1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI don't buy this. Firstly, it's not like half your pay cheque just disappears - it pays for things like defence, police, health care, education, pensions, etc. If you didn't pay it in tax, you'd end up spending it on private insurance (at least if you were prudent), so your actual disposable income would be much the same.
What is even worse is the incentive to work. Why work when over half your pay check disappears? Then the only people working will be those who "enjoy" their jobs. In other words, there will be few and far between who work and those that do will only work when they want to work. What a productive economy that would be!!
Secondly, and this is the crucial point, I think that wages are bound to be lower in a low-tax economy. Why? Because employers will pay the lowest possible wage they can in order to persuade employees to do a job for them. That's how market forces work - David Ricardo's Iron Law of Wages states that wages for unskilled labour will remain around subsistence level. But in a highly-taxed society, employers will be forced to pay their employees more because the amount of disposable income required for subsistence is not going to change.
Let's say it costs a minimum £100 a week to live, and tax pressure is 50% of income. So the employer has to pay £200 a week minimum in order to persuade his staff to work for him: £100 pays the employee's living expenses, and £100 goes off to pay for defence, education, health care, etc. A new government cuts tax pressure to 33%. It still cost £100 to live for a week, so the employer can get away with offering his new staff £150. The employee is no better off, as he still only has £100; tax revenue has fallen so there's less of a social safety net, even though the employee has no more money to pay for private insurance; the only person better off is the employer, who now has an extra £50 in his pocket.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyOnce socialism really kicks in they will take probably more than half of your paycheck. They will need it to pay for the jillions of government employees, as well as other social programs. I am not against some socialistic aspects of Government though. Handing everything over to government isn't wise. It is easy for the European mind to let others do their thinking for them, as they have let government dominate them for generations. Not so here.
What is even worse is the incentive to work. Why work when over half your pay check disappears? Then the only people working will be those who "enjoy" their jobs. In other words, there will be few and far between who work and those that do will only work when they want to work. What a productive economy that would be!!
Originally posted by joe beyserPeople elect governments. They have a vote and they have representation in the government. Corporations are all mini-dictatorships. The people have no representation and no input into them at all (at least in non-union corporations). So which is the greater form of domination here? Elected, accountable government, or unelected, unaccountable corporate domination?
Once socialism really kicks in they will take probably more than half of your paycheck. They will need it to pay for the jillions of government employees, as well as other social programs. I am not against some socialistic aspects of Government though. Handing everything over to government isn't wise. It is easy for the European mind to let others do their thinking for them, as they have let government dominate them for generations. Not so here.
Under the true definition of Socialism (not the Republican re-definition) pete would have never been a business owner to begin with. But I digress.
I get the impression that you're somehow tieing your statements to US policies or proposed policies?
If so there is absolutely nothing you can use to tag Democrats or Democratic policies as "Socialist" without also tagging Republicans for the same thing.
Originally posted by rwingettThat is a damn good point. We can only vote in a corproration by quitting or starting unions. I have felt that way myself.
People elect governments. They have a vote and they have representation in the government. Corporations are all mini-dictatorships. The people have no representation and no input into them at all (at least in non-union corporations). So which is the greater form of domination here? Elected, accountable government, or unelected, unaccountable corporate domination?
Originally posted by joe beyserOn another thread a few moments ago, you admitted that "...I went through the education system here [in the U.S.] and am dumbed down excessively". And now here on this thread you provide an excellent example of it.
It is easy for the European mind to let others do their thinking for them, as they have let government dominate them for generations.
Originally posted by joe beyserAs I outlined higher up the page, high taxes compel employers to raise wages, as employees need a certain level of take-home pay merely to live. Low tax pressure merely encourages employers to cut wages for new employees.
Once socialism really kicks in they will take probably more than half of your paycheck.
Hence, a high-tax strategy doesn't take "more than half your paycheck", since high taxation is partially responsible for the size of your gross income in the first place. Employers, not employees, are the people whose net income is primarily affected.
Originally posted by rwingettOkay. Fair point.
Government bureaucrats mandating equal pay for unequal risk? That's your conception of socialism? Sounds like a strawman argument to me.
So, in the pure socialist system, who DOES start this company? Pete's not going to do it. Does the government start the company? Would society be better off if the company never existed?
Originally posted by sh76Sounds pretty much like my belief system's relationship with socialism. However, my shared support for the things you support (above) is rooted in my philosophy and I obviously don't abhor my own belief.
Would I support any Socialist-like policies in certain fields like healthcare if they were necessary and efficient? Maybe. Depends on the industry and the program. Do I support taxation and some wealth re-distribution that is necessary to maintain reasonable standards of living for people? Again, if it's done reasonably, I'm fine with it. But would I support socialism as a philosophy? Never in a million years. I abhor it.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThanks for bringing that up to give me a chance to clarify.
Under the true definition of Socialism (not the Republican re-definition) pete would have never been a business owner to begin with. But I digress.
I get the impression that you're somehow tieing your statements to US policies or proposed policies?
If so there is absolutely nothing you can use to tag Democrats or Democratic policies as "Socialist" without also tagging Republicans for the same thing.
I am NOT accusing the Democratic party (or the Republican party) in the United States of advocating the position of the bureaucrat in my example.
Both parties are capitalist parties. The policies of Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and co. were absolutely fundamentally capitalist policies. The differences between Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman one one side and Barack Obama and Paul Krugman on the other are just different regions of the capitalist side of the spectrum. Even the quasi-socialist northern European countries are still fundamentally capitalist.
My argument was not against any specific US policies (as I tried to make clear at the end of my post) but against the "workers should run everything and the business owners are exploiters" communist/socialist mentality.
Originally posted by sh76Not "still", but "now". It used to be quasi-capitalistic, fundamentally socialistic. However, more
Even the quasi-socialist northern European countries are still fundamentally capitalist.
important, the people used to have options. The right wing was always there to vote for even
when the socialist democrats ran their most socialistic politics. Now, all parties are, like you say,
more or less capitalistic, and very little socialistic. I feel like my options in voting has been
seriously limited lately. Just like yours are in the US. You don't really have any options when you
vote. Whomever you vote for, you get the same basic politics. It's a joke on the concept of
democracy.
The good news is that if we don't like it, we can always start new parties, right? I'm seriously
considering starting a new social democratic party that actually holds social democratic views.
That'd be neat. We can call ourselves: "Real social democrats", and our motto: "We stand up
against the forces of evil", or something less dramatic, like: "We will crush capitalism and give
power back to the people. YEAH!".
Yeah, I like that last one. 😏
Originally posted by SeitseHigh taxation and extensive welfare services, of course.
I would like to hear your ideas behind the use of this terminology.
I don't disagree not agree. I just want to understand why Americans view NE as 'quasi-socialist'.
"From each according to ability, to each according to needs" is a socialist creed. As I understand it, this is virtually the mission statement of the economic policies of, say, Sweden.