Should payroll taxes be abolished?

[Ideologue]

Some sort of health care should be included too, no? At the very least, some sort of emergency treatment?

That's it?  No housing, no food, no walking around money?  Transportation?

Fun fact everybody: Yi's stamps say "Equality Forever" on them.

[Ed Anger]

A thousand calories for the plebs. Mexicans get 600.

[Admiral Yi]

Fun fact everybody: Yi's stamps say "Equality Forever" on them.

I don't get it.

[Ideologue]

Fun fact everybody: Yi's stamps say "Equality Forever" on them.

I don't get it.

IT'S IRONIC.

[Ed Anger]

Fun fact everybody: Yi's stamps say "Equality Forever" on them.

I don't get it.

IT'S IRONIC.

Thanks Alanis.

[Admiral Yi]

I figured you were taking a jab at my Randian love of inequality, but I just couldn't figure out the connection to the post you quoted.

[dps]

I figured you were taking a jab at my Randian love of inequality, but I just couldn't figure out the connection to the post you quoted.

I thought it was some kind of reference to the Stamp Act, and couldn't figure what that had to do with the thread.

[Ed Anger]

I figured you were taking a jab at my Randian love of inequality, but I just couldn't figure out the connection to the post you quoted.

It is about time for your stalker to log on.

[Razgovory]

Wot's all this then?  I Was busy playing Fallout New Vegas.

[Admiral Yi]

 

[Ed Anger]

 

[Jacob]

Some sort of health care should be included too, no? At the very least, some sort of emergency treatment?

That's it?  No housing, no food, no walking around money?  Transportation?

I was trying to put in what I thought was the minimum acceptable bottom for conservatives such as yourself. You proposed primary and secondary education and minimal social security. I assume that you don't think dying people should be turned away at hospitals. If so, I figure that ought to be included in that minimum. If not, then of course not. I assume you don't want to provide food, housing, walking around money, or transportation... but if you do, you should add those as well

For my part, I don't think a "minimum consumption basket" captures my approach to government at all; I believe in the social welfare state and believe that government can engage constructively in a whole range of areas. I'm still interested in hearing what you think should be in that basket however.

[Admiral Yi]

I believe in a safety net as distinct from a welfare state as I understand it.  People who are down on their luck through no fault of their own get a bare minimum to get get by until they're back on their feet.  The assumption being of course that they want to get back on their feet.  The problem with overly generous transfer payments (I've mentioned this before) is that they disincentivize work.  And all the ancillary decisions and habits that are related to work and contributing to society, such as applying oneself educationally and not committing too much crime.  And thank God Bubba and Newt killed AFDIC, which was established with the absolute best of intentions (poor girl got knocked up, we gotta help her and the innocent kid out).

I've mentioned several times that Scandinavian socialism can only work in a place with high social capital and cohesion.  I think if we were to pass a law saying everyone gets food, housing, medical care, transportation, education, clothes, and a few bucks for smokes and booze then half the country would stop working.  We're a nation of grifters and hustlers.

Now let's hear about how government can engage constructively in a whole range of areas.  Or more importantly, why it should.

BTW, I'm currently reading The Road to Serfdom and so far I must say for such a hyped book he doesn't have a lot to say.

[Sheilbh]

Yes.  If nothing else it would end the non-stop bullshit about them 'going bust'. 

I believe in a safety net as distinct from a welfare state as I understand it.

I have no doubt your understanding of 'welfare state' is a bit skewed from mine

[Jacob]

Now let's hear about how government can engage constructively in a whole range of areas.  Or more importantly, why it should.

Essentially, where the majority of the population would benefit from what is essentially insurance a well managed non-profit with a mandate to serve the common weal (which usually means government mandated, since the profit motive is the main reason for private actors to get involved) tends to provide superior results, assuming you rate the well being of the citizenry over individual profit. I think the Canadian Crown Corporation model works pretty well, for example, but it's not the only way to do it.

Things like employment insurance, old age benefits, health care, workers compensation, disability benefits fall clearly within this. You could argue that car insurance could be one as well, since driving is so fundamental to modern existence. I'm not opposed to private companies getting involved in some capacity, but I think they're best for providing additional services beyond a comfortable (not minimal) floor provided by the government or government mandated services (as long as this does not provide a moral hazard). Ideally such systems are revenue neutral in terms of mandatory fees (however they're calculated), as a properly managed insurance scheme should be.

Education is another area where the government should be heavily involved; again, because providing a quality public good is much more important than generating individual profit. Again, I'm not opposed to private actors being involved on the fringes, but privatizing education will inevitably leave significant portions of the population heinously underserved and that is unacceptable.

Another area that benefits from government involvement is large and even medium scale infrastructure, as well as services that have some characteristics of infrastructure. I'm thinking here of roads and bridges, hydroelectrical dams etc when it comes to infrastructure, and things like the postal services, electricity, water, garbage collection and public transit when it comes to services; arguably the postal service is no longer needed, but in lieu of that I think broadband access is becoming a necessity of modern life.

In all of those cases, I think semi-autonomous government corporations at arms-length from but ultimately responsible to politicians works the best. Yes, of course if they're badly managed that can be problematic, but the same is true of private entities in those situations; however, I think semi-public organizations are more responsive to the needs of the public than private companies, especially in areas where the huge infrastructure investments grant companies near monopolies or cartel-like control over the services. In some cases, a publicly managed call for contracts can work as well, but even so there's a significant need for public oversight to ensure standards are met and defined.

Similarly, government needs to be involved in setting standards for labour relations, food safety, product safety, as well as in areas where "the tragedy of the commons" is likely to occur such as environmental safety etc; the individual has little to no power compared to organized capital, and shortfalls in those standards carry too high a human cost.

Ultimately, the state is there to serve the needs population - especially in areas involving large projects and where the pooling of risk is useful.

This is not to say the the state should limit private enterprise unnecessarily, but some areas should only be provided by private enterprise if it's more efficient in terms of serving the population's needs, not in terms of generating income. In many areas, various factors prevent meaningful competition and the consequences of substandard service are too significant (and accepting substandard service should, if necessary, be an explicit part of the political process); that's where government should be involved.