What if the basic necessities of life were free?

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Seriously...people seem to forget that, first and foremost, we're talking about basic necessities being free, not EVERYTHING. And basic necessities are summed up in most human rights declarations: food, healthcare, housing, water, education...and that's pretty much it. And, if you think about it, there's really no reason why any of those should be particularly expensive for the state and, therefor, for the taxpayer, if implemented correctly.

Not to mention, it seems most right-wingers forget one basic principle of the science of economics: For each necessity that is supplied for, many new necessities arise. In a country where basic necessities are free, people would still work in order to earn the money to afford other not-so-basic needs that still improve their quality of life. Economy teaches us that necessities are infinite. People will always crave more, and the market will provide.

Yep, right on, the day people stop working is the day they stop wanting cars and computers…etc

It's more that this thread is a giant clusterfuck. The OP keeps changing his opinion and editing the original post.

[Sobaeg]

Yep, right on, the day people stop working is the day they stop wanting cars and computers…etc

It's more that this thread is a giant clusterfuck. The OP keeps changing his opinion and editing the original post.

lol, I am concearned! Surely USA hasn't been taken over by groupthink!

[Occupied Deutschland]

Seriously...people seem to forget that, first and foremost, we're talking about basic necessities being free, not EVERYTHING. And basic necessities are summed up in most human rights declarations: food, healthcare, housing, water, education...and that's pretty much it. And, if you think about it, there's really no reason why any of those should be particularly expensive for the state and, therefor, for the taxpayer, if implemented correctly (1).

Not to mention, it seems most right-wingers forget one basic principle of the science of economics: For each necessity that is supplied for, many new necessities arise. In a country where basic necessities are free, people would still work in order to earn the money to afford other not-so-basic needs that still improve their quality of life. Economy teaches us that necessities are infinite (2). People will always crave more, and the market will provide.

1: Allow me to apologize before saying

BULLSHIT

. I really am sorry but that's what it is. Even assuming the basic supply for food is going to be Top Ramen (and not the quality shit, I'm talking bottom of the barrel Wal-Mart brand) will run a little under a half-buck for each meal. So you have that times three for three meals a day, times seven for seven days a week. One person is costing you somewhere around 10 bucks for a week of bare sustenance times the population your country (minus, perhaps, those with incomes who I assume will be left to rot because they don't NEED the shit food provided by the state since they have jobs and can buy their own), and I rarely hear folks saying all that's going to be provided is top ramen.

Added onto that cost you have city water, which according to this completely random site is supposedly .01 for 20 gallons. Which doesn't seem like much until one multiplies that by EVERYONE.

Do I even need to address housing? Shit is expensive, yo.

Education? Likewise. Teachers, buildings, infrastructure to support it, all expensive and all being provided "free" to everyone?

I see no way that this kind've thing can be "properly implemented" without being exorbitantly expensive to taxpayers.

2: Except necessities AREN'T infinite. Wants are. All I NEED is food, water and shelter. That's it. Having those doesn't suddenly make me say, "You know, I really need some costly entertainment that I have to work for!" It makes me say "Ooh, time to go out for a game of stickball and kick the can!"

[Zaras]

I see no way that this kind've thing can be "properly implemented" without being exorbitantly expensive to taxpayers.

Tough shit, brah. Civilisation isn't cheap.

[Sobaeg]

Seriously...people seem to forget that, first and foremost, we're talking about basic necessities being free, not EVERYTHING. And basic necessities are summed up in most human rights declarations: food, healthcare, housing, water, education...and that's pretty much it. And, if you think about it, there's really no reason why any of those should be particularly expensive for the state and, therefor, for the taxpayer, if implemented correctly (1).

Not to mention, it seems most right-wingers forget one basic principle of the science of economics: For each necessity that is supplied for, many new necessities arise. In a country where basic necessities are free, people would still work in order to earn the money to afford other not-so-basic needs that still improve their quality of life. Economy teaches us that necessities are infinite (2). People will always crave more, and the market will provide.

1: Allow me to apologize before saying

BULLSHIT

. I really am sorry but that's what it is. Even assuming the basic supply for food is going to be Top Ramen (and not the quality shit, I'm talking bottom of the barrel Wal-Mart brand) will run a little under a half-buck for each meal. So you have that times three for three meals a day, times seven for seven days a week. One person is costing you somewhere around 10 bucks for a week of bare sustenance times the population your country (minus, perhaps, those with incomes who I assume will be left to rot because they don't NEED the shit food provided by the state since they have jobs and can buy their own), and I rarely hear folks saying all that's going to be provided is top ramen.

Added onto that cost you have city water, which according to this completely random site is supposedly .01 for 20 gallons. Which doesn't seem like much until one multiplies that by EVERYONE.

Do I even need to address housing? Shit is expensive, yo.

Education? Likewise. Teachers, buildings, infrastructure to support it, all expensive and all being provided "free" to everyone?

I see no way that this kind've thing can be "properly implemented" without being exorbitantly expensive to taxpayers.

2: Except necessities AREN'T infinite. Wants are. All I NEED is food, water and shelter. That's it. Having those doesn't suddenly make me say, "You know, I really need some costly entertainment that I have to work for!" It makes me say "Ooh, time to go out for a game of stickball and kick the can!"

Well I guess in your line of thinking you could say "make the poor comfortable and they wont try to become rich, more money for you" - it works

[Occupied Deutschland]

I see no way that this kind've thing can be "properly implemented" without being exorbitantly expensive to taxpayers.

Tough shit, brah. Civilisation isn't cheap.

"exorbitantly expensive" being the operative words here.

Meaning you can still do it, but your going to have to rack up shit-tons of debt and trade-off growth and efficiency to make it work in the short-term. Long-term you probably look like Greece or Weimar Germany. Congrats.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

I see no way that this kind've thing can be "properly implemented" without being exorbitantly expensive to taxpayers.

Tough shit, brah. Civilisation isn't cheap.

Although higher tax rates don't automatically imply better public services, or even higher tax revenue. The Laffer curve provides an interesting rationale for that argument.

[Zaras]

Tough shit, brah. Civilisation isn't cheap.

"exorbitantly expensive" being the operative words here.

It's affordable. We're the First World. We can put a man on the moon, but not solve poverty.

Meaning you can still do it, but your going to have to rack up shit-tons of debt and trade-off growth and efficiency to make it work in the short-term.

I don't think you know much about economy.

Long-term you probably look like Greece

Or anything about Greece for that matter.

[Zaras]

Tough shit, brah. Civilisation isn't cheap.

Although higher tax rates don't automatically imply better public services, or even higher tax revenue. The Laffer curve provides an interesting rationale for that argument.

If tax rates can be cranked up to 91% in the 1950s without wrecking the economy and providing good public services, I don't see what part of Laffer's curve applies here. It could be done before, why does Laffer think it can't be done again?

[Occupied Deutschland]

1: Allow me to apologize before saying

BULLSHIT

. I really am sorry but that's what it is. Even assuming the basic supply for food is going to be Top Ramen (and not the quality shit, I'm talking bottom of the barrel Wal-Mart brand) will run a little under a half-buck for each meal. So you have that times three for three meals a day, times seven for seven days a week. One person is costing you somewhere around 10 bucks for a week of bare sustenance times the population your country (minus, perhaps, those with incomes who I assume will be left to rot because they don't NEED the shit food provided by the state since they have jobs and can buy their own), and I rarely hear folks saying all that's going to be provided is top ramen.

Added onto that cost you have city water, which according to this completely random site is supposedly .01 for 20 gallons. Which doesn't seem like much until one multiplies that by EVERYONE.

Do I even need to address housing? Shit is expensive, yo.

Education? Likewise. Teachers, buildings, infrastructure to support it, all expensive and all being provided "free" to everyone?

I see no way that this kind've thing can be "properly implemented" without being exorbitantly expensive to taxpayers.

2: Except necessities AREN'T infinite. Wants are. All I NEED is food, water and shelter. That's it. Having those doesn't suddenly make me say, "You know, I really need some costly entertainment that I have to work for!" It makes me say "Ooh, time to go out for a game of stickball and kick the can!"

Well I guess in your line of thinking you could say "make the poor comfortable and they wont try to become rich, more money for you" - it works

Except that's not how I think. Like, at all. Simple cost-benefit is a lot easier to do and a lot less inhumane. I happen to think the cost of "Free 'basic necessities' for everyonez!" outweighs those benefits, care to prove me wrong by pointing out where we're going to save the entire cost of the program in increased production due to basic neccessities being provided?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Although higher tax rates don't automatically imply better public services, or even higher tax revenue. The Laffer curve provides an interesting rationale for that argument.

If tax rates can be cranked up to 91% in the 1950s without wrecking the economy and providing good public services, I don't see what part of Laffer's curve applies here. It could be done before, why does Laffer think it can't be done again?

Let me count the ways.
1) The 50s saw the US as the sole stable power on the planet not greatly damaged by WWII and thus in possession of a massive industrial sector that faced no international threats or competition.

That's really the only one that matters. Plus, how do you even define 'good'? Because there was a lot of shit the government didn't do in the 50s. Like food stamps for instance.

[Choronzon]

Then how would we cull the poor?

[Moving Forward Inc]

Not everything as everything, but as quite many things at least.

I came across a draft for an issue that had an option to give your citizens free basic necessities of life, such as food, water and housing. I tought: What if this was merged with the idea of a basic income? The answer was clear in my head, it wouldn't work. Everyone would just stop working. Really? Would everyone stop working? Would you like to live in a small stinky government funded "apartment" with dry bread and water? Even if the government would give you a little money every month, wouldn't you be jealous of the new car your neighbor just bought?

I know it doesn't work with everyone, some people are happy with little money, but that's not the point.

What do you think? Why wouldn't it work? Why/how would it work? If you have no explanations to what you say, please ski to a spruce.

How can a system where everyone buys their own homes and food work, whilst one where government funds them won't work? I'd like if someone explained me that.

That shit is already free: the catch is that it comes at the cost of others.
As for it working, for the majority, yes, it does, but the rest are an oppressed minority.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Although higher tax rates don't automatically imply better public services, or even higher tax revenue. The Laffer curve provides an interesting rationale for that argument.

If tax rates can be cranked up to 91% in the 1950s without wrecking the economy and providing good public services, I don't see what part of Laffer's curve applies here. It could be done before, why does Laffer think it can't be done again?

That's not what I said. I'm just arguing that cranking up the tax rate is no immediate guarantee of more efficient or effective public services, nor is it even an immediate guarantee of higher tax revenue. It's simplistic to assume such a correlation.

It's irrelevant whether the tax rate was 91% in the 1950s. What needs to be determined is where the most efficient tax rate (for each income bracket) exists now, in order to most efficiently maximise tax revenue without sacrificing resources in either direction.

That's what government policy should seek to do. Frothing at the mouth about "DON'T TAX THE RICH BECAUSE THEY'LL LEAVE" or "TAX THE RICH BECAUSE THEY'RE GREEDY AND STUFF" contributes nothing to the argument.

[Liriena]

Well I guess in your line of thinking you could say "make the poor comfortable and they wont try to become rich, more money for you" - it works

Except that's not how I think. Like, at all. Simple cost-benefit is a lot easier to do and a lot less inhumane. I happen to think the cost of "Free 'basic necessities' for everyonez!" outweighs those benefits, care to prove me wrong by pointing out where we're going to save the entire cost of the program in increased production due to basic neccessities being provided?

People no longer need to pay for basic necessities ---> People have more money to spare ---> People spend more money in second necessity goods (including better quality food and clothing), social necessity goods, cultural necessity goods and luxury goods (all of them usually more expensive than basic, first necessity goods). ---> Increase in sales of said products ---> Increase in sales tax revenue + Increase in revenue from taxes on the companies in charge of production and sale + Increase in tax revenue from associated services and raw material-extracting companies ---> More money goes to the state without even lifting the personal income tax or any other tax on individuals

[Sobaeg]

Well I guess in your line of thinking you could say "make the poor comfortable and they wont try to become rich, more money for you" - it works

Except that's not how I think. Like, at all. Simple cost-benefit is a lot easier to do and a lot less inhumane. I happen to think the cost of "Free 'basic necessities' for everyonez!" outweighs those benefits, care to prove me wrong by pointing out where we're going to save the entire cost of the program in increased production due to basic neccessities being provided?

Because you are sitting there on your computer… unpoor. A lot of good people in USA are being kept on their ass because they cant get the basics, invest in their future.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Except that's not how I think. Like, at all. Simple cost-benefit is a lot easier to do and a lot less inhumane. I happen to think the cost of "Free 'basic necessities' for everyonez!" outweighs those benefits, care to prove me wrong by pointing out where we're going to save the entire cost of the program in increased production due to basic neccessities being provided?

People no longer need to pay for basic necessities ---> People have more money to spare ---> People spend more money in second necessity goods (including better quality food and clothing), social necessity goods, cultural necessity goods and luxury goods (all of them usually more expensive than basic, first necessity goods). ---> Increase in sales of said products ---> Increase in sales tax revenue + Increase in revenue from taxes on the companies in charge of production and sale + Increase in tax revenue from associated services and raw material-extracting companies ---> More money goes to the state without even lifting the personal income tax or any other tax on individuals

You have a string of unsupported assumptions about preferences, the tax rate, tax revenue, etc. I think you need to back them up with some intuition.

[Moving Forward Inc]

Except that's not how I think. Like, at all. Simple cost-benefit is a lot easier to do and a lot less inhumane. I happen to think the cost of "Free 'basic necessities' for everyonez!" outweighs those benefits, care to prove me wrong by pointing out where we're going to save the entire cost of the program in increased production due to basic neccessities being provided?

People no longer need to pay for basic necessities ---> People have more money to spare ---> People spend more money in second necessity goods (including better quality food and clothing), social necessity goods, cultural necessity goods and luxury goods (all of them usually more expensive than basic, first necessity goods). ---> Increase in sales of said products ---> Increase in sales tax revenue + Increase in revenue from taxes on the companies in charge of production and sale + Increase in tax revenue from associated services and raw material-extracting companies ---> More money goes to the state without even lifting the personal income tax or any other tax on individuals

Fail economics.
Let's say basic necessities equals 200$ a week pp.
Per person 200$ is spent on other goods because of money saved.
Sales tax = 15%.
That's 30$, the other 170$ has to come from other sources.
Businesses, get a small reimbursement from this spending, although if said people spent such money on basic necessities the return would be equal, and they have to pay for the whole 170$ a week pp with only a small ounce of help from the middle class and a contribution not even worth mentioning from the proletarians.
To raise spending, you have to raise taxes.
It's simple logic.

[Sobaeg]

People no longer need to pay for basic necessities ---> People have more money to spare ---> People spend more money in second necessity goods (including better quality food and clothing), social necessity goods, cultural necessity goods and luxury goods (all of them usually more expensive than basic, first necessity goods). ---> Increase in sales of said products ---> Increase in sales tax revenue + Increase in revenue from taxes on the companies in charge of production and sale + Increase in tax revenue from associated services and raw material-extracting companies ---> More money goes to the state without even lifting the personal income tax or any other tax on individuals

Fail economics.
Let's say basic necessities equals 200$ a week pp.
Per person 200$ is spent on other goods because of money saved.
Sales tax = 15%.
That's 30$, the other 170$ has to come from other sources.
Businesses, get a small reimbursement from this spending, although if said people spent such money on basic necessities the return would be equal, and they have to pay for the whole 170$ a week pp with only a small ounce of help from the middle class and a contribution not even worth mentioning from the proletarians.
To raise spending, you have to raise taxes.
It's simple logic.

why are you calculating this? It works, countries outside America do this and have more money and less poverty than America.

[Zaras]

It's irrelevant whether the tax rate was 91% in the 1950s. What needs to be determined is where the most efficient tax rate (for each income bracket) exists now, in order to most efficiently maximise tax revenue without sacrificing resources in either direction.

It's certainly not the scandalously, outrageously low 35% on the top income bracket we have now.

[Moving Forward Inc]

Except that's not how I think. Like, at all. Simple cost-benefit is a lot easier to do and a lot less inhumane. I happen to think the cost of "Free 'basic necessities' for everyonez!" outweighs those benefits, care to prove me wrong by pointing out where we're going to save the entire cost of the program in increased production due to basic neccessities being provided?

Because you are sitting there on your computer… unpoor. A lot of good people in USA are being kept on their ass because they cant get the basics, invest in their future.

If investing in such a future would return a decent profit, private enterprise would be interested.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Except that's not how I think. Like, at all. Simple cost-benefit is a lot easier to do and a lot less inhumane. I happen to think the cost of "Free 'basic necessities' for everyonez!" outweighs those benefits, care to prove me wrong by pointing out where we're going to save the entire cost of the program in increased production due to basic neccessities being provided?

Because you are sitting there on your computer… unpoor (1). A lot of good people in USA are being kept on their ass because they cant get the basics, invest in their future (2).

1: I don't understand what this has to do with anything.
2: Sounds great, will the return on the investment be greater than the cost or is this just a pretty phrase we aren't supposed to question?

[The Joseon Dynasty]

It's irrelevant whether the tax rate was 91% in the 1950s. What needs to be determined is where the most efficient tax rate (for each income bracket) exists now, in order to most efficiently maximise tax revenue without sacrificing resources in either direction.

It's certainly not the scandalously, outrageously low 35% on the top income bracket we have now.

And a concerted effort should be put toward determining whether 35% is an inefficient tax rate (which it probably is), and by what extent (within each income bracket) it should be shifted in order to maximise revenue.

That's a logical argument for increasing taxes.

[Zaras]

It's certainly not the scandalously, outrageously low 35% on the top income bracket we have now.

And a concerted effort should be put toward determining whether 35% is an inefficient tax rate (which is probably is), and by what extent (within each income bracket) it should be shifted in order to maximise revenue.

That's a logical argument for increasing taxes.

I'll write it down to use it in the future.

[Occupied Deutschland]

It's irrelevant whether the tax rate was 91% in the 1950s. What needs to be determined is where the most efficient tax rate (for each income bracket) exists now, in order to most efficiently maximise tax revenue without sacrificing resources in either direction.

It's certainly not the scandalously, outrageously low 35% on the top income bracket we have now.

Actually, I think the top bracket is 28% currently. I could be wrong though.

why are you calculating this? It works, countries outside America do this and have more money(1) and less poverty than America(2).

1: Not very many. Certainly not enough to suggest that it is somehow their additional programs in such areas that are responsible for this.
2: Poverty levels are subject to each country, so aren't very helpful in comparing different countries as they assign different poverty levels to their people than others do.