Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

That is because the middle class is not represented in government because the representatives are bought off by the rich. If more of the tax burden was placed on the people that it should be placed on, then there wouldn't be a need to punish the middle class. But in reality, the middle class is disappearing because the rich have tanked the economy, and with an effort to reduce costs as much as possible, many jobs pay unfair low wages. In order for capitalism to work, the working class needs to have disposable income. Without wealth redistribution, capitalism ends up undermining itself.

In your first three quotes, you defend taxing the middle class with arguments for taxing the super rich.
And then you note that the super rich are not taxed enough because they are buying off the legislator.
I'm all for eliminating the loopholes of the super rich. But how is that an argument for taxing the middle class?

The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.

Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.

WashPost: Tax burden shifts to the middle - Washington Post- msnbc.com

---------- Post added at 05:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ----------

Socialism is defined as, “systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.” The idea under socialism is that everyone pays taxes and the government provides its citizens with the things that they need. While appealing to many people, socialism is wrong.

To begin, socialism is bad because it is condescending. When people work and produce they have the means to buy what they wish.
People who provide goods and services that are highly valued are paid more. The more that one produces the more they are entitled to the production of others. As people spend their earnings they automatically fulfil their highest order wants first.
Pretend someone wishes to spend their earnings on food, clothing, shelter, music, and alcohol (from highest order to lowest). Under a socialist regime, this may be impossible. After taxes, the individual may only be able to afford food, clothing, and shelter – while being provided with government transportation, healthcare, and a public park. All of which our person may or may not use. Socialism takes away the liberty to decide how you wish to spend your money; it presupposes you are not smart enough to decide what you need. Your income was yours, now it is the government’s and it will provide for you what it thinks you need.

Further, socialism is inefficient because it makes economic calculation impossible. This fact is really common sense (thanks to an economist named Ludwig von Mises). With a central government owning all (or any) means of production and distribution there can be no competition, profits, losses, market prices, or market, for that matter. However, profits, losses, and prices serve to guide scarce resources to their most highly valued means. The fact that socialism is inefficient, compared to free-market capitalism, is really the answer to an empirical question. Clearly, this question has been answered by history. Nations such as the former USSR, Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea are great examples. These nations were not communist – communism, by its own definition, has never existed.

Finally, socialism is bad because it is immoral.
Frederic Bastiat said it best, “It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder…. But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.” This amounts to nothing more than compulsory servitude. Economist Walter Williams takes it a step further, “Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.
When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal", I'm sure He didn't mean "thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote". And, I'm sure that if you asked God if it's okay just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.”

[xris]

How can I debate with someone who calls my ideals evil and blatantly refuses to accept the difference between communism and socialism.I suppose the Nazis where socialists in your opinion as well because they used the term.I'll leave you to your perfect republican example, Bush and let his example of perfect government speak for you.EVIL..is it? well I'm glad to be called evil in that case...I'll not debate with bigoted comments.

[EmperorNero]

Sir, I am open to your view, if you would explain your definition of socialism and communism, I am willing to read it.
I do hold the belief that the nazis and soviets were a brand of socialist. I do not intend that as an insult.
If this boils down to whether one holds the belief that socialism is a good I idea, we can only agree to disagree, as I recommended before.
Yet if one of us has an incorrect view of socialism, there is benefit in clearing that up.
I ask you to explain me the difference between my assessment and actual socialism in your eyes.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

I don't think that taking a higher rate of taxes from someone punishes responsibility, productivity, or effort. Take CEOs for example. There is no reason why they deserve to have such ridiculously high wages. Taxing them at a higher rate helps close the gap of radically uneven income distribution.


Taking from the rich does not punish education or effort. Take college professors for example. They are some of the most educated people that put in enormous effort, but they are not compensated nearly what should be fair, because the tax system punishes the less fortunate. If anything, the rich should be take on more of a tax burden in order to promote education and effort by raising the wages of educators.

You keep repeating a fallacy. He has, at no point, said that progressive taxation punishes all productive members of society or that it rewards all unproductive members of society.

The basic argument is thus:

Under a market system of free trade, income is generated either by producing for oneself, or by producing goods that have utility to others and selling them. Therefore, the profit motive gives incentive to satisfy the wants of others. Higher tax rates at higher levels of income provide disincentive against satisfying the wants of others and punish higher levels of production.

Now we can argue whether this is truly a bad thing, and we can argue over market failings, externalities, transaction costs, and inequitable negotiations, but his argument is correct: You cannot have graduated taxation, or any taxation at all without providing a disincentive to production.

But the millionaire has many loopholes in the tax laws to exploit that the less well off do not have available. Sure the millionaire may pay more, but it typically ends up being a smaller portion of income due to these loop holes that the middle class. A true progressive tax without the loop holes would be fair, and not difficult to put into place.

Are you a tax attorney or legislator?

That is because the middle class is not represented in government because the representatives are bought off by the rich. If more of the tax burden was placed on the people that it should be placed on, then there wouldn't be a need to punish the middle class. But in reality, the middle class is disappearing because the rich have tanked the economy, and with an effort to reduce costs as much as possible, many jobs pay unfair low wages. In order for capitalism to work, the working class needs to have disposable income. Without wealth redistribution, capitalism ends up undermining itself.

I have not quite come to an understanding as how you can rectify your two opinions that the rich are controlling the government and that we we need the government to act to help the poor.

That is some serious cognitive dissonance.

And the market doesn't undermine itself, it corrects itself. The state capitalism that you are coming dangerously close to endorsing can and is presently undermining itself.

---------- Post added at 03:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 PM ----------

Originally Posted by NoEmperorNero

Sir, I am open to your view, if you would explain your definition of socialism and communism, I am willing to read it.
I do hold the belief that the nazis and soviets were a brand of socialist. I do not intend that as an insult.
If this boils down to whether one holds the belief that socialism is a good I idea, we can only agree to disagree, as I recommended before.
Yet if one of us has an incorrect view of socialism, there is benefit in clearing that up.
I ask you to explain me the difference between my assessment and actual socialism in your eyes.

xris believes that the watered-down European social democracies represent the one true socialism, just like he apparently thinks that, if you support free market economies you are a republican.

The nazis and soviets were a brand of socialism, just like Pinochet's Junta was capitalistic. Both types of political economic structure can be benevolent or malicious at any one point in time.

It is quite telling, however, that all major socialistic movements have fostered totalitarian governments, and in one instance, Chile, a totalitarian government was largely undermined by capitalism.

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Higher tax rates at higher levels of income provide disincentive against satisfying the wants of others and punish higher levels of production.

Now we can argue whether this is truly a bad thing, and we can argue over market failings, externalities, transaction costs, and inequitable negotiations,

That is an interesting side of the discussion.
For the sake of my own education, I like to ask what arguments there are against my - I admit somewhat simplified - rejection of socialism.
I see the benefit of some degree of government redistribution of wealth - I'm not a anarchist.

[xris]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

You keep repeating a fallacy. He has, at no point, said that progressive taxation punishes all productive members of society or that it rewards all unproductive members of society.

The basic argument is thus:

Under a market system of free trade, income is generated either by producing for oneself, or by producing goods that have utility to others and selling them. Therefore, the profit motive gives incentive to satisfy the wants of others. Higher tax rates at higher levels of income provide disincentive against satisfying the wants of others and punish higher levels of production.

Now we can argue whether this is truly a bad thing, and we can argue over market failings, externalities, transaction costs, and inequitable negotiations, but his argument is correct: You cannot have graduated taxation, or any taxation at all without providing a disincentive to production.



Are you a tax attorney or legislator?



I have not quite come to an understanding as how you can rectify your two opinions that the rich are controlling the government and that we we need the government to act to help the poor.

That is some serious cognitive dissonance.

And the market doesn't undermine itself, it corrects itself. The state capitalism that you are coming dangerously close to endorsing can and is presently undermining itself.

---------- Post added at 03:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 PM ----------



xris believes that the watered-down European social democracies represent the one true socialism, just like he apparently thinks that, if you support free market economies you are a republican.

The nazis and soviets were a brand of socialism, just like Pinochet's Junta was capitalistic. Both types of political economic structure can be benevolent or malicious at any one point in time.

It is quite telling, however, that all major socialistic movements have fostered totalitarian governments, and in one instance, Chile, a totalitarian government was largely undermined by capitalism.

i now have people putting my opinions on posts, well i can tell you that the american opinion on socialism is outdated by about fifty years.The labour party in the uk has turned totalitarian , im amazed i did not notice.I would love to see the corporation that stopped manufacturing due to higher taxes imposed by a socialist government.Republicans in my opinion are right wing fascists not the supporters of free trade or otherwise we would not see international free trade being stifled by their protectionist attitude and laws.We have extremes of all political ideals and to select communism as true representative of a socialist governments is bigoted in the extreme.I will give you one instance where business does not act in a manner benefiting the community it relies on.Medicine in the US is three times more expensive than europe, why is that when its tax burden is so much lower than it is in europe, surely with the attitude and opinions expressed here it should be the reverse.Living in cuckoo land, get real people..

---------- Post added at 04:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 PM ----------

Originally Posted by NoEmperorNero

For the sake of my own education, I like to know what arguments there are against my - I admit somewhat simplified - rejection of socialism.
I see the benefit of some degree of government redistribution of wealth - I'm not a anarchist.

Its not simple its ignorant, its bigoted and verges on a paranoia i only see expressed by americans bred on the blinkered republican dreams of world domination.When America can express itself by allowing true free trade it can then take the moral high ground on its expressed opinions on the free market.Its this attitude that encourages its intervention in south Americans government.It would rather support drug dealers than democratically elected left wing parties.Im going to bed, these expressed views have made me feel really quite sick.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by xris

i now have people putting my opinions on posts, well i can tell you that the american opinion on socialism is outdated by about fifty years.

This is something you have repeated to me several times, as if I fall into a million other opinions of what socialism is and is not.

This is the last time I will say this: You can understand what socialism is and still disagree with it, just like you can apparently not quite understand what socialism is and agree with it.

Nero and I have put forward cogent and relevant complaints against state socialism, and you have responded not with a refutation of these points or a defense of socialism, but with rants about republicans and your revulsion towards our opinions.

The labour party in the uk has turned totalitarian , im amazed i did not notice.

This is what I am talking about. Not only has the Labour Party not turned the UK into a socialist nation, but the Labour Party has not even been socialist for 20 years. They support a "Third Way" which is in tune with the typical European social democracy, and no matter how many times you misrepresent socialism, social democracy is not socialism, its a mixed economy.

I will give you one instance where business does not act in a manner benefiting the community it relies on.Medicine in the US is three times more expensive than europe, why is that when its tax burden is so much lower than it is in europe, surely with the attitude and opinions expressed here it should be the reverse.Living in cuckoo land, get real people..

I said quite plainly that individuals and business produce for their own ends, for selfish reasons, but on the free market they are required to satisfy the wants of others in order to provide for their own ends.

The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most heavily regulated, heavily subsidized, and largest and most funded lobbyist groups in the US. To portray them as a symbol of free market enterprise is ludicrous.

Its not simple its ignorant, its bigoted and verges on a paranoia i only see expressed by americans bred on the blinkered republican dreams of world domination.

Keep ranting. Your endorsement of socialism appears to be no more considered than the stereotype you place on us Americans.

[xris]

Socialism is a doctrine like many others it has many faces.In you opinion when it is extreme like communism, it is, when it is moderate like the uk, it is not and you say im ranting....The uk has a social housing , a benefit system to catch the unfortunate and a health system ,free to all.Now tell me that is not a socialists ideology in operation.
Explain why the Americans ,the great upholder of the free economy denies free access to its market place? It appears to me free means on my terms...
I am not criticising all Americans just those whose opinions encourage military and financial interference in democratic neighbours affairs, many americans share my opinion.
So the pharmaceutical industry is not a fair example of the how the open economy works, why is that is it too uncomfortable for you?.Can you give a good example?the motor industry? the steel industry? or how the agricultural system is not controlled by food industry.There is no such thing as a free open economy its all about power and political corruption.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by xris

Socialism is a doctrine like many others it has many faces.In you opinion when it is extreme like communism, it is, when it is moderate like the uk, it is not and you say im ranting....The uk has a social housing , a benefit system to catch the unfortunate and a health system ,free to all.Now tell me that is not a socialists ideology in operation.

The social democrats across Europe do not wish to end capitalism and assume the means of production for the public, the main tenets of socialism, rather they simply wish to install government regulation on capitalism in order to make it more "fair".

And communism is not the only form of socialism, it is simply the end state and goal of most socialists. It will likely never be fully realized.

Explain why the Americans ,the great upholder of the free economy denies free access to its market place? It appears to me free means on my terms...
I am not criticising all Americans just those whose opinions encourage military and financial interference in democratic neighbours affairs, many americans share my opinion.
So the pharmaceutical industry is not a fair example of the how the open economy works, why is that is it too uncomfortable for you?.Can you give a good example?the motor industry? the steel industry? or how the agricultural system is not controlled by food industry.There is no such thing as a free open economy its all about power and political corruption.

The US Government is the largest state in the history of the world in terms of spending to accomplish its goals. It is predatory, secretive, and beholden to the whims of an elite few. It is ran by two parties who differ only in which segment of society their populist rhetoric appeals: The republicans appease their rich supporters through military spending and big industry subsidies, under the guise of nationalistic patriotism. The Democrats appease their rich supporters by subsidizing lending and banking, aiding large labor unions and the big industry with which they associate, and cartelizing the large medical providers through regulation and government mandate.

The one prerequisite to political success in America is that one must be able to inspire fear or hope in the populace while authoring legislation that maintains the support of the powerful elite that has been largely constant for well over a hundred years.

Take our current savior, for example. His message was one of a vague sense of change. We weren't quite sure what he intended to change but everyone was certain he intended to change things in their favor. What does he do, however? Dump trillions of dollars into the coffers of large banks who have not used them to lend and increase job production, but rather to strengthen the financial position of their uber-wealthy stakeholders, and go largely silent about the future of Iraq and expand the war in Afghanistan. This is change for America.

I am a supporter of freedom, and I believe freedom comes through property ownership, free trade, and basic ownership of oneself. You ask me to provide examples of an actual free market in America? I cannot. You ask me to provide examples of any aspect of American society that I consider to be suitably free and fair? Again, I cannot.

---------- Post added at 09:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 AM ----------

Originally Posted by NoEmperorNero

That is an interesting side of the discussion.
For the sake of my own education, I like to ask what arguments there are against my - I admit somewhat simplified - rejection of socialism.
I see the benefit of some degree of government redistribution of wealth - I'm not a anarchist.

Ironically, I am an anarchist and one with a largely socialistic bent. I do, however, think your rejection of state socialism is spot-on, even if it doesn't cover the entire breadth of arguments.

However, if we are dealing with state socialism as a matter of a portion of government action within a capitalistic system, rather than Socialism proper, there are several arguments.

Externalities are costs that are not applied to the participants of a transaction and therefore lead to a market failing, that being an inefficient allocation of economic resources. Pollution being the most common and glaring example of this.

Transaction costs are basically the overhead involved in making any transaction. Buying a house, for example, involves the transaction cost of going through a realtor. These can be considered prohibitive to the entry of new businesses and entrepreneurs to the market place. An inventor may be forced to sell his invention to a large business because he does not have the resources to bring it to production.

Inequitable negotiation is probably the most common argument from socialists in which they employ the somewhat silly, work or starve argument. The basic argument is that the laborer is dependent upon his employer far more than the employer is dependent upon the laborer.

All of these and more have some degree of merit and do describe issues with modern capitalism.

It is, however, possible to understand these issues and not agree with a state socialistic response to them.

[Theaetetus]

Inequitable negotiation is a major problem with capitalism, but I think it is more of an issue due to property ownership rather than employee relations. It is how we define property that is the issue. Property is generally seen as little more than land and resources, but resources are ill defined. Take water front property. Owning the land on water, obviously grants access to the water, but it should not grant the ability to pollute the water without compensating the communities that depend on the water and the land owners that have their property value decreased as a result of foul water. But typically, the abusers of communal resources have greater abilities to negotiate to allow themselves to not be held accountable for the decrease of value of others' property. This issue is then enhanced when the polluter is a corporation with headquarters far away from the communities that they force to live with the effects. Not to mention, they also have the resources to lobby the federal government to not be held accountable. To the corporation, the only accountability they have is to bring profit to the shareholders, which often live nowhere near the polluted community, and thus, do not suffer from the effects of their investments. This is obviously a problem with state sponsored capitalism in the United States. Communities are defanged by a federal government which holds corporate interests them causing major inequality of negotiation powers.