What if the government did take care of everyone?

[Will Robinson]

If the US had the material means to provide everyone's:
food
water
shelter
decent health care
education K-12 for all and higher education for scholastically qualified applicants

And then took care of the national defense and infrastructure etc as it does now, would that be enough? Would that cover everyone's "right" to this and that?

So if you want you can live like a permanent teen ager in your Uncle Sams house for your whole life and never have to pay for any of it.

Of course if you want more, like a car and a nicer home in the upscale part of town you will have to get a job...

How many of you would support that system and say, yes, that's all the collective should provide for those who don't want to work or choose to work low/no pay jobs?

And if not what is the main reason you wouldn't support it?

Is it because it doesn't create equality? There would still be rich people with too much stuff and influence etc.

Or that you don't think people should be able to skate through life? Etc.

Or some other angle I've failed to see as a fundamental flaw.
Please tell us which side of that proposal you come down and why.

[vision]

This should be great fun watching a bunch of people with a flawed understanding of governance jerk each other off over a baited post. I'll go make popcorn.

[Heretic]

It would be nice almost like something I heard before.

From time to time in the Star Trek series, the characters will say that on Earth, human society has overcome the need for money and "eliminated poverty",

So no money everyone has homes and jobs food water and every thing else a human could want.

[Will Robinson]

It would be nice almost like something I heard before.

From time to time in the Star Trek series, the characters will say that on Earth, human society has overcome the need for money and "eliminated poverty",

So no money everyone has homes and jobs food water and every thing else a human could want.

The Star Trek scenario and a comment Nancy Pelosi made are why I ask.
She suggested if you want to be an artist you should be able to regardless of the financial downside it might present...etc. she thinks government should fund your essential needs.
A nice sentiment. Maybe.

So with that in mind and all the talk about how healthcare is a right, how even non citizens who sneak across the border illegally have a right to the government providing the basics of life including healthcare I wonder what if?

Vision, it's only bait if you choose to be baited. And don't worry your qualifications are sufficient.

I think it wouldn't solve many problems and create and officially rationalize a grand division.
But if it could be funded maybe we should do it.
The Lifer Class would be established and the 'right' to be angry about income disparity would supposedly be removed from them.
It would also cause greater contempt for the Lifers from the lower class working man who struggles to raise himself up.

The movie Elysium comes to mind.

[callmeslick]

I wouldn't support it, as worded, because it would create a large class of non-productive citizens, who were non-productive by their own choice. I am, as all are aware, all for supporting those among us incapable of productivity and given a societal disadvantage. However, the proposed system would go too far, and frankly, be completely unworkable. Sure you'd still have some wealthy people, but not enough to maintain the cost. Further, what type of housing and food would be provided? Housing needed to live in rural Montana is not the same as basic housing needs in Manhatten, for example. Who determines the nutritional needs. Moreover, what is the incentive to staff the bureaucracy needed to operate such a scheme or even man the trucks to ship the foodstuffs. Why get the education, if all needs were provided. The system would depend, essentially, on altruistic tendencies to operate and frankly, I don't find too many altruistic fellow citizens around me.

Yeah, I agree it's a clearly loaded question, aimed towards justification of denial of basic social services to those who truly need them. Go figure.

[woodchip]

If such a system was approved, I would add one caveat. Those who choose to live as a child of the govt. would lose the right to vote.

[Will Robinson]

I wouldn't support it, as worded, because it would create a large class of non-productive citizens, who were non-productive by their own choice. I am, as all are aware, all for supporting those among us incapable of productivity and given a societal disadvantage. However, the proposed system would go too far, and frankly, be completely unworkable. Sure you'd still have some wealthy people, but not enough to maintain the cost. Further, what type of housing and food would be provided? Housing needed to live in rural Montana is not the same as basic housing needs in Manhatten, for example. Who determines the nutritional needs. Moreover, what is the incentive to staff the bureaucracy needed to operate such a scheme or even man the trucks to ship the foodstuffs. Why get the education, if all needs were provided. The system would depend, essentially, on altruistic tendencies to operate and frankly, I don't find too many altruistic fellow citizens around me.

Yeah, I agree it's a clearly loaded question, aimed towards justification of denial of basic social services to those who truly need them. Go figure.

Well you are right about the problems to some degree but you misunderstand the system I envisioned. There would be no need for 'shipping food' ...we won't be building relocation camps!

And as I said, it is based on the if ...the assumption there is enough wealth generated every year to fund it.
That assumption isn't far from the premise many in the country support by the way. But for this discussion just hypothetically assume it is fiscally viable.

Education is already mandated K-12 and scholarships for qualified students are nothing new. So really that changes very little. You get K-12 guaranteed. Still mandatory too. You get 4 years higher ed based on scholastic qualifications and post graduate if you excell among your class..

You get a food stamp card that you can feed yourself with, dependent children have joint accounts that are part of the families account. Remove a child for the sake of his welfare and the account is reduced...

The housing wouldn't be uniform all over just like existing housing assistance isn't in the current system.

All in all it is the same system we have. A little more generous with no requirements you look for work, also the way it is now....

So where is it wrong is the question it begs. That is the "bait" if you want to call it that.

And slick you are wrong about my position on it.
The more I explore it the more certain I am that I support it!

[Will Robinson]

If such a system was approved, I would add one caveat. Those who choose to live as a child of the govt. would lose the right to vote.

A tough call to make. I can see wisdom in that but not sure what I'd do if it was up to me.

There would be tons of stuff like that where politicians would use the Lifers as fodder for their own fights.

Get extra rations if you serve in the infantry....

Clean the right persons toilets on the side for tax free cash....

Mayors protecting the black markets that will thrive in the Lifers neighborhoods.

The quality of schools? Good grief! So much wrong will happen there. But then it already does.
That's the rub really. The more you pick it apart looking for new problems with the system you realize it is our system already! And that is why some feathers are immediately ruffled at my asking people to examine this.

I think you would also find some real beauty in it though.
Basically government funded communes that thrived in great ways!

[callmeslick]

If such a system was approved, I would add one caveat. Those who choose to live as a child of the govt. would lose the right to vote.

wouldn't that result in, essentially, a plutocracy of the wealthy?

[callmeslick]

Well you are right about the problems to some degree but you misunderstand the system I envisioned. There would be no need for 'shipping food' ...we won't be building relocation camps!

not what I meant, there, Will. As it currently stands, without long-haul truckers, NONE of us would eat anything but the local produce, which would suck for folks in, say, New Mexico or Arizona......not to mention Alaska or Hawaii. Such an all-encompassing system would provide too much disincentive for labor. Oddly, it is that sort of disincentive that we have been starting to see from our current favor-the-rich setup that doesn't fairly reward work.

I've never found collectivism to be viable for similar reasons, BTW.

[Will Robinson]

Well you are right about the problems to some degree but you misunderstand the system I envisioned. There would be no need for 'shipping food' ...we won't be building relocation camps!

not what I meant, there, Will. As it currently stands, without long-haul truckers, NONE of us would eat anything but the local produce, which would suck for folks in, say, New Mexico or Arizona......not to mention Alaska or Hawaii. Such an all-encompassing system would provide too much disincentive for labor. Oddly, it is that sort of disincentive that we have been starting to see from our current favor-the-rich setup that doesn't fairly reward work.

I've never found collectivism to be viable for similar reasons, BTW.

Considering the system I propose is really the same system we have with just a bit more generosity to the recipients how can you say that suddenly long haul truckers would disappear and produce would have no market?

When you talk about disincentive aren't you really just talking about increasing the degree of disincentive?

Why wont the rich pay a little more for their trucked in fruits and veggies? Don't they have the money for it?

I've been thinking about that whole dynamic.

The rich enjoy their country club style life etc. If we took half of their wealth and continued to tax them at a rate that left them all half as rich as they currently are I believe they would still be "the rich" and their country clubs would simply begin to operate at a lower cost...charge lower fees etc. because the demand for the 'club' won't go away.
And the staff at the club that serves the rich is now somehow paid a higher wage from all that new revenue the government takes in...right?

Isn't that the picture painted on the campaign trail? make it fair...tax the rich...vote for me

Lets explore how that transfer takes place instead of just take a stand of pro or con in knee jerk response to campaign rhetoric only touching on the vague concept they are campaigning on.

[sigma]

in fact, this is a rhetorical question , in my opinion. Mankind has many times attempted to build an ideal society . And each new generation of people trying to find a new method of solving this problem. While previous generations of people have long been accumulated vast experience answers to any questions that I would be interested in a new generation of people. The voice of our ancestors we can hear in the aphorisms of the great men of past centuries in folk sayings , jokes , art. If our Creator would make us perfect, standard exists, it would be very boring to watch us like animals , robots with the attached program behavior. This is a big topic , in fact , it is interesting to study . But, for example, there is a very good Russian aphorisms about this: "Woe from Wit " or "Who knows too much , is rapidly aging ."

[callmeslick]

Considering the system I propose is really the same system we have with just a bit more generosity to the recipients how can you say that suddenly long haul truckers would disappear and produce would have no market?

maybe I'm mis-reading the extent of the generosity, but my take was that if food, water, healthcare, housing and education were provided to all, there would be so much less incentive to work that few folks would avail themselves. There is a very fine balance between providing for those in need, long or short term, and providing free for everyone.

When you talk about disincentive aren't you really just talking about increasing the degree of disincentive?

I suppose, yes, but the way I read you proposal it would be a huge increase.

Why wont the rich pay a little more for their trucked in fruits and veggies? Don't they have the money for it?

yes, but how will the rest of the populace be fed?

I've been thinking about that whole dynamic.

The rich enjoy their country club style life etc. If we took half of their wealth and continued to tax them at a rate that left them all half as rich as they currently are I believe they would still be "the rich" and their country clubs would simply begin to operate at a lower cost...charge lower fees etc. because the demand for the 'club' won't go away.
And the staff at the club that serves the rich is now somehow paid a higher wage from all that new revenue the government takes in...right?
Isn't that the picture painted on the campaign trail? make it fair...tax the rich...vote for me
Lets explore how that transfer takes place instead of just take a stand of pro or con in knee jerk response to campaign rhetoric only touching on the vague concept they are campaigning on.

If you took half the wealth from the top 1%(or, likely even 3%), they would just continue apace. There is THAT much disparity. Hell, the costs at the golf and yacht clubs wouldn't likely drop as you suppose, because there is that much money within that group to pay(My club only costs $12,000 per year, and I've long since paid the stock fees for entrance.......that kind of money is a pittance to most people who patronize such places. Even the pricey ones run less than $60K per year, in most cases, and if you have half of the 5 million bucks you used to get coming in, you'll still suck it up and pay, I suspect). Now, kudos for wishing to explore the subject of income/wealth disparity, but you are doing so, thus far, in a way that doesn't really have any relation to reality. What some of us suggest is, yes, much higher taxes on incomes over $200K per annum, and treatment of cap gains as ordinary income. This would be coupled with the absolute elimination of tax shelters and other loopholes created for the well-off. The leveller from the bottom end would be more robust assistance to the general public for healthcare costs(major source of personal bankruptcy),food, housing assistance for those whose incomes justify it, cash for the truly destitute, cash for out-of-work people seeking employment and a major infusion of government monies into early childhood ed and higher ed, Also, a mandatory raise in the minimum wage to lessen the number of the working populace who cannot pay reasonable bills for modest lifestyles. This is a far different scenario than what you propose, unless I am reading your wording incorrectly.
One fascinating(at least to me) note from your initial proposal: you include water. It is my conviction that by the time my grandkids are adults, access to potable water might be a real issue for the public at large. I hope I'm wrong, but found it interesting that you seem to anticipate this as well.

[Will Robinson]

I've been thinking about that whole dynamic.

The rich enjoy their country club style life etc. If we took half of their wealth and continued to tax them at a rate that left them all half as rich as they currently are I believe they would still be "the rich" and their country clubs would simply begin to operate at a lower cost...charge lower fees etc. because the demand for the 'club' won't go away.
And the staff at the club that serves the rich is now somehow paid a higher wage from all that new revenue the government takes in...right?
Isn't that the picture painted on the campaign trail? make it fair...tax the rich...vote for me
Lets explore how that transfer takes place instead of just take a stand of pro or con in knee jerk response to campaign rhetoric only touching on the vague concept they are campaigning on.

If you took half the wealth from the top 1%(or, likely even 3%), they would just continue apace. There is THAT much disparity. Hell, the costs at the golf and yacht clubs wouldn't likely drop as you suppose, because there is that much money within that group to pay(My club only costs $12,000 per year, and I've long since paid the stock fees for entrance.......that kind of money is a pittance to most people who patronize such places. Even the pricey ones run less than $60K per year, in most cases, and if you have half of the 5 million bucks you used to get coming in, you'll still suck it up and pay, I suspect). Now, kudos for wishing to explore the subject of income/wealth disparity, but you are doing so, thus far, in a way that doesn't really have any relation to reality. What some of us suggest is, yes, much higher taxes on incomes over $200K per annum, and treatment of cap gains as ordinary income. This would be coupled with the absolute elimination of tax shelters and other loopholes created for the well-off. The leveller from the bottom end would be more robust assistance to the general public for healthcare costs(major source of personal bankruptcy),food, housing assistance for those whose incomes justify it, cash for the truly destitute, cash for out-of-work people seeking employment and a major infusion of government monies into early childhood ed and higher ed, Also, a mandatory raise in the minimum wage to lessen the number of the working populace who cannot pay reasonable bills for modest lifestyles. This is a far different scenario than what you propose, unless I am reading your wording incorrectly.

I don't think you are reading it wrong. I think you are seeing the existing system for what it is a little clearer.
The difference in what I propose and the current system isn't nearly as great as your instincts initially told you because you weren't clearly recognizing the similarities. Mere degrees of difference. Many of the problems it creates are already in play.
There would be some shifts in the economy and social structures though and they are fascinating to think about how and why they would manifest themselves.

The big wrench in the works is the governments role. They are like an insurance 'monopoly'.
Round about example:
I went to the hospital for a sudden and severe attack of vertigo. I thought I was having a stroke because the world suddenly started spinning like an Alfred Hitchcock cut scene so I called 911.
Anyway, my bill was just over $15,000...I have no insurance...I'm one of those that were counted as signing up but the truth is I never got to purchase it (another example of government at work in itself)
So the bill was reduced immediately by 68% for being a non-insurance customer. Not charity or government doing that, just a business doing what it needs to. Then they gave me over 20% off for paying it off right away and froze the account so any other charges that were found were null. Hospitals always find more stuff to bill you for.
So, the result is the hospital that was charging $15,000+, because the insurance dynamic will support that price, was fine with receiving @$2700 for the same service.

If the system of rich people looking out for rich people wasn't built to feed off of inflating costs and earnings for the sake of itself....we could afford all sorts of things. Including Lifers.

One fascinating(at least to me) note from your initial proposal: you include water. It is my conviction that by the time my grandkids are adults, access to potable water might be a real issue for the public at large. I hope I'm wrong, but found it interesting that you seem to anticipate this as well.

It could be the new gold...or someone will invent a new desalination method that leads him to be the founder of the new "Big Water" industry.
He might even be a student from a Lifers school system who got to pursue his interests in science instead of flip burgers and stay home to care for junkie Mom and little brothers and sisters...

[callmeslick]

um, you realize the reason the hospital could offer you those discounts, Will, is because by Federal Law, they can pass costs of treatment of uninsured people to the government, right? The fact that such will end within a decade is yet another of those little considered aspects of the ACA.

and what the bitter musings about 'Lifer' schools and junkie mothers does to enhance your reputation eludes me. It comes off as equally bitter and stupid sounding.

[Will Robinson]

um, you realize the reason the hospital could offer you those discounts, Will, is because by Federal Law, they can pass costs of treatment of uninsured people to the government, right? The fact that such will end within a decade is yet another of those little considered aspects of the ACA.

and what the bitter musings about 'Lifer' schools and junkie mothers does to enhance your reputation eludes me. It comes off as equally bitter and stupid sounding.

Im aware they write it off! But that is just another example of the 'government' subsidy for the rich isn't it?

And me pointing out the Lifer stigma is just a part of realistically discussing what is at play here. Have you ever seen Eddie Murphy do the 'I got an ice cream' routine?
The system that I propose...which is really the system we already have... is going to continue to create the stigma but it will make more legitimate to have people stigmatized. That is part of the discussion. That is part of what we already do.

You notice I also, justifiably in my mind, assigned the success story to the Lifer and allude to the fact that if not for having made the choice to take that path he wouldn't have saved the world from salty water etc. because he would have been flipping burgers for pennies. The best way to kill the cloud of stigma is to recognize the silver lining.

I'm putting it out there for what it really is instead of just touching it on the edges and wrapping it in platitudes to cover my ass so you'll vote for me.

[callmeslick]

um, you realize the reason the hospital could offer you those discounts, Will, is because by Federal Law, they can pass costs of treatment of uninsured people to the government, right? The fact that such will end within a decade is yet another of those little considered aspects of the ACA.

and what the bitter musings about 'Lifer' schools and junkie mothers does to enhance your reputation eludes me. It comes off as equally bitter and stupid sounding.

Im aware they write it off! But that is just another example of the 'government' subsidy for the rich isn't it?

not a write off, but a subsidy. I don't consider giving money to a hospital subsidizing the rich whatsoever. Many, maybe most, hospital systems are extremely tight these days. Very, very few are floating in money.

And me pointing out the Lifer stigma is just a part of realistically discussing what is at play here. Have you ever seen Eddie Murphy do the 'I got an ice cream' routine? The system that I propose...which is really the system we already have... is going to continue to create the stigma but it will make more legitimate to have people stigmatized. That is part of the discussion. That is part of what we already do.

You notice I also, justifiably in my mind, assigned the success story to the Lifer and allude to the fact that if not for having made the choice to take that path he wouldn't have saved the world from salty water etc. because he would have been flipping burgers for pennies.

I'm putting it out there for what it really is instead of just touching it on the edges and searching for platitudes to cover my ass so you'll vote for me.

well, I still won't consider voting for you, but thanks for the effort.

[Will Robinson]

most hospital systems are tight because the people who profit from them are well paid. Didnt you just explain short term profiteering...
The doctors and board members and CEO's who own the hospital etc are the rich people you are talking about taxing. They benefit from the subsidy that the hospital gets! The hospital is just a building. just a fiscal entity that moves income into its owners accounts. The profits go to people. Capital gains....etc.
The government subsidizes the powerful. it tosses crumbs to the powerless. let them eat cake.

The insurance racket makes prices so high that there are companies generating huge profits and they only handle insurance claim work BECAUSE the racket pays exorbitant prices for their service. The whole culture of the rich is inflating the costs and passing the pain onto the lower classes.

The reason you can siphon off a lot of wealth and still leave the country club functioning is because of that dynamic.

in a way you don't even know what you know because you are so steeped in it!

[callmeslick]

another example that makes the country club pricing look tame:
http://www.inquisitr.com/1133508/lambor ... a-bargain/

[Will Robinson]

Its not welfare or subsidies so much as it is a time for a split in shares.

[woodchip]

If such a system was approved, I would add one caveat. Those who choose to live as a child of the govt. would lose the right to vote.

wouldn't that result in, essentially, a plutocracy of the wealthy?

No, it would result in a plutocracy of those who work and pay taxes....that support the children of the govt.

[Tunnelcat]

If such a system was approved, I would add one caveat. Those who choose to live as a child of the govt. would lose the right to vote.

wouldn't that result in, essentially, a plutocracy of the wealthy?

No, it would result in a plutocracy of those who work and pay taxes....that support the children of the govt.

We have a Plutocracy already forming right now. They already mostly own and run our government and tell that government how to spend it's money on what and who through lobbying that the common slob cannot even dream of doing. Tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations, good. More military spending to line the pockets of their favorite companies and contractors, good. Tax hikes for the middle class and poor, good. More cuts to programs that support the poor when those same said Plutocrats shipped the good paying jobs overseas, leaving the lower paying service jobs as scraps for those vermin to fight over, even better.

But to be fair to woody, I've noticed a trend, especially with males that are in the thirty-something age. My sister in law's male child is 30+ years old and still lives at home playing video games. He wants to design games for a living, but isn't making the effort to learn the proper skills to enter the field, nor has he even tried to look for a job to support himself. He seems to have the fantasy that something good will fall into his lap. The parents don't seem to want to force him out and get a job either. My neighbor also has a thirty something male kid. Lives at home, food, clothing and a roof over his head, dropped out of college and never looked back, and the parents have put forth no effort to kick the kid out of the nest or force him to get a job and live on his own. My forty-something step brother lives with his girlfriend, who works and supports them both. He used to do odd jobs, but never had any schooling or trade training and has remained jobless for years and spends his time tinkering with his cars, or remolding their house. I'd like to know what's happened lately to trying to make something of oneself, to leave the parent's nest and become an independent working member of our society? Have we created a bunch of lazy, male moochers that like to sponge off their rich boomer parents, who let them do it?

[callmeslick]

If such a system was approved, I would add one caveat. Those who choose to live as a child of the govt. would lose the right to vote.

wouldn't that result in, essentially, a plutocracy of the wealthy?

No, it would result in a plutocracy of those who work and pay taxes....that support the children of the govt.

but, if you followed my reasoning, few people would feel the need to work if an overly generous system were in place.

[Sergeant Thorne]

This whole topic is incredible. I appreciate your willingness to take a look at it, Will, but you're leaving out one very important thing--all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. We, as men, stand on even ground with each other. I do not have a right to be fed by another man's labor. If I am fed by another man's labor, then I must be less than a man for not feeding myself. If we are to do anything about inequality concerning rich people, perhaps it should be to judge their transgressions against other men, and relieve them of their gain appropriately, leaving them without the fruit of their actions, or the ability to further offend. The moneys could be distributed throughout the country in the form of evenly allotted tax-relief--to the wealthy, the businesses, the middle-class, and the poor (lump-sum, rather than percentage, with the poorer receiving anything beyond their taxes in the form of a check). Then impose tariffs on all imports exceeding the value of exports on a country-by-country basis, and start rebuilding the value of our dollar, and I think we would be off to a promising, fresh start.

[sigma]

Anecdote to this topic:

"Somali immigrant arrived in Berlin .
He stops the first person he sees and says, " Thank you , sir. Germany has allowed me to live in this country , gave me housing, money for food , free medical care , free education and no taxes ! "
Passerby says, " You are mistaken , I Afghan. "
The man goes on and encounters another passer-by : " Thank you for being such a beautiful country Germany ! Etc. ."
The man says, " I'm not German, I'm Iraqi ! "
Newcomer moves on to the next person shakes his hand and says, " Thank you for the excellent Germany! "
This man raises his hand and says: " I ​​am from Pakistan , I'm not from Germany ! "
He finally sees - is a nice lady .
Asks: " Are you German ? "
She says, " No, I'm from India ! "
Puzzled, he asks her, " Where are the Germans ? "
Hindu checks watch and says, " So they 're working on! "

[woodchip]

If such a system was approved, I would add one caveat. Those who choose to live as a child of the govt. would lose the right to vote.

wouldn't that result in, essentially, a plutocracy of the wealthy?

No, it would result in a plutocracy of those who work and pay taxes....that support the children of the govt.

but, if you followed my reasoning, few people would feel the need to work if an overly generous system were in place.

And if few worked...where would the tax money come from to support them?

[Will Robinson]

This proposition is based on the hypothetical that there is enough excess wealth in the private sector that if capital gains were taxed at a higher rate, if inheritance was confiscated above certain levels and all the back door under the table tax exemption tricks were shut down the tax revenue would be so great we could afford all sorts of programs.

A big if with so many privately logged assets that I don't believe any has been able to calculate it.
But play along under the assumption that the real rich people could be 'taxed' by say 50% of their current worth and continue to have future incoming wealth taxed at that rate.

That is the premise that so many on the left operate under when talking about making the economic gap narrower.
Now that really means you just moved the wealth from the private elites to the government elites. Two groups that are already deeply intertwined so you haven't done much.

But maybe you have...

The private elites have the money to buy the exemptions from the government elites that is how they accumulate wealth. Buy their way out of fair taxation with a true cost of pennies on the dollar. Campaign donations=pennies in exchange for exemptions=dollars etc.

If this adjustment was made the private elites will have lost their grip on the government elites. Likewise the government elites are faced with a less certain reelection process without the private elites buying them the seat.

My personal opinion on this stems from pragmatism. I wasn't in favor of federal healthcare. But it happened. So now I want to shape it in a way that is viable. I don't mind getting cheap coverage at the expense of less spending elsewhere because there is plenty of pork.
The government elites want to spend more, keep their pork projects AND start paying for federal healthcare. Where will that money come from?

Lots of problems in their future as the taxes force more wealth out of the reach of the taxman.


So, suppose you cause the government elites to take on this debt of paying everyone who wants it to live free of charge. Not live in any kind of luxury but relative comfort to a homeless person.
It would evolve into ghetto life or equivalent rural trailer park life. I don't see lots of working people saying its time to retire at 35 years of age so they can grab their spot in those conditions.
You eliminate a lot of political posturing over the current debates on welfare, unemployment coverage, healthcare coverage, etc.

Some politician is going to try to say it isn't fair that the Lifer class doesn't get a second home or a new car every 3 years? I don't think so.

Not going to work with the voters who are paying the taxes. That will be the first time the lowest wage earner and the richest rich people all agree on tax policy.
They will say Hell no! The Lifers get enough free stuff. And for the first time that argument will be 100% truthful. It really will be 'free stuff' they are talking about. In fact lots of current political polarizing rhetoric will die. Border enforcement? Uh! Hell yea obviously. Everyone has been at a keg party where the uninvited swarmed and killed the party....

The other reason I like this system is because I want to protect us from socialism. Huh! WTF?!? You might be saying now. Lol. Hear me out.

The capitalist system we have is great but if you are honest about it it does have some side effects. One being the inevitable slow shift of power and wealth to those born into greater opportunity or those who build an empire from the ground up (Bill Gates, one of the few of that status who knows it and thus gives back).

So I don't want to break the capitalist system that spurs so much innovation and productivity by letting things get so bad the next Barrack a Obama gets to do a full on Hugo Chavez and gets to do it with the blessing of the voters at the ballot box out of their justified fear of outright chaotic revolution.

So I see this as a stock split. A bubble correction of sorts. The market capitalization stayed the same but the shares of the wealth are spread out. The rich stay rich, keep their empires, the lower classes get a bump, the Lifers get taken care of and capitalism works on...

[callmeslick]

And if few worked...where would the tax money come from to support them?

exactly why I questioned a blanket generosity as spelled out by Will. It couldn't be sustained, as with collectivism when that's been tried. As with anything, there are, and should be, reasonable limits on social safety nets. I've never argued otherwise. It seems to me that where many of us differ is on 1)whether such social welfare is a good thing at all and 2)where the lines get drawn. The former is, to me, a matter of human decency, but the latter can be very difficult to determine.

[callmeslick]

what you seem to be arguing for, Will( and this is fascinating to me) is exactly what I've been espousing since I came onto this board: A return to the regulated capitalism we had circa 1955 or so.

[Will Robinson]

what you seem to be arguing for, Will( and this is fascinating to me) is exactly what I've been espousing since I came onto this board: A return to the regulated capitalism we had circa 1955 or so.

It may be but anytime I tried to tell you that neutering the fed is required first or you won't get there you immediately went into Dem party protection mode.

You have to remove the power of the private elites to tell us who represents us.
You have to remove the power of the government elites to trade tax/regulatory exemptions to the private elites in exchange for reelection.

You have to abandon Party dogma and support true reform or the status quo is protected by your unwillingness to recognize that, in the context of this discussion, the two Parties are really one.

[callmeslick]

what you seem to be arguing for, Will( and this is fascinating to me) is exactly what I've been espousing since I came onto this board: A return to the regulated capitalism we had circa 1955 or so.

It may be but anytime I tried to tell you that neutering the fed is required first or you won't get there you immediately went into Dem party protection mode.

You have to remove the power of the private elites to tell us who represents us.
You have to remove the power of the government elites to trade tax/regulatory exemptions to the private elites in exchange for reelection.

You have to abandon Party dogma and support true reform or the status quo is protected by your unwillingness to recognize that, in the context of this discussion, the two Parties are really one.

there, you go off the rails, Will, The only way you get back to the 1955 economic model is with VERY strong Federal regulation via taxes, banking law, and the like. And that was a government run by Republicans, along with Democrats. My ideas aren't linked to parties whatsoever. It's just that one party is intent on preventing any consideration of a return to that model because they are under the control of the financial elites that oppose it. Now,I think it is a fair premise to wonder if the Dem power brokers wouldn't knuckle under to the same pressures, were they given absolute control over government(back to the fears expressed in another thread on the demise of the GOP). Still, the bottom line, Will, is that you wish to see a very similar type of economy to that which I propose. Where we differ is that I realize that we had it all in place, pretty much, 60 years ago, and allowed it to get warped. You seem to think we have to toss out a strong Federal government to get there, which I feel would be exactly the wrong way to go.

[Will Robinson]

For those who worry about 'pulling yourself up from the bootstraps' personal responsibility etc.
Relax, this won't kill that spirit. And no matter how much you promote that spirit there will always be some Lifers, that is human nature. Some people see their hands as made for grabbing the bootstraps, some see them as a thing you hold out palm up waiting for whatever fortune might be placed there.

This is the end of the war on poverty.
Old, non rich, people go into retirement and face fixed low to no income and depend on meager government support.
They don't have a choice they know death is the only big change in their future.

You plug 30 year old into that scenario and unless he is a Lifer he sees a future beyond the next meager installment of government assistance. Since the line has been drawn by the government....this is it...if you need help this is what you get...he will reach for those bootstraps...he will go look for work.

There won't be an ongoing national rhetoric feed of people talking about your victim status, income equality and a new guy promising a 'Chavez phone' and Hope and Change is coming etc. the deal is done...you know what is available and the little increases based on indexes every year is not going to make you want to stay in the Lifer village and vote for a pipe dream.

[Will Robinson]

Slick you are in denial if you think the same puppet masters don't hold the strings of both Parties already. It isn't even puppet masters so much as the system. The private sector elites are nonpartisan. They are equal opportunity corruptors.

Also, I think you are misunderstanding my call for "neutering". Obviously I'm proposing a government strong enough to enforce the regulation and taxation etc.
I'm suggesting we take away certain powerful tools they have that lead to corruption and abuse. Tools not needed to perform these tasks we set them on.

A neutered dog is still a strong dog but he has lost his drive to screw you...

[callmeslick]

Slick you are in denial if you think the same puppet masters don't hold the strings of both Parties already. It isn't even puppet masters so much as the system. The private sector elites are nonpartisan. They are equal opportunity corruptors.[/quote[
I'd agree, to some extent, but they would, at present, have to do some serious fence-mending for some members of that elite to ever have a voice with the Dems. However, if you were to see an absolute control by the Dems, there would be a ton of money flowing to attempt that bridge-mending.

Also, I think you are misunderstanding my call for "neutering". Obviously I'm proposing a government strong enough to enforce the regulation and taxation etc.
I'm suggesting we take away certain powerful tools they have that lead to corruption and abuse. Tools not needed to perform these tasks we set them on.

A neutered dog is still a strong dog but he has lost his drive to screw you...

not sure how the details of this would work, but love the analogy! My(neutered) Eskimo dog would approve heartily!

[Sergeant Thorne]

Well I'll have to think about that, Will. All I can say is go run for office. The ignorant/greedy electorate monster the elite have helped to create would probably get you elected, much to their distress.

You'd have to play it smart (or have the backing of the Almighty), because there isn't a fortress or defense that could protect you from these people.