With all due respect, I think you're stuck in the existing paradigm. Remember, by the model I'm proposing, because taxes will be so low, you'll keep much more money in your young years. You'll therefore have more money to invest to earlier in life, which will compound interest over a much longer term. Thus, people will have better opportunities to save for themselves rather than having Social Security taxes docked from their paychecks every single week.
The poor and low-middle-class elderly and sickly are deported or exterminated, leaving a totalitarian elite setting small wages for a young working-slave class. Tried that already in Germany. The "outside world" will unite and topple your regime. End of concept. I think the "voter-supremacy of an existing state with like-minded numbers" is a more valid and achievable concept.
if school is privatized, then there is no need for government funded vouchers. Privatized needs to remain so. Flash, school isn't for everyone.
Odd how people -- from both sides of the political spectrum -- like to invoke the Nazis (or Communists) whenever presented with a concept they don't particularly agree with.
The notion behind the voucher is not to condemn a child to an inadequate education because of the failures or negligence of his parents.
Nazis (or Communists) concepts are invoked when a "ideal" must be met, by sacrificing a "generation or two in economic trouble", in order to get a grip on that economic problem. It's burning down the house to rid the mice. The parts I like about some of the "old" concepts (that you purport as your original gathered thoughts) are just not feasible in real-life situations. Been there...done that. I would be glad to follow each of your items to its failed conclusion, if you wish to bring them up individually.
Agreed. At least you're concerned and attempting a search for solution. Sometimes silence is not the best response.
I think the general gist of this thread and other ones like it, is that there is a section of society that feel they have the capability and the means to make a nice life for themselves and it is somewhat of an inconvenience to them that there are poor people who cant / wont make a nice lives for themselves living in their vicinity spoiling the whole thing. That is the general idea isn’t it? There are then various ideas on ‘free societies’ that have the same general theme that, if we just look after ourselves only, the poor people will just disappear somehow and that will be an end to the problem of poverty… Well, newsflash, there are many examples of societies with no little or no welfare system in the world. There are many countries where education and healthcare are all private and if you can afford it great, if you cant, oh well.:shrug: There are many countries where taxation is low or very easy to avoid. Try visiting South America, many countries there have experienced similar systems. And guess what , the poor people did not disappear, they are still there. Crime rates are high, shanty towns grow, they become no go arrears etc etc You can have any free system that you like, but if you think it will transform all the poor into rich, or it will mean that all the poor will up roots and go and live in someone else’s country you are truly mistaken.
More than understood, but consider if there are vouchers then who is paying for them? Methinks, it better to absolve government involvement and completely privatized education. How much better educated our "new society" would be without any tentacles of government?
