Thread 82395571

I want to affect 2028 presidential election and inject a policy into both sides.

The policy will be named something super simple like: "food and room"

Everyone gets a virtual token for:
>3 customizable full cooked and prepared meals a day + delivery
>1 persistent private room + bathroom

What is the point?
>Individuals separately buying groceries, papering and cooking is very inefficient as whole, at scale the same can be done for cheaper and with the saving it can be home delivered.
>Many people stay at bad relationship, job, otherwise unable to make their own choice because it's tied to risk of losing where they live. A guaranteed regular private room that is not at homeless shelter solves those concerns.

Making use of these tokens is optional, they are tradeable, combinable but not sellable.

Using the token means govt's cost of such token unit will be taken from tax at the end of the year if the total cost is under x% of their income with the ability to pay in installment. To the degree it does not cover the cost, the rest will be covered by vat tax on individual luxery purchases as percentage.

For this new departments will be created:
>Department of food and preparation
>Department of housing transfer and management

After outlined in law, these departments will ideally be managed by some randomly selected citizens who wants the job and decisions are made with super majority vote who serves for 6 months at a time before being disband after given 6 months prior to it to do nothing but do self guided study relevant to the job and given access to every part of the department information and infrastructure with top 10% of current national salary for the job and for 2 years after. They'll make a report on what they are studying and how that'll be publicly released weekly during the preparation period. For the duration of their time served and at least 2 years since then they are required to only live in such token room and only eat from the cooked food and delivery. They'll each work primarily from different randomly decided region of the country and will be randomly reassigned at least 2 times during their 6 months.

That's all I got for now. Any objection to my intent for policy injection?

>>82395571 (OP)
>3 customizable full cooked and prepared meals a day + delivery
This is extremely fucking inefficient. Just do universal SNAP what the fuck

>>82395579
>Individuals separately buying groceries, papering and cooking is very inefficient as whole, at scale the same can be done for cheaper and with the saving it can be home delivered.
Buying groceries and preparing food is a huge time sink. The alternative is buying mostly uncustomizable and usually unhealthy for your particular need food from restaurants. With this you get the same food you want without the wasting time part. And instead of hiring a maid or doing it through a for profit company, govt managed system can do it cheap and at scale.

>>82395571 (OP)
Just advocate for universal basic income and look into what Roosevelt wanted to do with his expanded bill of rights before he died - basically wanted to ensure all Americans had a home, food, etc. Just be prepared for magafags to autistically screech about how its somehow a good thing that we're all cucked by corporate interests and the billionaire class.

>>82395602
Delivering meals daily to people is not efficient. Look at what ubereats costs for delivery and then multiply that by 365 * the number of households in the country. That's insane. It also requires the creation of massive kitchens and the employment of at least 10s of thousands of cooks but probably more since you can't centralize meal cooking. How does this work in rural areas? How does this work for people with specific dietary needs or who want food at different than normal times? You're moving a lot of unpaid labor into being paid labor, that doesn't work without taking on massive debt. Plus you need to move a bunch of people from their current jobs into being cooks and delivery people. I don't understand your tax scheme to pay for it but it sounds like a huge amount of extra overhead for an already thinly stretched IRS.

>>82395605
Continuing to your next idea
1 persistent private room + bathroom does not exist in the US. Those are single room occupancies and they're largely illegal across the country. I would support the creation of a large number of SRUs since they're an excellent way to increase the housing supply cheaply and a great place for college students, new grads, etc to live, but the Federal government has no power to actually do that.

>>82395604
That'll be seen as purely social-welfareish policy and has lesser success of being able to be injected in both parties

People also instinctively dislikes the idea of handing over money to possibly druggies and dumb people and hope they'd use it right.

People would also fear of runaway inflation with this way more.

>>82395605
Remember this use of token is optional. Disease hyper specific tier dietary needs etc will not be handled if not already available in regional supply. Finding cooks won't be hard, unemployment rate is enough, more variable part time opportunities can make use of out of labor force people as well. Govt can also afford to connect and incentivize moving people around in some cases as jobs program.

If delivery ends up being more costly than savings from efficiency, it can be optional, pick it up yourself or pay for delivery or part of the cost until it is reasonable enough for govt to handle as I suggested. It won't be a problem initially when few will use, it won't be a problem later if everyone gets on this since by that time there would be some more efficient distribution method than random guys on bike/car.

Cost is being handled either by self paid if they can handle it or by luxery individual purchase vat tax in percentage.

>>82395615
It can be combinable/tradeable, doesn't literally have to be 1 room and bathroom. The most important part is being able to trade and swap, people can move out to a new place. Building houses or govt doing anything with houses directly should not be part of this idea if it has any hope of being injected into major policy proposals. It'd just be paying for the cost as token and the cost is recovered either from the token user or vat on luxury goods.

>>82395682
>Finding cooks won't be hard, unemployment rate is enough
There are job openings already that people aren't taking. Finding cooks will be very hard unless you pay a lot. Not to mention that you can't take an unemployed software engineer and turn him into a cook overnight. This is all expensive.
>Govt can also afford to
We are on the edge of a debt crisis, we really can't
>pick it up yourself
How are you making all these distribution centers and staffing them?
>there would be some more efficient distribution method
Says who? I don't think this is something Amazon could do and they're pretty much at the top of the logistics game.
If this were a more efficient system, don't you think McDonalds would be doing it? They have a shit ton of little restaurants instead, sometimes almost right next door to each other. I really don't see any way your system could be more efficient than what currently happens e.g., grocery shopping.
>The most important part is being able to trade and swap, people can move out to a new place
We have a housing shortage in most major metro areas. Your idea doesn't solve that at all.
>Building houses or govt doing anything with houses directly should not be part of this idea
That was the only part I liked lol
>It'd just be paying for the cost as token and the cost is recovered either from the token user or vat on luxury goods
All you're going to do is increase housing costs by increasing demand without moving supply. This is even worse than the other idea because this is going to permafuck the housing market nationwide even worse than it already is.

>>82395725
>We have a housing shortage in most major metro areas. Your idea doesn't solve that at all.
It's not trying to. It simply pays the cost of someone renting a place. It'd have to be a different policy that fixes that. Someone in power can combine the two but as policy proposal it'd not be injectable if it's that complicated. It'd increase housing demand slightly but not by too much since apartment hunting isn't that easy from across the country. It'd increase housing cost at some places and decrease at others. Remember food and place is essentially guaranteed now so people can move much more easily for jobs for where it's easier to qualify to rent which then they can use as token. Increased moving around are a preferable outcome. People in bigger cities should oppose this because it'd increase rent but they tend to lean democrat and overall should favor this kinda ideas more. Maybe it'd pressure them into fixing zoning laws to increase housing locally or some will have to look for other places to move out.
>We are on the edge of a debt crisis
No attempted solution the debt crisis will ever be popularly adopted into wider policy proposal. So it's someone else's problem. The taxing system should make it near net 0 addition to the debt, so that's something.
>How are you making all these distribution centers and staffing them?
I don't get the question, rent places, turn them into kitchen, grocery supply and distribution center. Cooking isn't exactly some a chip manufacturing facility.
>I don't think this is something Amazon could do
They have to consider profit and current and future competition.

>>82395848
>pays the cost of someone renting a place
But that just subsidizes demand while not touching supply. It actively makes the problem worse.
>increase housing demand slightly
It would increase it by a lot unless your program is just giving people rent money and then taxing it back out of them for net zero benefit in which case why even do it?
>decrease at others
It can't decrease it, it's injecting money onto the demand side without doing the same for supply.
>people can move much more easily for jobs for where it's easier to qualify to rent
Even if it works like that, jobs tend to be located in places where there's already no housing supply left.
>they tend to lean democrat and overall should favor this kinda ideas more
I don't think anyone is going to support a system like this. Bernie couldn't even get the nom and he was trying to do universal healthcare which is much more supported
>zoning
I would vote for anyone who promises to abolish zoning nationwide
>taxing system should make it near net 0 addition to the debt
Then what's the point of it all? You're adding so much overhead and complexity and governmental power for, what? Just do a negative income tax to help the poors, it's so much less complex
>rent places
What places? They don't exist currently.
>turn them into kitchen
Not trivial at all and now you need specific buildings.
>Cooking isn't exactly some a chip manufacturing facility
There are almost 400 million Americans, if your program is useful to them you should see a large chunk using it. Cooking a hundred million meals a day (1/10 of the country) is not easy.
>consider profit
Profit is a measure of efficiency. If they can't do this at a profit, then the government can't do it cheaply. As is, all this labor is unpaid. You're going to transform it into paid labor, that money needs to come from somewhere. You're shifting a huge amount of resources into meal prep and I'm not sure how accretive that is to the economy or anyone's quality of life.

Guys, guys, GUYS! I want open borders and fully automated gay space gommunism, and it would work too if only not for the greedy 1%

>>82395885
>>82395848
Ran out of room
People can already buy prepared meals, get them delivered, etc. There are services that do that, they can even provide healthy meals. It's not cheap and it doesn't supplant grocery shopping. If people already have the option and choose not to do it, why would the government offering it change anyone's behavior or improve their lives? There are other policies that could actually benefit Americans more universally and for lower cost. Fixing our healthcare system, fixing our zoning system, fixing the way social security is funded, doing anything at all about our debt load. Some of that would even be popular and they're all probably on the same level of complexity as what you're suggesting.
>>82395899
Open borders and a taco truck on every corner

>>82395604
>Just advocate for something economically illiterate and you can't deliver so you proceed to lose the following election
Leftists proving once again they are retarded and learned nothing from Biden

>>82395571 (OP)
All I know is I have to vote for Vance because he's uglier than newsom.

>>82395919
It was Trump inflation. Obama's Economy was Bush's fault

>>82395725
>We are on the edge of a debt crisis, we really can't
didn't we just pass a large, gorgeous bill?

>>82396003
Yeah and it made it a lot worse. We're taking in 17% of gdp as taxes, it should be closer to 30% at this point. We're so fucked.

>>82395979
We're not even talking about inflation.
Because you're retarded, and have the memory of a tick, let me help you understand.
Biden regularly promised his policies were going to be on the same level of FDR.
He proceeded lose because he didn't deliver.

>>82395885
>unless your program is just giving people rent money and then taxing it back out of them for net zero benefit in which case why even do it?
It does. Those under some percentage of income limit would not be taxed full amount - the group that likely needs this most. The system also incentivizes private or other systems in place for easier faster moving across places, job shortages will be easily filled with people moving all over the place and faster, maybe jobs that needs people faster can contract with some company that finds them places to rent given they'll use govt token.
>It can't decrease it
People will move more, less desirable places becomes more cheaper, makes them more appealing to people that would benefit living there to move. Better sorting, labor moving around to meet needs faster.
>Just do a negative income tax to help the poors
Because it's not a system meant just for poors, it creates better labor movement and sorting, more free choices and relationship.
>Cooking a hundred million meals a day (1/10 of the country) is not easy
It will work to the current capacity, all those cooking is still happening everyday, scaling would take time but it's not an impossible task. Military feeds their soilders at a huge scale, airlines have to do something similar. It's manageable if not attempting 400milx3 meals on first day.
>Profit is a measure of efficiency.
Sure? But there's a measure here too, if the price from tax for food is more than it's worth for people to use token, they won't use the food tokens. You can't use business viability to govt's since govt can run at 0 profit forever.

>>82395919
That's right faggot, lick that corporate boot heel. You don't deserve the fruits of your labor. But they do.

>>82396055
>the group that likely needs this most
So you're still subsidizing demand and there's no incentive to move to bumfuck nowhere. Anyone can move to bumfuck nowhere currently very easily because it's cheap as shit to live there. You can get whole houses for like 60k in those areas, no one wants them.
>less desirable places becomes more cheaper
Those places are already so cheap that anyone can live there. Median rent in Akron is under 900 a month for example. Labor wants to move to LA, NYC, Chicago, etc because that's where the best jobs are.
>it creates better labor movement and sorting
I don't think it does that enough to justify the costs.
>Military feeds their soilders at a huge scale
Because everyone lives on base and eats at the D-FAC from a limited menu. How does this work in a suburban area where everyone is spread out and doesn't want to pick from a limited menu?
>meals on first day
It gets worse as you scale it because you have no economy of scale. You need kitchens all over the place, distribution centers all over the place, and you need supply lines to all of that plus you need a system for everyone to place orders. The only thing that scales there is the system to place the orders and maybe the supply lines if you limit the menus enough. Fresh meals need to go from kitchen to table very quickly though, so you can't have a warehouse system or a centralized kitchen.
>since govt can run at 0 profit forever
Yes but the government has a limit to what they can do. You're spending resources on this program instead of other programs. It's not clear to me that that's an efficient use of resources. There's also overhead from this, if no one uses it it still costs money to have those facilities and agencies.

>>82396076
Leftists support everything corporations support (Ukraine, transgenderism, and open borders) so every accusation is really a confession from you
Even Stalin was better than you guys, despite being a communist, because he at least shot degenerates like you for being homosexual and shit

Under YAKVB II everyone gets free food, housing and gf's/boywives

>>82396132
>Anyone can move to bumfuck nowhere currently very easily because it's cheap as shit to live there
Getting a job and settling in takes time and is way more risky now, at worst under new system if everything goes wrong with the move you'd still be left with food and shelter and can always move back or move elsewhere with economic opportunity.
>suburbs, limited menu
Things will have to scale slowly, everything won't be at day 1. Even limited menu without customization option would be improvement for people's time saved and health. Rural places might be last.
>gets worse with scale
The supply already exists distributed everywhere it's needed because everyone needs to buy grocery to cook individually right now.
>if no one uses it it still costs money to have those facilities and agencies
It'll grow on as-needed basis, it's near impossible for businesses to outcompete this if not managed horribly. If enough people stops using token it signals a larger problem for govt to handle, there could be a need to subsidize the program or otherwise have to disband but doesn't seem likely.

I'm OP, going to sleep, gn fren.

>>82396259
>at worst under new system if everything goes wrong with the move you'd still be left with food and shelter
I feel like just expanding SNAP to be universal does a lot more good without all the extra overhead
>for people's time saved and health
I don't think people want healthy though. People can already make healthy choices and they refuse to. I eat a very healthy diet and it's lower cost and lower effort than an unhealthy diet but that's just not what people want.
>it's near impossible for businesses to outcompete this if not managed horribly
I imagine McDonalds would always provide more meals than the government in your scenario, unless the government decides to offer unhealthy food
>gn fren.
Nighty night anon