Do you think such a system would be viable?

[May90]

With all this talk nowadays about socialism vs capitalism, I came up with the idea which I've heard of before, but never seen implemented in practice.

What if the government rewarded people for doing certain things deemed healthy and beneficial for the society? For example, families with kids studying well, with the average grade above A-, would get partial tax exempts. People maintaining a good physical shape would get financial bonuses, such as partial governmental coverage of the health insurance of their selection. People not using drugs, not drinking alcohol much, not smoking, etc. could get partial coverage from the government for all groceries they buy... You get the idea.

Would it work well in practice? Obviously, there would be a lot of potential for abuse, issues with people with various natural limits preventing them from meeting the set standards, etc... But I think these issues can be accounted for and, in turn, have governmental programs assisting those people. What would be the drawbacks of such a system?

[Kontinuum]

Something like China's social credit?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34592186

[May90]

Something like China's social credit?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34592186

Yes, seems quite similar to what I was thinking of. Not sure I would approve the idea of the overall score though; I'd much prefer having the government reward people for particular things, rather than some kind of overall performance. Plus, I am not sure if experiences in China, essentially a very socialist state, can be generalized to the Western system. What works there would not necessarily work here as well.

[I Push Buttons]

With all this talk nowadays about socialism vs capitalism, I came up with the idea which I've heard of before, but never seen implemented in practice.

What if the government rewarded people for doing certain things deemed healthy and beneficial for the society? For example, families with kids studying well, with the average grade above A-, would get partial tax exempts. People maintaining a good physical shape would get financial bonuses, such as partial governmental coverage of the health insurance of their selection. People not using drugs, not drinking alcohol much, not smoking, etc. could get partial coverage from the government for all groceries they buy... You get the idea.

Would it work well in practice? Obviously, there would be a lot of potential for abuse, issues with people with various natural limits preventing them from meeting the set standards, etc... But I think these issues can be accounted for and, in turn, have governmental programs assisting those people. What would be the drawbacks of such a system?

We already get all of those things...

If you go to school you can get a better job.
If you have kids you receive tax exemptions.
If you stay in shape, you pay less for medical care.
If you don't drink or do drugs, you don't get sick and have liver failure, etc.

There is no such thing as someone who does all the right things in society and struggles... If I am wrong, then please provide me an example of a healthy, active, intelligent, sociable, good decision-making, etc., person who is struggling to thrive in our society.

[May90]

We already get all of those things...

If you go to school you can get a better job.
If you have kids you receive tax exemptions.
If you stay in shape, you pay less for medical care.
If you don't drink or do drugs, you don't get sick and have liver failure, etc.

There is no such thing as someone who does all the right things in society and struggles... If I am wrong, then please provide me an example of a healthy, active, intelligent, sociable, good decision-making, etc., person who is struggling to thrive in our society.

Yes, but perspective of an instant reward has a tendency to motivate people much more. For example, take a person that doesn't care about exercising and eats a lot of trash food. If you tell them, "If you start exercising and eating healthy food only, then your health will improve and you will spend less on healthcare". Sure, it is a compelling reason, but might not be compelling enough for the person to give up their lifestyle for the sake of phantom rewards in the future. Compare it to, "If you start exercising and eating healthy food only, then next month, and each month after that, you will find $250 extra on your credit card". Here, you see a clear connection: "Action - reward". I think such a system would move more people to make positive changes in their life.

[nextormento]

Who gets to decide what's good?.

[ellieg]

I don't think it would work out as well. It would reward better people and let them get even farther ahead, and leave the "bad" people even farther behind. I wish it could work, but I don't see it working.

[hakujinbakasama]

THIS GUY WILL BE THE JUDGE!

lol

[ellieg]

Yes, but perspective of an instant reward has a tendency to motivate people much more. For example, take a person that doesn't care about exercising and eats a lot of trash food. If you tell them, "If you start exercising and eating healthy food only, then your health will improve and you will spend less on healthcare". Sure, it is a compelling reason, but might not be compelling enough for the person to give up their lifestyle for the sake of phantom rewards in the future. Compare it to, "If you start exercising and eating healthy food only, then next month, and each month after that, you will find $250 extra on your credit card". Here, you see a clear connection: "Action - reward". I think such a system would move more people to make positive changes in their life.

I doubt it. They might stick it up for a month or so but then they will fall right back into their bad habits. Instant gratification only fixes temporary symptoms, it wont fix the underlying problem of why they abuse drugs, eat too much, or whatever else they are doing.

[hydrium]

Yea that's what we need, 2 trillion on entitlement programs.

[Acidbaron]

Impossible to control without giving up some serious privacy rights as you have to invite big brother in your house and beyond.

How to pay it out and how to control it would require such a government apparatus the cost alone would make it expensive program not even talking about actually the rewards handed out.

Kids that do poorly in school generally come from poorer backgrounds so you aren't improving the situation there at all either. Same goes for health, poorer families are more likely to delay doctor visits and don't have the budget to eat healthier either, let alone buy them the equipment for sports and paying for those sport groups. So all and all you're doing is punishing those who are poor more and rewarding those who are richer with more benefits. Terrible concept.

[Vizardlorde]

We already get all of those things...

If you go to school you can get a better job.
If you have kids you receive tax exemptions.
If you stay in shape, you pay less for medical care.
If you don't drink or do drugs, you don't get sick and have liver failure, etc.

There is no such thing as someone who does all the right things in society and struggles... If I am wrong, then please provide me an example of a healthy, active, intelligent, sociable, good decision-making, etc., person who is struggling to thrive in our society.

Pick me pick me. Never done drugs of any kind and only drink alxohol on new years and thanksgiving. Im healthy and not obese I scored better than everyone from my school for college entrance exams and graduated with honors from hs. Then in college i saw that i wasnt being taught and expected to learn on my own or cheat for classes that matter and to pay for classes that dont matter. So i dropped out and i ran away from home last year.

[May90]

I don't think it would work out as well. It would reward better people and let them get even farther ahead, and leave the "bad" people even farther behind. I wish it could work, but I don't see it working.

Yes, this is how I see the main flaw of this system too. Rewarding "better" people, all other things equal, will just change income distribution, essentially taking it away from "worse" people. And, since the latter tend to have a lower quality of life in the first place, the inequality will increase.
On the flip side, however, the system might change some people for the better. I am not sure what effect is going to dominate.

I doubt it. They might stick it up for a month or so but then they will fall right back into their bad habits. Instant gratification only fixes temporary symptoms, it wont fix the underlying problem of why they abuse drugs, eat too much, or whatever else they are doing.

Maybe. I was thinking more of making people who are already on the edge of change, but lack the "final push" to do so, finally commit to the change.

Impossible to control without giving up some serious privacy rights as you have to invite big brother in your house and beyond.

That is another factor. There is a reasonable idea that giving away too much information to the government essentially opens doors to establishment of dictatorship. I totally agree with this.

[I Push Buttons]

Pick me pick me. Never done drugs of any kind and only drink alxohol on new years and thanksgiving. Im healthy and not obese I scored better than everyone from my school for college entrance exams and graduated with honors from hs. Then in college i saw that i wasnt being taught and expected to learn on my own or cheat for classes that matter and to pay for classes that dont matter. So i dropped out and i ran away from home last year.

Sounds like a load of bullshit mixed with three loads of bad decisions.

[ellieg]

Yes, this is how I see the main flaw of this system too. Rewarding "better" people, all other things equal, will just change income distribution, essentially taking it away from "worse" people. And, since the latter tend to have a lower quality of life in the first place, the inequality will increase.
On the flip side, however, the system might change some people for the better. I am not sure what effect is going to dominate.


Maybe. I was thinking more of making people who are already on the edge of change, but lack the "final push" to do so, finally commit to the change.


That is another factor. There is a reasonable idea that giving away too much information to the government essentially opens doors to establishment of dictatorship. I totally agree with this.

It may help a few people, but I don't think it would be worth the cost. Most unhealthy people, are not on the edge of change. They would like to be better but they need to decide on their own, that they want to be better. It may push a few people, but most of the reward would just be free money to the people who already bettered themselves.

[Deleted]

With all this talk nowadays about socialism vs capitalism, I came up with the idea which I've heard of before, but never seen implemented in practice.

What if the government rewarded people for doing certain things deemed healthy and beneficial for the society? For example, families with kids studying well, with the average grade above A-, would get partial tax exempts. People maintaining a good physical shape would get financial bonuses, such as partial governmental coverage of the health insurance of their selection. People not using drugs, not drinking alcohol much, not smoking, etc. could get partial coverage from the government for all groceries they buy... You get the idea.

Would it work well in practice? Obviously, there would be a lot of potential for abuse, issues with people with various natural limits preventing them from meeting the set standards, etc... But I think these issues can be accounted for and, in turn, have governmental programs assisting those people. What would be the drawbacks of such a system?

I fear such a system would do more than encourage people, I think it could create further social rifts.
And as you point out, those that for some reason can't follow the standard if the standard is limited. But if it was a broad system, with detailed definitions and good inclusion, then it might be functional.

[Spectral]

I viscerally dislike the idea of open social engineering of this fashion. It all sounds rather appealing when the right people are making the decisions, but that won't always be the case, and it's trivially easy to come up with some moderately plausible justification to penalize something you simply don't like. Have a problem with promiscuity? Tax it to cover the costs of treating STIs. Don't like drinking? Well, that causes health problems. Militant vegan? Tax meat, it's bad for you. Don't like driving and think more people should bike? Taxes on cars. On it goes.

No, I think the primary goal of a tax and subsidy system should be to raise the revenue required for the government to function while causing the minimum amount of distorted behavior and preferences. People should basically do what they want as long as it's not interfering with others.

[May90]

It may help a few people, but I don't think it would be worth the cost. Most unhealthy people, are not on the edge of change. They would like to be better but they need to decide on their own, that they want to be better. It may push a few people, but most of the reward would just be free money to the people who already bettered themselves.

I think it could do much more than that. Take me, for example: I want to run in the mornings every 2 days 1 hour a day. However, since waking up well before going on campus is a bit inconvenient, I tend to skip on that a lot. IF I knew that I would get paid a decent sum for doing that regardless, say, $100 a month - I would definitely commit to doing that. $100 wouldn't improve my financial situation much, but it would be something I would be willing to work for.

Then, of course, for the government to know that I've been running every 2 days, I would need to give up a lot of personal freedoms and privacy elements. So it is not really a great example... But the idea, I think, is worth considering, even if not in its discussed implementation.

[Spectral]

I think it could do much more than that. Take me, for example: I want to run in the mornings every 2 days 1 hour a day. However, since waking up well before going on campus is a bit inconvenient, I tend to skip on that a lot. IF I knew that I would get paid a decent sum for doing that regardless, say, $100 a month - I would definitely commit to doing that. $100 wouldn't improve my financial situation much, but it would be something I would be willing to work for.

Then, of course, for the government to know that I've been running every 2 days, I would need to give up a lot of personal freedoms and privacy elements. So it is not really a great example... But the idea, I think, is worth considering, even if not in its discussed implementation.

If you want to do this, create your own commitment device. There are already companies that assist with this. There's no need to inflict it on everyone else.

On a non-policy level, I'm always confused by people that say things like "I want to run" and then don't just do it. It ain't hard. Set your alarm, get up, and do it.

[ellieg]

I think it could do much more than that. Take me, for example: I want to run in the mornings every 2 days 1 hour a day. However, since waking up well before going on campus is a bit inconvenient, I tend to skip on that a lot. IF I knew that I would get paid a decent sum for doing that regardless, say, $100 a month - I would definitely commit to doing that. $100 wouldn't improve my financial situation much, but it would be something I would be willing to work for.

Then, of course, for the government to know that I've been running every 2 days, I would need to give up a lot of personal freedoms and privacy elements. So it is not really a great example... But the idea, I think, is worth considering, even if not in its discussed implementation.

Do you really see yourself being an avid runner because of $100 a month for the rest of your life? You would find some new excuse to not run. If you truly wanted to run, you would make it work now. Its always some promise that youll do it the next day, but when tmrw comes, you will find some way of convincing yourself that you don't really want to do it. People listen to the voice in their head too much and will 9/10 times take the easier route.