What if the basic necessities of life were free?

[Trez-Nem]

The taxes don't have to be that high. You say tha when people are taxed, lets say 70%, they would get no more money than by not working. They would still get the 30%.

I don't understand where this money is coming from. Who is paying for this?

People, under your proposed system, would have a basic wage and they'll be able to use that on luxuries because you are also providing the bare necessities for free. Most people would be content with that. This means that you'd have to work your small work force incredibly hard and then tax all of their income in order to give them to the rest of the people. Most nations have upwards of ten million people in them; so your small workforce would have to be making billions of pounds a year to support the rest. But where is the money coming from? The only market you've provided for in your system is a luxuries market but all the revenue supporting that market is coming from the government in the first place (the basic wages).

Why would my work force be small? The basic income would be very small in this system, as necessities are free. You wouldn't be able to buy a car, or a bigger house. If you lived in your own house you could get a bigger basic income or something.

[Trez-Nem]

What you need to live: a room in wich to sleep and eat. A bathroom would be nice too.

Still a matter of building it. Got to take into accounts the environment (massive faultline here, risk of flooding there etc.), the labour (it still exists and must be paid for, also finite), the materials and also convincing people to live in them (terror, lack of alternatives, maybe they already want to). Then it has to be maintained...

There's a lot that goes into everything... everything. Except for raw materials obviously like non-processed logs.

Did you know that houses need to be built even without government funding it? And currently there exists quite a lot of houses that are already built.

[Harkback Union]

Still a matter of building it. Got to take into accounts the environment (massive faultline here, risk of flooding there etc.), the labour (it still exists and must be paid for, also finite), the materials and also convincing people to live in them (terror, lack of alternatives, maybe they already want to). Then it has to be maintained...

There's a lot that goes into everything... everything. Except for raw materials obviously like non-processed logs.

Modern technology allows for very cheap and safe housing and with proper security systems, people wouldn't be afraid to move in.
Construction could use free labor from those who are part of the basic necessities system. Those participating could even get some work experience...

[GCMG]

Still a matter of building it. Got to take into accounts the environment (massive faultline here, risk of flooding there etc.), the labour (it still exists and must be paid for, also finite), the materials and also convincing people to live in them (terror, lack of alternatives, maybe they already want to). Then it has to be maintained...

There's a lot that goes into everything... everything. Except for raw materials obviously like non-processed logs.

Did you know that houses need to be built even without government funding it? And currently there exists quite a lot of houses that are already built.

Yes, and currently they tend to be paid for out of pocket. Although generally mortgages are required.

With regards to homes that already exist. There are not enough of them. They are one of the reasons why building more buildings is so expensive. Some are a lot more expensive to maintain (and remember, housing is free) than others and they all still need to be maintained.

Also, the population is generally growing... so more houses always need to be built...

While at first sight making housing free appears to be a brilliant vote winner for many it would be unpalatable. What happens to the housing market now? You may kill the economy...

[GCMG]

Still a matter of building it. Got to take into accounts the environment (massive faultline here, risk of flooding there etc.), the labour (it still exists and must be paid for, also finite), the materials and also convincing people to live in them (terror, lack of alternatives, maybe they already want to). Then it has to be maintained...

There's a lot that goes into everything... everything. Except for raw materials obviously like non-processed logs.

Modern technology allows for very cheap and safe housing and with proper security systems, people wouldn't be afraid to move in.
Construction could use free labor from those who are part of the basic necessities system. Those participating could even get some work experience...

No labour is free. Nothing is ever free.

Housing is only so cheap. As I said, you've got materials, land and labour.

Labourers need food. That's cool, food is free, right? Ah, but of course, you've still got to pay for the fertiliser and all that stuff that gets food to the point where they can consumer it... So, that's got to be covered. Oh, what's this? Your architect won't work for free? Now what...

[Harkback Union]

While at first sight making housing free appears to be a brilliant vote winner for many it would be unpalatable. What happens to the housing market now? You may kill the economy...

Really?
And how would growing markets kill the economy?
More jobs + More demand for houseing (due to bnl project) = Win!

[The Darwinian People]

I don't understand where this money is coming from. Who is paying for this?

People, under your proposed system, would have a basic wage and they'll be able to use that on luxuries because you are also providing the bare necessities for free. Most people would be content with that. This means that you'd have to work your small work force incredibly hard and then tax all of their income in order to give them to the rest of the people. Most nations have upwards of ten million people in them; so your small workforce would have to be making billions of pounds a year to support the rest. But where is the money coming from? The only market you've provided for in your system is a luxuries market but all the revenue supporting that market is coming from the government in the first place (the basic wages).

Why would my work force be small? The basic income would be very small in this system, as necessities are free. You wouldn't be able to buy a car, or a bigger house. If you lived in your own house you could get a bigger basic income or something.

Why do you want to give people a basic income along with free essentials?

Your workforce would be small because the largest group of workers (the lower-working class) are in work out of necessity; when you eliminate that then you need to replace it with another incentive. Higher wages will just drive the price of goods up, which will drive government expenditure up (because they need to keep this basic wage up and continue providing these necessities) and that drives taxes up and then your low-skilled workforce realises that it makes only a little less when it isn't working.

What would you prefer: Work your arse off for £100 a week or do whatever the hell you want for £40 a week, with expenses and necessities paid for?

[Trez-Nem]

Did you know that houses need to be built even without government funding it? And currently there exists quite a lot of houses that are already built.

Yes, and currently they tend to be paid for out of pocket. Although generally mortgages are required.

With regards to homes that already exist. There are not enough of them. They are one of the reasons why building more buildings is so expensive. Some are a lot more expensive to maintain (and remember, housing is free) than others and they all still need to be maintained.

Also, the population is generally growing... so more houses always need to be built...

While at first sight making housing free appears to be a brilliant vote winner for many it would be unpalatable. What happens to the housing market now? You may kill the economy...

In some European countries the population is already getting smaller. And not all housing would be free, only basic necessities. If you build a house, the government would fund it to be livable, if you want more than a room with a roof on it, you'd have to pay for it.

[Harkback Union]

Why do you want to give people a basic income along with free essentials?

Your workforce would be small because the largest group of workers (the lower-working class) are in work out of necessity; when you eliminate that then you need to replace it with another incentive. Higher wages will just drive the price of goods up, which will drive government expenditure up (because they need to keep this basic wage up and continue providing these necessities) and that drives taxes up and then your low-skilled workforce realises that it makes only a little less when it isn't working.

What would you prefer: Work your arse off for £100 a week or do whatever the hell you want for £40 a week, with expenses and necessities paid for?

I agree.
If people want money to pay for stuff beyond basic necessities, they should work...
just make sure there are workplaces to fill.
couse now we dont even have those.

[Trez-Nem]

Why would my work force be small? The basic income would be very small in this system, as necessities are free. You wouldn't be able to buy a car, or a bigger house. If you lived in your own house you could get a bigger basic income or something.

Why do you want to give people a basic income along with free essentials?

Your workforce would be small because the largest group of workers (the lower-working class) are in work out of necessity; when you eliminate that then you need to replace it with another incentive. Higher wages will just drive the price of goods up, which will drive government expenditure up (because they need to keep this basic wage up and continue providing these necessities) and that drives taxes up and then your low-skilled workforce realises that it makes only a little less when it isn't working.

What would you prefer: Work your arse off for £100 a week or do whatever the hell you want for £40 a week, with expenses and necessities paid for?

The difference between the money the unemployed and the employed gets would be much bigger than that.

[Trez-Nem]

You might be right about that basic income would be unnecessary with free necessities, but do you have any ideas how it could made to work?

[The Darwinian People]

Why do you want to give people a basic income along with free essentials?

Your workforce would be small because the largest group of workers (the lower-working class) are in work out of necessity; when you eliminate that then you need to replace it with another incentive. Higher wages will just drive the price of goods up, which will drive government expenditure up (because they need to keep this basic wage up and continue providing these necessities) and that drives taxes up and then your low-skilled workforce realises that it makes only a little less when it isn't working.

What would you prefer: Work your arse off for £100 a week or do whatever the hell you want for £40 a week, with expenses and necessities paid for?

The difference between the money the unemployed and the employed gets would be much bigger than that.

How? How are you financing this?

You don't just get to say that it "would be much bigger" you have to contend with market forces. You have entered into the idea of market-economy rather than a state or guild-socialist one (because you are talking about money and flexible wages) and, as such, you need to understand how markets work.

Show me how the market would provide the system you are going for.

[GCMG]

While at first sight making housing free appears to be a brilliant vote winner for many it would be unpalatable. What happens to the housing market now? You may kill the economy...

Really?
And how would growing markets kill the economy?
More jobs + More demand for houseing (due to bnl project) = Win!

The housing market. A lot of growth is fuelled not by those who intend on living in what they buy but those who we call investors, property developers and the like. What will happen to such houses? Can you own multiple houses? If not, what happens? New houses, they are always going to have $0 price, right? Or maybe not but those that do?

In economics it is assumed that no-one likes uncertainty, it is not good and as we can see this generates a lot of it.

When housing projets begin they attract investors, people who supply the money necessary to get started. This is on the basis that they will get good returns on their investments once all the houses have been built. They spend money to make money. If they don't think they'll get good returns they won't invest. However, there still needs to be enough money to go ahead... so maybe that'll come from a bank but, oh dear, they want to end up with more money than when they started as well...

So, with the price set at $0 there will be no return so no money in. If the government is paying what consumers would have will there be a profit? If there won't and it just covers costs (that is, money in) the first scenario holds true again...

[Harkback Union]

You might be right about that basic income would be unnecessary with free necessities, but do you have any ideas how it could made to work?

Ration tickets for Energy, Food and Clothing would be given to those whoo need it, instead of money...
But Paying jobs would need to be always avalible.
Perhaps the housing projects could be established in locations where there is plenty of demand for workforce...

[The Darwinian People]

You might be right about that basic income would be unnecessary with free necessities, but do you have any ideas how it could made to work?

Easy; force all able-bodied citizens to work.

[GCMG]

Yes, and currently they tend to be paid for out of pocket. Although generally mortgages are required.

With regards to homes that already exist. There are not enough of them. They are one of the reasons why building more buildings is so expensive. Some are a lot more expensive to maintain (and remember, housing is free) than others and they all still need to be maintained.

Also, the population is generally growing... so more houses always need to be built...

While at first sight making housing free appears to be a brilliant vote winner for many it would be unpalatable. What happens to the housing market now? You may kill the economy...

In some European countries the population is already getting smaller. And not all housing would be free, only basic necessities. If you build a house, the government would fund it to be livable, if you want more than a room with a roof on it, you'd have to pay for it.

This is the problem with what you propose. It's so unclear and keeps changing around me.

[Trez-Nem]

Why would my work force be small? The basic income would be very small in this system, as necessities are free. You wouldn't be able to buy a car, or a bigger house. If you lived in your own house you could get a bigger basic income or something.

Why do you want to give people a basic income along with free essentials?

Your workforce would be small because the largest group of workers (the lower-working class) are in work out of necessity; when you eliminate that then you need to replace it with another incentive. Higher wages will just drive the price of goods up, which will drive government expenditure up (because they need to keep this basic wage up and continue providing these necessities) and that drives taxes up and then your low-skilled workforce realises that it makes only a little less when it isn't working.

What would you prefer: Work your arse off for £100 a week or do whatever the hell you want for £40 a week, with expenses and necessities paid for?

You don't have to make the wages higher, as low income workers would get the free necessities, so their vages could be made even smaller.

[The Darwinian People]

Why do you want to give people a basic income along with free essentials?

Your workforce would be small because the largest group of workers (the lower-working class) are in work out of necessity; when you eliminate that then you need to replace it with another incentive. Higher wages will just drive the price of goods up, which will drive government expenditure up (because they need to keep this basic wage up and continue providing these necessities) and that drives taxes up and then your low-skilled workforce realises that it makes only a little less when it isn't working.

What would you prefer: Work your arse off for £100 a week or do whatever the hell you want for £40 a week, with expenses and necessities paid for?

You don't have to make the wages higher, as low income workers would get the free necessities, so their vages could be made even smaller.

Why would they work?

[Trez-Nem]

In some European countries the population is already getting smaller. And not all housing would be free, only basic necessities. If you build a house, the government would fund it to be livable, if you want more than a room with a roof on it, you'd have to pay for it.

This is the problem with what you propose. It's so unclear and keeps changing around me.

I'll try making it clearer.

Every person is to be guaranteed free basic necessities by law. The government would fund the housing as much as is needed to cover adequate living conditions. Same with food and water. The way government would do this is not determined. It can give money to citizens to build houses or provide free housing by itself or something else.

[Trez-Nem]

You don't have to make the wages higher, as low income workers would get the free necessities, so their vages could be made even smaller.

Why would they work?

To get money.

[Zaras]

Why would they work?

To get money.

Because that's the only reason people ever work.

[GCMG]

To get money.

Because that's the only reason people ever work.

Yes, yes it is. *Insincere, distracted voice, far away look in the eye*

[GCMG]

This is the problem with what you propose. It's so unclear and keeps changing around me.

I'll try making it clearer.

Every person is to be guaranteed free basic necessities by law. The government would fund the housing as much as is needed to cover adequate living conditions. Same with food and water. The way government would do this is not determined. It can give money to citizens to build houses or provide free housing by itself or something else.

So, can one own additional properties?

[Germanyball]

I don't know, man. Have you ever tried living on bread and water? I'd hardly call that "providing the minimum" so much as "Punishing your ass"

[The Darwinian People]

Why would they work?

To get money.

But they already get money from the government. And, as you've just stated; you have no intention of heightening their wages.