Should houses and basic house and life necessicties such as houses and food and healthcare and insureance be free, and all others like video games and stuff like that stay the way they are? why should people have to pay 5 to 6 bills a month just to keep the house up and to not be homeless. why should you have to struggle to keep something that u need to survive. if things were like this all homeless people would hace houses and many people would not have died.
True or False?
Side Score: 11
Side Score: 11
Well in countries where people give a shit about eachother
This isn't likely to happen in a country as huge and diverse as America. I've noticed countries that have a less diverse racial demographic and more common, centralized culture are more likely to embrace things like socialized healthcare because the citizen knows their money is going to someone just like them. Even back when the majority of the settlers of the New World came from one place, the states could never get along. There was no sense of unity; a settler would call himself "Virginian" not "American." This divide between states and between regions is still alive an well today, except the problem has only gotten worse with immigration. Now, not only are the states extraordinarily different from one another, the people in those states are extraordinarily different from one another. We often don't share culture, religion, language, origin, and the like with those around us to a far greater extent than any other country. I understand people not wanting to throw money at people they don't feel they can relate to.
Also I think government provided food, health care, housing, etc. are not very in keeping with the idea of America. America, theoretically, is the land of opportunity, but where they is great potential to succeed, there is also great potential to fail. If the government steps in an levels the playing field then we have equal opportunity for everyone, but no real potential to really succeed or fail. It's a lot harder to get obscenely rich when the government hijacks over half your pay to redistribute among the poor, and it's really hard to be broke, homeless, and uninsured when the government will make other people work for your room and board. Perhaps this is why such a young country like America has a disproportionate number people on "Top 100 Richest People in the World" lists; our system of government allows for it.
America has been and in my opinion should remain a country for people ready to play hard-ball, to be cutthroat, survival of the fittest, to realize that it's a god-eat-dog world and that in order to do well you have to be better, always. America should not be a place where people come to leech off of the hard workers we have, and it should not be a place that rewards idleness and laziness.
that whole fucked up 19th century attitude where they think people can just decide not to be poor.
Can't we? Moving here from Europe was not good for my family (financially speaking), but my family worked hard and raised their status. I'm poor as fuck right now, but because I don't expect all of my needs and wants to be handed to me on a silver platter I go out every day and bust my ass and give it my all and things are getting better for me every single day. Obviously one cannot decide they don't want to be poor and spontaneously become rich, but one can go from broke to wealthy through hard work. I emphasize the "hard" because I've noticed time and time again that it is the difficult aspect of work that usually deters poor people from trying to elevate themselves. For some people being lazy is quite apparently worth being poor, and If I get rich from busting my ass I think I'd resent having such a large portion of my hard-earned pay siphoned off to support perfectly capable people who prefer to act like they need welfare.
To bring this back around to your initial bit, I don't give a shit about most of the people in my country and, indeed, most of the people on this planet, nor do I think I should be required to; particularly not when "giving a shit" actually means "giving them my money."
321 days ago | Side: True
As nice as it sounds, making the essentials free so everyone can get them, all you're doing is subsidizing bad life choices. As cruel as this sounds, people need to be able to die. The easier it is to survive, the less pressure there is on the human genome to make us survivable, meaning the quality of human genetics degrades.
Besides, what you're proposing isn't feasible. It's been tried and it just doesn't work out well. You complain about "5 to 6 bills a month", but the alternative is heavy taxation, which will be more expensive than those bills due to all the 'middle men' this money has to go through. You can also expect shoddy quality as the government will have a coercive monopoly on these services, removing incentive to have a decent product.
322 days ago | Side: False
Those living in poverty i.e. without housing, clothing, food and water, are not in poverty due to any kind of genetic defect, and almost never out of "bad lifestyle choices". Homelessness and unemployment are more often than not the result of a corporate culture of keeping wage costs down and maximizing profits. A poor education, neglect, the misfortune to be born into poverty are all factors; your genetic make up is, absolutely, not. Providing basic necessities such as shelter is therefore not going to degrade the quality of the human genome - and in as polite a way as possible - I have never heard anything quite so ridiculous.
As for the problem with taxation - I suggest taxing those multi-millionaires who make their profits exploiting the absence of social security in developing countries, gambling at the international markets and rewarding themselves huge bonuses....
322 days ago | Side: True
Hmm I don't think you've understood my point. There are people who make poor life choices such as having a bunch of kids without saving any money. Normally, these people would die as a result of their inability to think ahead, but if all the necessities of life are free, we subsidize poor life choices. I'll explain; these poor people won't be paying taxes, to the contrary, they will be receiving funding from the government, funding that was extracted from people who did make good choices in life and have disposable income.
Sure, everybody benefits from the system, but the ones who benefit the most are the mooches and the ones who benefit the least would benefit more from not having such a system in place at all. the ones who planed ahead lose out and the ones who didn't profit from their poor choices, thereby ensuring the survival of their children who will most likely also carry this tendency both for genetic reasons and for logical reasons.
The human genome has been in decline for a long time. People are much less fit physically than they were because we've invented tools that make strong bodies unnecessary. If we also make long-term planning and rationality unnecessary for survival, what do you think will happen?
One more thing, wages lower than the market rate are due to special favours lobbied by said corporations. Without government intervention, such barriers to entry cannot exist, meaning wages will be subject to market forces and reach their natural equilibrium.
321 days ago | Side: False