Panera Bread’s ‘pay-what-you-want’ socialist program goes totally belly-up...

[Terraceth]

How exactly is this a "socialist" program?

[Sparko]

I'd hardly call "pay what you want" a "socialist" concept - I'd call it a "libertarian" concept.

Sounds a lot like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" to me. They were asking people to pay what they can afford.

Source: http://paneracares.org/our-mission/

These cafes operate on a pay-what-you-can model and depend on your donations and support to ensure our sustainability. Panera Cares cafes provide suggested donation amounts for all menu items to help you understand the cost of “paying it forward” and assisting those who struggle with food insecurity.

© Copyright Original Source

But this is a fairly well known problem, and is more generally why we have to have compulsory taxes to do things like helping the poor rather than leaving everything up to private charity.

Which is why any truly socialist country ends up being a totalitarian government. There is no incentive to work if the government actually does give you everything free. So when people stop working, a totalitarian government has to step in to force them to work for their daily bread. Under capitalism, profit is an incentive to work and produce.

Because the amount people "want" to pay to private charities turns out to be an order of magnitude or so lower than what is actually needed. The people who say "if only the government didn't tax me and let me give the same money to a charity of my choosing instead" are all very well but it turns out most people aren't like that and wouldn't actually give enough in total if "pay what you want" was the model.

Thus the libertarian model of voluntary charity / voluntary taxation falls apart.

This wasn't charity. It was a business. And it failed.

[Mountain Man]

I'd note that the socialist proverb is indeed from each according to his "ability", not from each according to his "as much as you happen to feel like contributing". One of several reasons why the system being described in the OP is libertarian, not socialist.

The problem is that "ability" and "need" are highly subjective evaluations. You might decide that I'm able to give more than I think I'm able to give, and I might decide that you need less than what you think you need. The only way to resolve this dispute is if a third party enforces its own notions of "ability" and "need". This is why a socialist government is almost inevitably a totalitarian one.

[Cow Poke]

The problem is that "ability" and "need" are highly subjective evaluations. You might decide that I'm able to give more than I think I'm able to give, and I might decide that you need less than what you think you need. The only way to resolve this dispute is if a third party enforces its own notions of "ability" and "need". This is why a socialist government is almost inevitably a totalitarian one.

Socialism is entirely founded on the principle that somebody can control OPM. And that somebody (or group) always manages to get more than their fare share.

[Littlejoe]

Socialism is entirely founded on the principle that somebody can control OPM. And that somebody (or group) always manages to get more than their fare share.

FAIR share....

[Cow Poke]

FAIR share....

My wife is on drugs from the surgery, so that's my excuse.