What is wrong with socialism?

[Minstrel]

I'm sorry, but you continue to create these false strawmen as a debating tactic and it's flat out silly. No one is talking about pure socialism or pure capitalism. To imply that's my point of view is ridiculous.

Then your views are irrelevant. You keep talking about "taxing investment to death" and removing incentives. None of that exists in the US and no one is suggesting it should.

 

[BrianFromWA]

First time poster on the OT board...

My views generally run religious-conservative, but I (actually, much like McCain) hate associating myself with a party, b/c "party ideals" generally go to the highest bidder.

My problem with "socialism" is that there has grown (since roughly the end of WWII) a sense of undeserved entitlement among Americans. Many people think that students should get the same grades in school because they "try just as hard". Many people think that income should be redistributed by the government because they're best suited to handling it. I tend to disagree. (Horrible statistic alert). Prior to FDR becoming President in 1933, 90% of the income of those below the poverty line was given locally by religious institutions. The churches were in a position to see need in their community, and to "aid" in the "welfare" of those less fortunate through voluntary generosity of the townspeople/churchgoers and making it a community priority to ensure that "no child was left behind" and there was "food on every table". What it didn't do was give everyone the same quality of life. Poorer people still didn't have cars, or nice radios, or large homes.

Today, over 90% of the income of those below the poverty line is from the government.

For as much as people make a big deal on the war in Iraq costing a lot of money (and it does), there's another statistic I'd like to point out. Almost half of the federal budget is spent on taking care of the "elderly", which is generally defined as starting at 62. Why 62, you ask? Because it was lowered from 65. Where did that "65" number come from? Otto Von Bismarck. He set up the first "social security" plan in Germany in the late 1800's. Back then, if you labored until 65 and were still alive, he figured you deserved a break and the state took care of you. Now, people (who have roughly twice the lifespan) seem to think they are entitled to have the government pay for them as soon as it gets tiring to continue working. That's not to say that "really old" people still don't need to be taken care of, but there's something amiss when it's not done in the family, but by the state (using our tax dollars).

I'm all for everyone having health care. I'm all for everyone having education and everyone having food on the table. I'm not all for entitlement. I think someone defined communism as "the community living described in the book of Acts when it's imposed by a government, rather than as a voluntary outpouring of community". I don't want to get preachy, but who's Obama or McCain (or Congress) to tell me the best way to live my life?

Sorry for the rant. </soapbox>

 

[Денг Гордон]

First time poster on the OT board...

My views generally run religious-conservative, but I (actually, much like McCain) hate associating myself with a party, b/c "party ideals" generally go to the highest bidder.

My problem with "socialism" is that there has grown (since roughly the end of WWII) a sense of undeserved entitlement among Americans. Many people think that students should get the same grades in school because they "try just as hard". Many people think that income should be redistributed by the government because they're best suited to handling it. I tend to disagree. (Horrible statistic alert). Prior to FDR becoming President in 1933, 90% of the income of those below the poverty line was given locally by religious institutions. The churches were in a position to see need in their community, and to "aid" in the "welfare" of those less fortunate through voluntary generosity of the townspeople/churchgoers and making it a community priority to ensure that "no child was left behind" and there was "food on every table". What it didn't do was give everyone the same quality of life. Poorer people still didn't have cars, or nice radios, or large homes.

Today, over 90% of the income of those below the poverty line is from the government.

For as much as people make a big deal on the war in Iraq costing a lot of money (and it does), there's another statistic I'd like to point out. Almost half of the federal budget is spent on taking care of the "elderly", which is generally defined as starting at 62. Why 62, you ask? Because it was lowered from 65. Where did that "65" number come from? Otto Von Bismarck. He set up the first "social security" plan in Germany in the late 1800's. Back then, if you labored until 65 and were still alive, he figured you deserved a break and the state took care of you. Now, people (who have roughly twice the lifespan) seem to think they are entitled to have the government pay for them as soon as it gets tiring to continue working. That's not to say that "really old" people still don't need to be taken care of, but there's something amiss when it's not done in the family, but by the state (using our tax dollars).

I'm all for everyone having health care. I'm all for everyone having education and everyone having food on the table. I'm not all for entitlement. I think someone defined communism as "the community living described in the book of Acts when it's imposed by a government, rather than as a voluntary outpouring of community". I don't want to get preachy, but who's Obama or McCain (or Congress) to tell me the best way to live my life?

Sorry for the rant. </soapbox>

They're not telling you the best way to live your life, they're saying that society has a moral obligation to take care of the basic necessities of life for those who cannot afford them.

 

[Dumpy]

There are different levels for different incomes and investment classes. I'm aware you can deduct losses at some future point if you have a future gain, but that's not symmetrical to the event in a gain.

Yes, the tax rate would be higher if you are talking about a short-term investment, which I believe is less than two years long. If you want to sell your investment and pay $28,000 in tax instead of keeping it for a few more months and paying $15,000, good luck to you.

 

[Dumpy]

First time poster on the OT board...

My views generally run religious-conservative, but I (actually, much like McCain) hate associating myself with a party, b/c "party ideals" generally go to the highest bidder.

My problem with "socialism" is that there has grown (since roughly the end of WWII) a sense of undeserved entitlement among Americans. Many people think that students should get the same grades in school because they "try just as hard". Many people think that income should be redistributed by the government because they're best suited to handling it. I tend to disagree. (Horrible statistic alert). Prior to FDR becoming President in 1933, 90% of the income of those below the poverty line was given locally by religious institutions. The churches were in a position to see need in their community, and to "aid" in the "welfare" of those less fortunate through voluntary generosity of the townspeople/churchgoers and making it a community priority to ensure that "no child was left behind" and there was "food on every table". What it didn't do was give everyone the same quality of life. Poorer people still didn't have cars, or nice radios, or large homes.

Today, over 90% of the income of those below the poverty line is from the government.

For as much as people make a big deal on the war in Iraq costing a lot of money (and it does), there's another statistic I'd like to point out. Almost half of the federal budget is spent on taking care of the "elderly", which is generally defined as starting at 62. Why 62, you ask? Because it was lowered from 65. Where did that "65" number come from? Otto Von Bismarck. He set up the first "social security" plan in Germany in the late 1800's. Back then, if you labored until 65 and were still alive, he figured you deserved a break and the state took care of you. Now, people (who have roughly twice the lifespan) seem to think they are entitled to have the government pay for them as soon as it gets tiring to continue working. That's not to say that "really old" people still don't need to be taken care of, but there's something amiss when it's not done in the family, but by the state (using our tax dollars).

I'm all for everyone having health care. I'm all for everyone having education and everyone having food on the table. I'm not all for entitlement. I think someone defined communism as "the community living described in the book of Acts when it's imposed by a government, rather than as a voluntary outpouring of community". I don't want to get preachy, but who's Obama or McCain (or Congress) to tell me the best way to live my life?

Sorry for the rant. </soapbox>

I agree that the number "62" is dopey. I believe that the age to fully vest in social secutiry benefits has been migrating higher, however. I THINK (but not positive) that now you have to be 67 before dipping into your SS account into to receive the full annual amount you are entitled to. I also THINK there have been proposals to raise it to 70, which makes perfect sense to me, especially in this era of longer life spans. I'm sure Denny would be more than happy to fill in the details.

 

[Masbee]

First time poster on the OT board...

My views generally run religious-conservative, but I (actually, much like McCain) hate associating myself with a party, b/c "party ideals" generally go to the highest bidder.

My problem with "socialism" is that there has grown (since roughly the end of WWII) a sense of undeserved entitlement among Americans. Many people think that students should get the same grades in school because they "try just as hard". Many people think that income should be redistributed by the government because they're best suited to handling it. I tend to disagree. (Horrible statistic alert). Prior to FDR becoming President in 1933, 90% of the income of those below the poverty line was given locally by religious institutions. The churches were in a position to see need in their community, and to "aid" in the "welfare" of those less fortunate through voluntary generosity of the townspeople/churchgoers and making it a community priority to ensure that "no child was left behind" and there was "food on every table". What it didn't do was give everyone the same quality of life. Poorer people still didn't have cars, or nice radios, or large homes.

Today, over 90% of the income of those below the poverty line is from the government.

For as much as people make a big deal on the war in Iraq costing a lot of money (and it does), there's another statistic I'd like to point out. Almost half of the federal budget is spent on taking care of the "elderly", which is generally defined as starting at 62. Why 62, you ask? Because it was lowered from 65. Where did that "65" number come from? Otto Von Bismarck. He set up the first "social security" plan in Germany in the late 1800's. Back then, if you labored until 65 and were still alive, he figured you deserved a break and the state took care of you. Now, people (who have roughly twice the lifespan) seem to think they are entitled to have the government pay for them as soon as it gets tiring to continue working. That's not to say that "really old" people still don't need to be taken care of, but there's something amiss when it's not done in the family, but by the state (using our tax dollars).

I'm all for everyone having health care. I'm all for everyone having education and everyone having food on the table. I'm not all for entitlement. I think someone defined communism as "the community living described in the book of Acts when it's imposed by a government, rather than as a voluntary outpouring of community". I don't want to get preachy, but who's Obama or McCain (or Congress) to tell me the best way to live my life?

Sorry for the rant. </SOAPBOX>

Problem is, that American is dead and will not return soon if ever.

Mass urbanization, mobility, world trade, erosion of family ties, etc., etc. have made the concept of small communities taking care of "their own" nostalgic at best. Besides that, it was a never was anyhow.

Some communities took care of their own. Many didn't. If you lived in a city away from your family or without family, you were in trouble.

 

[maxiep]

Yes, the tax rate would be higher if you are talking about a short-term investment, which I believe is less than two years long. If you want to sell your investment and pay $28,000 in tax instead of keeping it for a few more months and paying $15,000, good luck to you.

So my investment horizon should be dictated by a party that doesn't share in the risk? What if I think the investment is going to zero in short order? And the horizon about which you're speaking is five years, not a few months.

I appreciate you being so cavalier with my money.

 

[maxiep]

First time poster on the OT board...

My views generally run religious-conservative, but I (actually, much like McCain) hate associating myself with a party, b/c "party ideals" generally go to the highest bidder.

My problem with "socialism" is that there has grown (since roughly the end of WWII) a sense of undeserved entitlement among Americans. Many people think that students should get the same grades in school because they "try just as hard". Many people think that income should be redistributed by the government because they're best suited to handling it. I tend to disagree. (Horrible statistic alert). Prior to FDR becoming President in 1933, 90% of the income of those below the poverty line was given locally by religious institutions. The churches were in a position to see need in their community, and to "aid" in the "welfare" of those less fortunate through voluntary generosity of the townspeople/churchgoers and making it a community priority to ensure that "no child was left behind" and there was "food on every table". What it didn't do was give everyone the same quality of life. Poorer people still didn't have cars, or nice radios, or large homes.

Today, over 90% of the income of those below the poverty line is from the government.

For as much as people make a big deal on the war in Iraq costing a lot of money (and it does), there's another statistic I'd like to point out. Almost half of the federal budget is spent on taking care of the "elderly", which is generally defined as starting at 62. Why 62, you ask? Because it was lowered from 65. Where did that "65" number come from? Otto Von Bismarck. He set up the first "social security" plan in Germany in the late 1800's. Back then, if you labored until 65 and were still alive, he figured you deserved a break and the state took care of you. Now, people (who have roughly twice the lifespan) seem to think they are entitled to have the government pay for them as soon as it gets tiring to continue working. That's not to say that "really old" people still don't need to be taken care of, but there's something amiss when it's not done in the family, but by the state (using our tax dollars).

I'm all for everyone having health care. I'm all for everyone having education and everyone having food on the table. I'm not all for entitlement. I think someone defined communism as "the community living described in the book of Acts when it's imposed by a government, rather than as a voluntary outpouring of community". I don't want to get preachy, but who's Obama or McCain (or Congress) to tell me the best way to live my life?

Sorry for the rant. </soapbox>

It's not a rant, it's the frustration many of us feel. It's the idea that we're "entitled" simply by being born that I find so galling.

 

[Dumpy]

So my investment horizon should be dictated by a party that doesn't share in the risk? What if I think the investment is going to zero in short order? And the horizon about which you're speaking is five years, not a few months.

I appreciate you being so cavalier with my money.

There's no reason to be smarmy. Why should I bother to respond to any of your posts (which I do cordially and respectfully) if you will react in that way?

 

[maxiep]

There's no reason to be smarmy. Why should I bother to respond to any of your posts (which I do cordially and respectfully) if you will react in that way?

If you want to sell your investment and pay $28,000 in tax instead of keeping it for a few more months and paying $15,000, good luck to you.

Who is being smarmy?

 

[Dumpy]

Who is being smarmy?

You are. I'm not doing "anything" with your money. I'm reciting facts. If you don't like them, don't come after me.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, the tax rate would be higher if you are talking about a short-term investment, which I believe is less than two years long. If you want to sell your investment and pay $28,000 in tax instead of keeping it for a few more months and paying $15,000, good luck to you.

Short term capital gains are within 1 year buy-to-sell and are treated as ordinary income. Anything else is long term capital gains (or losses).

If you make $100K and pay $15K (there's only one long term capital gains rate) in taxes, then lose $100K, you'd pay $15K less in taxes for your next $100K in gains. But you have to make that new $100K in gains.

Taxing the rich is downright silly. It makes the envious class feel good but the really rich guys aren't paying much in taxes anyway. Gates is worth $50B, but it's unrealized capital gains. For most of his career at M$, he made $600K salary that was taxed, and at his peak he made $1M. A couple hundred $k in total taxes. A hike of 3% and he pays an extra $20K - enough to... well, not enough for govt. to do much with.

If he does want some big amount of cash, he borrows against his stock and that's not a taxable event. If he did sell a large chunk of his stock, he'd pay lawyers and accountants a fraction of what he'd pay in taxes to figure out how to shelter the sale from taxes.

The way govt. takes money from the wealthy is through T-Bills.

 

[maxiep]

You are. I'm not doing "anything" with your money. I'm reciting facts. If you don't like them, don't come after me.

As am I. If you can't stand the heat...

 

[gambitnut]

Which is why every democacy has settled on mixing the two. Growing the pie and dividing it more equitably. No one opts for pure capitalism or pure socialism.



Again, this is why the two are mixed. Everyone is encouraged to be an entrepreneur, not everyone has the opportunity to do so. Those who are able to do so reap plenty of rewards. Rail against taxes all you want, but the idea that millionaires and billionaires aren't better off than people below the poverty line because those below the poverty line get those "sweet hand-outs" is clearly ridiculous. Success isn't de-incentivized. No one would trade greater success for lesser success because of taxation.



Agreed. Since no one is advocating taxing it to death, this isn't relevant. No one is arguing for communism, or a cap on what people can earn. The wealthy are still far better off than the poor. The middle class are still much better off than the poor. "Wealth redistribution" is limited to providing the essentials for everyone; nobody's getting rich off "hand-outs" and the wealthy aren't being robbed of their ability to live high on the hog. So, incentives to succeed and invest exist plenty strongly.

What is wrong with communism?

 

[Minstrel]

What is wrong with communism?

On a large scale, it kills productivity by taking away incentives to succeed. On very small scales (small organizations of people motivated by things other than money), there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[gambitnut]

On a large scale, it kills productivity by taking away incentives to succeed. On very small scales (small organizations of people motivated by things other than money), there's nothing wrong with it.

How large of a group do you think it can work with? How do we convince the whole world to be motivated by things other than money?

 

[barfo]

How large of a group do you think it can work with? How do we convince the whole world to be motivated by things other than money?

It's easy. You start with a global credit crisis, then allow the banking system to collapse, and pretty soon you are bartering for food and fighting turf wars with the gangs from Gresham and Beaverton.

barfo

 

[bodyman5001]

I am not worried in the least.

It will be a cold day in hell before you get the average American to get rid of their cell phone. (never had one and don't understand why I would want one except for emergencies)

I could list tons of luxury items that we Americans feel entitled to. I will not, instead I will mention that Americans will want to keep them.

So, we will find a way to keep them.

Really, I am just going to sit back and enjoy the rollercoaster ride that is America. I have no children and don't have to worry as much about the future as I don't have as much of an investment in it.

Hell, if Obama manages to keep our economy going and send a little bit more of the pie my way..cool.
If he doesn't and we resort to the old days when only the strong survived then cool as I could literally cripple most people with my bare hands. I would play it cool and lose a few pounds while everyone ran out of ammo and then BAM I will take your shit.

I talk about the future with my boss quite a bit, I go on outlandish tangents quite often but I asked him a question today and he answered quickly ....Would you rather be an average American today (even a poor American really) or the King of England 500 years ago?

I know which one I would choose.

 

[Haakzilla]

Would you rather be an average American today (even a poor American really) or the King of England 500 years ago?

I know which one I would choose.

...crown me!!!

 

[bodyman5001]

...crown me!!!

Ahhhh, you want the POWER. I can see it.

I like toilet paper and good music. And...

TV
Cars
Shaved vergines and armpits
Basketball
Showers
Medicine
Air Conditioning
Diatomaceous Earth filtered swimming pools
Comfortable shoes
PORNPORNPORNOPONONRORPORN


I don't like some things

Most women working
Lowriders
MTV

I could go on but why be negative?

 

[Haakzilla]

Ahhhh, you want the POWER. I can see it.

I like toilet paper and good music. And...

TV
Cars
Shaved vergines and armpits
Basketball
Showers
Medicine
Air Conditioning
Diatomaceous Earth filtered swimming pools
Comfortable shoes
PORNPORNPORNOPONONRORPORN


I don't like some things

Most women working
Lowriders
MTV

I could go on but why be negative?

...in comparison, if those are some of your favorite luxuries that you can enjoy today as an average American [although, I don't think a "poor" American can enjoy all that you've listed], then just imagine having the very best luxuries in the entire world 500 years ago [I tried to think in those terms for this exercise]

 

[bodyman5001]

...in comparison, if those are some of your favorite luxuries that you can enjoy today as an average American [although, I don't think a "poor" American can enjoy all that you've listed], then just imagine having the very best luxuries in the entire world 500 years ago [I tried to think in those terms for this exercise]

Well, a poor American could have most of those things...maybe they would only get to use a swimming pool instead of owning one but what were the best luxuries 500 years ago?

Grapes?

Ok, maybe I get my idea of that time period from movies but I wasn't there

 

[Haakzilla]

Well, a poor American could have most of those things...maybe they would only get to use a swimming pool instead of owning one but what were the best luxuries 500 years ago?

Grapes?

Ok, maybe I get my idea of that time period from movies but I wasn't there

...this is just one example of the very best from 500 years ago [err 500 days ago?]

 

[bodyman5001]

...this is just one example of the very best from 500 years ago [err 500 days ago?]

Yeah fine, but who would know what the hell it meant?

Oh yeah, top bottled water...ice cold.