LogFAQs > #958175338

LinkPizza posted...

While some of your other ideas are fine, Im not really sure I like this one much, tbh

Which part? The wealth part or the hole part? :) I'm well aware that most people will hate my idea for one reason or another...so that's OK.

JixHedgehog posted...

Who's going to be paying for all that?

We're paying for a worse, highly inefficient system now: we just don't admit it to ourselves. Hospitals don't turn away people who are very sick: we pay for all of that pro bono work in our bills. Our strange tax system only applies to half of the population and it gives money back to people already. There are many social services that provide parts of this in patchy and inconsistent (and unfair) ways. We have a TON of bureaucracy set up to force employers to provide social services. There's plenty of money: it just needs to be adapted to a clear/honest/straightforward system.

...to say nothing of the money acquired from the wealth cap, which could theoretically make a big difference.

Point being, if we had an honest national conversation and defined the minimum at the intersection of morally acceptable (I'm not talking about a comfortable or "desirable" minimum...just a safe one) and nationally affordable...oh what a world it could be.

---

Pronounced "Whup-pot". Say it. Use it.