Socialism Alert! (1 Viewer)

[Alisa]

Person 1: Why should my father (a doctor), be penalized by being in a huge tax bracket?
Person 2: Wealthy people can afford more. The very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.
Person 1: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
Person 2: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.


Person 2 sounds like a socialist. I think we need to find out who that is, and exile him to some horrible socialist country like the UK.

 

[Rich]

Person 2 sounds like a socialist. I think we need to find out who that is, and exile him to some horrible socialist country like the UK.

Ahem, the UK is not a socialist country, we just prefer to follow the teachings of a guy named Jesus

 

[Alisa]

There. I fixed it.

 

[Joe8915]

Person 1: Why should my father (a doctor), be penalized by being in a huge tax bracket?
Person 2: Wealthy people can afford more. The very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.
Person 1: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
Person 2: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.


Person 2 sounds like a socialist. I think we need to find out who that is, and exile him to some horrible socialist country like the UK.

Gee maybe I should sit on my butt and let the rich support me. Sounds like a good idea....................... so typical. just let everyone handed it to you.

 

[Alisa]

Gee maybe I should sit on my butt and let the rich support me. Sounds like a good idea....................... so typical. just let everyone handed it to you.

Aren't you going to try to figure out who this socialist is? So we can ostracize and belittle him?

 

[GaryPanic]

Alisa-

we have a different set up from the US

A doctor would of been to University and this would of been funded by the Tax payer - they then get paid quite a bit (rightly so..) but surely they should alos contribute tot he next generation of doctors in the way of a higher tax (I have used your example of doctors - but here inth e UK most people who go to University get better paid jobs than those who don't - and they should pay more in tax as the education is paid for by the tax payer - not the actual post graduate ( there is a slight contribution in the way of loans but this no way offsets the actual cost of a 2-5 year course )

 

[Alisa]

Alisa-

we have a different set up from the US

A doctor would of been to University and this would of been funded by the Tax payer - they then get paid quite a bit (rightly so..) but surely they should alos contribute tot he next generation of doctors in the way of a higher tax (I have used your example of doctors - but here inth e UK most people who go to University get better paid jobs than those who don't - and they should pay more in tax as the education is paid for by the tax payer - not the actual post graduate ( there is a slight contribution in the way of loans but this no way offsets the actual cost of a 2-5 year course )

You seem to have missed the sarcastic tone of my post. I don't think there is anything wrong with socialism, or with the UK. I was mocking the posters on this board that are horrified at any hint of redistribution.

 

[Mike375]

I don't think there is anything wrong with socialism

You can say that again.

Definition of Communism and Socialism...having nothing and wanting to share it with everyone

 

[Alisa]

You can say that again.

Definition of Communism and Socialism...having nothing and wanting to share it with everyone

Just like Person 2.

 

[dkinley]

You know ... sigh ....

All you've posted is some transcript and trying to play some stupid little main stream press gotcha by trying to equate what McCain said to what Obama said to Joe. Why don't you go further back to McCain's 2001 blurb where he supports a flat tax structure because everyone know's we use progressive tax system here which you highly praise but either deny is in use or complain it isn't progressive enough.

I expected a better argument, so much for that. A progressive tax system is to raise revenue for the government. The point you are trying to play gotcha with is that Obama wants to redistribute these taxes.

Remember that if 40% of all tax payers (that is those with actual jobs that report their income) and you tax only 2% of the people an extra billion, the government takes their cut ... what would that leave? Like $100 per person under the 250k? I don't know the numbers, but I am sure it would be a small miniscule amount that wouldn't even buy a hamburger.

We already redistribute wealth. Look into the earned income credit. Wait, if you are a single mother and claim head of household I am sure you are already a recipient of this. You want more, is that it?

The overall point is, what is the tipping point from moving from our quasi-capitalist to some Marxists scheme of government? Is it the 35% or the 'it won't be much, just another percent' to 39%? You give someone a half-percent, later on they take another, then another, then another .... before you're left with no percent. No wonder people have moved or are moving their money out of this country. They don't know this tipping point any more than I do, except they are sure it is happening and looking to protect themselves.

-dK

 

[Alisa]

You know ... sigh ....

All you've posted is some transcript and trying to play some stupid little main stream press gotcha by trying to equate what McCain said to what Obama said to Joe. Why don't you go further back to McCain's 2001 blurb where he supports a flat tax structure because everyone know's we use progressive tax system here which you highly praise but either deny is in use or complain it isn't progressive enough.

I expected a better argument, so much for that. A progressive tax system is to raise revenue for the government. The point you are trying to play gotcha with is that Obama wants to redistribute these taxes.

Remember that if 40% of all tax payers (that is those with actual jobs that report their income) and you tax only 2% of the people an extra billion, the government takes their cut ... what would that leave? Like $100 per person under the 250k? I don't know the numbers, but I am sure it would be a small miniscule amount that wouldn't even buy a hamburger.

We already redistribute wealth. Look into the earned income credit. Wait, if you are a single mother and claim head of household I am sure you are already a recipient of this. You want more, is that it?

The overall point is, what is the tipping point from moving from our quasi-capitalist to some Marxists scheme of government? Is it the 35% or the 'it won't be much, just another percent' to 39%? You give someone a half-percent, later on they take another, then another, then another .... before you're left with no percent. No wonder people have moved or are moving their money out of this country. They don't know this tipping point any more than I do, except they are sure it is happening and looking to protect themselves.

-dK

Yes Ms. Palin, I have quoted an actual statement, therefore it's a "gotcha" statement

Obama wants to return the MARGINAL tax rate of the top tax bracket to 39, which is what it was before the Bush tax cuts, which McCain opposed, so McCain USED to support that level of taxation as well, before he flip flopped.

But forget about the marginal tax rate for a moment. The effective corporate tax rate in this country is only 2.2%.

Since I lose 20% of my income to taxes, I think that corporate taxation in this country is not only NOT progressive, it is patently regressive and unfair, a point that McCain made in this quote as well as the one that you brought up earlier. In case other people aren't aware, here is what McCain said about the Bush tax cuts:

I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.

Funny how his conscience seems to have deserted him.

 

[pbaldy]

I'll warn you in advance I have to leave for an appointment in a few minutes, so don't take it wrong if I don't reply.

I'm curious who you think actually pays corporate income taxes? If you can find a corporation that doesn't pass that cost along to its customers along with all its other costs, I'll be surprised. Add to that the compliance costs for the corporations to comply with the thousands of pages of rules, and we're all paying more for products than we might otherwise.

You might just raise the corporate tax rate up a huge amount and eliminate the personal tax altogether. Problem is, you won't actually change who pays the tax; you and I. You just effectively change it from an income tax to a consumption tax, which some might argue wouldn't be a bad thing.

 

[Alisa]

I'll warn you in advance I have to leave for an appointment in a few minutes, so don't take it wrong if I don't reply.

I'm curious who you think actually pays corporate income taxes? If you can find a corporation that doesn't pass that cost along to its customers along with all its other costs, I'll be surprised. Add to that the compliance costs for the corporations to comply with the thousands of pages of rules, and we're all paying more for products than we might otherwise.

You might just raise the corporate tax rate up a huge amount and eliminate the personal tax altogether. Problem is, you won't actually change who pays the tax; you and I. You just effectively change it from an income tax to a consumption tax, which some might argue wouldn't be a bad thing.

If that is really the case, then why all the handwringing about socialism?

 

[Mike375]

If that is really the case, then why all the handwringing about socialism?

Alisa,

The problem with socialism is all it brings with along for the ride. It brings with it lots more restictions in all aspects of life as socialism is supported by those who favour gov't intervention.

Socialism taken to the end makes for a bland place to live. There is no doubt that in theory (ie. we eliminate the human factor from the equation) socialism and especially communism are the best way to maximise production. I will give a couple of examples.

Let's as an example take two of the main industries, the auto business and the banking/insurance business. We will start with the banking/insurance business. The banking/insurance business is only a method of pooling money. However, the vast majority of people who work in banks and insurance companies as well as those people who work with that industry are all either directly or indirectly involved in the "sale of a product". The "product" is just a method used to gather the money.

If we eliminate the bank/insurance business and just have the gov't do it then all the people who were involved either directly or indirectlty with the marketing of the product are now free to make roads, dig holes or whatever.

The auto business is similar. Virtually everyone who works in the auto industry or works in association with the auto industry is involved either directly or indirectly in the sale of the car. Let's say 3 types of car are required to meet the basic needs and make 'em all one colour etc. Not only do you free up all the people who work in the auto industry to dig holes etc but the car becomes much cheaper to make for two basic reasons:

1) Economy of scale. Only 3 models and all the same colour

2) Since the car no longer "has to sell" that also saves heaps of money/labour as it only needs to be a box on 4 wheels.

It would be a bland world.

But perhaps the biggest problem wth socialism/communism is that the people who reach the top in our current systems would still do so in a China or Russia but the working man is really stuffed.

The fundamental flaw in socialism/communism is the assumption that we are all equal but that is not the case.

 

[wazz]

The fundamental flaw in socialism/communism is the assumption that we are all equal but that is not the case.

i don't think socialism or communism make that claim. many people believe that to be the case. the fundamental flaw is even worse: many people believe that we are not equal.

it's clear that some people need more help than others. the question is, will a framework and institutions be created that are required to fulfill the goal of helping those who need it? no matter what system is in place, at the end of the day it is run by people. many people will (do) watch out for freeloaders, crooks and bad apples, no matter what the system. the system is nearly irrelevant.

 

[pbaldy]

If that is really the case, then why all the handwringing about socialism?

One reason I don't visit this forum that much is frustration with people not staying on point. You made statements about corporate taxation that I called into question. Rather than respond to that, you've jumped topics onto something else. Does your avoidance of the original topic mean you agree with me? You'll probably say no, but how else do I interpret your changing of the subject?

To directly answer your question, you seem to interpret my question/comments about corporate taxation as some sort of tacit support of socialism. If so, how do you make that jump? I'm strongly against socialism (defined as public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources), and nothing I've said contradicts that. My point was simply that corporate taxes pass through to consumers, and thus saying to tax corporations higher is in essence saying to tax yourself higher.

 

[Mike375]

i don't think socialism or communism make that claim. many people believe that to be the case. the fundamental flaw is even worse: many people believe that we are not equal.

it's clear that some people need more help than others. the question is, will a framework and institutions be created that are required to fulfill the goal of helping those who need it? no matter what system is in place, at the end of the day it is run by people. many people will (do) watch out for freeloaders, crooks and bad apples, no matter what the system. the system is nearly irrelevant.

Make up your mind as to whether you want to pass on Infraction points as a Super Moderator.....or.....

you (and the complainer) put forward views in the Political Forum.

You can't be both.

If you want to be Super Moderator then stick to the Access forums AND if you feel the need to be part of the political forum THEN...post under a different name.

As a Super Moderator perhaps you could have a "warning" on entry to the Political forum.

I can't believe the complaint about me came from a Political forum regular. They are all good debaters etc. and know the situation.

And if you intend to post in the political form...can you manage to do Proper Case

Note to Col: I started a sentence with And

 

[wazz]

...post under a different name.

classic.

 

[Rich]

. No wonder people have moved or are moving their money out of this country. They don't know this tipping point any more than I do, except they are sure it is happening and looking to protect themselves.

-dK

I wonder why Republicans keep ignoring the fact that an evil communist country ie China has been propping up the US for years

 

[Rabbie]

The fundamental flaw in socialism/communism is the assumption that we are all equal but that is not the case.

The Declaration of Independance opens with the words "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal". Does this make the USA a socialist country