Ask HN: Why can't tax pay for universal basic utilities?
Universal Health Care and Basic Income is too controversial. Universal basic utilities (internet, electricity/gas, purified water) seem likely to be accepted versus giving everyone free money and health care.
50 comments
It could. You could establish a baseline and then have people pay an excess, or just cover it all. Probably only the former is viable.
In the latter case, such a tax doesn't discourage heavy users, it's a lot easier to abuse things when you don't have a direct correlation for how much it's costing; why not have a 1 hour shower? It's only 0.0001c to the taxpayer, and you've had a hard day! Comparatively, if you have to pay for largesse yourself, you may be less likely to splurge as much. Of course, there'll still be a 1% who does because money is nothing to them, but moderately wealthy people won't be so prone to doing so.
We do want to discourage rampant energy and water usage at the end of the day, so fully covering it may not be the best idea.
In the latter case, such a tax doesn't discourage heavy users, it's a lot easier to abuse things when you don't have a direct correlation for how much it's costing; why not have a 1 hour shower? It's only 0.0001c to the taxpayer, and you've had a hard day! Comparatively, if you have to pay for largesse yourself, you may be less likely to splurge as much. Of course, there'll still be a 1% who does because money is nothing to them, but moderately wealthy people won't be so prone to doing so.
We do want to discourage rampant energy and water usage at the end of the day, so fully covering it may not be the best idea.
> there'll still be a 1% who does because money is nothing to them
I recently heard someone well off describe fines like parking as "the cost to park here".
I recently heard someone well off describe fines like parking as "the cost to park here".
Some countries set fines based on the individual's income level, to dissuade this attitude.
But that makes people no longer equal in the eyes of the law. A better solution to that problem is to make sure there's some non-monetary component to the punishment too, e.g., towing the car, which then takes time and inconvenience to retrieve, or community service for worse things than parking tickets.
Why would a percentage based fine make people unequal in the eyes of the law? The percentage does not change and everyone would feel the punishment in the same fashion
If a baby were to punch another baby, the second baby would feel pain but if that same baby were to punch a full grown 94kg man, the man would feel nothing. So we scale up the situation appropriately to two 94kg men.
From my perspective, having a small fine only hurts people who are poor where that is not even thought of as a punishment of even an inconvenience for the rich.
If a baby were to punch another baby, the second baby would feel pain but if that same baby were to punch a full grown 94kg man, the man would feel nothing. So we scale up the situation appropriately to two 94kg men.
From my perspective, having a small fine only hurts people who are poor where that is not even thought of as a punishment of even an inconvenience for the rich.
But it does, the idea of the fine (or any punishment) is to stop you (and others) from doing that again. The equality is in what you are and are not allowed to do and in how harsh the penalty is to you.
Well then update the law to better refer to what equality is. x% of your wealth + y% of what you could earn this year is far more equal than a set number
Those things are also much harder to use as punishment
Yes, other taxation devices should be created to target such individuals.
Universal health care is not controversial in developed countries outside of the US.
Universal basic utilities wouldn't work because it would need to be means-tested, and that's not easy to do. A household with $0 of income might have a secret $100M fortune somewhere. Should they get free electricity?
It makes much more sense to have affordable utilities and just give people cash. If they want to use 10% of the electricity of their neighbors, they should be able to save some money.
Universal basic utilities wouldn't work because it would need to be means-tested, and that's not easy to do. A household with $0 of income might have a secret $100M fortune somewhere. Should they get free electricity?
It makes much more sense to have affordable utilities and just give people cash. If they want to use 10% of the electricity of their neighbors, they should be able to save some money.
> Universal health care is not controversial in developed countries outside of the US.
I'm canadian and our universal healthcare system sucks. It's very controversial here. Universal often means universally bad - picture your typical interaction with the government bureaucracy and imagine that for something important. It's the same reason you wouldn't want government run utilities (which Canada also has)
I'm canadian and our universal healthcare system sucks. It's very controversial here. Universal often means universally bad - picture your typical interaction with the government bureaucracy and imagine that for something important. It's the same reason you wouldn't want government run utilities (which Canada also has)
Universal health care needs to be funded. If your country elects politicians who underfund health care, then you should expect negative consequences on the system.
Or, you could privatize your healthcare like the US, and pay multiple times more than the amount you've saved on your tax bill.
And, expensive privatized health care does not mean better health outcomes; e.g., the US has worse infant mortality than either New Zealand (a sibling comment) or Canada (or most of Eastern Europe / all of Western Europe).
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/infant-mortalit...
Or, you could privatize your healthcare like the US, and pay multiple times more than the amount you've saved on your tax bill.
And, expensive privatized health care does not mean better health outcomes; e.g., the US has worse infant mortality than either New Zealand (a sibling comment) or Canada (or most of Eastern Europe / all of Western Europe).
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/infant-mortalit...
That's not a great metric for comparison of the healthcare systems. Outcomes for specific procedures or conditions would be more fitting. Many cultural and societal factors, even population genetics and the number of babies born in a year, influence infant mortality.
I'm in NZ and our universal healthcare system sucks too.
For example don't have a medical emergency here. You'll wait more than 8 hours to get seen.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/nearly-all-nz-hospitals-failin...
For example don't have a medical emergency here. You'll wait more than 8 hours to get seen.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/nearly-all-nz-hospitals-failin...
> For example don't have a medical emergency here. You'll wait more than 8 hours to get seen.
This is the same as the US. When you go to the emergency room, you're triaged. If you don't seem to have an immediate, life-threatening emergency, you often wait hours to be seen.
I think this is pretty typical. You can't scale medical staff and facilities rapidly by demand, and it's not sustainable to have the staff required for peak demand all the time.
On top of that, there's a shortage of medical professionals in most countries.
This is the same as the US. When you go to the emergency room, you're triaged. If you don't seem to have an immediate, life-threatening emergency, you often wait hours to be seen.
I think this is pretty typical. You can't scale medical staff and facilities rapidly by demand, and it's not sustainable to have the staff required for peak demand all the time.
On top of that, there's a shortage of medical professionals in most countries.
I'm no expert on the US system but it seems to be much better.
From this article. https://hbr.org/2019/02/to-reduce-emergency-room-wait-times-...
"Patients who arrive at EDs with broken bones wait a painful 54 minutes, on average, before receiving any pain medication."
That sounds like a dream to me. 54 minutes is nothing. My friend's wife waited over 8 hours to be seen after cutting through nerves and tendons in her hand. Then she waited 3 days for surgery. After being seen, the doctors told her not to eat. They told her to drive 3 hours to the next City as the local hospital could not perform the operation. When she got there she waited days. Her husband had driven down with their two toddlers and had was not allowed in the hospital due to Covid restrictions. She was pregnant and went days without food waiting for care. This was a little over a week ago.
I had a suspected aneurysm almost a year ago. I woke up with an incredible headache. I waited over 6 hours for a CT scan. That was a high priority triage. I still waited for hours.
I'm not saying the US system is perfect. I don't even know if it's better but I do know our system is broken.
From this article. https://hbr.org/2019/02/to-reduce-emergency-room-wait-times-...
"Patients who arrive at EDs with broken bones wait a painful 54 minutes, on average, before receiving any pain medication."
That sounds like a dream to me. 54 minutes is nothing. My friend's wife waited over 8 hours to be seen after cutting through nerves and tendons in her hand. Then she waited 3 days for surgery. After being seen, the doctors told her not to eat. They told her to drive 3 hours to the next City as the local hospital could not perform the operation. When she got there she waited days. Her husband had driven down with their two toddlers and had was not allowed in the hospital due to Covid restrictions. She was pregnant and went days without food waiting for care. This was a little over a week ago.
I had a suspected aneurysm almost a year ago. I woke up with an incredible headache. I waited over 6 hours for a CT scan. That was a high priority triage. I still waited for hours.
I'm not saying the US system is perfect. I don't even know if it's better but I do know our system is broken.
How does the liability work there against the universal hospital?
Something like waiting 6 hours for a CT or instructing an injured pregnant woman not to eat would be ripe for a malpractice lawsuit in the US (provided actual harm occurs).
Something like waiting 6 hours for a CT or instructing an injured pregnant woman not to eat would be ripe for a malpractice lawsuit in the US (provided actual harm occurs).
It's basically impossible to sue the government. In theory you could but I've never heard of anyone succeeding.
[deleted]
I doubt 66% of people insured in the US by their private system are satisfied. https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-polls/canadians-largely-sat...
Be real here. No one needs the dystopian demeanor of the BMV when they are facing a health issue.
There is a lot of room for improvement in our current system but the quality of our healthcare facilities and professionals is pretty damn good in the US.
I wish the system would get out of their way and let them work.
There is a lot of room for improvement in our current system but the quality of our healthcare facilities and professionals is pretty damn good in the US.
I wish the system would get out of their way and let them work.
Not to get off topic, but I'm actually quite satisfied with my DMV
California…the state that brings you the DMV will also bring you your medical care. Sounds horrifying.
> Universal basic utilities wouldn't work because it would need to be means-tested,
Means testing is a stupid idea. Give 2kWh/day and a (upon asking) a two bedroom house worth of insulation to everyone and properly tax wealth to pay for it.
Means testing is a stupid idea. Give 2kWh/day and a (upon asking) a two bedroom house worth of insulation to everyone and properly tax wealth to pay for it.
Well, in socialized healthcare, you have some procedures which are covered, and then some, like cosmetic surgery, which aren't. An equivalent to that for power would be to cook up a baseline kWh usage for a household, maybe something that is a function correlated to the number of residents, and then charge for every kWh above that.
> An equivalent to that for power would be to cook up a baseline kWh usage for a household
This just couldn't work in a fair way.
People live in old houses, new houses, condos, etc. There are massive variations between households in terms of insulation, heating/cooling equipment, etc.
In fact, I would wager that it's often cheaper to cool a wealthier person's 1,000 sqft home than a poorer person's 1,000 sqft home, just because the weathier person is more likely to have a recent, energy-efficient HVAC and better insulation.
This just couldn't work in a fair way.
People live in old houses, new houses, condos, etc. There are massive variations between households in terms of insulation, heating/cooling equipment, etc.
In fact, I would wager that it's often cheaper to cool a wealthier person's 1,000 sqft home than a poorer person's 1,000 sqft home, just because the weathier person is more likely to have a recent, energy-efficient HVAC and better insulation.
Well, heating/cooling aren't essentials in many places. You could subsidize the cost of running a fridge and appliances but stop short of climate control. Alternatively, in places that are now reaching 50+ degrees celsius with high humidity at times, maybe subsidizing climate control is desirable to save lives?
>cook up a baseline kWh usage for a household
>charge for every kWh above that.
This is a little bit how it was in Texas in the 1970's and early '80's, when the utilities were still a tightly regulated monopoly.
There was no free energy, but prices could only be changed by a lengthy bureaucratic process. However HL&P had become familiar and had the upper hand in negotiations, but at least the Public Utility Commission still represented the public back then.
In order to be allowed an exorbitant overall increase, they "agreed" to much lower residential rates than business rates, and then deeply discounted the first few hundred kWh for residential customers. They could negotiate the number of baseline kWh as well as the (multiple) rates themselves.
That way once the rate increase went into effect, the largest number of the least financially capable customers would have the most tolerable increases, but the overall monthly cost really shot up quick once you started to cool the whole house with A/C.
This scheme lasted until deregulation and even beyond. There was no requirement to give up your previous monopolistic provider after they migrated to the "free" market, so if you stuck with the traditional HL&P "plan" you still got the baseline kWh way cheaper than anyone else would ever offer, but the remainder kWh over that amount was what was becoming competitively priced.
Even though no other electricity provider had the cheap first kWh's to offer, they were still taking customers away all the time. Regardless, most people had never paid any attention to how cheap it was for the first week or two of every month, and those affordable kWh's were strongly de-emphasized as HL&P came up with all kinds of tempting alternative plans to get you away from the lingering one where the core of everyone's personal energy usage was truly subsidized by those who could most afford it, by one of the last beneficial moves of the PUC.
>charge for every kWh above that.
This is a little bit how it was in Texas in the 1970's and early '80's, when the utilities were still a tightly regulated monopoly.
There was no free energy, but prices could only be changed by a lengthy bureaucratic process. However HL&P had become familiar and had the upper hand in negotiations, but at least the Public Utility Commission still represented the public back then.
In order to be allowed an exorbitant overall increase, they "agreed" to much lower residential rates than business rates, and then deeply discounted the first few hundred kWh for residential customers. They could negotiate the number of baseline kWh as well as the (multiple) rates themselves.
That way once the rate increase went into effect, the largest number of the least financially capable customers would have the most tolerable increases, but the overall monthly cost really shot up quick once you started to cool the whole house with A/C.
This scheme lasted until deregulation and even beyond. There was no requirement to give up your previous monopolistic provider after they migrated to the "free" market, so if you stuck with the traditional HL&P "plan" you still got the baseline kWh way cheaper than anyone else would ever offer, but the remainder kWh over that amount was what was becoming competitively priced.
Even though no other electricity provider had the cheap first kWh's to offer, they were still taking customers away all the time. Regardless, most people had never paid any attention to how cheap it was for the first week or two of every month, and those affordable kWh's were strongly de-emphasized as HL&P came up with all kinds of tempting alternative plans to get you away from the lingering one where the core of everyone's personal energy usage was truly subsidized by those who could most afford it, by one of the last beneficial moves of the PUC.
What appliances would count? Some people have dishwashers, others don't. Some people use gas for stoves and hot water heaters.
Here in NZ my fathers cancer treatment was not covered. He spent most of his savings buying an extra year. It was scheduled for funding but Covid took that budget so it's been delayed.
"Universal health care is not controversial in developed countries outside of the US."
Source?
Source?
> and that's not easy to do. A household with $0 of income might have a secret $100M fortune somewhere. Should they get free electricity?
Universal basic. That does not mean unlimited user decided usage, then it would not be basic, and it does not have any income restrictions then it would not be universal. If Elon Musk lived in Denmark he’d still get free doctors appointment and cancer treatment even though he’s rich. And yes that is fair. We help everyone who needs help equally, how much money you have or don’t have is completely irrelevant. No need to do background checks or have a Big system around figuring out if a patient deserves help or not, or figuring out patient details. The entire system is geared towards helping people no matter who they are, and that’s how it should be.
Universal basic. That does not mean unlimited user decided usage, then it would not be basic, and it does not have any income restrictions then it would not be universal. If Elon Musk lived in Denmark he’d still get free doctors appointment and cancer treatment even though he’s rich. And yes that is fair. We help everyone who needs help equally, how much money you have or don’t have is completely irrelevant. No need to do background checks or have a Big system around figuring out if a patient deserves help or not, or figuring out patient details. The entire system is geared towards helping people no matter who they are, and that’s how it should be.
People will use (waste) more energy and water when they are not paying for it. Do you want to encourage huge homes with high heating and cooling bills?
[deleted]
Same reason why universal health care is controversial: "I don't use as much as them, why should I pay for their use?"
In healthcare it's different, as, conceptually, at least, it's in all of our interests to be healthy, and being less healthy usually isn't just a comfort matter; discomfort in the health sphere usually signals greater health problems in the future.
Universal healthcare isn't controversial outside of the US.
Who by the way spend far more per person than any other developed country on healthcare, that's both government and consumer spending.
Who by the way spend far more per person than any other developed country on healthcare, that's both government and consumer spending.
Well, we have had the Obama care for a couple of years now - so we're good
Why do you want the government to run these basic utilities?
Is it that you want more people to be able to access them?
Is it that you think the government would be more efficient at running them?
It's interesting to see what people are trying to optimize for they suggest different political systems.
It's interesting to see what people are trying to optimize for they suggest different political systems.
Good question! Because we need them to work. Function should be the goal not profit. Ofc maintenance would require public involvement which we lack and which is why everything was privatized.
We could do it differently, I like this formula:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_board_(Netherlands) > ...independent of administrative governing bodies like provinces and municipalities.
It makes it extremely hard if not impossible for conventional government to cut the budget. It does one thing and it does it well.
We could do it differently, I like this formula:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_board_(Netherlands) > ...independent of administrative governing bodies like provinces and municipalities.
It makes it extremely hard if not impossible for conventional government to cut the budget. It does one thing and it does it well.
I'd agree that function should be the goal and not profit. However if you can align the two then you get a self sustaining system.
If an individuals selfish ambition can be channeled to produce the best hospital systems we can have given the resources we have, that would be ideal.
If an individuals selfish ambition can be channeled to produce the best hospital systems we can have given the resources we have, that would be ideal.
The difference is that if I do something for you because you pay me handsomely for it I'm gone the moment you can't afford me.
I want the government to be a robust platform on which people can build the jungle of commerce.
Making widgets is hard. One can buy a truck to truck the widgets to the customer but the entrepreneur shouldn't also have to build roads. If we involve him in building roads it will mean fewer widgets of lesser quality. The whole widget manufacturing might not even make sense anymore.
I want the government to be a robust platform on which people can build the jungle of commerce.
Making widgets is hard. One can buy a truck to truck the widgets to the customer but the entrepreneur shouldn't also have to build roads. If we involve him in building roads it will mean fewer widgets of lesser quality. The whole widget manufacturing might not even make sense anymore.
"Universal basic utilities (internet, electricity/gas, purified water) seem likely to be accepted versus giving everyone free money and health care."
Utilities are just as controversial in my opinion, probably even more so. There are homes in remote areas without utilities. Would we need to hook them up, or leave them behind? Some people would not include internet as a basic utility. Paying for gas usage is likely to lead to climate change debates over wether we should subsidize that. Setting some minimal universal level will also be hard since it will vary by region, by house type (HVAC, gas vs electric appliances, insulation, etc), appliance age/efficiency, family size, etc.
Utilities are just as controversial in my opinion, probably even more so. There are homes in remote areas without utilities. Would we need to hook them up, or leave them behind? Some people would not include internet as a basic utility. Paying for gas usage is likely to lead to climate change debates over wether we should subsidize that. Setting some minimal universal level will also be hard since it will vary by region, by house type (HVAC, gas vs electric appliances, insulation, etc), appliance age/efficiency, family size, etc.
I sense you're looking for a more fundamental answer.
In any society, whether it's a tiny island tribe or a giant nation-state, there is a faction who like things just the way they are and don't want them to change. These are 'the powerful'.
Then there is another faction who want change but don't have the power, and they live in a permanent state of tension with the powerful.
In poli sci I recall it being called the problem of the reformers versus the careerists. But you can call it the young versus the old, the radicals versus the traditionalists, the revolutionaries versus the royalists.
The people at the top of the hill will fight change, because every direction from the top is down.
If you live long enough you'll typically switch sides once you've decided you have gotten all the change you're going to get and start trying to keep what you have (part way up the hill) instead.
It's not too different from a pride of lions. The king of the pride got there by being the strongest, he has it pretty good for a while but eventually he starts getting older and weaker while the younger lions keep getting bigger and stronger.
TL:DR you get power by fighting for it, you keep power by fighting for it.
In any society, whether it's a tiny island tribe or a giant nation-state, there is a faction who like things just the way they are and don't want them to change. These are 'the powerful'.
Then there is another faction who want change but don't have the power, and they live in a permanent state of tension with the powerful.
In poli sci I recall it being called the problem of the reformers versus the careerists. But you can call it the young versus the old, the radicals versus the traditionalists, the revolutionaries versus the royalists.
The people at the top of the hill will fight change, because every direction from the top is down.
If you live long enough you'll typically switch sides once you've decided you have gotten all the change you're going to get and start trying to keep what you have (part way up the hill) instead.
It's not too different from a pride of lions. The king of the pride got there by being the strongest, he has it pretty good for a while but eventually he starts getting older and weaker while the younger lions keep getting bigger and stronger.
TL:DR you get power by fighting for it, you keep power by fighting for it.
Because taxation is theft. You and the government wouldn't like me using "free" internet to post messages like that anyway so I'd get cut off so I will not support it.
Will this free internet be the other kind of free? (as in "free speech" not "free beer")
Or, since the government is providing, will the government get to decide what is appropriate for people to see?
Or, since the government is providing, will the government get to decide what is appropriate for people to see?
UBI is a much less bad idea, since people will be incentivized to select the best providers and to not waste limited resources.
Taxes used to cover basic services. Now they don’t even cover inflated salaries and pensions
The people you're forcing to pay for yours can move to another state.
Basic Income and forget about it.