Communism creeping into our future?
Author
Does anyone else see this?
Carbon Tax - paying for the amount of damage the government deems you are inflicting on the environment.
Keep in mind this hasn't worked in most of the other countries that have previously implemented it.
Universal Healthcare - Work and earn money so that the government can take it from you to pay for someone
else's healthcare. "victims".
Global Poverty Tax - Work and earn money so that the government can force you to pay for that starving kid
in africa. "spreading the wealth" not only nationally, but globally?
Marginal tax rate raise of 53% from 37.7% for people of high-income? So on each additional dollar earned, i will pay back
just that much more to the government?
Obama supports these, and wants to raise capitol gains taxes, and further tax the wealthy. again to, "spread the wealth".
And he seems to be who holds the most support on these boards.
I really just wish people could take care of themselves.
I'm working my ass off to become a pharmacist. Under these ideals, would I in turn be deemed more liable to pay for my friends
who didn't go to college? Would I be more responsible for the starving kids in africa? Or the immigrant with 5 kids that can't afford healthcare?
I want my money to go to MY kids and their families, not someone else's.
So to make this constructive, why are so many americans ok with this? How does this encourage one to work harder,
climb the ladder, and invest? Because I know this is reaching the eyes of Obama supporters.
Personally, I tend to be right-wing but I can see arguments for the left:
Those people who are poor/uneducated will receive money that (hopefully) will allow them to improve themselves and thus improve their output. => Everyone benefits.
The main argument against this would be that some people will receive money and find no incentive to actually work. But on the other hand those people will not have the capability to get educated because that costs money that they don't have. Unluckily, it's impossible to give the money just to some of the poor, the part that will surely put it to good use. My guess is that it's more an influence of society and culture to work that makes people actually work when they already have free money.
Those people who are poor/uneducated will receive money that (hopefully) will allow them to improve themselves and thus improve their output. => Everyone benefits.
The main argument against this would be that some people will receive money and find no incentive to actually work. But on the other hand those people will not have the capability to get educated because that costs money that they don't have. Unluckily, it's impossible to give the money just to some of the poor, the part that will surely put it to good use. My guess is that it's more an influence of society and culture to work that makes people actually work when they already have free money.
Aside from the obvious political angle, I'm surprised you mentioned communism. I've been reading Marx recently, and was going to comment in the banking thread about how congruous it (bank failings, along will other economical problems) was with Marx's prognostications (constant rise and fall of economy until inevitable abrogation of capatalism through proletariat insurrection).
(No I'm not a Marxist)
Anyways, I think you're baiting Mr. LessBread sir. [lol]
(No I'm not a Marxist)
Anyways, I think you're baiting Mr. LessBread sir. [lol]
Quote:Original post by Chris ReynoldsExplain what you mean by "it hasn't worked". You seem to have a very limited view of "property".
Carbon Tax - paying for the amount of damage the government deems you are inflicting on the environment.
Keep in mind this hasn't worked in most of the other countries that have previously implemented it.
Quote:Universal Healthcare - Work and earn money so that the government can take it from you to pay for someone else's healthcare. "victims".I would tend to agree with you on this point. However, I'd be interested to know how much money you would be willing to save today to save for your own health care when you are older.
Quote:Global Poverty Tax - Work and earn money so that the government can force you to pay for that starving kid in africa. "spreading the wealth" not only nationally, but globally?This does also strike me as inefficient.
Quote:Marginal tax rate raise of 53% from 37.7% for people of high-income? So on each additional dollar earned, i will pay back just that much more to the government?No, you won't. This is why it's 'marginal': you will only pay 53% of your money for those dollars above a certain income. You may argue that you should be allowed to have as high of an income as you wish, but the government is free to decide that with such a high income you are too much of a burden and need to pay for the upkeep costs.
Author
i tend to believe that a large portion (not all) of people who cannot afford an education, will not see free money as an incentive. the incentive is the bigger house, the better car. i've been around people my whole life who view themselves as "victims", living in shacks, driving around in escalades.. I see this free money more likely ending up on the rims of a car than an education.
And regarding the previous attempts at a carbon tax by other countries.. I am referring to it's failure to reduce carbon emission by the country, not the revenue generated.
And toohrvyk, something troubled me about this statement:
"You may argue that you should be allowed to have as high of an income as you wish, BUT THE GOVERNMENT IS FREE"...
The government is free to determine my burden? The more I make, the more I invest, and the more i spend. how is that a burden to the country?
And regarding the previous attempts at a carbon tax by other countries.. I am referring to it's failure to reduce carbon emission by the country, not the revenue generated.
And toohrvyk, something troubled me about this statement:
"You may argue that you should be allowed to have as high of an income as you wish, BUT THE GOVERNMENT IS FREE"...
The government is free to determine my burden? The more I make, the more I invest, and the more i spend. how is that a burden to the country?
Quote:Original post by Chris ReynoldsWhat is so god dammed wrong with ensuring that sick or injured people get help? That's not communist, it's just not-being-a-selfish-jerk.
Universal Healthcare - Work and earn money so that the government can take it from you to pay for someone
else's healthcare. "victims".
In Australia with a semi-socialised health-care system medical costs are much lower than in the USA, even at non-taxpayer-funded clinics.
Why? I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that the commercialisation of your "health industry" has added too much profit incentive for too many leeches to ruin it for everyone. Now you've got a situation where you *need* to have insurance because anything and everything is absurdly expensive. In turn, the health-care providers also need to charge ridiculous amounts in order to afford their insurance premiums. Again, the insurance companies need to charge so damn much, because doctors are now so expensive. It's a stupid inefficient cost cycle that's gotten out of control.
You know how much I pay to get a yearly flu shot? $10. You know what the non-subsidised price is? $24.
How much would a G.P. in your "every man for himself" system charge you (or your insurer)? $100? $1000?
Quote:I really just wish people could take care of themselves.How about we take children from their parents and make them take care of themselves. After all, a "family unit" is just a small scale communism, is it not?
Make the little buggers earn their place in society, if they can't take care of themselves then let 'em starve!
Quote:The government is free to determine my burden? The more I make, the more I invest, and the more i spend. how is that a burden to the country?There is a finite amount of money in an economy. The more that is hoarded by the rich, the less there is to go around.
It's a fact of capitalism that there must be a "rich" and there must be a "poor" (to combat inflation), but the government doesn't have to let that fact result in mass poverty... if they have a conscience.
Quote:Original post by Chris Reynolds
So to make this constructive, why are so many americans ok with this? How does this encourage one to work harder, climb the ladder, and invest?
Assuming that you get a brilliant career and invest 25% of your money in the financial markets (that would be an ideal best-case), how high would you climb the ladder?
I hope my salary to reach €45k by age 25, €60k by age 30, and increase by €10k for every five years after that. I'd stop working at age 70, if I'm lucky. That would be a great career plan. Sure, I could get lucky: get hired for a million-dolar salary at a top-ranking level, or somehow become a corporate leader and earn gazillions, but the odds of that are quite small and I'm not a lottery player—I'd rather plan things according to the most probable situation.
So, assuming this optimistic but not unrealistic career plan, where there are no government taxes and 25% of my money is invested at a yearly rate of 5%, I will have earned by the end of my career a total of €4 million from my wage and €2 million from my investments.
If I follow a more average course for a career in my area (that is, €55k by age 30 and €5k per five years afterwards, stopping at age 65 with an investment rate of 10% at 3%) the numbers are respectively €2.7 million earned from my wage, €300k earned out of my investments.
I suspect that I'm quite high above the average (in terms of education and skill) of americans. Meaning that, no matter how you climb the ladder, either you win the lottery (by creating a corporation that works or actually going to Vegas), a typical top-revenue "fat cat" will earn in two to five years those same €3 million your ladder-climbing average joe will earn in a lifetime.
EDIT: to clarify my point, I agree that corporate income tax should be as reduced as possible (because companies are able to reinvest all that money correctly) whereas the same is not true for individuals.
Author
Quote:Original post by Hodgman
In Austrlia with a semi-socialised health-care system medical costs are much lower than in the USA, even at non-taxpayer-funded clinics.
It costs more, because we have the best doctors. That's why you don't see top doctors running over to australia. Want a cheap operation with a higher risk of failure? Than yes, by all means stay away from america.
Quote:How about we take children from their parents and make them take care of themselves. After all, a "family unit" is just a small scale communism, is it not?
Make the little buggers earn their place in society, if they can't take care of themselves then let 'em starve!
The problem is adults not taking care of themselves. Not children.
Quote:Original post by Chris Reynoldsuhh [citation needed]... I was under the impression that Lebanon and Cuba had the best surgeons?Quote:Original post by HodgmanIt costs more, because we have the best doctors. That's why you don't see top doctors running over to australia. Want a cheap operation with a higher risk of failure? Than yes, by all means stay away from america.
In Austrlia with a semi-socialised health-care system medical costs are much lower than in the USA, even at non-taxpayer-funded clinics.
So... the nurse who puts the flu-shot into my arm is so much more talented that I should pay 100 times more?
Quote:So if I happen to be the son of some white-trash, why do you want to punish me, an innocent child, by restricting my access to medicine, let me suffer preventable diseases, and doom my to the same poverty-stricken white-trash fate by restricting education?Quote:How about we take children from their parents and make them take care of themselves. After all, a "family unit" is just a small scale communism, is it not?The problem is adults not taking care of themselves. Not children.
Make the little buggers earn their place in society, if they can't take care of themselves then let 'em starve!
Don't I hypothetically deserve a chance to escape the poverty cycle?
I think the more correct term would be socialism, for what you are describing.
And what if you went bankrupt and cant afford to help you children ? Or if you had a mayor accident that left you disabled. So what you are saying, if you can't directly contribute to the society you should be left for dead ? So you shouldn't support the immigrants so that they become a contributing members of the society, including their children ?
Besides reducing the social minimum standard would cause mayor social instabilities especially now when most of the jobs are going to the automation...
Quote:Original post by Chris Reynolds
I want my money to go to MY kids and their families, not someone else's.
And what if you went bankrupt and cant afford to help you children ? Or if you had a mayor accident that left you disabled. So what you are saying, if you can't directly contribute to the society you should be left for dead ? So you shouldn't support the immigrants so that they become a contributing members of the society, including their children ?
Besides reducing the social minimum standard would cause mayor social instabilities especially now when most of the jobs are going to the automation...
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
