r/TooAfraidToAsk • u/Sensitive_Profile623 • 5h ago
Politics Why does the idea of guaranteeing everyone a basic standard of living make some people so angry?
I’ve been thinking about this after another discussion completely spiraled.
I’m not talking about everyone earning the same amount, abolishing private property, eliminating businesses, or making luxury goods free.
I mean something much more basic: in an extremely wealthy society, should there be a floor below which we simply don’t allow people to fall?
Healthcare when you’re sick. Enough food to eat. Basic shelter. Utilities. Access to education. Things you realistically need to participate in society and stay alive.
You can still work harder and make more money. You can own a nicer house, travel, buy expensive clothes, start a company, become wealthy, whatever. I’m not particularly bothered by inequality above the floor.
What I struggle to understand is the hostility toward establishing the floor itself.
Whenever this comes up, the conversation seems to jump almost immediately to “communism,” “nobody will work anymore,” “government tyranny,” or arguments about whether somebody deserves assistance.
And I find that really interesting.
Why does another person having healthcare or enough food register as a threat to some people?
Is it a belief that hardship is necessary to motivate people? A sense that benefits have to be earned to be fair? Distrust of government? Fear that providing one thing inevitably leads to the state controlling everything? Or is there something psychologically uncomfortable about reducing the distance between people at different levels of the hierarchy?
I’m genuinely interested in the deeper reasoning here because “people shouldn’t be destitute in a country with enormous resources” feels like a fairly modest moral starting point to me, yet apparently it’s an extremely controversial one.
UPDATE: I’m not proposing UBI or saying the government should hand everyone enough cash to maintain some predetermined lifestyle. I’m asking whether we can structure a wealthy society so that people don’t become homeless, go hungry, lose access to healthcare, or otherwise fall into destitution simply because they’re poor. And assume nobody’s taxes have to increase. Would you still oppose guaranteeing everyone basic necessities? Why?
UPDATE 2: What I learned from the responses
After reading hundreds of comments, I think the most interesting finding is how rarely people engaged with the narrow question I actually asked.
I asked whether a wealthy society should maintain a floor beneath which people are not allowed to fall. I explicitly separated that from equal incomes, abolishing markets, luxury provision, and UBI. Yet the proposal was repeatedly translated into “paying people not to work,” communism, unlimited taxation, or government control.
That translation seems psychologically important. It is easier to reject an imagined system of forced equality than to say directly that food, shelter, or healthcare should depend on whether we judge someone deserving. The objections were less about one policy than about deservingness: Did they work hard enough? Did they make good choices? Why should I contribute if they did not?
I also noticed how often another person’s security was experienced as a personal loss. A floor was described as lowering someone else’s ceiling, even though I never proposed a tax rate and asked people to assume no tax increase. Several people still could not evaluate the principle without returning to “my money.” That suggests the tax argument is carrying something emotional about autonomy, status, fairness, and resentment.
The hardest part for me is the moralization of hardship. Some responses effectively said that because they worked, struggled, or went without help, other people should not receive relief too easily. But if one person was forced into the coal mine while another was allowed to be a child, my question is not how to make the second child suffer equally. It is why the coal mine was accepted as necessary.
Of course implementation/logistics matters. Housing must be built, healthcare staffed, programs funded, incentives designed, and fraud managed. But those are solvable policy questions, and working models already exist at different scales. They do not answer the prior moral question: Do we want to organize society around preventing destitution, or do we believe destitution must remain available as a punishment and labor incentive?
Supportive comments used a different moral frame. They treated food, shelter, and healthcare as prerequisites for participation rather than rewards for performance. They also redirected resentment upward toward structural conditions and concentrated wealth instead of downward toward recipients.
My takeaway is that this isnt really about capitalism versus socialism. It is about if dignity establishes an unconditional minimum, or whether survival itself must remain conditional on productivity and perceived deservingness.
I still believe we can start small, learn from what works, and build upward. Cynicism is not realism simply because it refuses to imagine improvement.
Thank you all for responding and for the thoughtful insights, even for the ones I disagreed with.