Universal Welfare: yea or nay?

[Maurepas]

Fair enough, just hard for me to wrap my head around...If you're interested, I know of something similar that was proposed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_Our_Wealth

[Hassett]

So who's going to pay for this shit? The people who actually earn their money?

[Nobel Hobos]

Its a horrible idea. Especially the thought of shoe prices going up.

Women would be heading straight for our throats.

But really. It's a 0 - 0 situation.

What difference does it make if you give a beggar 100 euros of which he can buy necessities for one week or 500 euros with prices going through the roof so that he might end up paying 500 euros for the same shopping basket?

Precisely. How about instead of handing out money, we use money to create jobs? Something like (but not exactly because SOMEONE will have to have a problem with) FDR's New Deal?

FDR's New Deal was horrible. It took away from every individual the means to care for their own well being. He went as far as to seize and ban private gold.

Yeah. Absolutely horrible. People started moving out of Hoovervilles and back into homes. GDP started rising and people were able to afford food for their families. By the time the US entered the war, people weren't worried about starving to death.

Plus, the nation enjoyed a period of unprecedented economic growth and stability in the decades following. Only a few economists try to say it was in spite of the New Deal, and their conclusions get shredded by the evidence every time they discuss it with other economists. The only reason anybody even knows about them is because the GOP had been trying for years to find a way to discredit it, and used their ideas as talking points.

Damn FDR for managing the nation through recovery and into prosperity. Reality clearly has a liberal bias.

I am sure you would have been happy in the Soviet Union, Maoist China or the GDR, as well.

You know, there are people who actually care for freedom over wealth.

The "freedom" you're talking about there is economic freedom (right to make your own spending decisions, etc). Conflating it with political or civil freedoms is very sloppy. But at least you aren't using the word quite as blindly and irrationally as some people do.

The difference between grinding poverty and security, is not the same as the difference between security and prosperity. The person who is secure enough that they can take a day or a week of unpaid leave from their job has some freedom ... the wealthy person who need never work again has more. They have degrees of freedom (and I hope I'm using the word in the way you meant) but it contrasts starkly with the situation of a garbage-picker or a subsistence labourer. If they get sick and can't work, they can't eat and they get sicker and weaker and if no-one intervenes on their behalf they will likely die. No freedom there. The difference between no freedom (no discretionary spending to educate oneself with, or travel to an interview for a different job, or wear shoes to the interview) and some freedom is a qualitative difference, the difference between the more or less wealthy person is a quantitative difference.

If you imagine "freedom" from the point of view of a very poor person, who works all they can and can barely feed themselves (ie, not their fault but merely an accident of where and to whom they were born) then perhaps you can imagine how "wealth" matters more than freedom. The freedom to make your own spending decisions doesn't matter a whit, when the choice is between rice and mealy-meal. The choice makes itself: you buy whichever one you can get more of with the money you've got.

I'm not very interested in arguing about the New Deal. There's a reason I propose a flat rate of payment: it would have virtually no effect in places that don't need it, such as the United States. You've got income redistribution, a luxury which is only affordable with a strong economy which can be taxed without collapsing.

---

EDIT: Treznor covered that in the very next reply. OP arrogance of me to butt in without reading it, sorry. Thanks for telling the source of the meme, Trez!

[Rhodmhire]

"Nothing is sacred."
-A Wise Man

I did not even have to edit it out that time.

So who's going to pay for this shit? The people who actually earn their money?

Obviously, those predominantly white caucasian Christian male bastards need some kind of punishment for being white, caucasian, Christian, and men simultaneously. What injustice would be wrought if it was left untampered with?

[Nobel Hobos]

So who's going to pay for this shit? The people who actually earn their money?

Yep.

[Lackadaisical2]

hello, I am Prince Zaza from Nigeria, I would like to claim the 10,000 per week for my 50 children.
Please give me your bank account details so we cna move forward with this rewarding transaction.

[Rhodmhire]

hello, I am Prince Zaza from Nigeria, I would like to claim the 10,000 per week for my 50 children.
Please give me your bank account details so we cna move forward with this rewarding transaction.

Tell me why you, a brown man, would be working for or with the Catholic News Agency first, then I will consider.

[Maurepas]

hello, I am Prince Zaza from Nigeria, I would like to claim the 10,000 per week for my 50 children.
Please give me your bank account details so we cna move forward with this rewarding transaction.

Wait a minute, Nigeria is a Republic! You're a phony! A great big Phony!

[Self--Esteem]

hello, I am Prince Zaza from Nigeria, I would like to claim the 10,000 per week for my 50 children.
Please give me your bank account details so we cna move forward with this rewarding transaction.

Bad marketing. You forgot the benefits.

Come on! Sell me on it! What will I get for it? Nigerian citizenship? Right to vote? Land? Shares? The princess?

[Lackadaisical2]

hello, I am Prince Zaza from Nigeria, I would like to claim the 10,000 per week for my 50 children.
Please give me your bank account details so we cna move forward with this rewarding transaction.

Tell me why you, a brown man, would be working for or with the Catholic News Agency first, then I will consider.

...lots of our people are Catholic, and we simply wish to experience the garce of God with you!

[Lackadaisical2]

hello, I am Prince Zaza from Nigeria, I would like to claim the 10,000 per week for my 50 children.
Please give me your bank account details so we cna move forward with this rewarding transaction.

Wait a minute, Nigeria is a Republic! You're a phony! A great big Phony!

We still ahve princes, hereditary title holding not much worth politically.

[Nobel Hobos]

hello, I am Prince Zaza from Nigeria, I would like to claim the 10,000 per week for my 50 children.
Please give me your bank account details so we cna move forward with this rewarding transaction.

Wait a minute, Nigeria is a Republic! You're a phony! A great big Phony!

Not at all! He's a real prince, robbed of his heredity by those socialist bastards in Nigeria.

Let's pass around the hat and get up the $10,000 for this unfortunate individual. I'm not sure what we're going to do with the children, but we'll think of something.

[Lackadaisical2]

hello, I am Prince Zaza from Nigeria, I would like to claim the 10,000 per week for my 50 children.
Please give me your bank account details so we cna move forward with this rewarding transaction.

Bad marketing. You forgot the benefits.

Come on! Sell me on it! What will I get for it? Nigerian citizenship? Right to vote? Land? Shares? The princess?

Fuzzy feelings and I'll send you my next 18 children, so you too can start making good money like this!

[Lackadaisical2]

I meant to bring up a serious issue, and no just derail, I'm partly through the thread, but people in poorer places will just have kids to get more money this way, not to mention poorer nations forging birth certificates for the cash.

[Rhodmhire]

hello, I am Prince Zaza from Nigeria, I would like to claim the 10,000 per week for my 50 children.
Please give me your bank account details so we cna move forward with this rewarding transaction.

Tell me why you, a brown man, would be working for or with the Catholic News Agency first, then I will consider.

...lots of our people are Catholic, and we simply wish to experience the garce of God with you!

I do not know what this garce is, but if I have it, I certainly do not want you lesser folks to have at it, even if I am not Catholic.

[Rhodmhire]

I meant to bring up a serious issue, and no just derail, I'm partly through the thread, but people in poorer places will just have kids to get more money this way, not to mention poorer nations forging birth certificates for the cash.

Oh that too.

Wait, what?

[Self--Esteem]

Its a horrible idea. Especially the thought of shoe prices going up.

Women would be heading straight for our throats.

But really. It's a 0 - 0 situation.

What difference does it make if you give a beggar 100 euros of which he can buy necessities for one week or 500 euros with prices going through the roof so that he might end up paying 500 euros for the same shopping basket?

I see you're still arguing on page 8. I'm sorry I wasn't here (should have posted in the morning not late at night).

I did mention ameliorating poverty (specifically starvation and undernourishment) as a desirable affect of my plan, but a lot of posters have lept on that as if I said that was the purpose of the plan. I really didn't mean that. It's true that inflation would reduce the buying power of the handout (growing the market, with supply lagging behind, of course it would) and its also true that increasing the payment to try to keep the same purchasing power would just drive inflation higher. Absolute runaway process, train-wreck.

It's my feeling that in poor countries the payment cannot be enough "to buy necessities for the week". I think that's a level which would harm not help grassroots economies. It might get supermarkets on street corners, but a whole lot of the produce would have to be imported, rather defeating the purpose. Yes, that would employ truck drivers and shelf-stackers, but I'm aiming for a lot more than that. I'm aiming at building a working and self-perpetuating economy in places with distorted and/or weak economies, and as such the payment has to be subtle, a strengthening component in the existing economy rather than a magic bullet. There would still be need of infrastructure investment, of education and health programs, policing ... all the things which developing nations do anyway to the extent they could afford it.

And yes, it is socialist. But here's the magic of it: it's also individualist. I'm talking about building economies from the grass-roots up, by empowering people to invest in tools, to import what they personally choose for their business, not just take whatever an international charity thinks is what they need. This is in stark contrast from how we actually help out struggling nations, by giving their governments money for specific purposes. That isn't working well, and it will work even less well in the future as we repeat the lesson "if you squander the money so badly you can never pay it back, we'll forgive your debt" ... loans worked better than gifts, but the motivating effect (obligation to pay it back) is pretty much blown by the numerous precedents of the loan being retrospectively made into a gift.

It's my feeling that good government is only really possible with a working economy. Trying to fix economies by giving money to their bad governments just isn't going to work. Nor is it fair to give money only to governments which spend it well: it's not the fault of the people that they have a bad government which is corrupt or has wrong ideas of what is good investment. Give the money directly to the people!

---

some general remarks about the thread

---

I see that goading the minarchists with a shockingly high figure ($200 each) was not as clever as it seemed to me last night. I just wanted to get some discussion going, and negotiate with the people who don't immediately take a pro or anti stance, about what would be a safe (non-economy-wrecking) and practical (affordable) level of universal welfare. If I'd just come right out with what I think is a reasonable level (about $1 - $5 a week) there would be a lot more posters just saying "why not?" without considering it too deeply. It's still a lot of money in total, and I admit that the benefits (humanitarian and economic) would take a long time to come through. It's intended to help, not fix systemic inequality.

Note however, that my plan does not rely on world government. Nor on a single world currency. It's actually somewhat like the roadmap for Europe: begin with economic integration (similar fiscal policies, similar banking regulation) before currency unification, and currency unification before federalizing government. It's intended to be practical with the international regime we've already got. Distributing the money would be a huge challenge, involving building physical banks, electronic infrastructure, issuing ID cards from birth. It's a lot more doable though, than federalizing the diverse national governments into a world federation (ie, world government).

Thanks for the insight.

Although I wasn't entirely arguing about your concept. Some of the 3rd parties of Germany, Britain and France had a similar concept. They would like to increase the VATs to exactly 50%. The problem is, that this does not make a whole lot of sense. If I increase the VATs everyone has to pay, prices go through the roof and all means of charity or welfare become partly useless.

See. I spend 50 euros a week on groceries (minimum). With VAT (7%), that's 53.50. Now if the VAT was 50%, those groceries would cost me 75 euros.

This would cut right through the "citizen income" (I think that's what both, the Greens in the UK and the Violets in Germany call it).

[Maurepas]

I meant to bring up a serious issue, and no just derail, I'm partly through the thread, but people in poorer places will just have kids to get more money this way, not to mention poorer nations forging birth certificates for the cash.

Don't you actually mean Greed and Death forging birth certificates for the cash?

[Self--Esteem]

hello, I am Prince Zaza from Nigeria, I would like to claim the 10,000 per week for my 50 children.
Please give me your bank account details so we cna move forward with this rewarding transaction.

Wait a minute, Nigeria is a Republic! You're a phony! A great big Phony!

Not at all! He's a real prince, robbed of his heredity by those socialist bastards in Nigeria.

Let's pass around the hat and get up the $10,000 for this unfortunate individual. I'm not sure what we're going to do with the children, but we'll think of something.

I heard man's flesh isn't too different from chicken

[Lackadaisical2]

I meant to bring up a serious issue, and no just derail, I'm partly through the thread, but people in poorer places will just have kids to get more money this way, not to mention poorer nations forging birth certificates for the cash.

Don't you actually mean Greed and Death forging birth certificates for the cash?

I'm sure he would, it'd also inflate the costs of necessities in industrialized nations as people abroad gobble up food instead of living at a reasonable or starvation level. I also imagine water problems in many antions as people cna buy more than really exists, but thats more imagining than the food problem.

[Lackadaisical2]

I must also admit I am enraged by the lack of three option choosing- I need my voice to be heard about how this is a bad idea, ahvign sex with a first cousin monkey is OK, and that it needs more beer!

This is what happens when I go camping for a day... geeze!

[Maurepas]

hello, I am Prince Zaza from Nigeria, I would like to claim the 10,000 per week for my 50 children.
Please give me your bank account details so we cna move forward with this rewarding transaction.

Wait a minute, Nigeria is a Republic! You're a phony! A great big Phony!

Not at all! He's a real prince, robbed of his heredity by those socialist bastards in Nigeria.

Let's pass around the hat and get up the $10,000 for this unfortunate individual. I'm not sure what we're going to do with the children, but we'll think of something.

I heard man's flesh isn't too different from chicken

You mean, Universal Welfare is...People!? We've got to stop them now!

[Farnhamia]

hello, I am Prince Zaza from Nigeria, I would like to claim the 10,000 per week for my 50 children.
Please give me your bank account details so we cna move forward with this rewarding transaction.

Wait a minute, Nigeria is a Republic! You're a phony! A great big Phony!

Not at all! He's a real prince, robbed of his heredity by those socialist bastards in Nigeria.

Let's pass around the hat and get up the $10,000 for this unfortunate individual. I'm not sure what we're going to do with the children, but we'll think of something.

I heard man's flesh isn't too different from chicken

You mean, Universal Welfare is...People!? We've got to stop them now!

First this ...


... then Universal Welfare. When will it all stop? When?

[Chumblywumbly]

Although I wasn't entirely arguing about your concept. Some of the 3rd parties of Germany, Britain and France had a similar concept. They would like to increase the VATs to exactly 50%. The problem is, that this does not make a whole lot of sense. If I increase the VATs everyone has to pay, prices go through the roof and all means of charity or welfare become partly useless.

See. I spend 50 euros a week on groceries (minimum). With VAT (7%), that's 53.50. Now if the VAT was 50%, those groceries would cost me 75 euros.

This would cut right through the "citizen income" (I think that's what both, the Greens in the UK and the Violets in Germany call it).

The UK Greens wish to pay for a citizens income via a raise in the income tax, not increased VAT.

Indeed, the wish to (gradually) remove VAT altogether.

[Lackadaisical2]

I see I didn't actually miss much until the previous page... sigh.