Thread: Socialism

Originally Posted by adaher

Depends on how much wealth is being created. Tax rates of 30% and up on incomes that aren't even all that rich just make us all poorer in the long run. And there aren't enough gazillionaires to get significant revenues from taxing them at high rates.

What we need is an economy that generates insane amounts of wealth, then redistributing a little of it doesn't cause distortions or disincentivize work. Information technology and automation may yet get us to that point.

In the meantime, we have to hope that the economy can generate enough jobs to keep unemployment below 7%. So far, I see no reason to worry. There hasn't been an economic boom yet that hasn't gotten us close to, or at, full employment.

As I said, my gut reaction to the sci-fi premise is that it's naive, but I do think something like it is possible. And, as adaher suggested we're not that far from it now. Even with our minimal safety net, it's pretty easy to avoid the worst ravages of poverty in the US. The challenge will be dealing with this as wealth balances out internationally. Much of our current elevated standard of living is a result of our imperialistic foreign policy propping up our corporations.

In any case, I think our government and economic "leaders", have colluded to keep us away from the widespread leisure you all are predicting. Most of the major policy decisions in the twentieth century, those influencing the economy at least, seem to have had the unstated goal of keeping most of us desperate for "jobs". The intent seems to have been to keep us in debt, and to keep us dependent on our government/corporate masters for our basic necessities.

I don't think we'll find a path to the tech-utopia until we shake the idea that we must be "provided" with jobs. Or until the notion of a "job" itself undergoes a fairly radical transformation. In it's current incarnation, a "job", is a fairly transparent replacement for slavery. I don't want to diminish the suffering of real slaves, but in many ways policies have been formulated to replace yesterday's slave labor with "employees" - keeping us under their thumb and compliant as a workforce.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I'm certainly not against private ownership of any business either large or small. What I am concerned about when it comes to large businesses is when they're so large that I no longer have any realistic choice anymore when it comes to who I'm going to do business with! The greatest benefit of a free market based system is choice- and competition. The more businesses I have to choose from, the better- so I tend lean towards supporting a system where there are more businesses competing to get my money. This usually means better products, lower prices and on and on. I'd rather have a dozen different smaller cable companies to choose from than just basically have to take Comcast for example.

What do you think of the concept of the public sector "owning" the physical layer of infrastructure; such as post roads and post communications networks? As a conduit to markets, the private sector could simply purchase bandwidth as is the case now with broadcast frequencies. What would be the objection to fiber optics being included, potentially, to every residence via the public sector; as is the case now with most other infrastructure?

Originally Posted by danielpalos

What do you think of the concept of the public sector "owning" the physical layer of infrastructure; such as post roads and post communications networks? As a conduit to markets, the private sector could simply purchase bandwidth as is the case now with broadcast frequencies. What would be the objection to fiber optics being included, potentially, to every residence via the public sector; as is the case now with most other infrastructure?

The city owns the local cable system here. My utility bill includes water, sewer, power, and cable. It works peachy keen and is very affordable.

How convenient is it to obtain content? In my opinion, if the public sector does it, it should strive to full employment of resources; there should be no "empty" bandwidth that is not in use or available for public or private use.

Originally Posted by ConLib View Post

Amazing when you consider that so many of the lower and lower middle class in the US can't see that giving tax breaks to the largest corporations and the richest in our land is the wrong way to go. Small and large companies will only hire the unemployed when demand for their products are there, not when they get another tax break or even the welfare the government passes on to big business.

Originally Posted by countryboy

What's amazing is that someone who claims to be a fiscal conservative, thinks raising taxes on business will create jobs.

Again, try to pay attention, allowing someone to keep what is already theirs, is not giving them anything.

I don't 'claim' anything, I am what I am, and will not began to try and justify myself to you or to anyone that uses your silly tactics. Also, you have turned around what I said and restated it how you wanted, so that you could bring up this rather silly argument. I put both statements in bold, so that even you might be able to see the difference. What you did is typical, but that does not make it the right thing to do.

If you could pay attention, you'd have noticed that during the later years of the "W" Bush administration, when huge tax cuts for the rich and the large corporations were in place, hundreds of thousands of jobs disappeared each month. Also, because of these huge tax cuts to the rich and the large corporations, we had a larger deficit and our national dept grew increasingly larger. The policies of the GOP lead government wiped away the last two years of the Clinton administration, which was actually going to allow us to start paying down the national debt. This was even with the same GOP lead Congress that stated spending money hand over fist when "W" came into the White House.

No, jobs will come when the lower and middle class are allowed to keep more of their money, and the upper 3% of our richest along with large corporations start actually paying their fair share of running this nation. Thereby giving the lower and middle class money to create a demand for profits. It will not turn around merely by giving the upper 3% there same tax breaks and the large amounts of corporate giveaways that we do now.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

The city owns the local cable system here. My utility bill includes water, sewer, power, and cable. It works peachy keen and is very affordable.

Define affordable

Kw/hr

1000 gals W&S

Expanded basic cable/mo

Originally Posted by Tom Palven

Right, taxing people just moves money around, it doesn't create jobs and it doesn't produce more stuff- stuff like food, gasoline, heating oil, lumber, and electric power. Printing money and calling it "quantitative easing" or whatever doesn't create more stuff either, witness Zimababwe. There's plenty of money there, but little stuff which as to be produced by someone.

Right!! Let's do away with taxes! We don't need our army, nor our roads, nor our schools, nor our medical system. Let anarchy reign and complete freedom rule, it's about time the strongest person get's all the booty.

Originally Posted by ConLib

I don't 'claim' anything, I am what I am, and will not began to try and justify myself to you or to anyone that uses your silly tactics. Also, you have turned around what I said and restated it how you wanted, so that you could bring up this rather silly argument. I put both statements in bold, so that even you might be able to see the difference. What you did is typical, but that does not make it the right thing to do.

If you could pay attention, you'd have noticed that during the later years of the "W" Bush administration, when huge tax cuts for the rich and the large corporations were in place, hundreds of thousands of jobs disappeared each month. Also, because of these huge tax cuts to the rich and the large corporations, we had a larger deficit and our national dept grew increasingly larger. The policies of the GOP lead government wiped away the last two years of the Clinton administration, which was actually going to allow us to start paying down the national debt. This was even with the same GOP lead Congress that stated spending money hand over fist when "W" came into the White House.

No, jobs will come when the lower and middle class are allowed to keep more of their money, and the upper 3% of our richest along with large corporations start actually paying their fair share of running this nation. Thereby giving the lower and middle class money to create a demand for profits. It will not turn around merely by giving the upper 3% there same tax breaks and the large amounts of corporate giveaways that we do now.

The "lower class" already pay no tax, and the rich already pay the vast majority of all taxes. How much tax do you want the rich to pay?

Originally Posted by ConLib

Right!! Let's do away with taxes! We don't need our army, nor our roads, nor our schools, nor our medical system. Let anarchy reign and complete freedom rule, it's about time the strongest person get's all the booty.

1. We have a Dept of Homeland Security, air power, and sub-based nuclear missiles to defend this country, so why do we need an army? As a matter of fact some founding fathers were opposed to a standing armiy because it might "provoke mischief", and that's just what the US Foreign Legions are used for.

2. There was a time when doctors actually made house calls, and medical care was pretty widely available. Why does it now require taxes?

Originally Posted by Tom Palven

1. We have a Dept of Homeland Security, air power, and sub-based nuclear missiles to defend this country, so why do we need an army? As a matter of fact some founding fathers were opposed to a standing armiy because it might "provoke mischief", and that's just what the US Foreign Legions are used for.

2. There was a time when doctors actually made house calls, and medical care was pretty widely available. Why does it now require taxes?

The agencies you speak of are all paid for by federal taxes, my response was to someone who advocated doing away with taxes. The states were opposed to a standing army, because they felt it might be used against them. Besides, how would air power or sub based anything protect us against a foreign invasion? Very much considered in the late 1770s, when our Constitution was written, and air power and subs were not even a dream except for a few authors. Also, the US has no foreign legion, unless it's one of the secret agencies that we have.

2. There was also a time when people normally died in their late 40s, and most people had no access to health care because they lived too far away from any doctors, in the 'good old days'. Do you really wish to go back to that? Seriously? Since the insurance companies main goal is to provide wealth to their high level executives and preferred stock holders, there is no where else for people to go, except a medicare/medicaid type plan.

If the federal government would actually regulate the insurance business, federal help for medical care would decrease to the point of being a non-issue.

Originally Posted by countryboy

The "lower class" already pay no tax, and the rich already pay the vast majority of all taxes. How much tax do you want the rich to pay?

You really do have your facts wrong. Everyone pays taxes in many different ways. Sales tax, gasoline tax, taxes on their wages, and more taxes are paid by everyone. Much more a percentage of income for lower and lower-middle class families.

Also, the highest income bracket has a lot of their income from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at lower rates. Having high priced tax attorneys also help in reducing the amount of tax paid, by using various schemes that may or may not be legal, but certainly put a lot of their income out of the money being taxed.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

The city owns the local cable system here. My utility bill includes water, sewer, power, and cable. It works peachy keen and is very affordable.

To danielpalos as well- I'd like to know more about how well this works. I think that there are situations where public ownership of the infrastructure that encourages competition is not only a good idea- it's crucial if we are going to have choice as consumers. The results? Competition means a better product, and a lower price. Dick, what do you have in the way of choice when it comes to cable providers? If it's just one city that has provided the cable network, it might not be enough of a service area for a large number of service providers to emerge- but maybe? Another factor would be how long the infrastructure has been in place.

If a municipal government can provide the physical infrastructure, would it be better or worse for a typical consumer? I think the average consumer of Statism should be better off by that division of labor.