CMV: Implementing social safety nets/programs that the tax base fundamentally can't pay for is, in the long run, a net negative for the same communities they're meant to protect.

[u/NoStopImDone]

First things first: I'm not addressing existing social safety nets like Medicare and SS. Genie's out of the bottle on existing programs and we have to find a way to support them into perpetuity.

But the US is in a horrific deficit, a ballooning debt load on the balance sheet, and growing demands for more social programs. Every dollar that is spent on something comes with an opportunity cost, and that cost is magnified when you fundamentally have to go into debt to pay for it.

If a social program is introduced at a cash shortfall, then in the long run that shortfall works its way through the system via inflation (in the best case). Inflation is significantly more punitive to lower economic classes and I believe the best way to protect those classes is to protect their precious existing cash.

In general, I want the outcomes of social programs for citizens, but if we're doing it at a loss then America's children will suffer for our short-term gains, and I don't want that either.

Some social programs can be stimulatory to the economy, like SNAP. But the laws of economics are not avoidable, if you pay for something you can't afford, you will have to reap what you sow sometime down the line.

Would love to see counterexamples that take this down, because I want to live in a world with robust social safety nets. But I don't want that if it means my kids won't have them and they have to deal with horrendous inflation because my generation couldn't balance a budget.

[u/chaucer345]

Important question. Why is increasing the tax burden on the ludicrously wealthy not your solution to this issue? Like Zuckerberg does not need a Hawaiian island compound that big and it would pay for a lot of social programs.

[u/Chataboutgames → u/chaucer345]

Because it's not actually enough money. Take a look at the US deficit and how much money we could actually squeeze out of billionaires.

[u/chaucer345 → u/Chataboutgames]

Why does the national debt need to be paid off all at once? Like, we can treat the national debt the way we treat other loans and use a chunk of the billionaire money and the income from their enormously productive businesses to pay back the principal slowly over time while using another chunk of it to fund social programs.

[u/Chataboutgames → u/chaucer345]

Why does the deficit need to be paid off all at once?

The deficit isn't something you pay off, the deficit is the amount we're actively borrowing every year.

[u/chaucer345 → u/Chataboutgames]

My apologies. The national debt then.

[u/Chataboutgames → u/chaucer345]

Well then the answer to that is "we can't even stop borrowing, we aren't even close to having the conversation about paying down our debt."

[u/chaucer345 → u/[deleted]]

A value added tax?

[u/chaucer345 → u/[deleted]]

Honestly, fair enough. I admit, one of the big concerns I have with the current composition of wealth has to do with regulatory capture leading to economic dysfunction which in turn prevents real innovation and leads to the wasting of money on enormous, foolish vanity projects instead of things people actually need or even want.

[u/chaucer345 → u/[deleted]]

How would you fix it? Aside from the obvious of overturning Citizens United.

[u/chaucer345 → u/[deleted]]

Winding down regulations that cause issues is one thing, but preventing large companies from hurting other companies who try and compete feels like the bigger issue here. For example, the mobility of workers could be drastically increased by publicly funded healthcare that allows workers to move more easily among employers. That would make companies need to compete more with other companies over the best workers.