Yes it should be questioned. Would I enjoy being filthy rich, while my neighbour is struggling with his hospital bills? Hell no. For me government is about taking care of the sick, poor and vulnerable as much as taking care of wannabe millionairs.
For me, I'd say that society is about taking care of everyone -- government should merely (!) play the role of the administrator in that process.
I always feel that way too many people I speak to think that 'the government' is some kind of independent force, rather than a reflection of what society wants. (Sure, in many cases, it really is a reflection of what a tiny handful of people orchestrate -- but since we're talking idealism here...)
Besides, if the will of the people is to take care of everyone through social services, then why do you need a government to do it? It should just happen naturally. What you are saying, is that a few select people that are chosen by a popularity contest should be given the authority to make people do things against their will.
The question is - cui bono?
Your alternative presumably is the current system, where a few self-selected people, kept in power exclusively by wealth, caste, and social connections - often in defiance of real wisdom or foresight - force everyone else to act in ways that benefit that self-sustaining governing class at the expense of everyone else.
If you want to pool resources collectively in a smaller scale you are just replicating this structure with different powerful people, or different structure of power, but a society will always need it, doesn't matter if resources are money, materials or labour.
Yes, but that's a direct consequence of having an ill-informed, poorly educated , credulous, angry, compliant majority. Societies where the elite are looking to retain their power base will typically channel fewer resources to public education, and more to the institutions that reinforce their own position.
Difficult to undo once it's been started, and (IMO) it's been happening for a very long time in AU, UK, US -- and presumably almost everywhere else that self-identifies as a capitalist democracy.
So, yes, the will of the people can get hairy, but of the two options -- force the agenda of the elite upon everyone else, or work towards a better society -- the preferable option very much depends which of those groups you're in right now.
Also noting that if you're in the uninformed group, you may not recognise that, or think anything needs changing.
Nobody would stop you from helping with your neighbour's hospital bill if you were filthy rich.
The USA is still the violent prudish religious DIY Wild West compared to most areas in Europe (East-Europe excluded that is more like the USA).
what makes you think that this is reasonable for government to provide? How do you know that the era 1950-20xx is not an anomaly? If you look at the broad scope of history, governments are not very good at doing the things that you suggest they should be doing.
I suggest you revise your argument to one that's more plausible and convincing.
[disclosure: am Canadian]
Pragmatically, the fact that it works well and has reasonably good outcomes in every first world country other than the United States.
I'll let you google and find out which ones.
They seem to work just fine.
Know what's awesome? Knowing that I can break my arm and have it taken care of with virtually no out-of-pocket cost.
Tax-wise, I'm totally speculating here because I don't know the ins-and-outs of the American tax system, but here we go.
https://simpletax.ca/calculator https://www.irscalculators.com/tax-brackets-calculator.php
I'm going off of $85,000USD/$106571CAD (equivalent today according to Google), and using California.
California: total tax paid $25,252.56USD, you keep $59,747USD
Saskatchewan: total tax paid $30,465CAD ($24,308.33USD), you keep $76,106CAD ($60,702.91USD)
So on the same amount of income, we pay about the same as California residents, but all of our health care costs come out of the taxes we've paid. Seems like a pretty good deal, not having to pay any health insurance premiums on top of that.
You're also ignoring the multiple tax breaks available in the US that aren't an option in Canada: mortgage interest deduction, uncapped 401K contribution, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_locations_b... http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/f...
Median family income in California: $70,187 USD Median family income in Saskatchewan: $86,970 CAD ($69,516.86 USD)
The currency conversion seems pretty reasonable. And yes, I'm ignoring the various tax breaks available on both sides, as well as a number of other perks (e.g. 55% paid maternity/paternity leave for 35 weeks). We're in the same ballpark here though.
No, nor is it a right. It's a luxury.
European politicians prognose bad times because of the demography (too many old persons, too few young persons).
IMO politicians and many experts are very bad at predicting the future. Like many other people, they feel smart when they prognose problems and anounce austerity.
IMO technology and automation could and probably will solve any poverty problem soon enough for most Europeans. Even today, most poverty in the world is a political problem and not a natural or technical necessity.
The reality is that the opposite is not just possible, but encouraged - right-wing governments in the US consistently use economic policy to prevent social mobility, economic freedom, and the kind of collective social investment that generates long-term social, political, and economic benefits.
It's all about concentrating economic power among an increasingly narrow sub-group, and economically disenfranchising the rest of the population.
https://www.oecd.org/eco/Decoupling-of-wages-from-productivi...
And I voted for a system like this. Just like my parents, my neighbor, the guy on the corner and my jobless neighbor.
It's not holding anyone back in any way.
Of course there are probably government spending you disapprove of (long-term prison sentences for drugs, war on drugs, "bridge to nowhere", and military/foreign wars are likely candidates)
Everyone disapproves of some government spending, but it involves compromise between differing perspectives on what government should be doing.
Whereas if healthcare was properly regulated, his neighbor could pay for it himself and actually be independent in his community.
I'd rather be independent among my peers and neighbors even if I have to rely on a supra entity to regulate my food quality and organize my warfighting than the other way around. We're all dependent at some level even if just to the past, no matter what "Atlas Shrugged" says.
Beyond that, it's an insulting way to avoid having a real discussion on this issue. If the charity of the rich were enough to solve this social problem, we wouldn't be talking about it. Why are you participating in these discussions if the only solution you have to offer has been tried and failed for most of human history?
So you agree we should stop massive government programs that have always resulted in centralization, bankruptcy, and systemic poverty? Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, Greece, Spain, Italy, China, ... How much more failure do you need to realize Government isnt the answer?
they would be amongst the poorest states by median household income, purchasing power parity, cost of living, and gdp per capita
First, it would seem that all those people are too ignorant to understand how much better their lives would be if they were, for example, living in Michigan. If only we could teach them how unhappy they are!
Second, the claim that the people are "poorer" is not a cogent claim that their countries are failures. Your argument reminds me of something I tell my children:
"Human beings are the most successful form of life on Earth, by all the metrics that humans choose to measure success."
I'm sorry, I was unaware of the existing solution that has succeeded at solving all social problems in the countries in which it's implemented.
If the alternative is not flawless, then one needs to show that the disadvantages of the alternative vs the current situation are outweighed by its advantages over the current system.
You're free to donate as much of your income to people in need as you want, but you need to stop thinking you should be able to make other people do the same thing. You may not like it but we have a right to our labor and freedom to spend it how we please.