in light of issue #1, you risk overpopulation that the system cannot handle.  Promoting birth control (and offering free condoms and/or pills) won't fix the problem.  You might have to fall back on forced birth control.

[kuro_suna]

While we're at it, universities and other schools should be tax-payed, so that anyone can visit them, poor or rich. AFAIK, the university situation in the USA is... well bullshit. The poorer people have to rely on stipendiates, which are hard to get.

I almost included education in there, but we do have mandatory education up to high school at least. It is possible to live off a high school degree.

Though I do agree the current university situation is FUBAR, I was trying to keep this down to the minimum minimum of "livable". Much more and the amount it would cost would become unacceptable to most people.

Government funded education isn't charity, its a investment. Having a educated workforce to export skilled labour and import unskilled labour is what separates economic super powers from developing countries. The only reason the United states can have such a poor education system is by being a strong enough economy to attract skills from all over the world.

[kuro_suna]

2.  With guaranteed essentials, you'd likely face a population boom.  Especially in light of issue #1, you risk overpopulation that the system cannot handle.  Promoting birth control (and offering free condoms and/or pills) won't fix the problem.  You might have to fall back on forced birth control.

Why, in any developed country starvation isn't a significant factory in population growth.

[Fooj]

1.  People need an incentive to contribute to society.  Too many free riders will collapse the system.  You may think everyone would want to work to afford excess/luxury goods and services, but a great many folks would be content with the essentials and spend the rest of their time leisurely.

This may indeed be a problem, but I'm not aware of any actual data to verify how many free riders there would be. A lot of the current free-riders I know of spend a lot of it on booze and drugs, which wouldn't be possible with the socialized system without working for luxury goods money. Also, with the drop in sales, I'm certain companies would make up for it with a hard increase in brainwashing as to why they need the luxury products. Honestly, how many people are content with sticks and dirt clods when there's Xbox?

This is debatable I guess, but there would need to be an actual study, which I'm unaware of.

2.  With guaranteed essentials, you'd likely face a population boom.  Especially in light of issue #1, you risk overpopulation that the system cannot handle.  Promoting birth control (and offering free condoms and/or pills) won't fix the problem.  You might have to fall back on forced birth control.

On the contrary, I've read that stable nations have VERY low birth rates compared to unstabler, lower world nations. It's a survival trait to have more offspring when survival is not as guaranteed.

Government funded education isn't charity, its a investment. Having a educated workforce to export skilled labour and import unskilled labour is what separates economic super powers from developing countries. The only reason the United states can have such a poor education system is by being a strong enough economy to attract skills from all over the world.

Good luck socializing higher education. You'd have to convince people to essentially be sending more than just their kid to college. Not going to fly very far with the public.

[Earthquake Damage]

Addition to my previous post RE point 1 (aka welfare, pretty much):  When your work pays for all the free riders via taxation, you can afford fewer luxuries.  As more free riders emerge, your hard work eventually pays very little (in terms of the luxuries you can afford, given that you're paying an ever greater percentage of your wealth in taxes).  So the people that do work have an ever decreasing incentive to do so.  So you risk losing a great many existing workers.

So, yeah.  Such a system has serious practical flaws that you'd need to address.  Are these problems solvable?  Probably.  Do I have a solution?  Fuck no.

MOAR POINTS (seriously, you unleashed a can of worms with this topic!):

I'm certain companies would make up for it with a hard increase in brainwashing as to why they need the luxury products. Honestly, how many people are content with sticks and dirt clods when there's Xbox?

You forget that social activity doesn't need fancy gadgets.  With or without an Xbox, people gossip and fool around.  Sure, they may enjoy that Xbox (or fancy car, or expensive food, or whatever), but it's not a necessity.  Will enough people want it badly enough to contribute enough to society enough to keep the economy afloat?  Hell if I know.

On the contrary, I've read that stable nations have VERY low birth rates compared to unstabler, lower world nations. It's a survival trait to have more offspring when survival is not as guaranteed.

I'm not sure that's very telling in and of itself.  The cost of living is much higher in stable, developed countries, so children are more expensive.  The cultural values/norms are vastly different as well.

[Fooj]

Addition to my previous post RE point 1 (aka welfare, pretty much):  When your work pays for all the free riders via taxation, you can afford fewer luxuries.  As more free riders emerge, your hard work eventually pays very little (in terms of the luxuries you can afford, given that you're paying an ever greater percentage of your wealth in taxes).  So the people that do work have an ever decreasing incentive to do so.  So you risk losing a great many existing workers.

You did read the part where I said this would replace existing welfare? Honestly, how many people are content with welfare, even if they are smart with their money? I think it's probable the number of free riders wouldn't increase at all from their current percentage, if not decrease. The irresponsible ones would be forced to work for their luxury goods they'd normally be irresponsible with.

Again though, I'd like to see a study done. #1 thing driving people from not living minimal would probably be boredom. I think that would be rather effective.

MOAR POINTS (seriously, you unleashed a can of worms with this topic!):

Damn it. We need studies on the viability of this stuff. I've not much to argue with.

[Earthquake Damage]

It seems there may be a relationship between available leisure activities and birth rate.  In less-developed countries, where luxury goods are less common, the birth rate tends to be higher.  It's possible this is because there's less to do and thus people spend more of their time on recreational sex.

Consider this.  In this particular case study, apparently people in Madras are more often conceived between September and March (the colder months).  This could be because there's less to do when it's cold and folks are stuck indoors.  Given that Madras (aka Chennai apparently) only drops to around 60-68 Fahrenheit during these months, it could be less that they have little to do during their winter and more that they don't enjoy sex so much during the blazing summer heat (100-108 F).

Then again, Indians (and other people in warm climates) are funny when it comes to temperature.  A former roommate of mine was Indian and he frequently went apeshit about the room temperature.  I prefer it around 72-74 F, whereas he wasn't comfortable until the temp was over 80 F.  I also recall being in Pasadena, CA on a 50-55 F day (perhaps as high as 62 or so -- memory's foggy) and hearing some lady, dressed in a heavy coat, bitching about the cold with some hyperbole about "fingers going numb" (yet I was dressed in a light shirt -- underdressed, yes, but not exactly frigid either).

It's also possible the difference in birth rate is related to work load.  We in developed western countries are workaholics relative to much of the rest of the world.  More work means less leisure and thus less sex.  This may be relevant.  I'm giving it a read at the moment.

[Strife26]

Careful not to get in Correlation - Causation problems when comparing rich and poor countries, although the poor people have more kids link is pretty well established (although I usually subscribe to the economic sense reasoning behind it.)


The major problem with governmentalizing anything like suggested is one of efficiency.
Efficiency and Equality are two possible goals in an economy (heck if I remember the other five, I didn't read my AP econ book last week). They tend to work oppositely. Free market is really efficient, but equality suffers horribly. Equal societies (socialism) take a serious hit in efficiency.

Basically, if the government tries to cut up the pie equally, there's less overall pie.

Not that I don't like the idea, I'd be quite glad to see it in place. I'd recommend that one would use a super-food stamp program instead though. You get ten food stamps that are only good on certain healthful foods, whatever. Then the free market can compete over those food stamps.

[Fooj]

Not that I don't like the idea, I'd be quite glad to see it in place. I'd recommend that one would use a super-food stamp program instead though. You get ten food stamps that are only good on certain healthful foods, whatever. Then the free market can compete over those food stamps.

Needs more market competition then? I can agree with that.

They tend to work oppositely. Free market is really efficient, but equality suffers horribly. Equal societies (socialism) take a serious hit in efficiency.

Well that was kind of the idea. Total equality where it's needed, and as minimal as can be to keep it from getting too expensive.

It's possible this is because there's less to do and thus people spend more of their time on recreational sex.

And thus free birth control was included in there.

I suppose the question for this would be: if birth control was completely free so you wouldn't have to worry about kids, would you ever bother working for more options than spending the day fucking? I'm afraid that may be the trade off in making it more economically feasible, yet having fewer people work.

Is there some sort of analysis of what people spend their welfare money on? Would give an idea of whether or not it would make a difference if they were given essentials over money.

[Shades]

The major problem with governmentalizing anything like suggested is one of efficiency.
Efficiency and Equality are two possible goals in an economy (heck if I remember the other five, I didn't read my AP econ book last week). They tend to work oppositely. Free market is really efficient, but equality suffers horribly. Equal societies (socialism) take a serious hit in efficiency.

Theoretically really efficient I'd agree with. In practice, although I agree it is more efficient than the miles of red tape governments tend to entail, I don't think it is sufficiently more so that limited social structures like this would work.

Furthermore if the source of the essentials was government run and given as a fixed quota regardless of income levels rather than as money based on need, you could probably avoid the excessive amounts of money wasted in tracking people that cheat the current benefits system.

The other thing about efficiency studies, or at least the ones I've seen, are that they only seem to concentrate on how revenue increases after privatisation and ignore the knock on effects that the loss of income (it's only ever 'profitable' sections that get privatised after all) has on the rest of the whole system and often the increasing of taxes to pay for the other parts.

Anyway the OP would get my vote.

[Jude]

Good luck ever selling that idea to America. We aren't even willing to pass health care reform because....actually, I have no idea why not, other than that people hate the president for being black.

[redacted123]

-