What if the basic necessities of life were free?

[Great Nepal]

So that would be working people then.
Now here's the problem. You will have to tax them so much to make everything free that end disposable income will be comparable to not working.

Everyone working would get the same benefits, plus the money they get working.

Then you would have to tax then even more to fund the system: so you get practically no money for working.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

If everyone is misunderstanding you, perhaps it's because you've written a shoddy OP, hm?

How shoddy is it, how should I make it better?

I see you've changed your title to "some things" now. That's rather ambiguous. Almost all governments provide some public goods and services, funded through taxation, debt, etc. What distinguishes your system from those already in place?

[Trez-Nem]

How shoddy is it, how should I make it better?

Clarify what it is you're proposing. You've said that everything is provided for free, and it has been explained why that wouldn't work.

Those analyses have made some assumptions about your system. Are they incorrect? If so, explain why.

I have changed the headline already, so it shouldn't be a problem anymore. I have yet had no time to make any explanations about the incorrect assumptions.

[Trez-Nem]

Everyone working would get the same benefits, plus the money they get working.

Then you would have to tax then even more to fund the system: so you get practically no money for working.

How can a system where everyone buys their own homes and food work, whilst one where government funds them won't work?

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Then you would have to tax then even more to fund the system: so you get practically no money for working.

How can a system where everyone buys their own homes and food work, whilst one where government funds them won't work?

That, my dear Trez-Nem, has been the question of the century. I'll try to offer a succinct explanation when I have more time.

[Great Nepal]

Then you would have to tax then even more to fund the system: so you get practically no money for working.

How can a system where everyone buys their own homes and food work, whilst one where government funds them won't work?

Because, in the former, there is hope and ambition to be better than your neighbour. It rewards work, thus causing people to work and thereby have personal disposable wealth.
On the latter, there is no intensive to work as only way for government to be able to fund the system is really high tax on working people; which will result in there being no real point in working.

[Trez-Nem]

How can a system where everyone buys their own homes and food work, whilst one where government funds them won't work?

Because, in the former, there is hope and ambition to be better than your neighbour. It rewards work, thus causing people to work and thereby have personal disposable wealth.
On the latter, there is no intensive to work as only way for government to be able to fund the system is really high tax on working people; which will result in there being no real point in working.

The taxes wouldn't really be that high.

[Zaras]

The Idea of communism is made with good intentions, but everything being free

THERE IS NOTHING COMMUNIST ABOUT EVERYTHING BEING FREE.

Communism is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

Don't confuse Marx for Bob Black.

[Great Nepal]

Because, in the former, there is hope and ambition to be better than your neighbour. It rewards work, thus causing people to work and thereby have personal disposable wealth.
On the latter, there is no intensive to work as only way for government to be able to fund the system is really high tax on working people; which will result in there being no real point in working.

The taxes wouldn't really be that high.

They would have to be. Government cant create money out of thin air. It needs revenue to spend on those projects. Only way to raise revenue is via taxes.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

The taxes wouldn't really be that high.

They would have to be. Government cant create money out of thin air. It needs revenue to spend on those projects. Only way to raise revenue is via taxes.

Assuming a closed economy, that is.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

I wouldn't work at all. The only reason I strive for anything is because I have to work anyway so I might as well be good at what I hate and get enough money to buy some luxury items while I'm at it.

[Trez-Nem]

The taxes wouldn't really be that high.

They would have to be. Government cant create money out of thin air. It needs revenue to spend on those projects. Only way to raise revenue is via taxes.

Government can also export things to get money, how do you think middle east countries are so rich? But that is not the main point here, there would not be so much tax everyone would just stop working.

[Encara]

You cannot produce anything without labour. Labour needs an incentive to produce (namely, remuneration). Without that incentive, employment will be zero, and your economy will have nothing to provide.

So no, it wouldn't work.

Your right no human labored for anything until we invented money.

[Zaras]

The taxes wouldn't really be that high.

They would have to be. Government cant create money out of thin air. It needs revenue to spend on those projects. Only way to raise revenue is via taxes.

Government prints money, so yes, it does by definition create money out of thin air. Money is, after all, meant as a scorecard to keep track of how much productive work you do for society and reward it appropriately.

[The Bilbos]

Then you would have to tax then even more to fund the system: so you get practically no money for working.

How can a system where everyone buys their own homes and food work, whilst one where government funds them won't work?

Capitalism just works better. Creating a sence of intitlement is a very bad idea. That system of yours will eventually run out of money, and the government will have no money to buy supplies with. Then there will be a very rude awakening for the citizens.

[Zaras]

Creating a sence of intitlement is a very bad idea.

Delusional Republican talking points. Just what this thread needs.

[Great Nepal]

They would have to be. Government cant create money out of thin air. It needs revenue to spend on those projects. Only way to raise revenue is via taxes.

Government can also export things to get money, how do you think middle east countries are so rich? But that is not the main point here, there would not be so much tax everyone would just stop working.

Middle east is oil rich, a unique position where they have practical monopoly on vital part of modern life. That is an exception.

[Encara]

They would have to be. Government cant create money out of thin air. It needs revenue to spend on those projects. Only way to raise revenue is via taxes.

Government can also export things to get money, how do you think middle east countries are so rich? But that is not the main point here, there would not be so much tax everyone would just stop working.

And when the government explains that once you stop working and taxes stop coming in then benefits and necessities also stop coming, I'm sure everyone would continue to sit in the dark twiddling there thumbs saying, yup better than paying my taxes, yup.

[Trez-Nem]

Capitalism just works better. Creating a sence of intitlement is a very bad idea. That system of yours will eventually run out of money, and the government will have no money to buy supplies with. Then there will be a very rude awakening for the citizens.

I think we should find out where the money goes, and put a stop to it, it can't just dissappear.

[Liriena]

If the basic necessities of life were free, quality of life around the world would improve substantially.

And I seriously doubt it would hinder the spirit of hard work of most people. In my experience, most people seldom choose to remain in economic mediocrity just 'cause it's all free.

[Zaras]

If the basic necessities of life were free, quality of life around the world would improve substantially.

And I seriously doubt it would hinder the spirit of hard work of most people. In my experience, most people seldom choose to remain in economic mediocrity just 'cause it's all free.

But obviously, some people will be too fanatically wedded to far-right ultra-capitalist dogma to see that.

[Raeyh]

If the basic necessities of life were free, quality of life around the world would improve substantially.

And I seriously doubt it would hinder the spirit of hard work of most people. In my experience, most people seldom choose to remain in economic mediocrity just 'cause it's all free.

But the working poor would have no reason to keep their jobs if they can get the same exact thing for free from the government.

[Orenica]

The right-wing's collective line that a baseline of economic support will cause people to stop working en masse irks me greatly. My parents are always telling me that they could have subsisted on benefits, but chose to propel me towards private education in order to better my life, which I think it has. Though this is anecdotal, I firmly believe that, whilst the UK's welfare system needs some tweaking, the greatest focus should be on upbringing and education in order to inculcate aspirational feelings within children. I would rather that people were motivated internally with the carrot of aspiration rather than prodded towards productivity by the stick of possible starvation.

[Trez-Nem]

Government can also export things to get money, how do you think middle east countries are so rich? But that is not the main point here, there would not be so much tax everyone would just stop working.

Middle east is oil rich, a unique position where they have practical monopoly on vital part of modern life. That is an exception.

That is an exception, yes, I just didn't like you being so absolute with you saying "only taxes". As I said it's not the main point here. Or there.

[Liriena]

If the basic necessities of life were free, quality of life around the world would improve substantially.

And I seriously doubt it would hinder the spirit of hard work of most people. In my experience, most people seldom choose to remain in economic mediocrity just 'cause it's all free.

But the working poor would have no reason to keep their jobs if they can get the same exact thing for free from the government.

Wrong. Because, with the basic covered, the working poor could afford non-basics that still improve quality of life.

We live in a consumerist society that makes people regard things like TVs, computers, cell phones and other commodities as fundamental. Even with their basic needs provided for, the poor would still have a reason to work hard for an income to supply for the new needs that arise.

That's Economy 101: There's always another need that has to be provided for. Humans are inherently insatiable.