35 ms·

> And then, why stop at lunches? Why not give all children breakfast and dinner too, and buy them good clothes to wear? Indeed: Why not? Certainly a better inv

> And then, why stop at lunches? Why not give all children breakfast and dinner too, and buy them good clothes to wear? Indeed: Why not? Certainly a better investment than yet another round of tax cuts for billionaires.

verisimi 2y ago
How about this: we give all people all meals, clothes, housing, heating (all essentials) and spending money so that they can explore their interests, travel, etc?
- mschuster91 2y ago
  That's how most of Europe actually works: we assist those who for whatever reason are unable to support themselves. Granted, our systems aren't perfect either. People fall through the cracks sometimes or have to deal with inane bureaucracy. But you generally won't see large encampments of homeless citizens openly defecating on the sidewalks or school children being shamed for their parents not having lunch money.
  - verisimi 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - mschuster91 2y ago
      > Does everyone you know gets free meals, free housing, heating, etc and spending money? Read again what I wrote, and read precisely this time: we assist those who for whatever reason are unable to support themselves.
- hofrogs 2y ago
  This is what humanity must aim for.
  - verisimi 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - eesmith 2y ago
      > is it ok to force people to pay for stuff that they don't want to? Yes. Happens all the time. Money doesn't exist unless people are forced to use it to pay for something they don't want to. (read Graber's "Debt: The First 5,000 Years.") I don't want to pay for nuclear weapons. Why am I forced to pay for it through my taxes? Because if I don't, the state will use its power to punish me. Pacifists can't direct their tax monies to avoid military expenditures. Adherents to one faith can't say their taxes can't be used on apostates. You sound like this is a surprise. Like you don't understand why people have to pay taxes for schools even if they don't have children, don't understand why people who don't drive still have to pay taxes for roads, don't understand why people who don't swim still have to pay taxes for public pools, .. the list is very long. Your comments sound very much like 1980s Thatcherism - "There is no such thing [as society]! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first." The last 40+ years of neoliberal thought hasn't turned out so well, as those who have money no longer feel pressure or obligation to distribute it, resulting in a return to Gilded Age power concentrations. That's what you want, it seems. > such as increased salary and pension contributions Such as tax cuts for the rich. Make Gates "only" a billionaire and we can use the remaining $100 billion to pay off school lunch debt (works out the math) ... forever. $2.8 million debt for Utah with a population of 3 million people. US population 340 million. Call it $300 million in school lunch debt. Probably within an order of magnitude. That's less than the interest on $100 billion. Yes, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation would have an actual positive impact on education if, instead of funding projects that trained educators knew would fail - and eventually did fail - they has simply put their $10+ billion into funding school meals. Instead, rich people get to fund "non-profits" that they control - reducing their taxes while not relinquishing the power and influence tied to their money. Gates' wealth gives him a very undemocratic and malignant influence over US education policy. And you want to blather on about supporting student lunch debt?!
    - m2024 2y ago
- framapotari 2y ago
  If we're doing this, let's look at the other extreme as well: We give all people, including children, nothing as they are expected to take responsibility for themselves. No education, no services, no law enforcement, no roads, nothing at all. These are both obviously silly examples. The 'Where do we draw the line?!' answer can in this case be answered with 'On the side that feeds hungry children'.
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    > If we're doing this, let's look at the other extreme as well: We give all people, including children, nothing as they are expected to take responsibility for themselves. No education, no services, no law enforcement, no roads, nothing at all. In that case, people will always self-organise such structures anyway. Even amongst the most failed of the failed states, eventually you will end up with at least someone claiming to be the chief law enforcer (of whatever kind), someone to look after the kids (i.e. education) while the rest works to provide for food, and some sort of fire brigade. It will just be many orders of magnitude more inefficient than what a large government that governs more than a few dozen to hundred people can establish.
- em-bee 2y ago
  that's called universal basic income, and it is seriously being discussed.
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >How about this: we give all people all meals, clothes, housing, heating (all essentials) and spending money so that they can explore their interests, travel, etc? Now you're talking, let's do it. UBI FTW.

verisimi 2y ago

How about this: we give all people all meals, clothes, housing, heating (all essentials) and spending money so that they can explore their interests, travel, etc?

mschuster91 2y ago
That's how most of Europe actually works: we assist those who for whatever reason are unable to support themselves. Granted, our systems aren't perfect either. People fall through the cracks sometimes or have to deal with inane bureaucracy. But you generally won't see large encampments of homeless citizens openly defecating on the sidewalks or school children being shamed for their parents not having lunch money.
- verisimi 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    > Does everyone you know gets free meals, free housing, heating, etc and spending money? Read again what I wrote, and read precisely this time: we assist those who for whatever reason are unable to support themselves.
hofrogs 2y ago
This is what humanity must aim for.
- verisimi 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - eesmith 2y ago
    > is it ok to force people to pay for stuff that they don't want to? Yes. Happens all the time. Money doesn't exist unless people are forced to use it to pay for something they don't want to. (read Graber's "Debt: The First 5,000 Years.") I don't want to pay for nuclear weapons. Why am I forced to pay for it through my taxes? Because if I don't, the state will use its power to punish me. Pacifists can't direct their tax monies to avoid military expenditures. Adherents to one faith can't say their taxes can't be used on apostates. You sound like this is a surprise. Like you don't understand why people have to pay taxes for schools even if they don't have children, don't understand why people who don't drive still have to pay taxes for roads, don't understand why people who don't swim still have to pay taxes for public pools, .. the list is very long. Your comments sound very much like 1980s Thatcherism - "There is no such thing [as society]! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first." The last 40+ years of neoliberal thought hasn't turned out so well, as those who have money no longer feel pressure or obligation to distribute it, resulting in a return to Gilded Age power concentrations. That's what you want, it seems. > such as increased salary and pension contributions Such as tax cuts for the rich. Make Gates "only" a billionaire and we can use the remaining $100 billion to pay off school lunch debt (works out the math) ... forever. $2.8 million debt for Utah with a population of 3 million people. US population 340 million. Call it $300 million in school lunch debt. Probably within an order of magnitude. That's less than the interest on $100 billion. Yes, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation would have an actual positive impact on education if, instead of funding projects that trained educators knew would fail - and eventually did fail - they has simply put their $10+ billion into funding school meals. Instead, rich people get to fund "non-profits" that they control - reducing their taxes while not relinquishing the power and influence tied to their money. Gates' wealth gives him a very undemocratic and malignant influence over US education policy. And you want to blather on about supporting student lunch debt?!
  - m2024 2y ago
framapotari 2y ago
If we're doing this, let's look at the other extreme as well: We give all people, including children, nothing as they are expected to take responsibility for themselves. No education, no services, no law enforcement, no roads, nothing at all. These are both obviously silly examples. The 'Where do we draw the line?!' answer can in this case be answered with 'On the side that feeds hungry children'.
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > If we're doing this, let's look at the other extreme as well: We give all people, including children, nothing as they are expected to take responsibility for themselves. No education, no services, no law enforcement, no roads, nothing at all. In that case, people will always self-organise such structures anyway. Even amongst the most failed of the failed states, eventually you will end up with at least someone claiming to be the chief law enforcer (of whatever kind), someone to look after the kids (i.e. education) while the rest works to provide for food, and some sort of fire brigade. It will just be many orders of magnitude more inefficient than what a large government that governs more than a few dozen to hundred people can establish.
em-bee 2y ago
that's called universal basic income, and it is seriously being discussed.
Suppafly 2y ago
>How about this: we give all people all meals, clothes, housing, heating (all essentials) and spending money so that they can explore their interests, travel, etc? Now you're talking, let's do it. UBI FTW.