Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

[EmperorNero]

But how does straightening out corrupion connect to taking from the rich and giving to the poor?

[xris]

Originally Posted by NoEmperorNero

But how does straightening out corrupion connect to taking from the rich and giving to the poor?

What is corruption? i see power influencing government decisions by manipulating the system.Its the old foot in the door,chemical giants are constantly obtaining money for research then abusing their power , "you cant get anywhere else so your going to pay through the nose"...
Do you honestly think that companies like Nestles play by the rules, a company or companies that have bigger budgets than many countries, wield enormous power and it is never with moral standards.They either strangle their third world suppliers or use their hold on the market to obtain unfair and excessive prices for their products.

[EmperorNero]

Yes, what does that have to do with taking the salary of someone and giving to someone else?
If you don't like corruption, fight corruption.

[xris]

Originally Posted by NoEmperorNero

Yes, what does that have to do with taking the salary of someone and giving to someone else?
If you don't like corruption, fight corruption.

Dont you get it? its not classified as corruption its good business practice..Morality and business world are not compatible.Its us socialists that take the high road on morality because thats what drives us.I have a friend who refuses to get private health treatment even when he can afford it,thats sacrifice, i dont think i have that moral fortitude.
The rich dont need your protection, they never have and they never will...They weather the storms, the depressions..

[EmperorNero]

I'm not concerned about the rich.
The whole tax the rich banner is only an excuse for taxing the middle class.
Because there is nothing to get from the rich, there are so few of them.

Ok, let's not call it corruption then. What does socialism have to do with making business practice more moral?

And why is it the moral high road to spend somebody else's money?

Edit: I just came up with a good phrasing of my problem with socialism: The government not appropriately allocating taxpayer money.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by xris

You would obviously have to put the rate of tax up by a very large amount to compensate for the very high earners paying so much less.

Not really looking for a debate here, but here you speak as if the wealthy use a far less percentage of their income for consumption than those who aren't wealthy.

If they are consuming a lesser percentage of their wealth, what makes you determine them to be horribly greedy and what do you suppose they do with the excess wealth?

Also, please note that many of the proponents of the consumption tax propose a higher tax rate on certain luxury items.

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Also, please note that many of the proponents of the consumption tax propose a higher tax rate on certain luxury items.

Do you like the idea?


Is my assumption correct that a flat tax could get rid of "the loop holes for the rich"?

[xris]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Not really looking for a debate here, but here you speak as if the wealthy use a far less percentage of their income for consumption than those who aren't wealthy.

If they are consuming a lesser percentage of their wealth, what makes you determine them to be horribly greedy and what do you suppose they do with the excess wealth?

Also, please note that many of the proponents of the consumption tax propose a higher tax rate on certain luxury items.

Well hello..greed is not in the requirement of what it can buy but in the consuming desire for more.I see it as almost a sickness, why should i admire those who seek excessive wealth for its own sake.They dont do it for ulterior motives, to create employment! why then do all these successful move their place of production to the next cheapest labour source? I wont ask why because your not interested in debate, especially with such a terrible debater.

---------- Post added at 02:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 PM ----------

Originally Posted by NoEmperorNero

I'm not concerned about the rich.
The whole tax the rich banner is only an excuse for taxing the middle class.
Because there is nothing to get from the rich, there are so few of them.

Ok, let's not call it corruption then. What does socialism have to do with making business practice more moral?

And why is it the moral high road to spend somebody else's money?

Edit: I just came up with a good phrasing of my problem with socialism: The government not appropriately allocating taxpayer money.

Im sorry but your questions are not constant.Is it the rich, the poor or the middle classes that you are concerned for? You have admitted the tax system should have minimum rate for commencing and your not worried about the rich, so where do we differ?

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by xris

Im sorry but your questions are not constant.Is it the rich, the poor or the middle classes that you are concerned for? You have admitted the tax system should have minimum rate for commencing and your not worried about the rich, so where do we differ?

I'm not concerned about any class. At the moment I see the middle class being exploited. I am advocating a proportionate tax rate (that means everybody is equal).
We agree there should be an amount of exemption, that does not really influence the rest of the all this.

Where do we differ?

1. Some super rich acting immoral somehow justifies taxing them at a higher rate.

2. And that is also an argument for taxing the middle class at a higher rate.

3. You say socialists have the moral high road. If that were the case, why don't they participate to charity instead of forcing others to do so through the state?
If all 66 million Obama voters got together, they could build a universal health care system. They don't want that, they want to force others to pay for it. What's moral is being social. Socialism is immoral.

4. You think socialism can work. But it will hurt the economy. the more socialism, the worse.

[xris]

Originally Posted by NoEmperorNero

I'm not concerned about any class. At the moment I see the middle class being exploited. I am advocating a proportionate tax rate (that means everybody is equal).
We agree there should be an amount of exemption, that does not really influence the rest of the all this.

Where do we differ?

1. Some super rich acting immoral somehow justifies taxing them at a higher rate.

2. And that is also an argument for taxing the middle class at a higher rate.

3. You say socialists have the moral high road. If that were the case, why don't they participate to charity instead of forcing others to do so through the state?
If all 66 million Obama voters got together, they could build a universal health care system. They don't want that, they want to force others to pay for it. What's moral is being social. Socialism is immoral.

4. You think socialism can work. But it will hurt the economy. the more socialism, the worse.

Any government acts in the public interest and with luck the majority or the majority will evict them.Now if the majority say that a health system for all is paid for by everyone who is capable,whats your problem? Lets be specific here..who are you saying wont contribute? or is it they cant? now you describe those individuals, not the exception the majority who say they wont or they cant???
Charity is an excuse, a feel good factor , its not an adequate answer to poverty and deprivation.Would these rich give in proportion to their ability? dont be silly.
Victorian gentlemen gave to orphans then went and had sex with destitute children of the slums.Do you really believe all the poor are in their predicament because of their laziness? My uncle as a child , his teeth dropped out through malnutrition, charity did not help him.My mother suffered terribly in a charitable orphanage, whipped for no reason and starved half to death.
Morally i think society has got the right to tax citizens on their ability to pay.As i said this method is not the reserve of socialism, its an anarchists reaction not a republican democratic view.