4 ms·

How do you offer entitlements and quality healthcare to the entire population of the world without money? Who should be allowed to participate in the decision-

by 15155 1y ago

How do you offer entitlements and quality healthcare to the entire population of the world without money? Who should be allowed to participate in the decision-making process that allocates these finite resources?

ceejayoz 1y ago
Who said anything about "without money"?
- 15155 1y ago
  Money is finite - where is this money coming from? Vacuuming the (imaginary - we're using feelings here, let's not split hairs on things like 'markets') accounts of every billionaire and redistributing these funds evenly amounts to singular thousands of dollars to just citizens. The overwhelming majority of actual taxpaying citizens don't pay enough tax to cover their per-capita share of government spending, is there some factual evidence to suggest that unlimited economic migrants would? (or could?)
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    Money is finite. So are basic survival needs. We certainly can't give everyone a Bezos yacht. But we can probably have a little less famine, as a treat.
    - gruez 1y ago
      >But we can probably have a little less famine, as a treat. Surely it's cheaper to do that via foreign aid in whatever country that's experiencing famine, where the cost of living is lower?
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        Yes, we should absolutely undo the USAID cuts.
        15155 1y ago
        [flagged]
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        See, this is what always happens. You didn't actually want to "do that via foreign aid". You don't want it at all. Same deal with "what about the homeless veterans?!" or "it's mental health, not guns!" from people whose politics boil down to "fuck them, too".
        15155 1y ago
        [flagged]
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        > Correct. Then be honest and just say "fuck the poors", not a fake desire for doing it a different way that you hope will go unquestioned. > I wonder why Switzerland has no issue. 27.6 guns per 100 residents, versus 120 in the US. Firearms registries, acquisition permits, and quite a few controls over ammo acquisition. Plus mandatory universal training via conscription.
    - 15155 1y ago
      > Money is finite. So are basic survival needs. Yes, and the United States cannot shoulder the burden of the entirety of the world's economic migrants. Where is this magical, commensurate influx of licensed doctors coming from to deal with the influx of unlimited economic migrants (who can't cover their own tax expenses?) We're not talking about yachts: we're talking about healthcare and food. Take all the yachts away, force Bezos to liquidate everything (and every other billionaire): neither the income nor the fixed assets are enough to cover healthcare for the population we already have, much less a gargantuan, unproductive group of new arrivals.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        But no one proposed bringing everyone to the US and leaving the rest of the world as a depopulated national park?
  - gruez 1y ago
    >The overwhelming majority of actual taxpaying citizens don't pay enough tax to cover their per-capita share of government spending, is there some factual evidence to suggest that unlimited economic migrants would? (or could?) Exactly. Evidence actually points in the opposite direction: https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20211218_EUC232.png https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-e... https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20250315_FNC123.png https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20250315_FNC...
    - 15155 1y ago
      Basic math would show you that the vast majority of citizens cannot cover the taxable Federal spend: $6.4T/340M persons = $18823/individual. ~$20k in taxes are paid at ~$100k in income. The US taxation regime is highly progressive, obviously the vast majority of the country is not earning $100k annually. > Evidence actually points in the opposite direction: I was speaking about the United States: can you find a study that somehow documents illegal immigrant (by definition: undocumented) persons' productivity? Folks brought over on legal immigration visas likely do make more money (and contribute more) than the average American: that's why we have these programs for 'exceptional' individuals. Nobody is going through the effort (nor can they afford the costs) of obtaining lawful visas for construction labor or meat processing staff.
      - gruez 1y ago
        Read my comment more carefully. "Exactly" implies I agree with you, and so do the charts, which shows that immigrants are either a net drain on public finances, or only a subset are net contributors (and therefore implies some sort of screening is needed).
      - Terr_ 1y ago
        Two problems in the math there: 1. If the entire federal government spend became supported solely by by Income Tax, that means all the other federal taxes would vanish. That other half [0] is way too large ignore when imagining what an alternate-universe American's wages and burden might look like. 2. Dividing by 340m means including the ~75m below age 18 [1] and I don't think we should expect day-old newborns to pay income taxes. That said, this breakdown [2] may be useful for visualizing, particularly the two-stack diagram showing share-of-earnings versus share-of-taxes for different subgroups. [0] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61185 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61185 [1] https://data.unicef.org/how-many/how-many-children-under-18-are-there-in-the-us/ https://data.unicef.org/how-many/how-many-children-under-18-... [2] https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2025/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in...
  - wat10000 1y ago
    You might be underestimating the wealth of modern billionaires. According to Forbes, the net worth of the 50 wealthiest people in the US totals about $3.9 trillion. There are something like 320 million US citizens at the moment, so that's around $12,000 each. That's just the top 50. All US billionaires would be about $8 trillion, or $25,000 per citizen. I agree with your overall point, seizing all the billionaires' wealth and redistributing it doesn't solve money woes (there are other reasons to do it), but they amount they do have is getting strikingly high. In any case, money is accounting, not ability. The important question is: do we have the resources and skilled people needed for it? If not, then all the money in the world won't make it work. If so, then it can be done if people want it badly enough.
paddleon 1y ago
who said anything about finite?
- 15155 1y ago
  This unfortunate little thing called "reality."

by 15155 1y ago

ceejayoz 1y ago

Who said anything about "without money"?

15155 1y ago
Money is finite - where is this money coming from? Vacuuming the (imaginary - we're using feelings here, let's not split hairs on things like 'markets') accounts of every billionaire and redistributing these funds evenly amounts to singular thousands of dollars to just citizens. The overwhelming majority of actual taxpaying citizens don't pay enough tax to cover their per-capita share of government spending, is there some factual evidence to suggest that unlimited economic migrants would? (or could?)
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  Money is finite. So are basic survival needs. We certainly can't give everyone a Bezos yacht. But we can probably have a little less famine, as a treat.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >But we can probably have a little less famine, as a treat. Surely it's cheaper to do that via foreign aid in whatever country that's experiencing famine, where the cost of living is lower?
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      Yes, we should absolutely undo the USAID cuts.
      - 15155 1y ago
        [flagged]
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        See, this is what always happens. You didn't actually want to "do that via foreign aid". You don't want it at all. Same deal with "what about the homeless veterans?!" or "it's mental health, not guns!" from people whose politics boil down to "fuck them, too".
        15155 1y ago
        [flagged]
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        > Correct. Then be honest and just say "fuck the poors", not a fake desire for doing it a different way that you hope will go unquestioned. > I wonder why Switzerland has no issue. 27.6 guns per 100 residents, versus 120 in the US. Firearms registries, acquisition permits, and quite a few controls over ammo acquisition. Plus mandatory universal training via conscription.
  - 15155 1y ago
    > Money is finite. So are basic survival needs. Yes, and the United States cannot shoulder the burden of the entirety of the world's economic migrants. Where is this magical, commensurate influx of licensed doctors coming from to deal with the influx of unlimited economic migrants (who can't cover their own tax expenses?) We're not talking about yachts: we're talking about healthcare and food. Take all the yachts away, force Bezos to liquidate everything (and every other billionaire): neither the income nor the fixed assets are enough to cover healthcare for the population we already have, much less a gargantuan, unproductive group of new arrivals.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      But no one proposed bringing everyone to the US and leaving the rest of the world as a depopulated national park?
- gruez 1y ago
  >The overwhelming majority of actual taxpaying citizens don't pay enough tax to cover their per-capita share of government spending, is there some factual evidence to suggest that unlimited economic migrants would? (or could?) Exactly. Evidence actually points in the opposite direction: https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20211218_EUC232.png https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-e... https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20250315_FNC123.png https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20250315_FNC...
  - 15155 1y ago
    Basic math would show you that the vast majority of citizens cannot cover the taxable Federal spend: $6.4T/340M persons = $18823/individual. ~$20k in taxes are paid at ~$100k in income. The US taxation regime is highly progressive, obviously the vast majority of the country is not earning $100k annually. > Evidence actually points in the opposite direction: I was speaking about the United States: can you find a study that somehow documents illegal immigrant (by definition: undocumented) persons' productivity? Folks brought over on legal immigration visas likely do make more money (and contribute more) than the average American: that's why we have these programs for 'exceptional' individuals. Nobody is going through the effort (nor can they afford the costs) of obtaining lawful visas for construction labor or meat processing staff.
    - gruez 1y ago
      Read my comment more carefully. "Exactly" implies I agree with you, and so do the charts, which shows that immigrants are either a net drain on public finances, or only a subset are net contributors (and therefore implies some sort of screening is needed).
    - Terr_ 1y ago
      Two problems in the math there: 1. If the entire federal government spend became supported solely by by Income Tax, that means all the other federal taxes would vanish. That other half [0] is way too large ignore when imagining what an alternate-universe American's wages and burden might look like. 2. Dividing by 340m means including the ~75m below age 18 [1] and I don't think we should expect day-old newborns to pay income taxes. That said, this breakdown [2] may be useful for visualizing, particularly the two-stack diagram showing share-of-earnings versus share-of-taxes for different subgroups. [0] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61185 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61185 [1] https://data.unicef.org/how-many/how-many-children-under-18-are-there-in-the-us/ https://data.unicef.org/how-many/how-many-children-under-18-... [2] https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2025/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in...
- wat10000 1y ago
  You might be underestimating the wealth of modern billionaires. According to Forbes, the net worth of the 50 wealthiest people in the US totals about $3.9 trillion. There are something like 320 million US citizens at the moment, so that's around $12,000 each. That's just the top 50. All US billionaires would be about $8 trillion, or $25,000 per citizen. I agree with your overall point, seizing all the billionaires' wealth and redistributing it doesn't solve money woes (there are other reasons to do it), but they amount they do have is getting strikingly high. In any case, money is accounting, not ability. The important question is: do we have the resources and skilled people needed for it? If not, then all the money in the world won't make it work. If so, then it can be done if people want it badly enough.

paddleon 1y ago

who said anything about finite?

15155 1y ago
This unfortunate little thing called "reality."