It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A question for critics of Socialism

page: 20
30
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795

I was not trying to 'put words' in your mouth. I wanted to understand your position.

Thank you for explaining it.




posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The point was to show the hypocrisy of labeling taxes as "theft" when talking about Socialism but being ok with them when conceding that you are ok with a Libertarian government needing to impose them to survive. I want to see the line where Libertarian necessary taxes stop being taxes and start being unreasonable theft.


I've already discussed where I think the line should be drawn...at the federal level, I believe that if it's not specifically enumerated as something federal government is fiscally responsible to govern, then it should be relegated to a lower government.

Socialism removes the need for states, for the most part, because the federal government takes large amounts of taxes in order to micromanage every aspect of a citizen's life (generally and relatively speaking). Our system of government was designed so that states would have autonomy over most, if not all, things not listed as federal responsibilities in the constitution, and was done specifically because a heavy-handed government was not desired (it's what we were fighting against for independence).



Do you think it is unnecessary to have a social safety net in case you were to lose your job, become seriously injured, or suffer some other form of severe financial setback?


Yes--and at the federal level, absolutely. Have you forgotten about family, friends, communities, and the like that can handle such things better than the government. You make it sound like the human race should have died out before the advent of social security and welfare checks.



The entire population doesn't need welfare either.


Welfare is charity, just forced and federally mandated...and designed, IMO, to keep people dependent once they find themselves in that situation. I could easily argue (but will not take the time here) that welfare is worse for society as a whole than it is beneficial.



It isn't necessary. A government can govern it's people without a military. It just wouldn't be able to defend itself from external threats, but one could easily argue that a commune of people self-governing is itself a basic government. Such a government likely wouldn't have a military.

Now, in this day and age, it is VERY unwise to have a government without a military unless you have good allies, such as Japan.


Now we're just arguing semantics. A human being can live without a brain, too, but its life wouldn't be very long, unless it's supported by artificial life support. That's the government that you're describing, here. I'm not a fan of being dependent on others to do what I should be able to do for myself.

But all of this doesn't change the fact that a military in the United States is a necessity, because it's an enumerated item in the constitution that is mandated that the federal government create and maintain.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Semicollegiate

That would be public sanitation build by the state and the explanation of motor car usage made possible by roads being built by the state.

If labour rights make people poor we would expect that comparable countries with stronger labour rights have a higher level of poverty. Do you have any evidence of this?




Everything built by the State is funded by wealth created by the free market. People living on transfer payments (welfare) pay no taxes.

The success of the free market paid for the sanitation and the roads.

Anything that increase the costs of products makes poor people poorer. Statistics stating otherwise would be including a third thing.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I've already discussed where I think the line should be drawn...at the federal level, I believe that if it's not specifically enumerated as something federal government is fiscally responsible to govern, then it should be relegated to a lower government.


Here is the Taxing and Spending Clause from the Constitution.


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


It's VERY easy to argue that the "general Welfare of the United States" can be construed as Socialist programs.


Socialism removes the need for states, for the most part, because the federal government takes large amounts of taxes in order to micromanage every aspect of a citizen's life (generally and relatively speaking). Our system of government was designed so that states would have autonomy over most, if not all, things not listed as federal responsibilities in the constitution, and was done specifically because a heavy-handed government was not desired (it's what we were fighting against for independence).


I fail to see your point here. We still have states and we still defer to states' rights from the 10th Amendment. I think you are just making things up here.


Yes--and at the federal level, absolutely. Have you forgotten about family, friends, communities, and the like that can handle such things better than the government. You make it sound like the human race should have died out before the advent of social security and welfare checks.


Not everyone has access to family, friends, communities, and the like. Are those people not important?


Welfare is charity, just forced and federally mandated...and designed, IMO, to keep people dependent once they find themselves in that situation. I could easily argue (but will not take the time here) that welfare is worse for society as a whole than it is beneficial.


Uh... No... You can only stay on welfare a certain amount of time.


Now we're just arguing semantics. A human being can live without a brain, too, but its life wouldn't be very long, unless it's supported by artificial life support. That's the government that you're describing, here. I'm not a fan of being dependent on others to do what I should be able to do for myself.


That's great, but others aren't you.


But all of this doesn't change the fact that a military in the United States is a necessity, because it's an enumerated item in the constitution that is mandated that the federal government create and maintain.


I know this. That wasn't part of the point I'm trying to make. I'm not trying to argue to remove the military from our government. So you can let your guard down here. I just brought it up to make a point.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Semicollegiate

That would be public sanitation build by the state and the explanation of motor car usage made possible by roads being built by the state.

If labour rights make people poor we would expect that comparable countries with stronger labour rights have a higher level of poverty. Do you have any evidence of this?




Everything built by the State is funded by wealth created by the free market. People living on transfer payments (welfare) pay no taxes.

The success of the free market paid for the sanitation and the roads.

Anything that increase the costs of products makes poor people poorer. Statistics stating otherwise would be including a third thing.


Oh really? What about in states that have sales taxes? Poor people still have to pay them. And don't forget, there are a crazy number of other taxes included in everyday items, like gasoline taxes, 911 taxes on phone bills (look in the small charges), "sin taxes" on tobacco & alcohol, tire disposal taxes, etc. Then there are toll fees on toll roads and license fees (drivers license, hunting license, etc). To my knowledge, people on welfare still have to pay those taxes, which have absolutely nothing to do with "wealth created by the free market".

So I don't know who gave you your info but they lied to you. I didn't even touch on places like Ferguson, Missouri where "fines and forfeitures accounted for 20 percent of the city’s $12.7 million operating revenue in fiscal year 2013" (found in this article: Skyrocketing Court Fines Are Major Revenue Generator for Ferguson ). So how does that fit your argument?

Even large cities like NYC are dependent on court fines, tickets, and other forms of revenue generated by law enforcement. Is this included in your "free market" spiel or are we supposed to conveniently ignore this?



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

.... but you propose a socialist system which increases taxation?

You really just proved how predatory and self serving government bureaucracy is yet you want to give them more power? You somehow think they will responsibly allocate the collected funds? How has increased taxation benefited the citizens of Ferguson? Seems like a lot of socialism going on there according to your argument. How is their quality of life?



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: enlightenedservant

.... but you propose a socialist system which increases taxation?

You really just proved how predatory and self serving government bureaucracy is yet you want to give them more power? You somehow think they will responsibly allocate the collected funds? How has increased taxation benefited the citizens of Ferguson? Seems like a lot of socialism going on there according to your argument. How is their quality of life?


WTF? Dude, do you seriously not understand this? We're talking about 2 completely different things. Taxation isn't the only part of socialism. Even capitalism, fascism, and kingdoms/fiefdoms have taxes.

Socialism deals with what the system does with the money collected from taxes, fines, and contributions. So if these people were in a socialist society, the tax money would go into the strong safety net I talked about for several pages in this very thread. The purpose would be to make it where they wouldn't be poor anymore.

And the reason socialist societies try to have free education is so that all citizens can enhance their capabilities. That way, those people who are stuck in poverty here would be able to get more qualified, so they could become more productive members of society. That's why the taxes exist in socialism: to better the collective.

Socialist societies also tend to have lower incarceration rates & to focus on rehabilitation over punishment. This not only works to help those members of the collective who've broken laws, but it also saves money. Because in America, taxpayers spend something like $30,000 per year to imprison someone. Truly socialist policies would try to allocate that money elsewhere & simply rehabilitate the prisoners.

Meh, I don't even see why I'm bothering with you. You've argued the same stuff no matter what anyone tells you. It's literally not worth my time.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

It is possible for a state to exist (and even prosper) with little or no free market. It is not possible for a free market to exist without the state. Your assertion then that all wealth created by the free market is clearly wrong.

What the evidence shows us that the most success countries (measured by quality of life of its citizens) are those that embrace a mixed systems.

This would seem quite obvious that some are better provided by the state and some by profit seeking. The distinction is therefore where exactly that line lies.

The second argument is whether we should accept that the results of markets should always be accepted regardless of what that result is. The reducto absurdum of accepting unqualified free markets is that that no level of inequality is ever wrong and if markets delivered 1 person holding all the wealth that is the correct outcome. Despite the argument made by economic libertarians, markets are a social construct as much as the state is and we are under no divine obligation to accept its outcomes.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant


Yeah yeah . I see you fail to realize how you are invalidating your own argument. You somehow think a benevolent system is going to manage this safety net. You try to make comparisons to socialism in action now but fail to acknowledge how inept those systems are. Free education exist in the US and has for a century or more. I agree with you about the prison system but even some people can not be rehabilitated nor should they. You are just tinting everything with rose colored glasses.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

All of those taxes are paid by the welfare money. They are not paid by the productivity of the welfare people.

All of the money paid to taxes by government checks were moved from one part or layer of government to another.

Real taxes are a percentage of production.

Welfare people produce nothing and therefore pay no taxes, they only move previously taxed money from one part of the government to another.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Semicollegiate

It is possible for a state to exist (and even prosper) with little or no free market.


That never happened. All of the States lacking a free market had widespread starvation.



It is not possible for a free market to exist without the state. Your assertion then that all wealth created by the free market is clearly wrong.

What the evidence shows us that the most success countries (measured by quality of life of its citizens) are those that embrace a mixed systems.

This would seem quite obvious that some are better provided by the state and some by profit seeking. The distinction is therefore where exactly that line lies.

The second argument is whether we should accept that the results of markets should always be accepted regardless of what that result is. The reducto absurdum of accepting unqualified free markets is that that no level of inequality is ever wrong and if markets delivered 1 person holding all the wealth that is the correct outcome. Despite the argument made by economic libertarians, markets are a social construct as much as the state is and we are under no divine obligation to accept its outcomes.


No, the inequality we have now is due to socialistic intervention. And since no socialist understands that, the inequality will increase.

If socialism didn't help the PTB, there wouldn't be any socialism.

Socialism means your betters decide everything.

Capitalism means your betters can try to produce products for sale.
edit on 12-11-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: enlightenedservant

All of those taxes are paid by the welfare money. They are not paid by the productivity of the welfare people.

All of the money paid to taxes by government checks were moved from one part or layer of government to another.

Real taxes are a percentage of production.

Welfare people produce nothing and therefore pay no taxes, they only move previously taxed money from one part of the government to another.


Let me get this straight. You think "taxes" are only "taxes" if it's taking a percentage of someone's productivity? And it doesn't count as a tax if a person has to pay a flat 6-9% tax on every purchase they make? Huh? You realize sales taxes are a form of flat tax, right? They're flat taxes on consumption as opposed to flat taxes on income.

So what about property taxes? They have nothing to do with productivity, either. Plus, retired people still have to pay taxes too. So how does that fit into your theory? People receiving Social Security, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and welfare still have to pay the taxes I mentioned. As do people living on fixed incomes like pension plans, disability checks, interest rates from investments, etc. none of those people are "productive" in the sense you mentioned, but they still have to pay taxes.

Edit to add: Even income taxes aren't taxes on productivity. They're taxes on income, regardless of any productivity.
edit on 12-11-2015 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: enlightenedservant

All of those taxes are paid by the welfare money. They are not paid by the productivity of the welfare people.

All of the money paid to taxes by government checks were moved from one part or layer of government to another.

Real taxes are a percentage of production.

Welfare people produce nothing and therefore pay no taxes, they only move previously taxed money from one part of the government to another.


Let me get this straight. You think "taxes" are only "taxes" if it's taking a percentage of someone's productivity? And it doesn't count as a tax if a person has to pay a flat 6-9% tax on every purchase they make? Huh? You realize sales taxes are a form of flat tax, right? They're flat taxes on consumption as opposed to flat taxes on income.

So what about property taxes? They have nothing to do with productivity, either. Plus, retired people still have to pay taxes too. So how does that fit into your theory? People receiving Social Security, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and welfare still have to pay the taxes I mentioned. As do people living on fixed incomes like pension plans, disability checks, interest rates from investments, etc. none of those people are "productive" in the sense you mentioned, but they still have to pay taxes.


Taxes, in the sense that they buy something real, like a park or a bridge are not the same as taxes in the sense of money collected.

Purchasing real things requires trading real things in payment. Money represents real things. Money is used instead of real pieces of property but money represents property that is idle and put away except that it is collateral for money. Money collected in taxes at the first taxing event represents real wealth taken out of commercial activity. Wealth confiscated by the government is real wealth. The government gives some of that wealth to individuals as welfare or whatever.

The individuals then spend that money, but that money has no wealth that is not already in the government, from the initial taxing event.

Which is to say, there is a finite amount of stuff made in the world. Production of public works is paid for by confiscating some of that finite amount stuff. Welfare recipients make no stuff, therefore they pay no taxes, in the sense that public works are not funded by the welfare recipient but by the original taxation/confiscation that is then given to the welfare recipient.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: enlightenedservant

All of those taxes are paid by the welfare money. They are not paid by the productivity of the welfare people.

All of the money paid to taxes by government checks were moved from one part or layer of government to another.

Real taxes are a percentage of production.

Welfare people produce nothing and therefore pay no taxes, they only move previously taxed money from one part of the government to another.


Let me get this straight. You think "taxes" are only "taxes" if it's taking a percentage of someone's productivity? And it doesn't count as a tax if a person has to pay a flat 6-9% tax on every purchase they make? Huh? You realize sales taxes are a form of flat tax, right? They're flat taxes on consumption as opposed to flat taxes on income.

So what about property taxes? They have nothing to do with productivity, either. Plus, retired people still have to pay taxes too. So how does that fit into your theory? People receiving Social Security, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and welfare still have to pay the taxes I mentioned. As do people living on fixed incomes like pension plans, disability checks, interest rates from investments, etc. none of those people are "productive" in the sense you mentioned, but they still have to pay taxes.


Taxes, in the sense that they buy something real, like a park or a bridge are not the same as taxes in the sense of money collected.

Purchasing real things requires trading real things in payment. Money represents real things. Money is used instead of real pieces of property but money represents property that is idle and put away except that it is collateral for money. Money collected in taxes at the first taxing event represents real wealth taken out of commercial activity. Wealth confiscated by the government is real wealth. The government gives some of that wealth to individuals as welfare or whatever.

The individuals then spend that money, but that money has no wealth that is not already in the government, from the initial taxing event.

Which is to say, there is a finite amount of stuff made in the world. Production of public works is paid for by confiscating some of that finite amount stuff. Welfare recipients make no stuff, therefore they pay no taxes, in the sense that public works are not funded by the welfare recipient but by the original taxation/confiscation that is then given to the welfare recipient.


That doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense.

And as I already stated, income taxes are taxes based on income, not on productivity. So your theory doesn't even work then. And property taxes are literally the taxes placed on the value of someone's land and the structures on it. It has absolutely nothing to do with productivity, making real things, or anything else you said. And sales taxes are flat taxes based on consumption, not productivity.

I honestly don't know where you're getting your information on "taxes" but it doesn't have the slightest thing to do with reality. Or at least not the reality in any capitalist country I've ever heard of.
edit on 12-11-2015 by enlightenedservant because: haha, i'd put "or anything you else you said" instead of "or anything else you said". i blame bush



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: enlightenedservant

All of those taxes are paid by the welfare money. They are not paid by the productivity of the welfare people.

All of the money paid to taxes by government checks were moved from one part or layer of government to another.

Real taxes are a percentage of production.

Welfare people produce nothing and therefore pay no taxes, they only move previously taxed money from one part of the government to another.


Let me get this straight. You think "taxes" are only "taxes" if it's taking a percentage of someone's productivity? And it doesn't count as a tax if a person has to pay a flat 6-9% tax on every purchase they make? Huh? You realize sales taxes are a form of flat tax, right? They're flat taxes on consumption as opposed to flat taxes on income.

So what about property taxes? They have nothing to do with productivity, either. Plus, retired people still have to pay taxes too. So how does that fit into your theory? People receiving Social Security, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and welfare still have to pay the taxes I mentioned. As do people living on fixed incomes like pension plans, disability checks, interest rates from investments, etc. none of those people are "productive" in the sense you mentioned, but they still have to pay taxes.


Taxes, in the sense that they buy something real, like a park or a bridge are not the same as taxes in the sense of money collected.

Purchasing real things requires trading real things in payment. Money represents real things. Money is used instead of real pieces of property but money represents property that is idle and put away except that it is collateral for money. Money collected in taxes at the first taxing event represents real wealth taken out of commercial activity. Wealth confiscated by the government is real wealth. The government gives some of that wealth to individuals as welfare or whatever.

The individuals then spend that money, but that money has no wealth that is not already in the government, from the initial taxing event.

Which is to say, there is a finite amount of stuff made in the world. Production of public works is paid for by confiscating some of that finite amount stuff. Welfare recipients make no stuff, therefore they pay no taxes, in the sense that public works are not funded by the welfare recipient but by the original taxation/confiscation that is then given to the welfare recipient.


That doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense.

And as I already stated, income taxes are taxes based on income, not on productivity. So your theory doesn't even work then. And property taxes are literally the taxes placed on the value of someone's land and the structures on it. It has absolutely nothing to do with productivity, making real things, or anything else you said. And sales taxes are flat taxes based on consumption, not productivity.

I honestly don't know where you're getting your information on "taxes" but it doesn't have the slightest thing to do with reality. Or at least not the reality in any capitalist country I've ever heard of.


When a welfare person pays taxes, that payment came from taxes, not from an increase in material wealth.

Real taxes are a confiscated percentage of actual goods and services.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: enlightenedservant

All of those taxes are paid by the welfare money. They are not paid by the productivity of the welfare people.

All of the money paid to taxes by government checks were moved from one part or layer of government to another.

Real taxes are a percentage of production.

Welfare people produce nothing and therefore pay no taxes, they only move previously taxed money from one part of the government to another.


Let me get this straight. You think "taxes" are only "taxes" if it's taking a percentage of someone's productivity? And it doesn't count as a tax if a person has to pay a flat 6-9% tax on every purchase they make? Huh? You realize sales taxes are a form of flat tax, right? They're flat taxes on consumption as opposed to flat taxes on income.

So what about property taxes? They have nothing to do with productivity, either. Plus, retired people still have to pay taxes too. So how does that fit into your theory? People receiving Social Security, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and welfare still have to pay the taxes I mentioned. As do people living on fixed incomes like pension plans, disability checks, interest rates from investments, etc. none of those people are "productive" in the sense you mentioned, but they still have to pay taxes.


Taxes, in the sense that they buy something real, like a park or a bridge are not the same as taxes in the sense of money collected.

Purchasing real things requires trading real things in payment. Money represents real things. Money is used instead of real pieces of property but money represents property that is idle and put away except that it is collateral for money. Money collected in taxes at the first taxing event represents real wealth taken out of commercial activity. Wealth confiscated by the government is real wealth. The government gives some of that wealth to individuals as welfare or whatever.

The individuals then spend that money, but that money has no wealth that is not already in the government, from the initial taxing event.

Which is to say, there is a finite amount of stuff made in the world. Production of public works is paid for by confiscating some of that finite amount stuff. Welfare recipients make no stuff, therefore they pay no taxes, in the sense that public works are not funded by the welfare recipient but by the original taxation/confiscation that is then given to the welfare recipient.


That doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense.

And as I already stated, income taxes are taxes based on income, not on productivity. So your theory doesn't even work then. And property taxes are literally the taxes placed on the value of someone's land and the structures on it. It has absolutely nothing to do with productivity, making real things, or anything else you said. And sales taxes are flat taxes based on consumption, not productivity.

I honestly don't know where you're getting your information on "taxes" but it doesn't have the slightest thing to do with reality. Or at least not the reality in any capitalist country I've ever heard of.


When a welfare person pays taxes, that payment came from taxes, not from an increase in material wealth.

Real taxes are a confiscated percentage of actual goods and services.

And that's simply not true. Taxes are "real taxes", whether they're on goods & services, income, property values, consumption, or any other reason.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate
If capitalism didn't help the PTB there wouldn't be any capitalism. Oh look we can both make evidence free statements with a sliver of tin foil for good measure.
Your idea that an social/economic system that aims for greater distribution of wealth is the one that is supported by the elite us frankly laughable. That must be why all the big corporations bankroll left wing parties...
As a point of interest who exactly do you consider your "betters"?



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Semicollegiate
If capitalism didn't help the PTB there wouldn't be any capitalism. Oh look we can both make evidence free statements with a sliver of tin foil for good measure.
Your idea that an social/economic system that aims for greater distribution of wealth is the one that is supported by the elite us frankly laughable. That must be why all the big corporations bankroll left wing parties...
As a point of interest who exactly do you consider your "betters"?



Capitalism is the norm of society, because Capitalism is normal default behavior that helps everybody by motivating the creation of more stuff and free time into the world.

Socialism, good or bad for the sake of communication, is not the norm. Socialism can only happen with an explicit agreement by everyone. Capitalism only needs at least two people to decide to trade, no social agreement is necessary.

The Powers that Be like capitalism that they don't have to compete in themselves.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

So why is that important? Natural processes tend to be very inefficient. When humans apply their thinking to a natural process, we ALWAYS improve its efficiency. So why would you think that a "natural" system like Capitalism would be the most efficient system we can have?



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate
Neither is what you are describing capitalism nor is capitalism a naturally occurring phenomena.
Capitalism as an economic system requires property rights. Property rights require a state. Capitalism requires a state as much as socialism. It is only the role of the state that differs.
The goal of capitalism isn't the production of more stuff and free time. It is the maximisation of profits for those that own capital.
What you describing sounds like an anarchistic barter economy.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join