Socialism Alert!

[Mike375]

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

Being created "equal" only applies at birth and it obviously only applies to opportunity.....it is what happens from that point on that leads to "we are not equal".

But America is a socialist country as is any country where one person pays more tax than another person.

 

[Rabbie]

Being created "equal" only applies at birth and it obviously only applies to opportunity.....it is what happens from that point on that leads to "we are not equal".

But America is a socialist country as is any country where one person pays more tax than another person.

So you believe in equality of Taxation. Can you expand on this concept and are there any non-socialist countries using your definition?

 

[Mike375]

classic.

A very successful guns/hunting forum in Australia has a number of members who are representavies of political groups/associations/gun dealers etc. and these people have two "handles", one where they post as a representative of their group and the other (which is unknown to other members) where they post their personal opinions.

 

[Mike375]

So you believe in equality of Taxation. Can you expand on this concept and are there any non-socialist countries using your definition?

All countries are socialist, it is just a case of varying degrees. It is like the weather where we consider a temperature to be classed as a hot day or a cold day but in either case the temperature is above absolute zero.

I don't believe in equality of taxation. Tax should be based on the amount of gov't services used. The rate of tax should decrease as income rises.

 

[Rabbie]

I don't believe in equality of taxation. Tax should be based on the amount of gov't services used. The rate of tax should decrease as income rises.

but earlier you said

But America is a socialist country as is any country where one person pays more tax than another person.

So then you are in favour of socialism. Please try to get your story correct.

 

[Alisa]

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.

I didn't think I was going off topic, but maybe I left out a few steps. Which point did I not respond to? I share your frustration with the meandering subjects of these threads at times, but that is kind of how the human mind works I think - you think of one thing, then somebody says something that makes you think of something else, etc. It's like that book, if you give a mouse a cookie.

Anyway, you pointed out that when corporate taxes are raised, those added costs are passed on to the consumer. The bulk of Obama's tax cut for 95% of working families will be payed for by un-cutting taxes for corporations. Many people on this board are apoplectic about this because they see it as socialism. My question is, if the corporations are just going to pass the cost on to the consumer anyway, then why all of the handwringing? If that were really the case, then nobody would be upset about it. I think that the reason people are upset about it is because they know that some of those increased taxes will come out of the corporation's profit margins, as well they should.

 

[Alisa]

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

I'm still waiting for you to apologize for wanting to have me gassed. I don't expect that apology to be forthcoming, as it appears that you truly feel that I do not deserve to live. I can thank my lucky stars that I live on a different continent than you, so I think the probability of you actually trying to carry out your wishes is relatively low. However, I will refrain from engaging in discussion with you just in case.

 

[Alisa]

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

That particular fact is not convenient to their argument.

 

[Steve R.]

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.

The entire National debate on taxes misconstrues then nature of taxation. Taxes that are used to fund infrastructure improvements, national defense, and the operation of government are not a redistribution of wealth. Of course we then get into the argument on whether the tax system should or should not be progressive (ie, the rich pay more).

Taxes that are used to subsidize the standard of living represent the real redistribution of wealth. For example, taxes used to subsidize affordable housing would constitute a transfer of wealth. Wealth redistribution occurs when people physically receive more in tax benefits than they contribute in paying taxes.

No one likes paying taxes, but a distinction has to be made that not all taxes are a redistribution of wealth. Also, I am sidestepping the whole issue of the efficiency of our tax system which is grossly deficient.

 

[KenHigg]

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.

'redistribution' Dumbest concept to date. If all of the assets were split among everybody in ten years the people that have it now would have it again. Anyone that thinks it's a good idea should check in to a state mental ward...

 

[Alisa]

The entire National debate on taxes misconstrues then nature of taxation. Taxes that are used to fund infrastructure improvements, national defense, and the operation of government are not a redistribution of wealth. Of course we then get into the argument on whether the tax system should or should not be progressive (ie, the rich pay more).

Taxes that are used to subsidize the standard of living represent the real redistribution of wealth. For example, taxes used to subsidize affordable housing would constitute a transfer of wealth. Wealth redistribution occurs when people physically receive more in tax benefits than they contribute in paying taxes.

No one likes paying taxes, but a distinction has to be made that not all taxes are a redistribution of wealth. Also, I am sidestepping the whole issue of the efficiency of our tax system which is grossly deficient.

I would actually say that all taxes are in fact a redistribution, but most of that redistribution is TO the people that paid the taxes in the first place in the form of infrastructure, etc.

I would also like to point out that Ronald Reagan himself was in favor or redistributive taxation for the working poor - he started the earned income credit program, which makes it slightly more possible to support your family on a low wage job.

 

[Alc]

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

As I remember it, wasn't it more like
"From each according to his ability to each according to his needs"
Sort of the opposite of what you just said.

 

[pbaldy]

Many people on this board are apoplectic about this because they see it as socialism. My question is, if the corporations are just going to pass the cost on to the consumer anyway, then why all of the handwringing?

For starters, I'm not "many people", so if you're responding to a post of mine, respond to me, not them. The discussion of corporate v personal tax is basically: are you going to take it out of my left pocket or my right? Thus, people are going to get a nice tax cut from Obama and then give some portion of it right back through higher prices. As noted earlier, it does shift the tax from an income tax to a consumption tax, so I'm surprised you would support it; many Democrats would call consumption-based taxes regressive, and I know how much you like progressive taxation.

Socialism is an entirely different discussion, and probably deals more with how you spend the tax dollars rather than how you collect them. I will disagree with your earlier statement that "all taxes are in fact a redistribution". Taxes for police and fire protection are in effect paying for a service. Federal taxes that go for defense fall into the same category, as do gas taxes that fund road construction and maintenance.

Redistribution occurs when you tax one person and simply give it to another, and it is this combined with progressive taxation that begins to move towards socialism's "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

 

[Alisa]

For starters, I'm not "many people", so if you're responding to a post of mine, respond to me, not them. The discussion of corporate v personal tax is basically: are you going to take it out of my left pocket or my right? Thus, people are going to get a nice tax cut from Obama and then give some portion of it right back through higher prices. As noted earlier, it does shift the tax from an income tax to a consumption tax, so I'm surprised you would support it; many Democrats would call consumption-based taxes regressive, and I know how much you like progressive taxation.

Socialism is an entirely different discussion, and probably deals more with how you spend the tax dollars rather than how you collect them. I will disagree with your earlier statement that "all taxes are in fact a redistribution". Taxes for police and fire protection are in effect paying for a service. Federal taxes that go for defense fall into the same category, as do gas taxes that fund road construction and maintenance.

Redistribution occurs when you tax one person and simply give it to another, and it is this combined with progressive taxation that begins to move towards socialism's "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

I think that at a certain level, you are correct that corporate taxation leads to increased prices. But I just don't think we are anywhere near that level. Thanks to loopholes (more like massive canyons) in the tax code, in addition to W's enormous handouts, we tax corporations at an extremely low rate while at the same time those corporations are making ridiculous profits. Some of that profit ought to go back to supporting the government that provides the environment that those corporations thrive in. I think that Obama's tax plan would move incrementally in the direction of restoring some fairness to the system, but we would still have a long way to go.

My rhetorical question was not directed to you necessarily - I am sure you have seen all the postings on this board about how Obama is a socialist. I would just like to know how their complaint about socialism squares with their belief that corporate taxes are passed through to the consumer - the two believes seem inconsistent to me.

 

[ASherbuck]

Person number 2 doesn't mention anything about the state seizing control of all the corporations.

It would be extremely weak to say that making someone pay higher taxes because they make more is socialism.

It's more like "You have a lot more invested in this country and therefore a lot more to lose."

I always liked looking at it that way, I have nothing but debt and the money crisis in the US hasn't affected me much because I don't have stocks dropping, or a home mortgage. I would think that the rich would want to pay more to ensure the country was being taken care of so they could maintain their standard of living, God forbid they come down in the gutter with people like me.

 

[Rich]

I would think that the rich would want to pay more to ensure the country was being taken care of so they could maintain their standard of living, God forbid they come down in the gutter with people like me.

Yeah it's much better for evil communist Chinese to prop up the US eah

 

[Rabbie]

God forbid they come down in the gutter with people like me.

You wouldn't want neighbours like them anyway

 

[Steve R.]

I think that at a certain level, you are correct that corporate taxation leads to increased prices.

Another common misunderstanding concerning taxes. True if corporations pay the taxes it leads to higher prices. What is never mentioned in the tax debate is that the consumer will have MORE money to pay for stuff because they won't be paying the taxes.

There are other issues that the tax debate conveniently overlooks. One is that taxes are used in many cases for services that help facilitate business, such as community infrastructure. As such, the cost of any product produced must include both the internal and external costs of its production. Taxes, like advertising and paying salaries, are a cost of doing business.

 

[ASherbuck]

You wouldn't want neighbours like them anyway

Truths, I have a perimeter in the corner that consists of a cardboard box and I am ready to defend it with a rusty potatoe peeler I found in the dumpster next door.

Dumpster Diving = Redistribution of wealth under George Bush

 

[Alisa]

Truths, I have a perimeter in the corner that consists of a cardboard box and I am ready to defend it with a rusty potatoe peeler I found in the dumpster next door.

Dumpster Diving = Redistribution of wealth under George Bush

ok Dan Quayle