Post #3938255

2026-07-12 04:40 UTC

I want to say upfront that I don’t subscribe to this argument myself, but the belief isn’t that people don’t want social programs. The argument is that society can’t afford them. Supposedly, if people’s basic needs are met by government programs that don’t require any work from them, then enough people will stop working that tax revenue will fall below required levels for those programs and the whole system will collapse. Therefore people blocking or otherwise countering these programs are actually saving people from themselves. I don’t think it’s a good argument, but let’s not build a straw man.

Replies (3)

@lath@lemmy.world 2026-07-12 05:45

Tax revenues are already in the shithouse because the largest accumulation of wealth isn’t paying tax. Tax all the billionaires properly and you get a couple of trillions in taxes. Suddenly society will be able to afford a lot of things.

Open ##3938254
@workerONE@lemmy.world 2026-07-12 07:13

Capitalists want a workforce that is desperate and does not have basic needs met. So the argument is that if people aren’t desperate enough they won’t work? Think about medical care. If you owned a factory wouldn’t you want workers to show up, healthy and fed and ready to work? Sure they do, but they would rather have desperate people who have no choice but to work for pennies, who can’t afford to take time off to vote or strike.

Open ##3945031
@Hapankaali@lemmy.world 2026-07-12 07:26

Not only is it not a good argument, the real-world data shows a correlation between more generous social benefits and more people entering the workforce.

Open ##3946530