Universal Welfare: yea or nay?

[Czardas]

Your explanation reeks of Keynesianism.

Which isn't bad of itself, when used in moderation. I am free-marketer who believes some Keynesian polices at the right time can prevent economic depressions. However, this is taking it a little far.

You are a free market advocate who believes that the government should intervene in the economy. Swell.

Pedantry, I know, but if you have a government there's no way it can not intervene in the economy. "The economy" is made up of all economic actors in a given region, and since the government consumes resources and produces wealth (well, sometimes negative wealth, but you know...) it counts as an economic actor. You more likely mean that the government should not regulate private industry.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

How else can equality of opportunity be enforced other than feeding them?After all, they are too young to work. Taxpayers' money should only be used for defence, security, public works which are necessary and equality of opportunity(childcare, education). I don't mind government spending as long as they don't take more than they should. Also, public works should be paid by fees, rents and tolls whenever possible.

Yeah, and what about education? How can equality of economic opportunity exist without equal opportunity for education?

Open your eyes.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

You don't know the amount of money they have, do you?

They have enough to cover that, although it would require a metric ass-load of tax increases and spending cuts. And like I said, some government would have to prevent the rich from moving somewhere else to get lower taxes being ensuring an international tax-rate.

All of this would probably ruin your and my quality of life; it would also end hunger all across the world. So you're left with that.

Nope: Singapore's government will not tax you if you have a family. My parents gave birth to me and my brother, so no taxes.

Unfair. And I'm Singaporean. Percentages are much fairer.

[The Parkus Empire]

How else can equality of opportunity be enforced other than feeding them?After all, they are too young to work. Taxpayers' money should only be used for defence, security, public works which are necessary and equality of opportunity(childcare, education). I don't mind government spending as long as they don't take more than they should. Also, public works should be paid by fees, rents and tolls whenever possible.

Yeah, and what about education? How can equality of economic opportunity exist without equal opportunity for education?

Open your eyes.

What do you mean?

[Kantria]

He included education as an essential service to be provided by the government.

[Kamsaki]

The criterion is that they are a living human being, nothing more.

This unconditionality of it is what worries me. The idea that it's some flat sum, distributed universally, totally free of responsibility divorces money from whatever money is supposed to represent unless we're commodifying simply being human. It's like we're renting our own satisfaction as to the fact that humans are being taken care of. Is that really the best use of our collective resources, participating in some massive anthropocentric circle-jerk?

I would feel far more at ease with your suggestion if we mandated universal employment and paid your "welfare" as a living wage. At least then people can be acting towards some purpose, and we can acknowledge that we're paying them for their individual specialties and contributions as a creative agent, rather than simply fetishising our own species.

[The Parkus Empire]

He included education as an essential service to be provided by the government.

Yes, but I assumed he meant high-school.

EDIT: In other words, I require more detail.

[Czardas]

The criterion is that they are a living human being, nothing more.

This unconditionality of it is what worries me. The idea that it's some flat sum, distributed universally, totally free of responsibility divorces money from whatever money is supposed to represent unless we're commodifying simply being human. It's like we're renting our own satisfaction as to the fact that humans are being taken care of. Is that really the best use of our collective resources, participating in some massive anthropocentric circle-jerk?

I would feel far more at ease with your suggestion if we mandated universal employment and paid your "welfare" as a living wage. At least then people can be acting towards some purpose, and we can acknowledge that we're paying them for their individual specialties and contributions as a creative agent, rather than simply fetishising our own species.

While not the OP, I feel the need to contest that employment and the acquisition of material possessions is necessarily desirable.

I'm aware that it's a completely implausible fantasy, but if everyone had basic needs supplied and "employment" was replaced with (unpaid) "volunteering", I'd be curious to see the effects this had on economics. I suspect some other method of compensation would replace money -- social prestige or status for instance, or perhaps access to various luxuries -- leading to things proceeding along their predictable materialist path, but I'm not sure.

[Kantria]

I'm aware that it's a completely implausible fantasy, but if everyone had basic needs supplied and "employment" was replaced with (unpaid) "volunteering", I'd be curious to see the effects this had on economics. I suspect some other method of compensation would replace money -- social prestige or status for instance, or perhaps access to various luxuries -- leading to things proceeding along their predictable materialist path, but I'm not sure.

This is more or less how I envision Kantria, but the state is governed by an essentially perfectly (according to its designers)-intelligent, perfectly (again, according to its designers)-benevolent, omnipresent (its code is present in every computer system in the state, and present in many citizens' cybernetic brains) artificial intelligence. It isn't intended to be a realistic vision of human society.

[Kamsaki]

While not the OP, I feel the need to contest that employment and the acquisition of material possessions is necessarily desirable.

I'm aware that it's a completely implausible fantasy, but if everyone had basic needs supplied and "employment" was replaced with (unpaid) "volunteering", I'd be curious to see the effects this had on economics. I suspect some other method of compensation would replace money -- social prestige or status for instance, or perhaps access to various luxuries -- leading to things proceeding along their predictable materialist path, but I'm not sure.

Oh, absolutely. I was a little slack with my use of the term "employment"; I simply intended that we insist that people contribute in some relevantly valuable sense beyond simply "being".

The OP is nonetheless talking about a distribution of financial resources, so I do think it's key to his mechanism that what people do be in some way financially restorative. As has been pointed out, such could be satisfied by shifting the tax burden, but the key focus needs to be that those who bear the greater burden "get something out of it", whether that's the benefit of volunteer work or whatever else. If, though, all that they get out of it is a kind of smug humanistic self-satisfaction, I wonder whether that is really something we should be encouraging.

[Autonomousness]

I've come across this kind of idea before, and I think it's an awesome concept! There's a movement called 'citizen's income' (http://www.citizensincome.org/), which would have every citizen receive a fixed sum payment every week/month.

While I do love the idea, I can't help thinking that such a scheme would just drive inflation - if everyone has more money, businesses could/would just raise prices thus largely negating any benefits of the scheme.

[Sungai Pusat]

I've come across this kind of idea before, and I think it's an awesome concept! There's a movement called 'citizen's income' (http://www.citizensincome.org/), which would have every citizen receive a fixed sum payment every week/month.

While I do love the idea, I can't help thinking that such a scheme would just drive inflation - if everyone has more money, businesses could/would just raise prices thus largely negating any benefits of the scheme.

I don't think that an equal income would do good. People will start to complain like this:
"Oi! Why do I work double the work, and yet I receive the same payment every month!?"

[Self--Esteem]

Nobel Hobos' idea reminds me of the program of a smaller German party. I could see how it would work and that is why I am absolutely opposed to it.

In order for it to work, you would have to have a flat VAT (Value Added Tax = the tax you pay whenever you acquire some sort of product or resource. From the first level of production to the counter) of about 50%.

[Self--Esteem]

Your explanation reeks of Keynesianism.

Which isn't bad of itself, when used in moderation. I am free-marketer who believes some Keynesian polices at the right time can prevent economic depressions. However, this is taking it a little far.

You are not taking the main issue into account: If you are allowing the government to intervene once, who keeps them from doing it again and again?

[Hydesland]

Bad idea, if you give it to everyone it will likely just decrease the value of nominal money.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

The only thing I believe which is close to Keynesianism is forcing banks and companies to avoid running on a deficit or borrowing beyond a certain amount of money.

[Self--Esteem]

Bad idea, if you give it to everyone it will likely just decrease the value of nominal money.

Not in the sense most of those public citizen income advocates would do it. They would see to an increase of the sales tax or VAT, thus increasing the price of every good and the money the government can spend in stimulus.

A flawed experiment. Basically, you only shift the situation.

[Hydesland]

Not in the sense most of those public citizen income advocates would do it. They would see to an increase of the sales tax or VAT, thus increasing the price of every good and the money the government can spend in stimulus.

I don't see why this necessarily would lead to a higher VAT. Some tax would need to be increased in order to fund it (more likely however they would have to print the money), but I don't see why VAT in particular.

[Self--Esteem]

Not in the sense most of those public citizen income advocates would do it. They would see to an increase of the sales tax or VAT, thus increasing the price of every good and the money the government can spend in stimulus.

I don't see why this necessarily would lead to a higher VAT. Some tax would need to be increased in order to fund it (more likely however they would have to print the money), but I don't see why VAT in particular.

Well. That's how one of those people told me.

A flat VAT of 40-50%.

He was so rabid about his "genius" idea that he forgot to take the increased prices for every product into account. It's a 0 - 0 situation.


EDIT: The reason why he and his party most likely chose the VAT was that it is payed by everyone accordingly.

[Southern Patriots]

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

[Treznor]

It sounds to me like a fantastic goal to work toward. Maybe one day we'll have not only the means but the mindset to make it happen. Of course, some things will have to be sacrificed along the way like national identities and that idea that it's acceptable for you to hoard more income than you can reasonably use while others starve. But hey, what worthy goal can ever be accomplished without some sacrifice?

[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?

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

It sounds to me like a fantastic goal to work toward. Maybe one day we'll have not only the means but the mindset to make it happen. Of course, some things will have to be sacrificed along the way like national identities and that idea that it's acceptable for you to hoard more income than you can reasonably use while others starve. But hey, what worthy goal can ever be accomplished without some sacrifice?

It's your money, I don't want it. I want to work hard myself and succeed. The government as already played its part in educating me.But when inheritance comes in... TAX!!!!!

[Southern Patriots]

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?

[Treznor]

It sounds to me like a fantastic goal to work toward. Maybe one day we'll have not only the means but the mindset to make it happen. Of course, some things will have to be sacrificed along the way like national identities and that idea that it's acceptable for you to hoard more income than you can reasonably use while others starve. But hey, what worthy goal can ever be accomplished without some sacrifice?

It's your money, I don't want it. I want to work hard myself and succeed. The government as already played its part in educating me.But when inheritance comes in... TAX!!!!!

I suppose that's something else we'll have to shift: definitions of success. The mere accumulation of wealth has always struck me as a pretty poor measure for it. I'm all for people being able to enjoy the fruits of their labors, but once you start pulling in more money than you can spend it's time to start looking beyond the range of your own nose.