Financing comparison: past vs. today

2022-06-21 07:49:13

Inefficient and sometimes also ineffective economic management is the price we pay for having a say. Democracy simply produces a certain type of politician and is per se an incredibly inefficient form of government. We accept that because of its advantage in being able to vote governments out and having opportunities to participate. In democracy, nothing is used more than the good right not to take advantage of participation opportunities.

Well. That also has to do with the fact that, unfortunately, the word "meritocracy" haunts society. A 100% meritocracy would only be one in which 0% is inherited. Of course, those who dream of it have not thought that far.
Overall, inheritance taxes are needed so that through the compound interest effect, wealth does not concentrate in a few families to the extent that after a few generations almost everything belongs to a few families. Where is the threshold to start and where is the limit of the rate? Who knows… 100% immediately is obviously nonsense.

Before I repeat my position, I will address only one point. Yes, democracy is inefficient. I gladly accept that. Slow decisions, much is possibly debated to death.
But that does not justify waste of budget funds at this level. That can be done significantly more efficiently even in a democracy. That is what matters to me. It is not at all about prices, contracts, or similar things being dictated by politics.

2022-06-21 08:12:11

You cannot not pay H4, because this is the subsistence minimum.

What is the alternative? Should the incompetent and parasites (yes, they exist) just die out?
Or should they just loiter homeless in the city?

What you are saying does exist. You can admire the results live in the USA.

A bit too off-topic, but whatever:

It is claimed that this is the subsistence minimum. In reality, the money is enough for quite a few also for partying, cigarettes, alcohol and/or drugs. In my opinion, that then has nothing to do with the subsistence minimum anymore.

In any case, I would not distribute real money at all but only vouchers, where "luxury" is excluded. Whoever wants "luxury" should damn well go to work for it. And no, I do not believe that the majority of long-term unemployed Hartz IV recipients are so sick that they absolutely can no longer work at all.

2022-06-21 08:17:27

I believe most long-term unemployed Hartz IV recipients are no longer useful for anything. Better to give them a bit more money so they can keep themselves busy somehow, than to have them loiter around everywhere and come up with stupid ideas out of boredom. Do you really want to save them the TV in the hope that they will then just sit on the floor in an unfurnished apartment and let time pass by?

2022-06-21 08:21:43

I recommend Rutger Bregman: why poor people do dumb things. And when you also consider that poverty is one of the biggest mental stressors that lead to doing dumb things, then a different perspective would be advisable - one that allows you to see the people behind it. Not just the surface with the "dumb things".

2022-06-21 08:25:33

A bit off-topic, but whatever:

It is claimed that this is the subsistence level. In reality, for quite a few people, the money is enough for parties, cigarettes, alcohol and/or drugs. In my opinion, that then has nothing to do with subsistence level anymore.

When families with 6000 euros net ask whether they can afford a 1500 euro installment, everywhere people say that it’s not nearly enough and money for food bla bla..
But 400 euros a month are enough for luxury. Sure.

2022-06-21 08:34:42

That is certainly true, however, you cannot have saved 300K by your mid-30s even with a well-paid job (especially not including children)

I consider that absolutely doable for two people. The early bird catches the worm. High school diploma at 18 or 19. 3-5 years of university, then work full-time and live frugally.

Financing comparison: past vs. today

Joedreck

Maschi33

Tassimat

Bertram100

Silgiga

Zaire32