4 ms·

Instead of basic income wouldn't it make sense to have some sort of basic "lifestyle" provided by government. Out of the box you get a very small government bui

Instead of basic income wouldn't it make sense to have some sort of basic "lifestyle" provided by government. Out of the box you get a very small government built apartment (no rent or utility bills, all part of the package), vouchers for 3 meals per day (government run canteens in these government apartment buildings), free healthcare and education also provided by the government. So you would get all these basic necessities as part of the basic government program. To actually make any money to buy nicer things (car, bigger apartment or house), you'd need to find a job. This would make sense as the basic income would not work as free market would adjust and increase prices as reaction to the new source of free money to spend available every month for everybody.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> Instead of basic income wouldn't it make sense to have some sort of basic "lifestyle" provided by government. Out of the box you get a very small government built apartment (no rent or utility bills, all part of the package), vouchers for 3 meals per day (government run canteens in these government apartment buildings), free healthcare and education also provided by the government. The government is bad at operating a business. They aren't subject to competition. If they do something poorly they don't lose business so they just keep doing it poorly. There is no reason to ever have the government build housing or grow food instead of just giving people money to buy housing or food. Government products also have another flaw. If the government provides $500 worth of free government housing, and you have $200, there is no way for you to turn that into $700 worth of housing. Improving your housing by $200 costs you $700. It's a poverty trap. And allocating money to specific things has the same problems. Governments are bad at allocating things. Give someone a housing voucher and they'll buy housing, even if they don't need housing as much as they need something else. Many people would be better off to e.g. live with relatives and use the same money to pay for car insurance so they can drive to work. With a housing voucher they can't do that, so instead they waste the government's money on unneeded housing. And in the process raise both taxes and housing costs for everyone else. Moreover, in any situation where that isn't the case, vouchers for necessities are equivalent to cash regardless. If you're buying $200 worth of food anyway, a $100 food voucher is the same as $100 in cash, because you use the food voucher for food and use the $100 you would have spent on food to buy whatever you want. Which means that vouchers require a voucher checking bureaucracy that spends resources doing something which is completely redundant in every case that it isn't actively harmful. It's far more efficient to just give people cash and let them figure it out for themselves.
ganoushoreilly 9y ago
While in principle it sounds great, the reality is it wouldn't function or scale properly and would be dangerously close to causing the same problems that many Communist countries face (from apathy of the populous to manipulation by those that have).
bzbarsky 9y ago
You're presupposing a uniformity of needs that simply does not exist. Do the government canteens have vegan options? Vegetarian? Nut-free? Just peanut-free? Gluten-free? Halal? Kosher? Why or why not? Which of those are "necessities" and which are "luxuries"? It may well turn out that your opinion on that last question differs from your neighbor's, which differs from that of the bureaucrat who actually makes the call. And at least in the US, having government-provided food facilities that are expected to be widely used but effectively discriminate on a religious basis in any way would end up in court on First Amendment grounds in a hurry... That's just the food end. There are similar questions about housing. Should all the apartments involved be wheelchair-accessible? Should all the bathrooms be accessible by someone who is mobility-impaired? (Healthcare and education have similar issues, though to a large extent people seem make the opposite choice on those, as compared to food.) Anyway, one of my big takeaways from the history of the 20th century (both from nominally communist countries and the experience in the US with housing projects and urban redevelopment in general) is that uniformization schemes like what you describe tend to lead to a good deal of misery...

AnthonyMouse 9y ago

> Instead of basic income wouldn't it make sense to have some sort of basic "lifestyle" provided by government. Out of the box you get a very small government built apartment (no rent or utility bills, all part of the package), vouchers for 3 meals per day (government run canteens in these government apartment buildings), free healthcare and education also provided by the government. The government is bad at operating a business. They aren't subject to competition. If they do something poorly they don't lose business so they just keep doing it poorly. There is no reason to ever have the government build housing or grow food instead of just giving people money to buy housing or food. Government products also have another flaw. If the government provides $500 worth of free government housing, and you have $200, there is no way for you to turn that into $700 worth of housing. Improving your housing by $200 costs you $700. It's a poverty trap. And allocating money to specific things has the same problems. Governments are bad at allocating things. Give someone a housing voucher and they'll buy housing, even if they don't need housing as much as they need something else. Many people would be better off to e.g. live with relatives and use the same money to pay for car insurance so they can drive to work. With a housing voucher they can't do that, so instead they waste the government's money on unneeded housing. And in the process raise both taxes and housing costs for everyone else. Moreover, in any situation where that isn't the case, vouchers for necessities are equivalent to cash regardless. If you're buying $200 worth of food anyway, a $100 food voucher is the same as $100 in cash, because you use the food voucher for food and use the $100 you would have spent on food to buy whatever you want. Which means that vouchers require a voucher checking bureaucracy that spends resources doing something which is completely redundant in every case that it isn't actively harmful. It's far more efficient to just give people cash and let them figure it out for themselves.

ganoushoreilly 9y ago

While in principle it sounds great, the reality is it wouldn't function or scale properly and would be dangerously close to causing the same problems that many Communist countries face (from apathy of the populous to manipulation by those that have).

bzbarsky 9y ago

You're presupposing a uniformity of needs that simply does not exist. Do the government canteens have vegan options? Vegetarian? Nut-free? Just peanut-free? Gluten-free? Halal? Kosher? Why or why not? Which of those are "necessities" and which are "luxuries"? It may well turn out that your opinion on that last question differs from your neighbor's, which differs from that of the bureaucrat who actually makes the call. And at least in the US, having government-provided food facilities that are expected to be widely used but effectively discriminate on a religious basis in any way would end up in court on First Amendment grounds in a hurry... That's just the food end. There are similar questions about housing. Should all the apartments involved be wheelchair-accessible? Should all the bathrooms be accessible by someone who is mobility-impaired? (Healthcare and education have similar issues, though to a large extent people seem make the opposite choice on those, as compared to food.) Anyway, one of my big takeaways from the history of the 20th century (both from nominally communist countries and the experience in the US with housing projects and urban redevelopment in general) is that uniformization schemes like what you describe tend to lead to a good deal of misery...