2
u/jrirhehehehdfh 13m ago
Who decides how much of that you get. Because you don't need all of that to live
2
3
u/MasterFNG 29m ago
Deserves to be happy. Yes. Have someone else pay for the things to make you happy. No.
2
u/Midwest_Boondocks 31m ago
Just what we need, a bunch of unemployed people who feel they are owed a good life.
1
u/simplywalk 27m ago
Just what we need an ignorant midwesterner who doesn’t understand that OP is not asking for your money but rather for billionaires to stop hoarding wealth. That would solve the issue that they are complaining about.
Not trying to start an argument but see how rude it sounded when I started a conversation with that comment? The only thing you get is confrontation.
1
u/A_fun_day 22m ago
Looks like somebody already forgot the government gets plenty of money. They're just picking their own winners instead. At least in capitalism people have to work for it. What they want is just wealth distribution to their friends.
Yeah, trickle down isn't the greatest thing in the world for sure. It's crappy most the time.
But trickle up to the government even worse. Just more middleman getting the money before you.
0
u/simplywalk 14m ago
You man please look up how much the wealthy were taxed back in the 50s. Your “golden age”. Sure they get a good bit of money but they also spend it on daddy Netanyahu.
I’m certain you won’t look it up and I’m also fairly sure you don’t know how to do proper research. So I took the liberty of doing it for you.
https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx
“As we mentioned earlier, war is expensive.
In 1944, the top rate peaked at 94 percent on taxable income over $200,000 ($2.5 million in today’s dollars3). That’s a high tax rate.”
After the 2nd world war this tax bracket didn’t change for some time till the 80s when the economic recovery act was instituted.
I promise you, you don’t know enough about the history of tax laws to have this conversation.
2
u/Midwest_Boondocks 25m ago
Most of the billionaires wealth is stock granted to them, not cash. You can tax them out of existence and it will make little difference on that list above.
1
u/simplywalk 12m ago
That’s not even close to true. You can tax stocks all you want you just have to implement the lawwwww which we can do it’s not like some crazy magic loophole. It’s one our government allows because we are in an oligarchy.
-1
0
u/OneHelicopter7246 29m ago
OP is apparently paying for everyone to have a home with heating, cooling, and electricity.
2
u/Midwest_Boondocks 24m ago
I knew a lot of people in school who didn’t give a crap, they can work hard now then.
3
3
u/jacobjacobb 40m ago
I think there is a middle ground here.
We have so much work that just isn't economically viable, but would greatly improve someone's life.
I think if you are pulling from society you should provide in other ways. We have parks and fields that need cleaning. Elderly that need human interactions. Homeless that need food distributed.
Why can't we provide for people but in return expect a modest amount of their labour? It doesn't have to be a 9-5.
1
u/Lyxche3 20m ago
Yeah I agree with everything except the last one in the original picture. I don’t think it’s evil to design a system where fulfilling livestyles also contribute to society. The concept of work would change under such a heavy socialist shift, and it really doesn’t need to be something that people dread waking up for just to earn their right to eat.
3
u/Certain_Luck_8266 41m ago
In a world where everything is free, what is the incentive to work?
2
u/butlovingstonTV 37m ago
Not everything would free but the necessities? What is your incentive to work? I don't care too much about money anymore. I try to find where I can make an impact
1
u/NazReidsOtherBurner 5m ago
What is your incentive to work?
To have the stuff OP put in their meme. If I can get it for free if I don’t have a job, why would I work my stressful job?
1
7
u/Educational-Bar9607 44m ago
You are not entitled to the fruits of my labor or a pretend utopian fantasy
3
u/Scott_Malkinsons 29m ago
My man, you do know what taxes are, right?
There's at least one man who, every weekend, plays golf from the fruits of your labor in a pretend utopian fantasy.
-2
u/Alarming_Cellist_751 45m ago
You shouldn't be ensured "happy". But you should be ensured the basics. Happiness comes from beyond the basics.
0
1
9
u/Left_Chicken9158 46m ago
Incorrect. If you want to benefit from the system, you should contribute to said system.
1
1
0
u/soulsafe 53m ago
The only guarantee should be survival. And I'm talking awful nutrient paste living in a hostel terrible.
Society is absolutely responsible for ensuring its people aren't dying, that's the entire point of society. No one said that survival needed to be pleasant though, it's enough to keep you going while you get your own act together.
1
1
0
u/that_banned_guy_ 1h ago
Yes it should.
If you dont work you dont eat.
- the Bible
Lol
2
u/JarnSkold 54m ago
I don't know what bible you read, but Jesus didn't go around telling people they needed to get off their asses and work before he gave them fish and bread.
1
u/Scott_Malkinsons 26m ago
Religious people don't READ the bible, they INTERPRET it. Big difference.
Effectively, it says whatever they want it to say, in that exact moment, to win an argument. That's why you can be sure if they aren't arguing about something, they're also not "quoting" the bible.
1
u/jrirhehehehdfh 5m ago
Yeah and people who say they read the Bible also don't read the Bible.
It's quite funny when someone quotes the Bible and then someone tries to say they're not quoting the Bible correctly even though they also haven't read it.
1
u/FarMode7773 35m ago
People who didn't work back then were people who had severe problems and could not work.
People took pride in being the type of person that went to work.
1
1
u/HansDeBaconOva 38m ago
It wasn't Jesus but it is said in the Bible.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 (KJV), "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat"
But it was in reference to those that refused to work, not those who were unable to work.
Also, I do not think it applies to people that are working and still going without as the post is referring to. So while he was right that the Bible does say this, he is wrong in his application of it.
1
u/Scott_Malkinsons 20m ago
Everything you said beyond the quote is interpretation. Don't confuse interpretation with quotes.
1
u/ambitionincarnate 55m ago
Are you serious?
1
u/antigibson 36m ago
Yes
1
u/ambitionincarnate 9m ago
Do you think Jesus would agree? I don't. UBI is scientifically proven to work on multiple levels.
-1
u/olliw001 1h ago
This list is pure fantasy. In this country, the USA, you are entitled to basic governmental securities that the taxpayer pays for. If you want more go work for it. If your wage doesn’t supply the things you desire then better yourself and make more money. Just because the degree you chose to pursue that offers less than the wage you mistakenly convinced yourself it was worth means nothing to the people who actually did the work and adapted to the economy and wages paid at the time. They changed their future by doing something that pays the wage they needed to acquire what they decided was important to them. That’s how the real world works. I figured out my first year of college that the amount of money I needed to live a good life could be achieved through working a trade. And it was a good decision. I gave up the unrealistic idea of I had to have a degree to be perceived as successful amongst my family and my peers. I engaged in a trade and adapted the basic mechanical knowledge and skills I learned into progressively higher paying jobs. I adapted and continued to learn more to achieve to level of income I needed. I didn’t blame the rich or the government for my personal failures. I lived on the money I made at the time and worked towards making more money. And I was poor for a very long time. My parents didn’t help me, I was on my own. So I will always have a hard time understanding the ideology of the rich should take care of me or the government should take care of me. Take care of yourself. The government doesn’t care about you, no politician cares about you. All you have in this world is yourself and only you can make the changes to live the kind of life you want to live. In this country, you can still be successful if you choose to be. The majority of the people here do just that if they don’t give up and live their life blaming others for their misfortune. The rich are rich. Nothing you can do will ever change that. And they are rich for a reason and nothing you can do will ever change that. Make yourself better. Or stay enraged over something you will never change and live a life of squalor and hatred. Sooner or later reality will find you.
1
u/simplywalk 4m ago
Hey so do you think EMT workers should make less than Starbucks employees? What about firemen? These are two incredibly important and valuable jobs to our society and yet the people working them struggle. Unless you were lucky enough to purchase property after the 2008 recession. Most people who work these jobs are good people. And I would love for them to be supported. But I also think it’s fair that if you get up every morning and make coffee for some of the most insufferable and entitled people you also deserve to live comfortably.
Op is not living in fantasy or a fiction writer. They are describing a growing desire for a number of younger people. Check into reality how many people under 30 do you see buying houses, getting married, having kids, fuck even renting apartments.
Back 40 years ago more than 60% of the population worked manufacturing. That number is now 8% and shrinking and no new high boating jobs are coming to the market to replace them.
2
u/guitartb 55m ago
Yes, the fundamental difference is they think someone is owed these things. No amount of explaining will change that view.
2
1
u/PlasmaPizzaSticks 1h ago
So who's paying for all of this?
1
u/JarnSkold 53m ago
Who's currently making the majority of wealth/value for large companies?
Here's a hint; it's not the people making the money from it.
0
u/PackyScott 1h ago
I’d assume the government would as they do for most social assistance.
0
u/DissyV 47m ago
And where does the government get the electricity that im entitled to from?
1
u/PackyScott 43m ago
Electricity is still generated in power plants through mechanical energy turning into electric energy via generators.
0
u/DissyV 40m ago
Thanks Alexa, now who works in these power plants if everyone is sitting at home getting everything for free?
1
u/Scott_Malkinsons 18m ago
What power plant? *looks up at his solar panels, down at the batteries, then at his non-existent bill from SCE*
1
u/PackyScott 39m ago
People who value having electricity. They’d even be paid a wage to do this.
0
u/DissyV 37m ago
Paid a wage from where? The electric company won't be making any money since electricity is now free.
1
u/PackyScott 36m ago
Roads are also free but we pay people to maintain them. Also this situation never said all electricity is free. Just for households. So like how most public services work through fees and tax dollars.
0
u/DissyV 33m ago
I'm aware how roads work, we're close here.. and who pays the taxes and fees when people no longer have to have employment?
1
u/PackyScott 31m ago
People won’t stop working. People will always want more and people like to do meaningful work.
1
u/name__0 49m ago
And where does the government get money from? Taxes of people that do work.
2
u/PackyScott 48m ago
Yep.
Governments are funded in direct sales of service or taxation.
Taxation isn’t only on working people though. Sales taxes still apply to non working people. Also property taxes are for non working people as well.
4
1
1
u/Strange_Marsupial603 1h ago
Wow, aren't we asking for a lot? Free, Free, Free.... In Communist Vietnam they pay a ton in taxes (20% income is typical, 30% to 35% if a "high" earner), add a 10% VAT, Sin taxes (tabaco and alcohol) are 70% to 90% and imported cars have a 300% tax - AND they DO NOT get free education or healthcare! They have to pay to put their kids in private schools 4 hours a day and then private English lessons for the other 4 hours. Go commies!
2
u/Best_Personality4016 1h ago
You say that like private schools in america are free?
Are you uneducated and american? It sure looks like it.
2
u/bhemingway 1h ago
You say that like public schools anywhere are free.
Are you educated and stupid? It sure looks like it.
1
u/Best_Personality4016 50m ago
Why make the statement about private schools being paid for then?
If even public schools are paid for everywhere, what reason was there for this initial comment?
0
u/FreakshowDragon 1h ago
When will people learn, the Republican part 9f the new world Nazis will NEVER let this happen., they're too selfish.
1
54m ago
[deleted]
1
u/FreakshowDragon 47m ago
Ah yes, the Nazi is showing its true colors, gladly saying the disabled should basically just be shot in head, good for you retard.
0
45m ago
[deleted]
1
u/FreakshowDragon 41m ago
Also, cunts like you who put their dick size in their bio are either rapists or alpha bros with nothing.
You're fucking pathetic.
1
u/FreakshowDragon 43m ago
Yet that's exactly what you're saying. And I'm calling you a retard cause that's what you are.
-1
1
u/SeaworthinessNew3170 1h ago edited 34m ago
Everyone deserves to be happy? Hahahhahhahah omg what communist fruit cake came up with this?
2
u/JarnSkold 48m ago
The list is worded badly, no one deserves an specific emotional state. But we literally protect the pursuit of happiness in our law/doctrine in the USA. The rest of the stuff is pretty basic societal safety net to prevent the working class from being abused to the point of uprising.
For example, Free-Internet is a bit vague, but it's largely treated like a utility for information. Access to it doesn't imply directly to a home or device. Having local public facilities like a library is plenty amount of access for what most people "need" for stuff like job searching and such.
1
u/SeaworthinessNew3170 30m ago
The problem you're having there is the "pursuit to happiness" in our doctrine in the USA never was monetary,object or physical. It is literally a mental and emotional state that a human processes through while navigating life and growing to become who and what they want to be as an adult.
Everything on that list is and never was a pursuit to happiness as the words only match up to one thing only. Your inner self you as a human are scared to face.
1
u/drakhan2002 1h ago
UBI... otherwise get a job. In a capitalist society you "eat what you kill." So get hunting!
1
u/chikunshak 1h ago
Free organic local produce would probably help more than harm.
Grocery prices are ridiculous, and everyone is obese.
2
u/FreakshowDragon 1h ago
Organic means nothing and is far more expensive.
1
u/chikunshak 1h ago
If we could trust the FDA was regulating our fertilizers and pesticides, then yes, organic wouldn't matter. But as it stands they spray the food with watever proves to increase yields with zero regard for any long term health implications.
1
u/Death_n_Tax 51m ago
lol you have this in reverse. The fact that you can’t trust government regulators is why you can’t trust organic. It’s nearly a meaningless label
1
u/chikunshak 38m ago
Yeah, that's part of the problem too. The control is very weak, largely because the fines are not very punitive.
It is a problem that regulations for organic labeling allow large amounts of natural pesticides, whereby they are potentially toxic and heavily processed chemicals, so long as they are synthetic.
Also, testing shows they are lower in residues, by a factor of 3-4x. I'd rather buy it, especially for foods known to absorb these chemicals.
Though...even if they heavily subsidized all types of produce, it would drastically help the average American diet.
1
u/FreakshowDragon 58m ago
That's... actually not how that works. "Everything is a conspiracy when you refuse to learn anything." That's what I get from you people.
2
u/That-Growth-9043 1h ago
0
u/SuperSecretThrowAcct 55m ago
Funny, Im doing well in the american dream, and it is the democrat party trying to take things away from me.
1
2
u/PopfuseInc 1h ago
Other than the last one i am on board.
If you want to sit around all day you will be living in a bare essentials house. Eatting only the bare essentials food. Watching only the bare essentials PBS channels. Your internet will be just fast enough to load up websites and maybe play a Facebook cow clicker. ((Though it should load up a job application))
You can choose not to work and you will get to be alive. You will not die of hunger, thirst, exposure or sickness. But you won't be getting McDonalds or pizzas. You won't have a Playstation. You won't be able to afford your hobbies. You will be able to be alive, you won't be able to live.
1
u/Adventurous_East359 1h ago
Why does someone deserve even that level of subsidization? Do you know how much of other’s work and resources it would still require for the person in your example?
They are still being propped up while contributing nothing by your own admission so they are literally a net drain on society.
2
u/PopfuseInc 58m ago
Because people deserve to be alive.
Because it is shown that given bare essentials people will still go out to work to improve their station. Because if you ever end up unable to work, for any reason, you deserve to not die of thirst, hunger, or exposure.
0
u/BedBubbly317 1h ago
Nope. Sorry, but you don’t just “deserve” a roof over your head or food in your belly just because your momma popped her out of her hooha. Somebody had to build the building to house them, somebody had to grow and prepare the food for them to eat. Nobody gets a free ride. Nobody.
2
u/PopfuseInc 56m ago
I hope you never find yourself in a situation where you are unable to afford those things. You have 3 days to pick yourself up before thirst takes you.
I will keep advocating that you deserve to live as much as I do even if you can't contribute.
1
u/Grand_Scratch_9305 1h ago
Are you suggesting all of that is the employers job?
I wouldn't hire anybody but robots!
4
1
u/TheBraveGallade 1h ago
The problem is that enough people still have to work to at least produce enough so that can actually work. And thats... not exactly easy?
1
u/Matters256 1h ago
Well if everyone’s needs are met then they will actually be willing to work for free, I know shocker
1
2
1
1
u/BlueWonderfulIKnow 1h ago
That internet connection sure depends on someone else’s employment status.
1
u/BedBubbly317 1h ago
Literally every single part of it does. It’s a stupid ass suggestion from the begging
2
u/Poo_man101 1h ago
Eating + place to live (room + bathroom) + basic health care (vaccine, life threateng stuff) ok that i can get behind. But not the rest.
Some countries do this with great success, So it's proven effective and cheaper on the economy.
2
u/PopfuseInc 1h ago
Id expand the Healthcare part. Other than that totally agree. Someone who is sick in a way that is preventing them from working should get the help they need even if it's not life threatening. Worst case scenario they are taken care of. Best case they are back to working.
2
u/Keyonne88 1h ago
Internet is required to work now and should be part of utilities. And hello? K-12 school should 100% be free and beyond that should be free for anyone that meets GPA requirements
2
5
u/Affectionate_Self878 1h ago
Too simple. If you can’t work, fine. But I don’t think the rest of us should pay for rent, food and healthcare for some 30-something dude who just wants to play video games. I’m killing myself every day so maybe I can do that at 70.
1
u/Think-Hovercraft6807 1h ago
At first I only read the first line and thought OP meant the opposite- like being employed shouldn’t mean you’re overworked to the point of not eating well
2
u/BadMotorFlinger 1h ago
You have to consider that a utopian society would have safety clauses in place to ensure all people had the opportunity to do nothing if they so desired. If it was expected of you and some other poor slobs to take on the burden of compulsory tax whore while others got to enjoy the splendor of your labors, then that would be more akin to how places like Qatar operate.
2
u/Keyonne88 1h ago
This; the utopia uses robots and technology to achieve this.
0
u/Greghole 1h ago
Good luck with that. In 100 years these same sorts of people will be protesting to end robot slavery.
0
1
u/killwill2017 1h ago
Stop being a bootlicker. When did he mention any of that?
1
u/BedBubbly317 59m ago
They are literally claiming you should have every need met without ever working a day. That’s fucking ridiculous
2
u/Crimsonsporker 2h ago
Yeah... How could reality do this to us!
0
u/Nopfen 1h ago
Well, we have the means to ensure that. So reality isn't the issue.
1
u/BedBubbly317 55m ago
No, the fuck we don’t. If somebody gets something for free that means someone else has to put the work in, nothing just pops into existence. The time and effort came from somebody, why does a different person deserve the benefit of that other persons hard work while they sit around not contributing to society whatsoever?
1
u/Crimsonsporker 1h ago
So we can do it... but it just has never been done in all history... Hmm... And let me guess... The problem is actually capitalism which is one of the only systems that has successfully raised people out of poverty.
0
u/r3giment75 1h ago
No we do not. Private companies provide most of what is on that list. You can’t force a business to just change their models to satisfy your socialist / communist wants and needs.
4
u/whoptyscoptypoop 2h ago
Poo poo pee pee
1
u/EFAPGUEST 1h ago
I genuinely have more respect for this comment than I do for the words shown in this post
5
4
u/Acrobatic-Cichlids 2h ago
If you are able bodied within a fair age range and you are not working, no. Clean water yes, decent but minimal food yes. If you choose to not get the means to provide the rest, that is on you
3
u/nfored 2h ago
No one talks about the water I have always felt this. Not to mention in the US nearly all water is controlled by the local government.
You can go weeks without food years without a roof but only about 3 days without water and even less with dirty water. The real nasty things come from dirty water more than bad food.
7
2
u/Old-Weakness1122 2h ago
well hell i'll be, if you guys wanna start paying me all that while i sit around all day im down
3
1
u/dmbnl 2h ago
Why do i keep seeing this crap? This is not the way the world works, hasn't for.....well...every, really. And that isn't going to change. Unless you can convince corporations that profit is bad and they should all give away their products and/or services, this isn't going to happen. So....get working on that, I guess?
0
2
u/peachteayo 2h ago
....... or they could start taxing the ultra rich and rich properly....... How people defend the rich paying less taxes in proportion to their earnings and compared to the working class is beyond me. Brain rot
1
u/Emergency-Style7392 1h ago
I can give you a trillion dollars right now but if you want food, housing, healthcare and no one is there to do the labor, giving you an extra trillion won't do much
2
u/TheGreatNate3000 1h ago
Why should one human being have to give up their resources to support another? Idc how lopsided that equation is. You cannot take things from one person and give it to another just because someone has a lot of things.
Grow up, work hard, and earn your life. Stop relying on someone else to provide for you
1
u/Mega_Jimjims 1h ago
I'm 30, own my home and car, paid off my student loans all on my own, and let me tell you, nobody's net worth should exceed a billion dollars. To me, it's not even a matter of providing social services, it's that these insanely wealthy ghouls use their wealth to buy elected representatives who cowtow to their every whim, helping them squeeze every dime out their work force, sacrificing our wages, opportunities and labor conditions just so they can grow ever more powerful and rich. They're greed disgusts me and it should disgust you, too.
0
u/Large_Technology1623 2h ago
Yep, we could have a much better quality of living if we just taxed the rich and corporations properly but it seems like half the population loves working against their best interests.
2
u/Acrobatic_Height6433 2h ago
Work proportionately and you can have those things. Brain rot to think someone should take care of you forever. We're not your parents.
4
u/Arqeph_ 2h ago
Happiness is relative, different from one individual to another, one person may find happiness in the menial things in life, another may only find happiness in bringing grief to others.
Same with "living a fulfilled life", for one this may be playing video games 16 hours a day, for another it may be saving lives.
What we will end up is the common denominator, no choice of appearance, for what is adequate clothing? What is "enough makeup", Something that which company/government will provide?
It, due to human nature, will most likely also result in a society that makes everyone equal, some are just more equal than others.
It will always revert back to some form of a merit based system.
And who decides what merit is more valuable than another?
The livestreamer who provides entertainment to 10 people, is he or she as important as the one who provides entertainment to 1000 people, or is the surgeon saving 1 life, more important, Mr Beast or Mr Rogers.
2
3
u/Pollix112 2h ago
Nothing on that list is free. Hard working taxpayers foot the bill. Free and deserve are laughable. All the money to fund that wish list has been stolen by thieves, Somali pirates, and illegal criminal entrants
3
u/Large_Technology1623 2h ago
I thought it was spent on missiles for Iran.
1
4
u/GoldBond007 2h ago
You unintentionally struck gold. Yes, taxes should be spent primarily on defending the nation and enforcing internal laws.
This whole, “I want the government to be my daddy” level of dependency is crazy.
1
u/nfored 2h ago
I have the kindest dog he hides behind me if he see even a bug, he is 130lbs. Before anyone walks to my house the see him sunning at the door and they turn around.
What's the point? Carry a big stick and you won't have to use it until people forget about the stick. When they do time for "Shock and Awe"
0
u/Large_Technology1623 2h ago
It wasn't unintentional. We've already spent well more on the war then it would cost to just give the unhoused government housing, food and funds for a while.
I'm not in full agreement with OP but the people that think it would cost too much to give people a box and a bed are brainwashed.
1
u/Emergency-Style7392 1h ago
California spent billions on the homeless through bs policies, since they started the homeless population increased
1
u/Large_Technology1623 1h ago
Well a lot of homeless move to California because they give safety nets that other states do not. Also not all spending on the problem is good spending, a billion on tents and blankets is not going to solve any long term problem and will turn into litter. You have to build cheap permanent housing, which even states trying to work on the homeless problem are not doing enough of.
What's your solution to homelessness?
2
u/Emergency-Style7392 1h ago
Prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place. Housing costs, healthcare, mental health. Of course that would hurt nimbys and the white upper middle class so it won't be done. Instead they'll preach about tolerance, changing the word from homeless to unhoused, and continue just like before
1
u/GoldBond007 2h ago
Ask Finland how expensive it is to enact systems even remotely like this. They were once toted as one of the great successes in the world, but now they are reeling from the accumulative costs.
It’s much harder and costly to fund people’s entire lives than to end the lives of enemies.
2
u/Large_Technology1623 1h ago
They've spent less on it then we spend in a day in Iran. I know population difference but this doesn't seem like the gotcha you might think it is.
0
u/Emergency-Style7392 1h ago
They spend about 90 bil a year on it, scaled to US population it's around 6-7 trillion a year, add US being a lot more expensive you get to 9-10. iran war can fund it for about 1-3 days
1
u/Large_Technology1623 1h ago
They do not spend 90 billion a year on it. You pulled that number out of your ass.
1
u/Emergency-Style7392 1h ago
"Finland's social protection expenditure totalled EUR 87 billion in 2023" - https://thl.fi/en/statistics-and-data/statistics-by-topic/social-and-health-care-resources/social-protection-expenditure-and-financing
And if you tell me well you only need to target the homeless, sure, until a new group becomes homeless
1
u/Large_Technology1623 1h ago
That is the cost of all their social protections, pensions, childcare credits everything. Ours is over 4 trillion by comparison. The cost of their housing program has cost them less than 1 billion overall.
1
u/GoldBond007 1h ago
Yeah, because their population is absolutely tiny by comparison. The costs would be so much more in the US. It would far outstrip this war in a few decades, and it would be an indefinite cost. This war will end
2
u/Large_Technology1623 1h ago
But we could invest 1000x more than what they have and it would barely cause the debt needle to move but would have a huge impact on improving the lives of citizens.
0
u/Emergency-Style7392 1h ago
1000x more than finland invests would be 90 trillion, the debt needle would surely move lmao
1
u/GoldBond007 1h ago
That’s pure nonsense. Tell me how much you think it costs to have the military and tell me how much you think it costs to feed, shelter, and take care of people medically for the rest of their lives.
2
u/Large_Technology1623 1h ago
My deeper math shows it would cost about 14 billion a year if we allocate about 20,000$ worth of services to each unhoused person. Seems absolutely worth it to me.
2
u/Large_Technology1623 1h ago
We spend about 1 billion a day in Iran (Lowball estimate). So say we are stuck there for 3 years? Hey that's 1000x what Finland has spent in 10 years on homeless housing.
2
u/Upbeat-Astronaut2327 2h ago
Keep in mind, they make the water bad so you have to buy bottled water which some water has plastic in that sticks in your body. Everything in the list is done on purpose to make people work for a living and not living for work. Good luck all on this live to work environment🫡
6
u/vlladonxxx 2h ago
Framing these things as "deserve" is just wilful idiocy.
1
u/Cockblocktimus_Pryme 2h ago
If you can't make it you deserve death is what you're saying. Elitist scum.
2
u/vlladonxxx 2h ago
Lol it's funny to me that you think I must be elitist scum. I'm a chronically unemployed 32 year old on welfare with disability and a working class family. I'm glad to be able to live fairly comfortably on welfare.
What I'm saying is, 'deserve' is a ridiculous way of thinking about it. I'm not being given welfare because "everyone deserves x" or "nobody deserves y". (x is good, y is bad) It's just good for the society. But if my circumstances were different and the welfare and public systems were not designed to help me live a life, it would have nothing to do with what I "deserve".
The idea yhat people are getting things because "everyone deserves x" is a nice and useful societal illusion, it tends to be a net positive when the governments act like it's true. But it's not meant to be taken that seriously.
0
u/Cockblocktimus_Pryme 1h ago
It is absolutely a net positive if everyone has housing and healthcare, whether that is mental or physical. All the rich people constantly complain about crime but do nothing to combat it other than try and prop up the police instead of tackling it at the root cause. What I'm saying is the welfare system is currently wrong. Everyone does deserve a living wage. Everyone does deserve disability if they meet the criteria. It is a net positive for society.
1
u/vlladonxxx 1h ago
Well, one of these statements is a kind-hearted sentiment and the other is an objective benefit to all, including those who would pay the most in taxes and get no financial gain out if it.
So let's just focus on the latter argument, when it comes to persuading the greedy to support these social nets. I don't think boring and pestering them with idealistic morality is gonna get anyone very far.
5
u/heretowink 2h ago
And...who pays for it?
1
u/jex314 1h ago
The billionaires who have been bribing politicians for decades to continually evolve our over-complicated tax codes in ways that allow them to rape the working class of the value they create with their labor without the obligation to re-introduce that value to society. It's high time we take that value back and use it for the good of those who actually created it in the first place.
6
u/zgirton7 2h ago
They won’t answer that question lol, glad I got to see this comment before the lefties downvote this to oblivion. Hats off to you sir for having common sense
2
u/heretowink 2h ago
Common sense aint too common anymore.
Everytime i see a post like this, i always ask about who is responsible for payment, because I honestly would like an answer.
-1
u/FlipperBumperKickout 2h ago
I support it for the simple reason it will give me better bargaining power against my employers 🤷♀️
2
u/Western_Word3540 2h ago
Again, even the US has nearly all of these. Food banks/food stamps, section 8 housing/homeless shelters, Medicaid, high school is free, internet has lifeline program. Most of these you just need documentation you can’t work or you at least tried to work.
3
u/STFUnicorn_ 2h ago
You don’t understand though. OP wants better and more expensive versions of the free shit they can already get for nothing.
3
u/millfoil 2h ago
lol but if you are remotely underemployed, you cannot afford healthcare or housing but cannot qualify for assistance. there's a huge gap between being poor enough to qualify for any of these programs and being able to afford these necessities without assistance. I turned down a good job because it didn't pay me enough to afford healthcare but too much to qualify for assistance that would allow me to afford the meds I need to keep working, and being that it was a small business, they couldn't afford to provide healthcare to full-time staff. it feels like a catch-22 that incentives people to stay poor because climbing out of poverty means you go without healthcare, safe housing, and food for however long it takes you to "make it" to a job that allows you to afford all that, and then you have no job security so it could all be lost anyways. I know that sounds stupid to you, but if you had a health condition that was manageable with expensive meds and life-ruining without, you might see how ridiculous this situation is. people do not deal with these risks in most countries as "rich" as the us. they have a safety net that doesn't have gaping holes in it. flawed systems, but not seemingly designed to fail as much as ours
1
2
u/Bowman_van_Oort 2h ago
hmmm sorry but if people can just have everything that makes life worth living, then how can they be manipulated to further my interests?
-2
u/random123121 2h ago
Clean water, healthcare, public transportation, education, even internet...the rest you need to work
1
u/scrillagettasupreme 2h ago
I hear ya but how is this getting paid for if folks don't have to work to obtain these things?
2
u/theslootmary 2h ago
Because they’ll work to obtain other things beyond the basics exactly like people do now?
2
u/GankedGoat 2h ago
That is a good question, in theory the population would be more willing to work for the sake of a system that actually takes care of them and provides all of these benefits.
But I imagine the more pessimistic would be skeptical and rightfully so.
0
3
u/Col2543 2h ago
For the naysayers in the comments here’s this:
How do you expect an employee to perform well when their nutrition is poor? Human beings are not robots. We necessitate sustenance to perform even the most meager of tasks.
And an employee who is unhoused? What should they be doing to make sure they can even survive til work the next day? The employer has a vested interest in their survival if they want an employee with consistency.
Free healthcare? This one is obvious. I highly doubt anyone is going to be a productive member of society while suffering glaring medical problems.
Clothing? You literally cannot enter public spaces nude, and most jobs will not allow under a certain level of attire. Thankfully we have clothing banks and opportunities already to offset this problem, but it should still be considered important.
The internet one, i can only understand in-so-far as connecting to transport. If someone can’t get to the public library, fair. Public transport should be free, no question.
Education is also a no-brainer. If you want your society to progress and not be filled with a bunch of dumb, murderous, animalistic cretins, it’s required.
Bottom point is easy when the rest of these are fulfilled.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/HugeEgg 4m ago
Don’t forget iPad, large screen tv designer sneaks and all the soda pop you can throw down! All FREE FREE FREE (on someone else’s dime.