Creating Utopia

[vashti]

I generally like your idea, except I wouldn't care to leave whatever fortune I amass to the masses. My motivation to work would dwindle the older I got, since I wouldn't be working for any particular purpose.

[Lipp]

of course it's the people's fault. system was created to help and people are taking advantage of it.

i say make everyone work. no benefits for those who are doing nothing. there are far too many people unemployed by choice because the system feeds them and puts roof over their heads. too many women having kids just to get a larger chunk of money that people like us are paying in taxes. i say take away kids if parents are unemployed or force an abortion.

Yet every supposed fix is system-based

I suppose what I'm getting at is that I only ever hear of the whole living-on-benefits concern from the U.S., and to a lesser extent from the U.K. No doubt it exists elsewhere, but maybe it's not as widespread even in full-on 'socialist welfare states', simply because of attitude differences, rather than the systems that are used.

[Lipp]

As for the original posters' whole 'drop your cash when you kick the bucket' idea, I don't see how it is all that better/different than pooling a portion of the tax money into a government agency to allow for low-interest student loans and grants, which effectively removes any financial barriers, leaving only grade requirements.

That, and that there'll undoubtedly be hell on earth in protests when the government has a massive say in how a person's kid should be raised.

[KingZ]

Kids, I hate to break this to you, but a vast majority of the people in poverty aren't poor because they're "lazy mofos" who, cleverly, decide to exploit the welfare system to their advantage. Having a child is much more expensive (albeit tax-deductible, which is irrelevant because the lower class pay most of the taxes in this system anyway) than getting a small welfare check every month.

Any poverty-striken person you meet could be poor for an infinitely long enumeration of reasons (schizophrenia and other untreated mental illnesses, among them); deciding to just climb your way to the top really involves a lot of luck, chance, and created opportunity, unlike any "GET RICH QUICK!" book would have you believe.

The higher up you go, the less you work, and not everyone is created equal. For those of you who are well-off, you could have put forth twice as much work as you have into getting where you are, and still be in the exact same spot. Think about it.

[doppelgaenger]

There's an age-old quote; "It takes money to make money."
That's part of the vicious circle of poverty (or virtuous circle of wealth) that results from capitalism.

[nomas]

I see that the idea of not allowing your wealth to be handed down to whomever you choose is proving to be the most unpopular, yet I have not been convinced that is is not a good idea. I think it the fairest system simply to avoid setting someone up with unfair advantages over the 90% non-wealthy population. I think this outweighs the disadvantage of possibly being demotivated to continue to be the most productive you could be until you die.

What about the system we're under now, though? It seems that the average individual who climbed up to a decent upper-middle class status, intelligently, planned for the future and lives out retirement for a few years (if they don't die sooner). If they're lucky to live this out for a while, they'll eventually require expensive medical attention and will be drained of their savings and possessions until they get back to the poverty bracket at which point Medicaid takes over again, in the end, leaving nothing to your descendants anyway.

How about this: your compensation for your hard work elevates the "tier" of luxuries you have access to. Again, if you are lazy, you are satisfied with the basic necessities, so be it. however, having equal access to the abundant wealth that 10% of the population used to control provides great motivation to, for example, become a responsible employee who is never late, never absent. This alone puts you above 50% of the population so you get a compensation..an attractive compensation (again, consider that now there is more wealth to go around for your hard work). Compensations, again, will elevate your luxury tier so now you have access to, I don't know, luxury restaurants once a week. You choose how you distribute your "credits" earned as compensation. (after ironing this out I'd love to talk about a new system of credit exchange to replace money).

Furthermore, if it's truly what your heart desires, okay, let us be able to pass down wealth to some degree, to whomever you choose, but regulate that as well. Basically a luxury tax because you didn't earn that wealth, a hefty tax to the tune of, the more you want to give, the more you take away. Basically I'd like to see the system give you the opportunity to jump ahead of the pack pretty easily, but the farther ahead you want to go, the more difficult it should get. The basic principle of not allowing monopolies. Don't let anyone get too powerful or they ride this power wave and become hidden dictators (like drug lords controlling politicians). That's what I'd like to make near impossible.

Smiley, as to your concerns, I know you cringe at the idea of handouts to allow the completely lazy to survive. One is, maybe there could be a minimum we could demand from anyone who wants access to the basic necessities. Two, even if that wasn't the case, I insist, it is not difficult to provide these basics to EVERYONE without breaking the bank at all, it is more productive than NOT providing it because what do the lazy do? they go for easy money, i.e. rob, cheat, lie, beg for money, etc., you rarely hear of people actually dieing of hunger, am I right? So I must insist on the providing of these necessities, if nothing else, for a better quality of life for all (less crime).

Lipp, I'm confused..your first paragraph actually made me think you liked the idea..in your second paragraph you seemed to predict chaos..can you please explain it to me a little bit better? also, I don't see how you perceive the government as dictating how children are raised. My proposal is for the government's role to simply be the regulator of wealth so that it is difficult for any ONE individual to jump too far ahead and, if he/she should achieve it, to end with this extraordinary person until another should arise by his/her own merit, not because they were born into power and riding the wave.

[Sonrisa]

what about controlling the quality of population by not letting unfit people have kids?

[doppelgaenger]

what about controlling the quality of population by not letting unfit people have kids?

Sieg heil!

____

[KingZ]

what about controlling the quality of population by not letting unfit people have kids?

In a system that operates more correctly ("more correctly," and not "correctly"), there are fewer and fewer people that would be considered "unfit".

Everyone should be doing well.

[nomas]

Smiley, I don't know if you're serious or not. I'll assume you're not.

In any case, I've been talking mainly about the balance of power. I think this is one of the first,most important steps because absolute power corrupts absolutely. I was just having a discussion with a friend and I'll use his example. The powerful people currently dictate and they'll do so to their favor..the sole purpose: staying in power, staying on top. In order for you to be rich, you must make several people poor, that's basic arithmetic, not even economics. So if need be, the few in power will make decisions to lower everyone's class a tier..the upper middle become middle, the middle become lower, and now you've got plenty of lower class ( equals laborers) to work for less and, basically, keep them rich.

Moving on, however, I am actually all for smaller government. Big government's involvement, I have not decided the limits to yet..but, as stated, for the time being, let them be the "bully regulators", economically speaking.

Socially speaking, I have a different idea.

I have noticed us Humans LOVE to divide ourselves. My Country is better than yours!, within a country; My State Rocks, within a state it's city to city, within a city it's my side of town versus yours, within a school it's the different interests: emos, jocks, rockers, gangsters, etc., so on and so forth, my family is better than yours..up until the individual level..if our body parts had sentient capabilities, the right side would be fighting the left. Hence, the bigger the crowd, the more difficult to achieve agreements.

That's why federal laws are so hard to come to agreements on. Hell, that's why in this thread alone we will never find a single solution..but we can all make good arguments and possibly sway one another on things you had never considered before.

So, I think that there should be basic federal laws, some things a good 80% of the population could agree upon, some basic injustices we should enforce: Murder, human rights, etc. Aside from this, I think that laws at the city level (depending on the size of the city) should dictate the law of that city alone. Period. Your law doesn't carry outside of your city. If you don't like your city's laws, move. I know that sounds cold and some may say not everyone has the means to move but here's where I suggest the government also provide for. Public transportation..the ability for everyone to move (with set limits). But basically, if you are of like mind with a group of people, found your city or everyone move into this same city, incorporate, group yourselves as you will and live and let live.

How about visitors coming into your city not knowing your law? If this society is created, it will be common knowledge, part of everyone's culture to know that it is your responsibility to know the law of the city you are visiting. I don't anticipate it to be to a point where it's a total hassle or that you have to do heavy studying before you enter a city not your own because, starting from scratch, the laws made will likely be simply laid out and from one city to the next will likely not change drastically.

[nomas]

In a system that operates more correctly ("more correctly," and not "correctly"), there are fewer and fewer people that would be considered "unfit".

Everyone should be doing well.

Exactly! That's another thing I'm thinking..when things go well for the general population, everyone rides the wave of the good vibes..crime is reduced, quality of life is better, people are nicer to one another. Crime rate is more prominent in the lower class communities vs the more affluent neighborhoods, is it not?

[Sonrisa]

i am totally serious, nomas. we need a degree to have a well paying job, however any uneducated/mentally ill/underage individual is allowed to have kids. people buy books on how to care for animals/pets, but when it comes to having kids any idiot can have one.

[Sonrisa]

Exactly! That's another thing I'm thinking..when things go well for the general population, everyone rides the wave of the good vibes..crime is reduced, quality of life is better, people are nicer to one another. Crime rate is more prominent in the lower class communities vs the more affluent neighborhoods, is it not?

you give too much credit to society. try considering how ignorant most of the population is.

[Junket]

Consider this.

With the economy as slow as it is people are definitely holding off on children.

Well, except for the stupid poor.

[Sonrisa]

Consider this.

With the economy as slow as it is people are definitely holding off on children.

Well, except for the stupid poor.

once again, it seems that smart people actually are not reproducing as much as stupid.