NationStates

To make things clearer I decided to hide the original post as it may have confused some people of what I really meant.

Here's a better text:

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 wrote:

GCMG wrote:So, can one own additional properties?

Nothing is restricted. You can buy your own city if you have the money. Still the government would fund adequate living conditions for you. You would be taxed more if you have high income, so it wouldn't make much difference. But when the law says everyone it means everyone.

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.

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.

Edit: Given that the OP has been edited beyond recognition, this analysis no longer applies.

It would never work, people need incentives to work, that's the welfare state will some day fail and bankrupt America.

There is an incentive to work: money.

My life would be so much simpler in some aspects but, lets face it, not everything can be free.

Trez-Nem wrote:There is an incentive to work: money.

That's not an incentive if everything is free. The money would have no value.

Edit: Neither does this.

Eventually resources would run out.

Trez-Nem wrote:There is an incentive to work: money.

1. If I get everything for free; I will lay back and have fun. Not work for money.
2. We dont have infinite resources.

The Joseon Dynasty wrote:

Trez-Nem wrote:There is an incentive to work: money.

That's not an incentive if everything is free. The money would have no value.

You didn't read it then?

No.

Trez-Nem wrote:

The Joseon Dynasty wrote:
That's not an incentive if everything is free. The money would have no value.

You didn't read it then?

Al right, who would pay for this?

Trez-Nem wrote:

The Joseon Dynasty wrote:
That's not an incentive if everything is free. The money would have no value.

You didn't read it then?

I did.

I would at least hoard thousands of toys before the economy fell apart.

Great Nepal wrote:

Trez-Nem wrote:You didn't read it then?

Al right, who would pay for this?

Nobody. Everything is supposed to be free, remember?

The Joseon Dynasty wrote:

Trez-Nem wrote:There is an incentive to work: money.

That's not an incentive if everything is free. The money would have no value.

What keeps people working is the competitive capitalism of America... or what it used to be.

The Idea of communism is made with good intentions, but everything being free and owned by everyone does not work, because no competition would cause major companies to leave the country and no one would strive to create better products, therefore no innovations would be made. Also, the country wouldn't be economically successful on the world stage.

Communism only works on VERY small scale.

Great Nepal wrote:

Trez-Nem wrote:You didn't read it then?

Al right, who would pay for this?

I didn't quite understand you.

Trez-Nem wrote:

Great Nepal wrote:Al right, who would pay for this?

I didn't quite understand you.

Who pays for the apartment, food and all the stuff that are free?

Cruciland wrote:

Great Nepal wrote:Al right, who would pay for this?

Nobody. Everything is supposed to be free, remember?

WHY DOES NO-ONE READ THE FIRST POST! You idiots. (Sorry)

Trez-Nem wrote:

Cruciland wrote:Nobody. Everything is supposed to be free, remember?

WHY DOES NO ON READ THE FIRST POST! You idiots. (Sorry)

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

Great Nepal wrote:

Trez-Nem wrote:I didn't quite understand you.

Who pays for the apartment, food and all the stuff that are free?

The government.

There wouldn't be enough motivated workers to drive the economy. To many people would stay home and collect government checks. The money would come the rich people's pockets. This system is basically Socialism to the extreme.

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's Money."

Trez-Nem wrote:

Great Nepal wrote:Who pays for the apartment, food and all the stuff that are free?

The government.

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.

The Joseon Dynasty wrote:

Trez-Nem wrote:
WHY DOES NO ON READ THE FIRST POST! You idiots. (Sorry)

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?

Great Nepal wrote:

Trez-Nem wrote:The government.

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.

Trez-Nem wrote:

The Joseon Dynasty wrote:
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?

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.