> Really - do you think a just society should allow some people to
> coast by on the labor of others?
I do. In fact, I think it's central to my "one question political test" ...
What is to be one with people who will not or cannot work?
It seems to me that there's a certain level that's humane and just and affordable ... and insufficient for the significant majority of people who want more than that. But really, I think we're at the point where there's not enough work to be done by all the people we have, so better it should be done by people who want to do it -- and thus get more than whatever the minimum is. But the minimum should be way higher than it is today.
It would be a bold experiment, but I don't think it would be hard to figure out what the right level is, and I'm not just talking about the stigma of that nasty yellow cheese. Housing, medical care, food. It really shouldn't be that hard to provide that for anyone who wants it and still encourage those who want more than that to keep doing what they are doing. You've said it before: it seems inconceivable to you that there are people who will work for more even when they have more than they could spend.
So why not take advantage of that instead of wondering why?
There's some precedent for it: people paying more than their "fair" share for things they don't use. Education, transportation, emergency rooms, homeland security: "rich" people would claim they pay too much for how much they use, and yet ... there's no tax revolt in the US. It could go a few steps further, I think.
But it would mean having a cleaned up tax system; I've said it before, but to recap:
- One tax, a progressive income tax, for the entire budget - No regressive "payroll" taxes - All costs on-budget (no SSA carveouts)
Doug: what's wrong with people who don't want to work? Did your mother work? Ok, cheap shot: mine did. How about your grandmother?
/jordan