3 ms·
How about "What's right with free cars?" Very little. We know how to built communities which don't require cars. How about "What is right with free houses?"
by dalke 11y ago
How about "What's right with free cars?"
Very little. We know how to built communities which don't require cars.
How about "What is right with free houses?"
Oddly enough, free shelters for the homeless seem to help reduce homeless camps, hobo jungles, and Hoovervilles, and keep people from dying in nasty weather. Turns out people don't like to see signs of homeless on the streets, and are willing to pay money to reduce that sight. So it isn't "free houses" but "paid for reduction of an eyesore, and increase in good feelings." Perhaps some also consider those taxes a sort of insurance should bad times occur to them.
How about "What's right with free food?"
Again, it turns out most people don't like to see others dying of starvation when they walk down the street. Many are willing to pay something to avoid having to face that sight or feel pangs of empathy.
Constructed that way, it's no longer "free X" but "paying for Y", where X is a way to achieve Y.
- sharemywin 11y agoI think both prospectives are valid. Personally, to normalize against the vast differences in income, I think some products and services(to a point) should be priced according to income. Medical premiums and deductibles for instance, child care, education loan payments, groceries, rent, and public transportation. If you really want to stir things up all prices are priced according to what would be charged to the top income earner in the US from last year and your price is your income divided by that number with caps(ie. premiums and deductibles no more than 12% of your income).