Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others but Some Girls Are Bigger Than Others...
 

I don't see what's so bad about wealth redistribution.

I can only tell you why I don't like it.

My whole life I've paid the taxes, the more I make the more I pay (higher percentage) and I get almost nothing back for my money. I've called the police or EMS a total of 2 times in my life, there are pot holes all over the roads I drive on, I have to have the city shine a light up my ass every time I want to build something or modify something on my property, never used unemployment, welfare or any other government program. And I don't like or support most of the spending our government passes.

The idea of income redistribution is the foundation of communism and socialism and the United States and all that doesn't exactly work.

Why do you think it's okay for a government to decide how the money you earn should be spent?

First off I'd point out that saying income redistribution doesn't work is a bit silly if you're saying that from a global perspective. If you are Capitalism hasn't work out so well (particularly now for the United States) in comparison to countries operating under socialistic governments (e.g. Norway, Sweden.) If you mean just in the United States well I think that's when things get incredibly complex because you have to deal with tax policy switching under every administration, congress session, and so on. I think it has a lot to do with that inconsistency and then the problems that arise from the economic system which the United States is under - it's largely a problem of the rich's inherent advantages of the poor in the society; which they completely have. There isn't much actual redistribution in the United States. The upper class do enjoy the fruits of society far more than the lower class and most money goes to entitlements or other irresponsible spending/borrowing/wars/etc.

Anyway assuming were examining socialism from a moral perspective. My central political philosophy is in democracy and I don't believe democracy can't exist under a capitalist system. This is because democracy is, by definition, society being under popular control. Capitalism however is society being under control of those with the most fiscal power. You can see this in lobbyists and the dominance with which corporations have over elections and both parties. In a free market it becomes very easy for monopolies, oligarchies and so on to form and when they exist they became the central power as opposed to the people (this is the way it is in the United States. I don't remember the figures off the top of my head but the wealthiest in the United States control over ninety percent of the wealth. That just doesn't work. Someone in FDR's administration has this great analogy between that and some game. The gist of what was a country can't work when all the cards are in the hands of a few or maybe it was all the chess pieces. I can't remember exactly how it went.)

In addition to that I believe in economic justice. Martin Luther King once said if there's injustice anywhere then there's justice nowhere (or something to that effect) and I think that when the working class is being pissed on by the rich of a state then no one is really living in a fair society.

Now to go back specifically to how my money should be spent. I don't really believe in property (this applies to money, music, and so on.) John Locke's notion that there is such things as "property rights" always struck me as absurd because it really does interfere with everyone's rights around you and I've never understood how you can own something (other then yourself obviously, and again this, again, has to do with someone else owning you or using you would go against your own rights. The classical Liberal philosophy that your freedom ends where another person's begins is as central to Democracy to me.) I've never seen any real intellectual justification for why I should be able to own this and you can't. It contradicts my own values. I don't think property has any right, I guess I'm like the first nations in that sense.

That being said, I think the laissez-faire idea itself (ignoring the property aspect) that you and only you should be able to enjoy the fruits of your labor is flawed on the basis that it wasn't only you who sowed the seeds - there were others and the notion that only one individual should reap those seeds when it takes a community to maintain the field is just fundamentally wrong.

I love when people agree with me. It inflates my ego even further. I'm basically a zeppelin of self-worth.

I'm not saying income redistribution can't work, I'm saying it's not the fairest method or one i have any faith in. Any system can work if the people buy into it.

While I find your perspective admirable in a way; I don't share any of these ideals or beliefs.

My family came here with nothing and built a life for me and my siblings that has allowed us to flourish. While the playing field is certainly slanted in favor of the wealthy to the poor, it's far from insurmountable. A strong work ethic, good decision making and an education or acquisition of a skill is all I believe anyone needs to be successful in the United States.

My philosophy is personal accountability and personal freedom of choice. I should be allowed to do whatever I want as long as it does not interfere with someone else's ability to be free.

That's the first flaw I find with your system, while it's humane and kind to want to help everyone, I'd rather be more selective as i feel like some people do not want or are not worthy of being helped.

Most of all though I believe strongly that giving someone a handout is the worst thing you can do. It robs them of motivation and accomplishment. To me it be like taking away my humanity.

I guess there's just some fundamental differences here. I've never understood the argument that Socialism robs people of motivation because it hands everything to them on a silver platter. You can look at many socialist countries and see that isn't necessarily the case. On the opposite of that spectrum you have people who would be very wealthy in those countries and instead of immigrating to the States they stay and choose to live a non-affluent and superfluousness life. I think in both cases, the would be Bourgeois and would be Proletariat feel moral responsibility to contribute to society.

The problem I have with your idea - the American dream basically - is it seems to me to be the exception as opposed to the rule. I don't really want to get personal with this but my family, despite working hard, has never been able to climb beyond lower-middle class. The odds are completely stacked against us too. In the United States there's essentially a system of welfare for the rich and affluent and capitalism for the poor. The problem with that is capitalism is incredibly vicious and indifferent to the poor. Just look at Africa to see that.

And then here's where I see things completely different then you do. I agree you should be allowed to do what ever you want as long as you're not interfering with anyone else's freedom but I think capitalism by its very nature calls for that. It leads to a horrific division of classes where one class is under oppression constantly. In capitalism there where always be that oppressed class too - in this system people are in economic chains. I think, as long as these chains exist that no one will ever be free and justice can only exist as something purely idealistic and platonic. When politicians and so on start talking about the beauty of the free market and the American dream they're only doing so to ensure that those chains stay unnoticed.

i've said this a thousand times, socialism is a wonderful idea and a great solution for many countries to expand upon their programs to so-call "bridge" the class stratification. but in a state like the United States, where there are fifty million lower-class citizens to support, it becomes an extremely daunting task.

we've already got multiple social programs to help and feed the impoverished but it's damn near impossible to provide nonessentials for everybody when 1 in 6 are resting primarily on the goodwill of the state.

i'd like to say that universal health care is a good idea, i'd like to think that everybody should have access to quality medical coverage but strictly speaking it's completely infeasible and will bankrupt the United States in the long run.

It's a satirical statement but I think it's basically true that America has the richest poor people in the world.

I feel like the United States has the smallest division between it's wealthy and it's poor, yes there are a small percentage of the population with a disproportionate amount of wealth, but so many are so generous. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the unimaginable fortunes they've amassed in America have allowed them to make the lives of millions of people better. Socialist nations do not have the doctors, scientists, engineers and inventors that America has, because here you can be the best or at least compete with the best at anything.

Locally there is a gentleman in our town who has built a recreation center for senior citizens and youth as well as a hall for parties and weddings and it is essentially free for people who live in the community. Kids can use computers get tutoring or just hang out and play games or watch Tv with friends in a safe, comfortable environment. Senior citizens can get car service to go to appointments or run errands. The list goes on, this is a realization of the American Dream that makes so many people's lives better.

I can't speak to you or anyone else's position, but I can sympathize. I've been struggling, I've been poor, but it was in a different time before the extra amenities like cell phones, cable, the internet were all part of the average person's budget. I can relate to feeling like the world was against me and I can only wish that your continuing life experience will be filled with as much good fortune as reward for hard work as mine was.

I love generosity and the spirit of community. I donate a lot of money (relative to my income) to charitable causes because I'd rather give it to them then to the government whose track record is less impressive. That's the problem with taxes, you have to pay them no matter what and that means the government is not accountable.

Personal and societal accountability are the cornerstones of my belief because in my professional and personal experience if you do or don't hold someone accountable you will or will not get the desired results.

The thing is though, in the United States, there's a huge divisions between the rich and poor. That inequity is insane. As I said before, something like the top 10% (I think it's less, more like 5% I've even heard 2%) control 90% of the wealth. That's just insane and it causes a lot of these problems we have with funding programs which work to benefit the underprivileged. This is ignoring all the stupid things the United States does...like have two wars at once AND cut taxes at the same time and the general fiscal irresponsibility of their government.

So is sort of an invisible division however and they also pay something like 98% of the taxes (charitable donations included) collectively so they're not all bad.

I'd raise a few points here though. That sounds all nice and great though but what about ghettos and communities that are completely broken? They don't have good education, medical care, or any of that. There are many families who don't have a good strong community rely on and as a result only have themselves. If they're living in a ghetto in Los Angeles then themselves simply isn't enough and they can't break out of that cage. They don't have the means to do it alone.

I don't believe the United States is as progressive as it once was either.The United States isn't number one in anything anymore. Education, energy, health - hell it isn't even the most free country in the world. That's Holland. I don't think it's at the forefront like it once was. I think it's lagging behind and I think inequity has quite a bit to do with it.

In regards to wealthy philanthropists - what they do is great and completely commendable but do you think other rich people in society (everyone in Hollywood for instance) donate as much to charity? I think the minority of the rich do - when they do it's great but more often they're buying giant houses and a fleet of cars and grills made of diamonds. They could be doing more with their money that has meaning but they don't.

Not so much true anymore though. The Bush tax cuts for instance shifted the burden to the middle class, which is why the poverty rate has grown over the past eight years. They're also reaping all the benefits of society and never have to worry about their own problems. They keep most of their wealth and spend it frivolously while every one else is left to eat dirt. This is what I mean when I say there's welfare for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

As for this wealth distribution thing, it appears imbalanced from the PoV of the instance of taxing, not the long run. Its easier explained when its not money but I'll do my best.

If I have 500,000 of taxable income and you have 50,000 and for the hell of it, lets say we're all paying 10%, I end up paying 50,000 where are you pay 5,000.

At that point, yes, I "got screwed", my work apparently wasn't rewarded and the government was sapping my lively hood. I paid 10 times the amount you did.

But thats where it ends, because I'm left with 450,000 and you've got 45,000. I've still got 10 times the amount of money you do. And when I go to the grocery store, butters still $3.19, Bread costs the same, gas didn't go up and our electric bills fluctuate the same depending on usage.

I've still got plenty more options with my income level, so i'm not sure how the wealthy are punished. I don't generally watch Countdown with Keith Olberman but he had a figure that under one of the Roosevelt presidencies, the top tax bracket paid 50%.

Built on a scaling platform, taxes still favor those who work harder, the idea of wealth distribution is a little bizzare to me, but Republicans tend to win the image game more often. I don't know how though, they give out free calculators at the bank.

Your example is what most wealthy people have often called for. A flat tax. The problem is this when I made 25K a year I was being taxed around 30% If I were to make 250K I'd be taxed at nearly 42%. That's the unfair part when the more money you make the heavy the tax burden on each dollar becomes.

It's counter intuitive in my opinion. In the regular working world when you exceed your expected time of labor you are often eligible for over-time or time and a half pay, meaning the value of your time is greatly increased. Yet the tax system takes a higher and higher percentage of each dollar you make. Suggesting you've exceeded optimal income.

All I want is to be taxed at the same rate as everyone else. I pay the same sales tax, property tax, vice taxes as anyone else why should my income taxes be higher or lower because of my income.

@ Ethan

I do think you are under estimating the generosity of people. Most people I know who can afford to do so donate heavily and would even more so if they had more disposable income.

To your question about the Ghetto's and run down neighborhoods. Again I'd trust people more then the government to fix this problem. In Detroit there is a growing charter school program. They are like private schools in a sense but have a lot more flexibility with who they can admit including limited or no tuition for lower income families. The best of these schools are graduating over 85% while the public schools are the nations worst at less then 40%.

To help those without reliable transportation a local businessman has started a free busing program for students and even offered jobs to the unemployed parents of the schools children.

I thing that may be the crux of our disagreement.

More later perhaps on IM, I have to run 311 concert tonight. My fathers day gift which is weird cause I'd never have bought the tickets for myself, but time with my daughter will be great.

I was under the assumption a flat tax was a flat amount.

Still if I'm wrong, the wealthier the people have been lately, the less they've been taxed. How's that fair?

Yeah we can talk this to bits later on IM. I want to state for everyone else though I don't think people are necessarily selfish by nature I just don't think everyone is universally generous. There are great people who do great things with the money they have but there also people who hoard it away. Look at all those soulless cash whores on Wall Street.

That's basically been the Bush tax policy. It shifted too much of the burden from the upper class to the middle class. I believe in a progressive tax system and I don't think the United States has really had one for a long time.

Roughly 5% of the population pays over 90% of the taxes. Please explain how that is putting the burden on the middle class.

You are wrong on both counts.

I don't really know what you're talking about here. The top percentage of the population received a tax cut that was over forty times that of people in the middle of the income scale and under those tax cuts they received a larger share of after-tax income, whereas again, the people below them received a a much smaller share then they would have without the tax cuts. Not to mention the top 2% of the population also controls over 90% of the wealth as well so treating it like they aren't seeing the benefits of the taxation (and only they are really) is sort of silly. Meanwhile over the past eight years the middle class shrunk and began to slip below poverty line. The correlation isn't that hard to see.

How does socialism reward a strong work ethic? You work harder so the Man can take more of it? That makes no sense to me. People have a lot less incentive to work hard if they do not get to keep what they've worked for. It's human nature. That said, do you think the USA would be as great as it is if it's always stuck to socialistic policies?

I'm surprised you take this position on socialism as well, since nearly all of the people I have heard or read about from Canada do not believe the expediency of health care in particular is that great. In fact not at all. Is that false?

This country was founded on capitalism. It is as strong and as prosperous as it is because of capitalism. To change it is incomprehensible.

I thought this was indisputable at this point? I haven't seen anyone disprove that. And for you folks who think it isn't fair that the wealthy get larger tax cuts, put yourself in their shoes. And don't tell me you'd be some saint who would gladly give your money to the government to spend how they choose. Everyone should be taxed the same. Why should you be penalized for being successful? Is that a crime? Let it be noted that I make $52,000 a year and I oppose higher taxes on ANYONE, even if I am to benefit because of it.

You don't know what socialism is do you? Saying you see none of the fruits of your labor is absurd. You see all the fruits of your labor and then some. Socialism isn't health care and arguing that capitalism makes a country stronger is historically stupid (see Africa, Latin America, etc.) especially now when it's the socialist countries (Norway, Sweden, etc.) that are doing well as opposed to those great free market ones that are borrowing all their money and who think economic growth is people considering buying.

No one really disputed it. However he's ignoring the larger picture when he says that and that alone. See: my above post.

which fruits of that labor? tell me how you receive more benefit by working harder in a socialistic society as opposed to a capitalistic. also, I would appreciate you not calling something I said stupid. Thank you. I didn't say capitalism makes A country stronger, it makes and has made our country stronger. also, please explain to me how much Norway, Sweden, etc have contributed to the technological, medical, whatever else advancement?

Also, please help me understand how an individual will work harder and start their own businesses, etc, when the more they work, the more it helps others. Shouldn't I be able to be successful and make my own choices who I want to give my money to?

What larger picture is there? I think it's that simple. It's easy for us middle class people to say they rich have it easy and get all these tax breaks, etc, when we are the one who would benefit from it. Is that a false premise? I really doubt if you were wealthy that you would be in favor of paying more tax than anyone else. Seriously?

anyways, this is fun. I'm not trying to be argumentative :) and I'm bored at work. so ok.

I called what you said stupid because it was. Saying capitalism has been great for the world is just...stupid. I could've used a nicer word - sorry but countries are mired in poverty because of it and their resources have been stolen. Slavery, sweat shops, dumping toxic waste, all these have been the products of capitalism. You can't really deny that. Fidel Castro once said "they talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?" Well where is it?

Also, in regards to Sweden, Norway and so on not being at the forefront of technological innovations. It's a pretty ignorant thing to say. Global Conexions In regards to Norway, there's polar research and off-shore oil drilling and so on. I also learned from toretorden that they invented the cheese slicer! But how can that be in a socialist society!? Education leads to innovation; not the free market that's why.

In regards to the last paragraph. Before you say you should have the right to decide what you should do with your own property why is it your property? What makes it yours really? How can claim ownership over something and how doesn't that interfere with the rest of societies liberties?

Um...again. Read my post. I don't think you did or if you did you chose to ignore it.

this is pointless. we are fundamentally different in our beliefs. I'm okay to leave it at that. Call it conceding if you like, but I'm quite happy living in the USA. Not many people quote Castro; well done.

You stated the middle class was shifted the burden. How when they pay less that 10% of the taxes are they shifted the burden? Of course if you use straight dollar amounts the percentages of any tax cut will favor those who pay more taxes. Your grasp on the economics behind this don't appear to be very strong.

I never said they were shifted the entire burden. I just said they were shifted too much of the burden and considering what happened to the middle class (it shrunk) and then what happened to the even lower classes (they grew) I don't see how that's an objectionable statement. Particularly when the tax cuts favored the rich which is an indisputable as a fact. I don't really know how you can argue it. The Congressional Budget Office agrees with me on this.

What if it gets to the point where the rich just get fed up with the taxes they are paying, and decide to retire, and just live off of what they have. Who will shoulder the tax burden?

asdisadllttt. stop.

False. Canadian health care, while sometimes not the fastest service, is far better than the LA hospital practice of dumping non-paying patients in front of homeless shelters in nothing but their hospital gowns and slippers. There are countless stories of people becoming sick through no fault of their own and then becoming absolutely destitute paying for care - even with insurance from an HMO, the profit-based model of the company will try to eliminate candidates who are likely to become sick and will try to deny as many medical procedures as possible to keep their costs down. That is nothing short of barbaric.

I won't argue that America was founded on capitalism; I think it has been one of the best working systems in the world. Ayn Rand's vision of a capitalist utopia is as beautiful and yet as pie-in-the-sky as a Marxist communist utopia. However, capitalism and it's externalities are not a perfect system and have done serious damage in areas that they can avoid being accountable for. We are not discussing socialism vs. capitalism however as much as we are discussing government-funded health care.

Good post, it's a shame Engels didn't get to see the 20th century, he would have had to really rethink his views. Socialism is a wonderful concept, but it is so obviously flawed in that it strips people of motivation at a certain point and thus brings down the quality of life. As Lenin would find out with socialism he who does work may still not eat. Socialism in my opinion works best in small groups for small periods of time, otherwise it's bound for eventual failure.

As for capitalism, you're only describing one of the relationships and a few demographic's that make it work and doing so with a rather preconceived slant. My experience doesn't fit into your archetype at all. Despite the numerous flaws in the system it presents more options than any other system and that's what I value, choice, to try something else if I don't like whats behind door number one.

@ Wayfarer

Engels would have watched communism and socialism fail all over the globe in the past century and would have realized that people are all different and assuming each person will work just as hard as the others and that the same amount of money is necessitated and warranted for each individual are simply wrong and have been proven wrong in practice.

To your second question (How so)it's common sense really. If you're compensation is tied to the success of the industry on the whole and the guy next to you is working half ass what motivates you to work to your own potential?

Thirdly, the basis for my opinion is multiple decades of studying and teaching world history and watching a pattern of imperialistic and socialistic governments crumble after initial boons.

Finally, capitalism in the United States offers more options because it's a free market and when an industry fails or struggles their is less red tape for a new more adept competitor in that or a competing industry to get past and eventually thrive. The same is true for personal career choices. I changed careers twice and was able to do so while still supporting a family because of the system I live in.

Because of this system, my family and many like them came to America in the the 20th century with nothing and now have wonderful lives, families and careers here, something the vast majority of us could never have achieved in our countries of origin.

Back on topic:

I think the primary flaw with our health care system in the US is medical malpractice litigation and what it does to the insurance costs of even basic care.

Socialism hasn't failed...Cuba has better health care than the United States, Sweden is at the forefront of innovation and Norway is doing way better than any capitalistic country right now. I don't really understand how people keep saying it's been proven to fail as a governmental structure when it really hasn't. Socialistic countries have thrived.

Sweden and Norway are not socialist countries, Norway's constitution and system of government are modeled after the United States and they are a free-market economy just like us, the difference being their governments admits to owning and being owned by major industry giants. As for thriving, if you just mean health care then yes they have but people also pay nearly 60% of their income in taxes which would not be okay with very many Americans who are in favor of socialized health care.

If you do mean the system of government:

The most significant examples of failure in the last century are the USSR and China of course, but you can also look at places like Vietnam, North Korea, Laos and Cuba which health care aside, I can't agree that it is an example of a successful government.

This is in my opinion why so many people look at socialism as a failure and are probably scared away from, perhaps wrongly, the concept of socialized health care (or anything for that matter) as a whole.

I said Sweden and Norway are thriving because compared to the United States and every other country in this economic downturn they are thriving and it's because of the socialistic aspects of the Scandinavian Model. Which is closer to Socialism than is to the United States idea of capitalism - I don't know how you can argue that it's failed. Social Democracies seem to be weathering bad times (created by capitalism) far better than people who are all gung-ho about the free market.

You're talking specifically about Communist nations, not socialistic nations and in many cases those countries are mired in third world status (Cuba is a prime example of this) because of US intervention and economic sanction. I don't think I need to explain what we did to them - it's well documented in history. It has nothing to do with the validity of the ideas and flaws in the system but a superpower which loves to stick its nose where it shouldn't.

I think the notion that Marxist ideology has failed in favor of strict laissez-faire principles is silly. If you look at the key victories for the free market (the coup in Chile, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the soviet union, Tienanmen Square and Poland in 1989, and so on.) You'll see that the free market was never really the definitive victor. What did Polish voters want in 1989? It wasn't privatization it was for worker ownership. South Africans voted, in 94, for redistribution of their rich resources which were in the hands of a few elite. In the nineties Russians believed privatization should happen through worker ownership. Leftist ideology didn't lose because it didn't work it lost because of propaganda, economic sanctions, war, intervention, etc.

I don't agree with your assessment of the Scandinavian model, I believe it's the general freedom allotted to their citizens and the people's willingness through generations of acclimation to carry such a heavy tax burden that has lead to the majority of those nations being so productive in the last decade.

I was specifically talking about Communist nations in response to a quote Wayfarer used from Lenin. I tried to make a note of that in my earlier post suspecting you simply meant socialistic aspects of government. If you think the US is the bad guy and Cuba the good guy in that match-up then I have no interest in any further discussion, so lets just stop that right here.

This sounds like twisted history to me and I really can't think of anyway to productively respond to most of it. It wasn't propaganda that murdered millions of it's own people, and held millions more of them below the poverty line in favor of imperial aspirations.

I do agree that it's foolish to force capitalism or any other government or economic system on any nation, but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on what works best.

Why can't freedom and socialism coexist? They're not mutually exclusive in fact it's what everyone from Trotsky and Orwell argued for and I believe that democracy is completely vital and should be the center of any socialist state.

What did Cuba do to make them the bad guy? Overthrow a US backed and oppressive dictator?

You're right I should have worded things better. I was more referring to the leftist ideology itself as opposed to specific regimes. Stalin, Pol Pot and all of them were clearly deeply evil men but again I point to Orwell who argued against totalitarianism better then I ever could. It turns the supposed good proletariat into the elite bourgeois, or turns former piggish leaders into humans.

You guys really need to move that **** to another thread.

Yeah sorry. I have to go do my laundry but when I get back I'll move it all.