Someone asked me for the 1st time, 'what should the (federal) government do?' I have thought about it before that question, a lot. But i have never tried to sum up all of my opinion into a few general statements. I'm not 100% sure of what i said, and I'm not 100% if it made much sense.
So I thought about it some more and i think i worked out what i think (good sentence structure then). So. What should the Government do.
My answer is 'The Government should allow and encourage and give the ability all citizens to be and do what ever they want.'
So that is pretty open to interpretation. I am left of the center (further then most), social progressive and fiscally responsible (very different to a fiscal Conservative) So know we have a better idea of what that sence means to me.
I think one needs to look at how the government should play a part in the economy. So lets look as two different types of economies, Capitalism and socialism, both have great features and terrible features.
Great things about capitalism, I can get a flight for $30, a flat screen TV for a few hundred dollars and The Office. Bad things about pure capitalism, people born in to a low income family don't have the same opportunities in education or healthcare, workers can get screwed over for a profit, tv ads.
Great things about socialism, low homelessness, free healthcare and free education. Bad things about pure socialism, possible centralization, possible poor business models that create unprofitable goods or services that are propped up by tax payer money, making people trying to run companies compete with tax payer propped up state owned companies.
So it seems pretty clear to me, why not take the best part from each system.
Why do this?
If you limit someones possible future earning capacity just because of the income of their parents, then lots of possible future taxable income to the government will be lost and your also limiting the possible future consumer market.
So if you insure that there is no limitations placed on person because of who they were born to then you increase the money available to the government through taxes and to the private sector through their ability to consume and most importantly, you improve that persons standard of living and allowing them to do and be what they want.
So then how can we insure that someones possible future earning capacity is not limited by the income of their family?
-By making sure that the can live in a house, that they can eat healthy food and live reasonably comfortable no matter what the income of there house is (this is wealthfare).
-To make sure that people can get the best education in the field they want for free (free education).
-To make sure that no one has to worry about medical expensive, everyone should have the best healthcare that is available (free optical, dental and medical care)
-To make sure that if a person cannot afford formof personal transport, that their education or area of work is not limited because of this. (free public transportation).
So, if you make sure people are educated, healthy, can travel to and from work or school and can live a reasonably life then i think you are allowing them to be and do what they want.
So why cant a private company charge per user for something like public transportation without any funding from the government? Because something like a private company cannot make a profit from it without disadvantaging certain people that require that service or good to live a comfortable life.
The government can make a long term profit from something like public transportation or public education or public healthcare through taxes off the people that use it. If someone uses the train to get to uni, they maybe not be able to pay the actual cost of them riding the train at this point of their life. However, the money they will earn from going to uni will be greater then if they didn't go and, the tax on their income will be greater then the sum of all the times the caught the bus.
This is very easily seen in free public education, where people cannot pay for they education until they have an education. Which means that private non-government funded education would and does disadvantage certain people, those that family cannot afford it. Thus limiting that persons ability to learn what they want, get the job they want and do what they want. Also lowering their future income. This will increase their possible future dependence on the government and decreases the amount of future tax they will pay to the government and decrease their future consumeability.
