Comment by trinix912
7 months ago
The thing about those systems is you'd have to forgo the entire notion about private property and wealth as we currently know it for it to work out. Even then, there would be people who wouldn't want to work/contribute and the majority who would contribute the bare minimum (like you're saying). The percentage of people who'd work because they like it wouldn't be much higher than it is now. Or it might be even lower, as money wouldn't be as much of a factor in one's life.
It seems like a democratic system could both maintain private property and make sure all of their citizens have basic needs are satisifed (food, housing, education, medical). I don't see how these two are mutually exclusive, unless you take a hardline that taxation is theft.
I think more people take a soft line. Taxation isn't theft, but too much taxation is theft.
I don't know that I've ever heard this rationally articulated. I think it's a "gut feel" that at least some people have.
If taxes take 10% of what you make, you aren't happy about it, but most of us are OK with it. If taxes take 90% of what you make, that feels different. It feels like the government thinks it all belongs to them, whereas at 10%, it feels like "the principle is that it all belongs to you, but we have to take some tax to keep everything running".
So I think the way this plays out in practice is, the amount of taxes needed to supply everyones' basic needs is across the threshold in many peoples' minds. (The threshold of "fairness" or "reasonable" or some such, though it's more of a gut feel than a rational position.)
>food, housing, education, medical
Literally unlimited needs, term "basic" does not apply to them.
I'm not sure what you mean by "unlimited needs". These things are defiantly finite, and can be basic.