Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hamhead t1_iwu92vm wrote

Reply to comment by ovrhere_ in Dang, these bastards are relentless. by TheDogsNameWasFrank

That makes no sense. We should encourage conspicuous consumption?

If you told me the first certain amount should be free you might have a point. But not at all.

And I mean, nothing is free. You’d need a huge tax increase to pay for that.

5

ovrhere_ t1_iwue69y wrote

Conspicuous consumption is a phrase I'm not familiar with so i looked it up and i don't understand what you're asking. Guaranteeing every resident has utilities regardless of their income feels to me like the opposite of purchasing goods or services to publicly display wealth rather than to cover basic needs, I'm suggesting the state should cover those needs universally. And yeah that could require higher taxes. I'm not opposed to paying a proportionately higher tax to support that.

−2

HeyaShinyObject t1_iww4aep wrote

Prior poster didn't really mean conspicuous consumption, but there is an effect that if you don't pay for something, you will consume it without regard. "Might as well turn my heat up to 83, my taxes already paid for it". It would be a disaster. You could make a better argument for universal basic income (I'm not convinced, but it's saner than free utilities).

1