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.
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.<p>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.<p>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.
Universal health care is not controversial in developed countries outside of the US.<p>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?<p>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.
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?
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?<p>It's interesting to see what people are trying to optimize for they suggest different political systems.
"Universal basic utilities (internet, electricity/gas, purified water) seem likely to be accepted versus giving everyone free money and health care."<p>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.<p>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'.<p>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.<p>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.<p>The people at the top of the hill will fight change, because every direction from the top is down.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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")<p>Or, since the government is providing, will the government get to decide what is appropriate for people to see?