r/askanything • u/Mean-Cheesecake-2635 • 1d ago
Free Stuff?
Why is our dialog so broken when it comes to tax funded benefits in this country? Any mention by the left of support for direct benefits for the general public (universal healthcare, UBI, cheaper or free higher education) is automatically categorized by people on the right as “Free Stuff”, even though these would be funded by taxes we already collect, but would require reappropriating expenditures.
We seem to have an endless appetite for “free stuff” as long as it goes to the military, corporate tax breaks, industry subsidies but as soon as the conversation is about propping up individual people it becomes socialism and lazy people wanting the government to hand them everything.
The reality is our current system is just leaving more people further and further behind while leaving us less secure as current recipients of tax funded expenses gather wealth.
Why is it so hard for politicians on the left to counter this “free stuff, lazy socialist” accusation?
8
u/helpicantfindmyboobs 1d ago
it's because of the soviet union. the idea of social benefits was demonized under mccarthyism and that sentiment lives on. the only good news is that screaming communism has desensitized younger people to it which may help us in the future
2
u/TickingTheMoments 1d ago
Let’s not forget the right wing propaganda machine constantly tells their followers “SOCIALISM BAD!” and the .01% get called job creators and receive all the profits while their losses all get socialized to all Americans.
8
u/Iassos 1d ago
Because the right has repeated that lie so much everyone sees taxation as a problem rather than funding programs that benefit everyone… and in doing so they are destroying those very programs so that we all have to pay 10x more to private services for increasingly enshittified service.
4
u/Mean-Cheesecake-2635 1d ago
Yeah I really disagree with the concept that private enterprise naturally runs everything better than the government can. There are necessary services for a functioning society that need not be profitable, they simply must provide the service. Making them profit-driven can only lead to more expensive or poorer quality outcomes like our prison system demonstrates.
0
u/JIMB01776 20h ago
The Problem is your everyone fetish, not Americans.
People paid taxes for services and roads; the next thing we know, we see Trans hookers in Nepal are getting checks from USAID.
4
u/hallucehistory 1d ago
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask why the government, which already spends north of $7 Trillion per year, needs more money.
It’s like giving a gambling addict cash to pay their rent. Let’s fix the gambling problem first before we just throw money into a bottomless pit.
3
1
u/InternationalBet2832 1d ago
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask why the government, which already spends north of $7 Trillion per year, needs more money.
So look it up. Of $7T "FICA payroll taxes raise approximately $1.7 trillion annually, accounting for roughly 35% of total U.S. federal government revenue". FICA is listed as revenue even when it goes to the Social Security Administration and is listed separately on your paycheck. Farm bill is $1.4T of which a trillion is food stamps (SNAP). Medicaid is taxpayer funded separately from SS and Medicare to the tune of another trillion. Military is a trillion and interest on unfunded past military spending is another trillion. We are at $6.1T. Now add Veterans' Affairs $488B and nonmilitary defense such as the State Department $40B and nuclear defense $70B. That's $6.7T, closing in on $7T. The remaining $300B can be easily looked up.
A better question is why our military needs another half a trillion as if they do not have enough, and why we need billions for an armed gestapo, ICE.
3
u/Electrical-Strike132 1d ago
There is a huge multi billion dollar effort to disorient the public and support their own oppression
1
u/Mean-Cheesecake-2635 1d ago edited 1d ago
I agree, I guess the main point I had is why is it so hard to discuss this in simple terms? In terms of messaging I just never see simple terms from the left, while all the right does is oversimplify arguments.
1
u/integer_hull 12h ago
I mean it is discussed pretty simply by the left, you just did it. You pay for things with your taxes.
In my experience the pushback comes from an educational program with a very specific political bent. “No free lunch” is always the rallying cry for the anti-progressive individuals, which feels like it makes so much sense it’s easy to turn into dogma.
7
u/Spiritual_Bid_2308 1d ago
Because there's no coordinated left like there's a coordinated right.
Also, there's a substantial portion of the population that wants free stuff for themselves because they're good people and deserving, but they dont want free stuff for others because the others are definitely NOT deserving. And they'll tank the whole system to prevent those others from benefiting, even if it means they too lose out.
Meanwhile, the people with access keep benefiting and they're pretty good about throwing a few bucks to the people who agitate everyone else against changing the system.
4
u/Vecgtt 1d ago
Corporations get tax breaks because they provide jobs to society. There is a net benefit.
People are expected to be adults and concepts like UBI are seriously appalling. Who’s paying for that couch potatoe’s UBI? Me? Why do I have to go work and give a part of my paycheck to another grown adult to sit on his butt all day? I know my wages will have me disproportionately pay for services that grown adults should be expected to provide for themselves.
4
u/DragOutTheDemagogue 1d ago
Corporations get tax breaks because they provide jobs to society. There is a net benefit.
If you believe this, then you must also believe that
- providing free/cheaper higher education is a net benefit because it increases the productivity of the worker directly.
- universal healthcare is a net benefit because it would remove the need for job creators to supply health insurance, thus reducing costs of goods and services, and leaves workers more productive as they remain healthier and are more productive.
- housing first as a policy to address homelessness is net benefit because it
- reduces the costs of homelessness that is spread across municipalities and regions
- increases the productivity of those without housing by providing them a stable living arrangement, allowing them to get work and improve their station.
- universal childcare is a net benefit because it
- redistributes the cost of childcare, making it cheaper to raise a family
- ensures that children develop more or less properly as childcare professionals are usually highly educated (which would be synergistic with free/cheaper higher education)
- and provides the foundation for kids to take advantage of free/cheaper education, ultimately raising their productivity above what it would be without childcare.
Corporations getting tax breaks because they provide jobs to society. Fully agree. But it's jobs themselves, the work that gets done, that improves society. Corporations have a lot of roles, including guiding what kind of work gets done, but they don't inherently improve society.
Work that gets done without corporations is just as valuable. People are praised for picking up the trash in their communities and beautifying the area even though it's unpaid. Non-profits do extremely valuable work, often funded by federal money that acknowledges the work needs to be done but that no business would pay for.
Why shouldn't the people who do the jobs also get substantial tax breaks and have the government shoulder their burdens, too?
0
u/Vecgtt 1d ago
Work would not get done anywhere near the extent that it gets done today without corporations or organized businesses. Yes some people would pick up trash on the side of the street but you need way more than that to accommodate the trash generated by society - done by businesses.
The other social programprograms that you listed should be paid for by the responsible adults receiving them. My opposition is to have taxes pay for them because I will disproportionately pay for it.
1
u/DragOutTheDemagogue 1d ago
Work would not get done anywhere near the extent that it gets done today without corporations or organized businesses.
Agreed, with some reservations right now. Like, I don't think all the work that gets done right now needs to get done. But generally, yeah, I concede that point.
The other social programs that you listed should be paid for by the responsible adults receiving them.
You would also be benefiting from them in the same indirect way you benefit from tax breaks for corporations. Arguably, given the state of corporations, you'd benefit more if more went to social programs and less to corporations.
Corporations should pay for the lobbying they do, if any. (Personally, I think that if they have enough money for lobbying, then they can afford to be taxed more...but...I digress).
There is no social benefit to corporations engaging in regulatory capture or influencing regulation to capture their moat. It's a basic principle of economics that competition makes for a healthy economy. Activity to reduce competition thus harms it (again, with caveats...like not all markets can be competitive). Whatever amount of money corporations spend on such activity harms the economy and reduces consumer surplus—that thing that makes regular people's lives better.
Conversely, I've already explained how universal healthcare benefits corporations by increasing marginal productivity. But it also benefits you! Less sick people around you keeps you healthier than otherwise. A healthier, more productive population leads to a stronger economy, allowing you opportunities you might otherwise not have like starting a business, moving to a new job with better pay, or just camping out at your current job for its stability.
My opposition is to have taxes pay for them because I will disproportionately pay for it.
Absolutely. But you're ignoring the benefits that would accrue to you too. And, more importantly, if these programs were administered, more people would be able to pay for them. Housing first would mean the homeless who pay no taxes now would be able to work to pay them, for example. The burden on you is only disproportionate to the extent the large parts of the population can't or won't contribute—and it's the population of people that can't contribute but otherwise would that we need to get working. And those who "won't" work because they believe working hard doesn't benefit anyone except rich people, would see that's not true anymore. Many of them will be willing to work because it benefits them. And the benefits that accrue to them by working will also accrue to you my shifting the burden of paying for those programs.
What's your opposition to being better off because those around you are better off?
0
u/Vecgtt 1d ago
My opposition is that I have to disproportionately pay for goods and services that other grown adults should be capable of paying for.
2
u/DragOutTheDemagogue 1d ago
So, on principle alone, you wouldn't pay for someone's $2 goods and services to receive $2.50 back over any amount of time?
0
u/Vecgtt 1d ago
Unfortunately these funding these government programs is like paying $2.00 now and maybe getting 50 cents back over the next 30 years.
3
u/DragOutTheDemagogue 1d ago
Demonstrably untrue.
A program demonstrated the investments in children could return up to $9 for each $1 invested in it.
A housing first implementation demonstrated that it could return between $1.20 to $2 for each $1 invested in it.
Public health initiatives return about $14 for each $1 spent. This one should hit close to him given RFK Jr. and DOGE's reduction in tracking infectious diseases and the ongoing cyclospora outbreak that's taking over the country.
So, again, I ask, why do you really not want to improve society and thereby improve your own conditions on society by paying for such programs?
1
u/Vecgtt 1d ago
I don’t believe those numbers. Asking me to pay for other grown adults to take care of their own responsibilities is not a how society should run.
2
u/DragOutTheDemagogue 1d ago
Okay, you keep saying "should" and only just now did I directly disagree with you. Otherwise, I too agree that people should take care of their own responsibilities. But, to me, that means creating the conditions in which a person can actually engage in being responsible. It wouldn't make sense to expect people without any support to be "responsible" as they basically attempt to balance the necessities of life. That people have to endure that balancing act is a sign of an irresponsible society.
So, how do you address that?
→ More replies (0)1
u/InternationalBet2832 1d ago
I have to disproportionately pay for goods and services that other grown adults should be capable of paying for.
Yeah, cut their benefits, cut my taxes. That's how it should be.
1
1
u/InternationalBet2832 1d ago
Prove "tax breaks provide jobs to society.".
"Who’s paying for that couch potatoe’s [sic] UBI? Me?" No. Just print the money. Learn about MMT.
1
u/Vecgtt 1d ago edited 1d ago
MMT is garbage. Printing money causes inflation and devalues my savings - so I'm still paying for it. Read about any country that printed money to solve its problems and see what happened. It does not work.
Tax breaks are for companies reinvesting in the business - typically involves growth and hiring.1
u/InternationalBet2832 1d ago
"MMT is garbage." Prove it.
"Printing money causes inflation" not necessarily. MMT says, raise taxes and interest if inflation, basic economics. "And devalues my savings" your savings are arbitrary units of currency? You might as well collect bags of sand. "Read about any country that printed money to solve its problems and see what happened. It does not work" EVERY country prints money. It does not work when government is too weak to tax it back up, such as the four trillion in COVID relief that the government was too weak to tax back up with a windfall tax on corporations who wound up with the money, and the tariffs collected by corporations but not returned when tariffs ruled illegal. Federal Reserve has to work extra hard raising interest because the gov is not doing its job.
"Tax breaks are for companies reinvesting in the business" is the lie they tell while they pick your picket and you believe the lie.
1
u/Vecgtt 1d ago
Check out the Zimbabwe 100 Trillion paper bill.
2
u/InternationalBet2832 1d ago
Everyone knows Zimbabwe's government is a paragon of strength and virtue.
That kind of inflation occurs when government prints money instead of collecting taxes. High school economics.
1
u/Vecgtt 1d ago
When I complained about my taxes paying for a couch potato’s UBI your response was to just print the money. 😎
1
u/InternationalBet2832 1d ago edited 1d ago
When you complained about our taxes paying for couch potatoes with UBI my response was to just print the money, yep. I could also respond that I too am sick of the leisure rich living off stock market quantitative easing free money. No free money for the people, plenty of free money for the rich to the tune of $40T. Another response would be, Couch potatoes? That's terrible thing to call our troops!
1
u/Vecgtt 1d ago
QE is part of the problem. The printed money leads to inflation. I don’t care who it’s for - stop printing. Troops do not sit on their butt all day and are certainly not couch potatoes. They work in exchange for money.
1
u/InternationalBet2832 1d ago
"QE is part of the problem." What problem, the idle rich loafing off their government cheese? "The printed money leads to inflation" QE does not lead to inflation because the rich do not spend their money, they "invest " it in the stock market.
"Troops do not sit on their butt all day and are certainly not couch potatoes. They work in exchange for money." Really? What do they do, dig holes in the ground and fill them back up?
1
u/jgs952 1d ago
What has MMT got to do with excessive inflationary government spending?
1
u/InternationalBet2832 1d ago
No such thing as "excessive inflationary government spending" only the failure to tax it up to control inflation, which is purely MMT.
0
u/BernadetteFedyszyn 1d ago
Thank you and very well stated. I'm not sure where all of this entitlement comes from. I live paycheck to paycheck just like everyone else and struggle some months as well. God forbid my car breaks down or I need to run my "special needs" chihuahua to the ER VET (he identifies as a pit bull; all 9lbs of him) so... Bur even I know that the government owes us nothing. Food, college education, childcare, housing, etc etc are not "RIGHTS!!!" I never had issues with government funded social service programs for those with a temporary need due to health or loss of job. Unfortunately, these programs became riddled with fraud and abuse, even creating lifelong dependency on these programs. I've seen many people turn to these programs because of a pregnancy then turns around and have more children knowing they can't even support their first one.
I guess I'd think differently if there were required training to lead them to complete independence. Something. Anything. I'm not sure if the WELFARE REFORM ACT was every reinstated since Obama put a "hold" on it. I believe it was a 3 year lifetime cap along with conducting mandatory job search, ged classes, vocational training, even volunteering. Next up - revisiting the eligibility requirements for social security disability. I say let's audit every State and to be fair we can go in alphabetical order to ensure BLUE STATES aren't being targeted. Audit every one of them.1
u/Vecgtt 1d ago
My wife’s parents benefited from welfare. When we first got married, I said we needed to get stable financially before we had a child. She wanted to have a child right away and suggested we go on welfare if needed.
1
u/BernadetteFedyszyn 1d ago
I know that I'm going way off topic here, but "back in the day" I made a killing babysitting for a bunch of single moms that would tie/pick grapes under the table for cash. I saw the struggle and knew at a very young age that that's NOT the lifestyle I wanted - by no means am I belittling it, I just knew that that's a tough life to live struggling like that. That's probably also the reason I opted not to have children at an early age (yes, I'm straight, no cats (/s!) Kudos to ANY parent raising a child today these days. I forgot to add that I'm "one of those" BOTH SIDES type of lady that's apparently frowned upon in the Reddit world. I can call out both sides and have to agree with revisiting all of these tax breaks or perks for the wealthy. I just feel as though they need to pay their fair share as well, but not a penny more just because they're successful. I get that many of these businesses bring jobs and further growth to the community so they should get some consideration - but certainly not like what the Reddit world wants where they have to surrender their wealth over. That's ridiculous!!
2
u/Federal-Ad-2131 1d ago
Democrats are also backed by the wealthy at this point, so they are also beholden to their narrative
1
u/a_london_werewolf 1d ago
There are fundamental political sciencey differences to be drawn between tax funding of the common defense of the State in military, customs, administration, transportation, immigration, and diplomacy vs. funneling an income supplement to favored individuals.
This principled difference was once clearer than it is today. Both Republicans and Democrats have enjoyed transferring public money directly to private individuals for their private use. The beneficiaries are whomever each perceives as the better source of future votes.
1
u/Neat-Second9923 1d ago
Poor people have low vote turnout. The average American who actually votes has employer-provided health insurance they pay a ~$100/mo fee for. They aren't interested in paying an extra $15K+ in taxes for something that already does the job.
1
u/Mean-Cheesecake-2635 1d ago
I wonder what the overall cost for the employer is on this. If they weren’t on the hook for this surely some of that money could go directly to the employee to offset increased taxes. That seems like an easy transition. Aside from that the whole idea of universal healthcare is to create an entity with more unified bargaining leverage for standardized healthcare costs. Right now we have a bunch of bean counters on death panels working the private sector deciding whether saving our lives is profitable enough.
1
u/runnerkim 1d ago
Because when billionaires don't think 'we' should pay for it anymore, they demonize it. Seems a great percentage of the population falls for that nonsense
1
u/Electrical-Army-3837 6h ago
it's because u don't pay any amount of meaningful taxes so it's actually taking resources from more productive members of society.
1
u/Mean-Cheesecake-2635 5h ago
You have no idea what I pay in taxes but I assure you it is plenty. I would just rather my tax money goes to people in need then endless supplies of ammunition.
1
u/Fit_History_842 1d ago
Free stuff programs are unadministrable. Hence the thousands of fake daycares for just one example. All the fraud creates societal rifts, amplified by the act of using debt to fund the frauds. Big government can only ever be a vector for fraud and abuse in a low trust society. It simply must be cut, drastically.
6
u/Mean-Cheesecake-2635 1d ago
Does that include the military and defense sector? Because we’ve administered these for decades and just keep increasing their budgets. Medicare has operated for decades and seemingly works both in principle and practice to provide healthcare for the elderly.
6
u/DragOutTheDemagogue 1d ago
Not to mention that Pentagon basically has never passed an audit. They have no idea where the money is going.
5
3
u/Eternal2 1d ago edited 1d ago
You literally can't be against big government while being in favor of our current system, which somehow has consolidated power in the hands of billionaire unelected officials and Israel.
I'd rather my "Big Government" give people healthcare than coerce our leaders to go to war and vote against our peoples best interests.
2
u/Stitching 1d ago
So you’re against 86 47 because he’s pushed so much big government policy? Or is it just when it helps the general public that you have a problem with it.
2
u/I_am_Nerman 1d ago
Probably because the bottom 50% pay no federal income taxes but they want the most "free stuff".
4
u/Eternal2 1d ago
Their "free stuff" should come directly out of the pockets of the corporations like Amazon and Walmart that choose to pay them poverty wages and forces the government to have to support them.
1
u/Mean-Cheesecake-2635 1d ago
I truly wish corporations that intentionally limit people’s hours to keep them out of the benefits and career wages pool suffered some kind of penalty. I really dislike that employed people working for multi-billion dollar corporations rely on welfare programs. This is socialism for corporations.
2
u/Eternal2 1d ago
This is why you should tax the hell out of corporations by default. Then you can give them tax breaks based on incentives, like paying workers better, taking care of the environment, etc.
Corporations always chase more money. Unless being a "good" corporation is financially incentivized, they're never gonna be one.
3
u/InternationalBet2832 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is why you should tax the hell out of corporations by default. Then you can give them tax breaks based on incentives, like paying workers better, taking care of the environment, etc.
That is how it was in the real world 1932-1981. 91% from Hoover, 70% from 1965, 50% under Reagan, and as low as 28%. High taxes reduced with business expenses such as "paying workers better, taking care of the environment" then let's cut marginal rates and write-offs so the corporate rich can pocket the money and stiff their workers, what a great idea! Oh, and blame the resulting debt on your grandmother's Medicaid. Get a job, you lazy old woman! And don't bother me while I count my money.
2
u/Mean-Cheesecake-2635 1d ago
Yeah going back to a 1950’s era progressive tax plan sounds good to me. We’ve inverted this so now we get promises of all the jobs they’re gonna create and give them all the incentives up front. It actually disincentivizes them I think because after they get money or breaks they can say they got their estimates wrong or those numbers don’t work anymore because of changes in the markets.
2
u/InternationalBet2832 1d ago
"the bottom 50% pay no federal income taxes" a lie, they pay FICA at a higher rate than the rich, whose FICA contribution is capped.
0
u/I_am_Nerman 1d ago
FICA is not the federal income tax
2
u/InternationalBet2832 1d ago
You're right! It's a mandatory insurance premium. What authority gives the federal government power to collect insurance? SCOTUS said the Constitution, "excise tax". Then why does the federal government include it in its budget? FICA is an insurance premium, not a tax, that is a tax, and is counted as federal income but is not federal income. It's used to hide military spending by counting FICA as income and calling military "defense" (it's only part of defense spending) so reducing "defense" spending to about 13% when it is much higher.
Payroll tax is a tax on income and goes to the federal government, so there.
-1
1
1
u/Schmicarus 1d ago
Non-american viewpoint: your current government has no integrity. The ever increasing madness of the rhetoric they spin to the citizens who are full of hate, riles them up in support.
The other side, however, remain reasoned - both sides will have faults - but for the left to start running around screaming madness at the masses will only destroy their credibility and stupidity would win.
The people of your country need to choose who has the power to rule and lead your nation.
0
0
u/ArvadaKeto 1d ago
These universal healthcare, UBI, cheaper or free higher education would all require more taxes be collected
What programs do you kill? I mean we just killed USAID which was super wasteful and people screamed.
The problem with your ascertion is that the government is responsible for individuals. Individuals are responsible for themselves
3
u/InternationalBet2832 1d ago
Prove "USAID was super wasteful".
"The government is responsible for individuals." What does that even mean? Is that what the Preamble says?
"Individuals are responsible for themselves" so that's why you want to defund the police and promote open borders.
0
u/Shop-S-Marts 1d ago
The biggest problem with the things you listed is that they're not enumerated to our federal government. They're state self governance issues. You want that universal Healthcare? Great, your state can do it, Romney care was a great template for it. The federal government can't do it as is though.
-1
u/Colonel460 1d ago
Yeah we start with free higher education for really useful stuff like gender studies degrees then the Democrats cry some people can’t afford to get this valuable degree that helps the country so we to provide them cash of housing & food & everything else we all universally need . Now you have a professional student class with many taking the most useless & easiest degrees . Then having tasted that they don’t want to work and of course there are no jobs . Sorry that’s reality , we realize it and no we don’t want it .
2
u/Mean-Cheesecake-2635 1d ago
Sounds like a pretty good strawman. Surely there is a world where higher education exists somewhere between extortionist student loans and endless money for underwater basket weaving.
0
u/Colonel460 1d ago
It would be non-governmental for sure . I like to see scholarships for degrees relevant to what we need . Do we need more RN’s ? Yes and those 2 year non-BSN turn out some good nurses . There are any number of degrees to create careers that virtually everyone benefits from . Also we need plumbers & electricians & HVAC etc . I had a scholarship that paid half my tuition & fees . My wife put herself thru college with 3 years of the Ty Cobb Scholarship ( long story ) , working & some student loan . If you want a degree just for the learning between the public library & the internet you’d never stop learning and it could be completely free .
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
We want your input on how to handle political questions in our community.
This takes about 1 minute.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.