Communism and Socialism

[Danoff]

Here's a good article about economic freedom.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126696,00.html


I love it when they run CATO articles.

 

[87chevy]

do rich people not have property? do they not drive benze's and bentley's? I'm sorry I must have missed something........ your right their right to have property has been violated!

 

[Danoff]

do rich people not have property? do they not drive benze's and bentley's? I'm sorry I must have missed something........ your right their right to have property has been violated!

I didn't understand that, but let me pose this question. Leaving that article I posted up there aside (and how it shows that more economic freedom means a stronger economy)...

Would it be right if the government said that murder was 60 years in prison for black people and 50 years in prison for white people?

If not, then why is it ok for the government to say poor people pay no income taxes, middle class people pay 25% and rich people pay 40%?


Would it be ok if the government said that the fee to get your marriage license is 20 bucks if you're poor and 50 if you're rich?

 

[ledhed]

The Peoples republic of New Jersey recently passed a law to increase taxes on people that earn more than 500,000 a year. And during the campaign said that we need to raise taxes on those that can most afford it , so that we can lower yours or some such crap, thus alienating a large group of tax payers. The result is that alot of the people who make that amount are trying to find a house in another state. the real estate market in PA. is booming because of the influx of new buyers and my guess is that it will effect the state economy as well , if the same people move thier companys out as well. The free market in action.

 

[87chevy]

I didn't understand that

was my sarcasm that complicated? Well, if we did tax everyone the same, then the poor would be even poorer. and that can't be good. I'll let you tell my why, well most likely you'll tell me why it's great to have impoverished people living in filth and rockstars paying a measley amount of taxes. Oh, and then you'll argue the government shouldn't spend any of your hard earned taxes to help those poor people. Because that's forcing you to help someone.

 

[ledhed]

you can make the percentage of income taken in taxes the same.

 

[87chevy]

so let's say it's 10%. 10% taxes on income (just from the Feds) for everyone from poor Wanda with 2 kids working at 7-11 who needs every cent she makes to get by, to Bill gates. Now, you'll probably say that Wanda will get tax breaks for her kids, but why should She get tax breaks for her kids? for all we know they were both mistakes. Why should i pay more taxes than her becuase i chose not to have kids???

 

[ledhed]

Wanda might pay a few hundred a year but Bill Gates would have to pony up a billion. But it would still be 10 % of earned income no matter who or what or why. Deductions for children are fair to me because you are supporting non wage earners. if the kids are lucky to get a job then they get taxed just like anyone else. Wanda takes advantage of government services so Wanda gets to pay for it.

 

[87chevy]

well led i gotta say i was wanting to hear from danoff but at least this way i can agree with someone i like more than him ok, so maybe it would work out. but what about taxing corporations??? now that is something i would like to hear opinions on. because big corportatoins, to me, are more evil than rich individuals.

 

[Danoff]

because big corportatoins, to me, are more evil than rich individuals.

Evil because they give people jobs or evil because they provide services?

Now, you'll probably say that Wanda will get tax breaks for her kids, but why should She get tax breaks for her kids? for all we know they were both mistakes. Why should i pay more taxes than her becuase i chose not to have kids???

I don't think people should get tax breaks for having kids. Why should the government encourage the lifestyle of having children over not.

Flat tax is still not quite fair because, as ledhed pointed out, bill gates would still shell out millions in taxes while wanda only shells out 1000 bucks. At the same time, wanda is using more services.

The only really fair way to do it (and I've said this before) is to tax everyone the same dollar amount. But that's absolutely not possible because of the gargantuan size of the government. I think the cost of the government (if averaged over each household) would be like 20,000... that's the last estimate I heard. That means some people don't make enough money to pay for their share.

So a flat percentage is the only way to go in the short term - and possibly in the long term if we're to have an effective millitary. It's ok because that's a heck of a lot fairer than what we're doing now, which is the equivalent of having different prison sentences for black people than white people... it's picking on a small of people who can't fight back democratically.

was my sarcasm that complicated? Well, if we did tax everyone the same, then the poor would be even poorer. and that can't be good.

So if the poor being poorer can't be good, why not tax everyone enough so that nobody is poorer than anyone else? Then you'll have a totally disfunctional economy that is unfair to everyone.

Tell me how it is fair to not tax everyone the same?

 

[Sage]

because big corportatoins, to me, are more evil than rich individuals.

I really don't understand this stigma towards wealthier people/businesses... how does having more money automatically make them part of the "evil" category? There are many "evil" rich people; there are many evil poor people; there are many evil big corporations; there are many evil small businesses.

 

[ledhed]

America's economy is the result of the effort of all its people. A big corporation gets to be big because of its value to the people it provides services or goods to. You can argue the fact that because the US enables its people to have the chance to form large corporations , its directly responsible for the high standard of living and the powerhouse economy that we all enjoy. You cant have it both ways. You either enable people by rewarding them for good performance , or you call people that perform well evil , because they are doing so much better and convince them to go someplace where there efforts are appreciated.

 

[wellyrn]

I think rich people should pay more in taxes. how can you possibly think a rich person has less rights than a poor person? Rich people get far more than they deserve to begin with and that is why they are taxed accordingly. Its not like they worked 4000 hours a week to earn thier fortune. If they have 100 times the money of a poor person its because they were given 100 times more for the same effort.

The more money you have the less you work and the more you earn, if nothing was done to balance this a very few would take all the wealth and the majority of the world would be starving.

If I ever were to become tremendously wealthy i am glad that the money is going to a better cause than more jewelry or 26" platinum rims or golden toilets. Lets face it, if i did have the money i would prolly end up a self centered a-hole like every rich person. Thats why It's good to tax them, they won't do the right thing themselves.

Theres another point, poor people COULD become rich and the same rules would apply to them. It's not really a double standard is it?

 

[ledhed]

You make alot of assumptions ; You say

its because they were given 100 times more for the same effort.

Could it be because the effort is worth 100 x s more ?
For example would you pay Einstien more than me to teach physics? Even though I may work very hard to teach the subject the results would not be even close. you also assume that the poor person actually worked or if he did he worked hard. what somethings worth is determined by what will be paid for it.

The more money you have the less you work and the more you earn, if nothing was done to balance this a very few would take all the wealth and the majority of the world would be starving.

I look at as " The harder you work the more money you make and the better you educate yourself the more money you make for the same amount of work"
If you want more balance create conditions for poorer people to do better for themselves, dont punish the people that produce by taking away from them what they have earned by thier work or talent.

If I ever were to become tremendously wealthy i am glad that the money is going to a better cause than more jewelry or 26" platinum rims or golden toilets. Lets face it, if i did have the money i would prolly end up a self centered a-hole like every rich person. Thats why It's good to tax them, they won't do the right thing themselves.

If I was to become wealthy I would put money back into the business that made my wealth and try to perpetuate it for the benifit of my family and thier familys. I would also sell rims to the fools that want them and give whatever I feel like to whomever I feel desrves it. like most rich people do. I'm sure Mr. Nobel would be very pleased to know you think him incapable of doing the right thing without putting a gun to his head. All the communist rulers said the same thing.."lets take the land and money from the rich and give it to the poor" look how well thats worked out for them.

 

[wellyrn]

I wouldn't pay you jack to teach physics if you aren't qualified.

The harder you work the more money you make and the better you educate yourself the more money you make for the same amount of work

I was talking RICH people, not people who start with nothing and work thier way up, if you work for decades you deserve what you get, but you should still pay more taxes than people scraping by. If you were poor and didn't get a break in the first place you could never afford to get educated anyway.

But if you are rich... you just make a few calls to your buddies, invest what you have and let your money work for you. When they make money from market investments do you think it just appears from thin air? It comes from the people who are doing the grunt work to keep thier family fed and clothed.

Again you are using the exception to the rule. Most millionaires are born millionaires. Also, we are talking about taxing within democracy, not communism. In communism the tax is 100% for everyone...

Anyhoo... once your family is already set rather than thinking about exploiting more people have you ever thought about sharing some of the profit with the people who work for you? They made you your fortune.

In the real world Corporations are the employers and they don't give a flying **** about the people forced to work for them because they have no other way to feed themselves. They rack up billions for themselves and the people doing the real work are still earning minimum wage.

People look out for themselves first, its 100,000 year old survival instinct. In the jungle there was never a "set for life" situation like there is today. We need to change that attitude. There are people dying in the world. The rich can bling bling all they want when everyone has a basic standard of living.

 

[wellyrn]

I really don't understand this stigma towards wealthier people/businesses... how does having more money automatically make them part of the "evil" category? There are many "evil" rich people; there are many evil poor people; there are many evil big corporations; there are many evil small businesses.

Everyone is evil. The difference is a small business is a piss in the ocean and a corporation is the exxon valdez.

 

[Danoff]

Everyone is evil.

Everyone is good - that makes about as much sense.

I was talking RICH people, not people who start with nothing and work thier way up

Of course some people start from nothing and become "RICH".

... ledhed had some good responses to your post, but I want to add a few things.

The more money you have the less you work and the more you earn, if nothing was done to balance this a very few would take all the wealth and the majority of the world would be starving.

You don't understand the concept of creating wealth. For people to become rich, other people don't have to become poor.

If I ever were to become tremendously wealthy i am glad that the money is going to a better cause than more jewelry or 26" platinum rims or golden toilets. Lets face it, if i did have the money i would prolly end up a self centered a-hole like every rich person. Thats why It's good to tax them, they won't do the right thing themselves.

Think about what that money pays for in the jewelry business. It pays for lots and lots of people to bring that jewelry to the rich people who so eagerly throw away so much of the cash they earned . Think about the guy behind the counter they're helping to employ. The truck drivers that bring the supplies to the store that are getting paid. The guys that work at the electric company, or the security company that secures the jewelry store. Think about the jewelry supplier to the retailer... and the advertisers that promoted the jewelry store that joe moneybags walked into to buy.

The same thing goes for all of the other luxury items you can name. The money that is spent on those items goes directly to lots of working people.

But that's not the end of the people rich people employ. I wrote a rant about how they go to expensive restaurants and thereby help support waiters and cooks. But what about the armies and armies of accountants and investors that they have behind them so that their money will make money. Think about the investment companies that are skimming the interest off of that money and employing thousands of people who work long hours to bring one of the most amazing concepts in the existance of economics.

That wealth can be created... it does not have to be looted.

 

[87chevy]

The difference is a small business is a piss in the ocean and a corporation is the exxon valdez.

Gotta agree with you there. Joe Schmoe Video rental isn't pressuring congress and the president to open up the Alaskan preserves to Oil Drilling. Mike and Tom's accounting service isn't telling thousands of employees that they all have retirement plans, when, in actuality, they don't because the board members all spent the money on Yachts. I find it said that you think just because someone provides a service, and hires someone else, then they are immune from being bad, danoff. If you had it your way, Wanda would pay every cent to taxes because she uses more services while Bill Gates would pay virtually nothing. yeah, that makes sense.

 

[Danoff]

Wanda would pay every cent to taxes because she uses more services while Bill Gates would pay virtually nothing. yeah, that makes sense.

If I had it my way wanda would barely have to pay anything because the government would be a microscopic portion of what it is today. I'd start with the destruction of Social Security, the FDA, OSHA, and the IRS.

Still, a FLAT percentage based system is fair enough and would allow for a very advanced millitary, solid police force, good roads, fire dept, etc.

 

[87chevy]

I'd start with the destruction of Social Security, the FDA, OSHA, and the IRS.

whoa!!!! the FDA can you please tell me why????

 

[Danoff]

whoa!!!! the FDA can you please tell me why????

Because the FDA is not only counter productive but also unnecessary.

 

[ledhed]

you get bad/evil/criminal corporations you fine them or put the people who run them in jail. Just like you do with a bad/evil/criminal small business owner. But what you dont do is say all corporations are bad, or that most are or even a large amount. If you do then you are delusional or just at war with capitalism period. Another thing that I noticed in reading through this thread is the perception of "rich people " as being all about gold toilet seats , rims and the rest of the bling -bling crap. Its the same people who built this country and made it into the great place it is to live. the risk takers the visionarys , people who wouldnt know a bling if it bit them in the ass that are relevant. The vast majority of people who "get rich" do so because of thier talent and hard work. Once they get "rich" they work hard to keep what they earn. without these people the US would be no different than Somalia or Albania or any other 3rd world country. America became great because people from all over the world with talent , recognised the promise of our form of government. The places that lost these people did not offer the same promise and most of them only wanted to exploit them. so now you want to turn around and say the same things , like "they are rich they can afford it " or they are rich you cant trust THEM to do the right thing" the same things the communist and the nazi's and the rest of the idiots spout. The Berlin wall was put up to keep the people from leaving that corrupt system, people where shot trying to get away from the same attitude you are talking about here.
Just thought I would point that out, because it seems alot has been forgotten in only 15 years or so.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

The problem INHO is the rich using the poor to get richer. Sure, it's a free country but to take it to the extreme it's been the last 30 years is killing poeple.

For example:
My fiance' has a typical american job earing about 17k a year; and she is up to her chin in debt no thanx to credit cards. The latest statement she got was one from MBNA..... her annual percentage rate was almost 31%! (and no, she does not make late payments,.. all that garbage about a "daily prime rate not in excess of 24.99%, ect, ect" is BS). Her minimum payment is $160 where $151 is applied to finance charges alone.

So, with that said, MBNA jerk-off CEO now has that much more money to apply to his kids trustfund which will probably never get spent anyway cause they are already rich enough, and my fiance' cant fuel the economy with more purchases because she works 10 hours overtime each week (higher gov. tax when OT is included too lets not forget :roll: ) just to pay the finance charges on her credit card. So, dip-**** CEO takes the money that couldve been put back into the economy and throws it into limbo,.. at the same time issuing my fiance' another opportunity to have a 2nd card so that she can turn around and do it again.

Now, sure, the argument against this would be that she shouldve been more responsible with her money. Acceptable,.... but deosnt our governemnt have an obligation to protect our citizens (even the financially ignorent) from big business who shoves their 30% interest rate thumbs in our anus'?

Sorry I suppose this is just more of a rant than a valid point,.... 30 friggin percent,.. I nearly shyte myself when I saw that.

 

[Danoff]

Sorry I suppose this is just more of a rant than a valid point,.... 30 friggin percent,.. I nearly shyte myself when I saw that.

That's high.

but deosnt our governemnt have an obligation to protect our citizens (even the financially ignorent) from big business who shoves their 30% interest rate thumbs in our anus'?

Nope.

Now, sure, the argument against this would be that she shouldve been more responsible with her money.

Yup.

at the same time issuing my fiance' another opportunity to have a 2nd card so that she can turn around and do it again.

That would be her choice.

CEO takes the money that couldve been put back into the economy and throws it into limbo

The money goes to the business and all of the employees and services the business pays for. Her money is, in effect, going into the economy when she pays those finance charges.

The problem INHO is the rich using the poor to get richer. Sure, it's a free country but to take it to the extreme it's been the last 30 years is killing poeple.

I'm not seeing the rich people using the poor to get richer. I see poor people make bad decisions and I see rich people making good ones. Then sometimes it's the other way around. I think I'm pretty poor but I'm practically scamming discover with their cash back.

 

[Duke]

I think rich people should pay more in taxes. how can you possibly think a rich person has less rights than a poor person? Rich people get far more than they deserve to begin with and that is why they are taxed accordingly. Its not like they worked 4000 hours a week to earn thier fortune. If they have 100 times the money of a poor person its because they were given 100 times more for the same effort.

The more money you have the less you work and the more you earn, if nothing was done to balance this a very few would take all the wealth and the majority of the world would be starving.

If I ever were to become tremendously wealthy i am glad that the money is going to a better cause than more jewelry or 26" platinum rims or golden toilets. Lets face it, if i did have the money i would prolly end up a self centered a-hole like every rich person. Thats why It's good to tax them, they won't do the right thing themselves.

Theres another point, poor people COULD become rich and the same rules would apply to them. It's not really a double standard is it?

You're at a crossroads in your life, wellryn, and I doubt you realize it. You can choose to do one of two things:

Continue wallowing in biased ignorance of logic, economics, politics, and moral philosophy. This will lead you to a life of bitter, pointless rebellion, stuck in a wage-slave job; uneducated and unable to understand the world you live in beyond a simple stimulus-response pattern, and fueled by a burning envy of anyone richer, more literate, or more powerful than you - yet you will even fail to understand that you have caused your own powerlessness.

Or you could dump the majority of your inherited, preconceived notions and learn to think for yourself. You can stop swallowing everything at face value, so long as it goes against "big business", "the government", and the status quo. This makes you just as ignorant as anyone else who swallows the party line is, to whom you like to feel so superior. You can learn that there is logic and that logic can be used to determine what is right and wrong. With this amazing tool, you can then live a life where you have some power and effectiveness, which you can use for your own purposes - whether those purposes are meant to help you or to help others; your choice. And you will understand that there is no right in punishing those who honestly HAVE something for the crime of having it, or in punishing those who honestly MAKE for the crime of making it.

You can decide which path to choose. Just remember that the second path leaves you free to make other choices... but the first does not.

 

[Arwin]

Neon, what the heck is biased ignorance exactly? I think wellyrn is well underway to becoming someone who thinks for himself. In fact, a lot better than most. True, you have to find a balance between independent thought and knowledge of what others have thought before you, but in my opinion you now pick on the wrong comments to stimulate him in the right direction. I think you may want to ask yourself if you're not biased yourself here, because wellyrn happens to post opinions that are opposite yours.

Anyway, in our country we have a lot stronger social system and a lot smaller differences between rich and poor. Our philosophy is that the strongest shoulders carry the most weight. What is wrong with that? It still means that someone like me, who is lucky to happen to like and be good at something that provides me a steady, above average income, earns more than most, but the differences are just smaller. It's not just a social thing in that you care for others - it is an insurance for yourself. You could lose your capacity to do your job, and you wouldn't end up in a ditch as a result. It is also more efficient - poor kids who are talented can still get an education even if their parents can't afford them one, which is always better than turning their talents to crime. People understand and support each other more, because they take care of each other.

Sure, you still need income differences to stimulate people to compete, but it doesn't have to be either/or. There are fluent lines between Communism and Capitalism in their purest forms. The latter, in its purest form, makes everyone predators, the former in its purest form makes everyone mindless cattle. The end result is the same - in pure Capitalism one person with the most money will eventually become all powerful and subdue all predators, and in pure Communism one person with the most administrative power will control the mindless cattle.

Neither leads to anything remotely Democratic, if anyone still understands that word.

EDIT: just saw the new U.N. thread. I'll move further discussion there.

 

[Duke]

Neon, what the heck is biased ignorance exactly? I think wellyrn is well underway to becoming someone who thinks for himself. In fact, a lot better than most. True, you have to find a balance between independent thought and knowledge of what others have thought before you, but in my opinion you now pick on the wrong comments to stimulate him in the right direction. I think you may want to ask yourself if you're not biased yourself here, because wellyrn happens to post opinions that are opposite yours.

I have an opinion, without doubt, but that doesn't make me biased in my dealings with wellryn. Note that I've mentioned deep respect for jpmontoya, among others (you included), with whom I disagree quite firmly in many respects. But I can see that you and jpmontoya have put - and continue to put - as much careful thought and study into your beliefs as I have into mine. That's what creates respect among differing people.

wellryn, on the other hand, has shown me that he will accept anything that goes against the Establishment grain, without apparent thought or investigation, as gospel. If it contradicts the conventional thought, it must be Truth; or so he appears to feel.

I'm a big believer in independent thought whether it agrees with mine or not. So far he hasn't demonstrated any. All I've seen him do is spout prepackaged anti-Establishment rhetoric, ignore every question requiring him to think for himself, and hypocritically reflect every bit of criticism back onto those who dare to challenge him. That's just as ignorant and misguided as a person who blindly follows Authority without question. There's very little reason to respect that kind of person, because they don't earn any.

Anyway, in our country we have a lot stronger social system and a lot smaller differences between rich and poor. Our philosophy is that the strongest shoulders carry the most weight. What is wrong with that?

Well, the problem has been clearly described earlier in this thread. It creates an atmosphere where the strong are penalized for their strength and the weak are rewarded for their inability. I don't think any of us rabid Capitalists here are against social help for those who truly hopeless physically or mentally. But we are definitely against coersion of any person, poor or rich, and against being required to insure people against their own mistakes.

There are fluent lines between Communism and Capitalism in their purest forms. The latter, in its purest form, makes everyone predators.

Neither leads to anything remotely Democratic, if anyone still understands that word.

This just goes to show that you (among many millions of people) have no idea of what the "purest form" of Capitalism is. What you are describing is the purest form of anarchy: the physically stronger use their power to steal money from the weaker, either by actual criminal violence or by legalized threat of violence. This isn't Capitalism in any way.

True Capitalism is free trade of owned property among consenting parties. There is no "stronger" or "weaker", because both parties are free to decide the value of their own property. A rich person has the ability to set a higher value on his property, or upon property he wishes to accquire, but he still doesn't have any right to take something he wants to own away from anyone else.

You're also making the common mistake of assuming that wealth is a finite thing - that gaining wealth must come only by taking it away from someone else. This simply isn't true. New wealth is created every day, by mankind's physical and mental labor. The pie gets bigger and bigger, not smaller and smaller.

 

[Arwin]

I know that you respect me and jp, neon, and I respect that too, but my perception is that there are often many like wellyrn on your side of the debate whom you support and agree with, but who are no better than wellyrn. It's not that I don't understand it, of course. I wouldn't have objected nearly as much to some of these people if they'd been on my side of the debate. I just want to make sure that you are aware of it.

Now you are saying that ultimate free trade is a lot better than anarchy. I think that's a mistake ... I think it stands beyond a doubt that increase of wealth becomes easier once you have more money. It is not a stable system, where a natural balance will be found eventually. The U.S. is a very clear example of this. It's in the top-2 wealthiest nations of the world, with an annual income averaging $30,000 a year. Compare that to the Netherlands, number 7 or something at a 'measly' $21,500 and you'd say that people should be blessed, living in the U.S. But in the Netherlands, everyone has basic health insurance, car insurance, and so on. Poverty levels are less than half that of the U.S.

Money is more powerful than physical strength, which can be bought. Money is more powerful than intelligence, for you can hire the best accountants and lawyers. Money means you can buy a house that you can sell for profit, rather than rent one that will just drain your bankaccount. Of course the rich need the poor, but the poor need the rich much more - there are always more poor people being hired by rich than vice versa, and so a trade imbalance is created that will only grow. The only thing that will then break this spiral is some kind of revolution.

Taking all that in mind, you still have to understand that most of the rich over here choose to pay taxes. This is where Democracy comes in - the rich can vote for parties that make them richer, but the poor can vote for parties that raise taxes. Here, the poorer are in the advantage as the less equality between the two sides of the scale, the more they outnumber the rich in votes. This creates a balance. This is true democracy functioning the way it should, giving power to the people, and promoting equality, but not killing ambition.

But I'm questioning the U.S. democracy, seeing how it allows basically only two parties to exist, who can both easily become dominated by the powerful, i.e. the rich.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

That's high.

Nope.

Yup.

That would be her choice.

The money goes to the business and all of the employees and services the business pays for. Her money is, in effect, going into the economy when she pays those finance charges.

I'm not seeing the rich people using the poor to get richer. I see poor people make bad decisions and I see rich people making good ones. Then sometimes it's the other way around. I think I'm pretty poor but I'm practically scamming discover with their cash back.

See there we go,... I see about as much compassion in that post as we do from the credit people.

F everyone as long as YOU are ahead,... thats the American dream eh?

 

[ledhed]

Arwin you really dont understand the American Political system at all. The people who pay taxes do so for the most part grudgingly and vote that way. Having two partys in our country is no where near the detriment you make it seem. Our politice move from the local grass roots level all the way up to the national level. Every town , villiage or city is its own mini democracy. The individual states operate almost like 50 different countries , with thier own excecutive and legislative branch and constitutions. even inside the two major party's ( there is no legal limit to the amount of party's ) you have the full range of political types ( Al Sharpton was a speaker at the Democratic nat. convention) our partys are run like coalition governments you have to come to aggreement with all sides to present a platform to prevent them from running as an independent and diluting your vote So its not like you are limiting peoples choices at all, at times they have too many to choose from and they split off into third party candidates. The greatest argument for the American system of government is America itself . You do not become the only superpower in the world both military and economic by having a poor political system. And its really important to remember that are government is for the people and run by the people . We vote what we feel. And we vote our pockets. A socialist will most likely never get elected no matter how much money he spends to do so. Of course some might think that any Democrat is by nature a socialist, but I am talking about the European model democratic / Socialist. In some circles in Europe our democrats are considered right wingers.