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.
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.
I recently heard someone well off describe fines like parking as "the cost to park here".
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?
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.
I'm canadian and our universal healthcare system sucks. It's very controversial here. Universal often means universally bad - picture your typical interaction with the government bureaucracy and imagine that for something important. It's the same reason you wouldn't want government run utilities (which Canada also has)
Or, you could privatize your healthcare like the US, and pay multiple times more than the amount you've saved on your tax bill.
And, expensive privatized health care does not mean better health outcomes; e.g., the US has worse infant mortality than either New Zealand (a sibling comment) or Canada (or most of Eastern Europe / all of Western Europe).
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/infant-mortalit...
For example don't have a medical emergency here. You'll wait more than 8 hours to get seen.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/nearly-all-nz-hospitals-failin...
Means testing is a stupid idea. Give 2kWh/day and a (upon asking) a two bedroom house worth of insulation to everyone and properly tax wealth to pay for it.
This just couldn't work in a fair way.
People live in old houses, new houses, condos, etc. There are massive variations between households in terms of insulation, heating/cooling equipment, etc.
In fact, I would wager that it's often cheaper to cool a wealthier person's 1,000 sqft home than a poorer person's 1,000 sqft home, just because the weathier person is more likely to have a recent, energy-efficient HVAC and better insulation.
Source?
Universal basic. That does not mean unlimited user decided usage, then it would not be basic, and it does not have any income restrictions then it would not be universal. If Elon Musk lived in Denmark he’d still get free doctors appointment and cancer treatment even though he’s rich. And yes that is fair. We help everyone who needs help equally, how much money you have or don’t have is completely irrelevant. No need to do background checks or have a Big system around figuring out if a patient deserves help or not, or figuring out patient details. The entire system is geared towards helping people no matter who they are, and that’s how it should be.
Who by the way spend far more per person than any other developed country on healthcare, that's both government and consumer spending.
It's interesting to see what people are trying to optimize for they suggest different political systems.
We could do it differently, I like this formula:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_board_(Netherlands) > ...independent of administrative governing bodies like provinces and municipalities.
It makes it extremely hard if not impossible for conventional government to cut the budget. It does one thing and it does it well.
If an individuals selfish ambition can be channeled to produce the best hospital systems we can have given the resources we have, that would be ideal.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
The people at the top of the hill will fight change, because every direction from the top is down.
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.
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.
TL:DR you get power by fighting for it, you keep power by fighting for it.
Or, since the government is providing, will the government get to decide what is appropriate for people to see?
