Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Socialism and the Elite
With my present knowledge of economics, I have a rough time understanding how the economic elite would have a preference for socialism, but it seems they do.
Why is that? If they don't, how is it that people powerful enough to institute socialist reforms are able to get the power to do so?
By socialist reforms I mean increasing regulations on the economy and "welfare state" institutions.
They have the money to have real tax attorneys and avoid the new taxes. They, with their political power purchased with their financial power, literally, define the loopholes. While the rich pay the majority of taxes in this country, there are still a significant number who pay less taxes than many average joes making <$50,000/yr.
Some of them, in bed with politicians and institutions which further their own financial goals, do well to keep those persons/institutions in power and grow that power. This buys them protection.
Some of them feel really self-righteous in supporting a more all-powerful government that is more able to take care of everyone. They have the millions/billions to spare not to feel the impact of minor tax changes.
A lot of poor people have right wing beliefs and vote for the politicians who make life harder for them but easier for rich people. Crazy old world aint it?
> V.Kemp wrote:
> They have the money to have real tax attorneys and avoid the new taxes. They, with their political power purchased with their financial power, literally, define the loopholes. While the rich pay the majority of taxes in this country, there are still a significant number who pay less taxes than many average joes making <$50,000/yr.
Some of them, in bed with politicians and institutions which further their own financial goals, do well to keep those persons/institutions in power and grow that power. This buys them protection.
Some of them feel really self-righteous in supporting a more all-powerful government that is more able to take care of everyone. They have the millions/billions to spare not to feel the impact of minor tax changes.>
So it's kind of a deal where they are able to eliminate competition in the market?
And that's why Ford delivers poor service? lol.
And that's why they love the death tax, because it impairs the lower rich from challenging the super rich?
The politicians and government institutions they support are ALL about reducing competition. That's the primary function of regulatory agencies, not policing or safety. I recognize that those functions of such institutions are good and necessary, but that does not change the fact that that is not their primary function today.
They don't care about the estate tax. They have a multitude of options to avoid it.
Many working citizens are educated enough to know that demosocialists only tax them more and give them less and so are fiscally conservative, [TI] Sitting Duck. Just because someone claims they're going to be the politician for you and let you keep more of your own money and make the rich carry more of the tax burden doesn't mean they actually do so. Read between the lines.
It should tell you something that, aside from those who openly state that they'll vote for whoever promises them the most welfare, most working (most of the lower middle class) people support political conservatives and it's only those with more to spare (more of the upper middle class) who feel self-righteous in supporting the green socialists. They don't have the economic concerns of the lower middle class who are sick of government bullshit like what you posted. Right wing values do not make life harder for the working class and easier for the rich. Taxing working people more to support welfare programs that give inferior service at inflated price is bad for working people. People who work for their money and know that their quality of life suffers when a ridiculous amount is taxed from them know this.
"Taxing working people more to support welfare programs that give inferior service at inflated price is bad for working people."
Welfare is paid for mainly by taxing rich people, not poor people.
where do you get this info from
I've posted the portions of taxes that each income bracket pays in here recently. Regardless of the increased burden on the rich of our graduated tax system, the working people are still taxed more to support your desired socialist welfare state. You didn't really respond to my point at all; you missed it.
money is an extension of government. supporting socialism is putting more and more money into a few people, putting more and more power into a few people and who are those few people? the economic elite. even if they arent in office, they are the ones that get people in office and who own different mediums for propaganda to travel through if they want to get someone removed.
an economy with freedom would allow new people to gain too much power; this way their power is never threatened.
"Regardless of the increased burden on the rich of our graduated tax system, the working people are still taxed more to support your desired socialist welfare state."
I didn't say the poor aren't burdened; they are (in terms of taxes), just not as much as the rich. And this burden is neutralized by the advantages of:
a. social benefits
b. a less disparate society
"to support your desired socialist welfare state."
Wow. You're prone to alienating at first glance, aren't you?
>>And this burden is neutralized by the advantages of:
a. social benefits
b. a less disparate society<<
False. The benefit never outweighs the burden. Middle men administrators who spend your money for you pay themselves first. With your money.
Call it what it is. And I'll do the same. When a government does more than protect my life, liberty, and persuit of happiness and build/maintain infrastructure such as roads, it's something moving toward socialism. You've been accepting watered down socialism for so many years you've already swallowed a lot of it but you're still afraid of the word. My right to persue my happiness is infringed upon when a massive government taxes me ridiculous amounts of money to run all kinds of things it was never intended run. Things it should not run.
avogadro's post answers Justinian I's initial question on the spot.
> K. William Fancsali wrote:
> I've posted the portions of taxes that each income bracket pays in here recently. Regardless of the increased burden on the rich of our graduated tax system, the working people are still taxed more to support your desired socialist welfare state. You didn't really respond to my point at all; you missed it.
Your systems seems flawed, the top 40% pay 70% of the taxes here
"You've been accepting watered down socialism for so many years you've already swallowed a lot of it but you're still afraid of the word."
huh?? Do you even know me?
"a massive government taxes me ridiculous amounts of money to run all kinds of things it was never intended run. Things it should not run."
So you think a big government objects to the very definition of government or what? If so, you have an unreasonably narrow definition of government.
I'd much rather you emphasized the impact of the size of government society-wide, not your personal likes and dislikes ("my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"). If you don't believe in benefits of higher taxes, I'm sure it'd be frustrating for you to pay them. But if those higher taxes leave a positive impact on a larger than personal level, then - sorry, I don't care for you.
I don't care for you in the way you'd prefer others to care for you, that is.
Modern day Liberals believe in positive freedom, or the idea that government ought to guarantee various services that enable an individual to live at a minimal standard regardless of their decisions. Of course, what that minimal standard is is open to interpretation. Liberals tend to have a high bar, and that includes the right to an education and house ownership. Now personally, I think that's outrageous. I don't necessarily want mess ups to starve in the streets, but I am not hot on the idea of all these housing and education benefits afforded to the poor.
In general, however, I am committed to the classical definition of freedom, which is now considered negative freedom. Negative freedom is that government should guarantee choice and individualism, and the only services it provides are the services that guarantee you those freedoms from possible oppressors (such as a criminal). I have greater sympathy for a government that guarantees negative freedom. Such a government would be minimalist and have a weaker presence in our social and economic lives, although I am not willing to necessarily go to the extreme.
>>So you think a big government objects to the very definition of government or what?<<
The USA's federal government was started with a Constitution. The views of the men responsible for creating it are well published. When I said that socialism was not what the US government was created to run, I meant exactly what I said.
>>I'd much rather you emphasized the impact of the size of government society-wide, not your personal likes and dislikes ("my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"). <<
The Declaration of Independence was written about my "personal likes and dislikes"? You overestimate my importance in the history of the USA. That Thomas Jefferson! What a dull man!
>>But if those higher taxes leave a positive impact on a larger than personal level<<
They don't. Tried over and over and over again. Failed, failed, and failed. Every time. 0 exceptions. America is losing its superiority of wealth and standard of living over the rest of the world as it becomes more socialist. Surprise. In what world will politicians better decide what to spend money on than the hard working, innovative people who WORK and EARN the money? Not this one. And pretending cannot make it so.
>> sorry, I don't care for you.<<
You care for everyone! You want the biggest government possible, the closest to omnipotent God an organization on earth can possibly be, because you care so much.
You have no right to my earnings. If you disagree with this statement, you are wrong. And a bum. And a waste of life.
- - - - -
What are you talking about Justinian I? Everyone has the right to a house. They've been trying to get more people houses. That's turning out well. We haven't had a housing crash or anything, right?
Poor people should either be housed in an apartment or a prison cell 
. Not a home! No way!
of course not
put them all in a prison cell and finish off any remaining strenght they have left! That way they will never learn, grow or change and will never be able to take care of themseves!
Silly communist.
It's a better alternative than putting them on the streets so they can terrorize middle class America.
> It's a better alternative than putting them on the
> streets so they can terrorize middle class America
Where to put the really poor is a complete discussion in itself.
As shown, EVERYWHERE in the world, clumping the poor somewhere turns that somewhere into a shithole.
Edit: Also, no two government houses should be next to one another.
K. William Fancsali:
"The USA's federal government was started with a Constitution.
The views of the men responsible for creating it are well published.
When I said that socialism was not what the US government was
created to run, I meant exactly what I said."
I don't want to make this an argument about the USA. You have your Constitution - that's fine with me - but it does not hold much authority outside of your country.
If you americans believe that efficient ways to run a country are limited by the possible interpretations of your constitution - whatever, that's your business. The topic, though, is "Socialism and the Elite", not "Socialism and the Elite through the eyes of an American".
(though, ofc, I'm sure there are americans out there that don't consider their founding fathers to have been some sort of demigods)
"The Declaration of Independence was written about my "personal
likes and dislikes"? You overestimate my importance in the history
of the USA. That Thomas Jefferson! What a dull man!"
Again, T.J. and The Declaration of Independence is of no authority to me, or anyone else analyzing the matter from a delocalized perspective.
"They don't. Tried over and over and over again. Failed, failed, and
failed. Every time. 0 exceptions. America is losing its superiority of
wealth and standard of living over the rest of the world as it becomes
more socialist. Surprise. In what world will politicians better decide
what to spend money on than the hard working, innovative people
who WORK and EARN the money? Not this one. And pretending cannot
make it so."
lol.
"You care for everyone! You want the biggest government possible,
the closest to omnipotent God an organization on earth can possibly
be, because you care so much.
You have no right to my earnings. If you disagree with this statement,
you are wrong. And a bum. And a waste of life."
lol. I was talking to a moron, perfect.
Justinian I:
"Modern day Liberals believe in positive freedom, or the idea that government ought to guarantee various services that enable an individual to live at a minimal standard regardless of their decisions. Of course, what that minimal standard is is open to interpretation. Liberals tend to have a high bar, and that includes the right to an education and house ownership. Now personally, I think that's outrageous. I don't necessarily want mess ups to starve in the streets, but I am not hot on the idea of all these housing and education benefits afforded to the poor.
In general, however, I am committed to the classical definition of freedom, which is now considered negative freedom. Negative freedom is that government should guarantee choice and individualism, and the only services it provides are the services that guarantee you those freedoms from possible oppressors (such as a criminal). I have greater sympathy for a government that guarantees negative freedom. Such a government would be minimalist and have a weaker presence in our social and economic lives, although I am not willing to necessarily go to the extreme."
Fair enough. But personally, I believe you underestimate the negative effects of wealth disparity. It not only creates tension in the society, but adds to even more disparity itself. Providing education and a dignifiable standard of living to those lacking behind would even out the "starting lines" between those coming from wealthy families and those coming from humbler beginnings. I'm fine with survival of the fittest, but I'd like the starting conditions to be as equal as possible for everyone.
I'd agree with providing "mess ups with just enough for them not to starve in the streets" if the world were about to end in one generation.
You just described socialism as "efficient".
Go away kid.
>>Again, T.J. and The Declaration of Independence is of no authority to me, or anyone else analyzing the matter from a delocalized perspective.<<
Again, I was citing the legal basis for my claim of rights that you advocate violating. You talked about my "personal likes and dislikes," which makes no sense. We don't share a lot of legal documents. So I spoke of rights and backed it up with the law in my country. You'd rather talk about your personal likes and dislikes.
I like how you just say "lol" when you have no response to legitimate questions asking you to support your position with some sort of reasoning to explain what is obviously illogical behavior.
The politics forum has gained another retard. Yay.
"Again, I was citing the legal basis for my claim of rights that you advocate violating."
Obviously, while talking about the issue on a general level (and this is a general discussion about socialism), it is not my duty to take into account every set of rights that every country grants its citizens. If you interpret your Constitution in a way that makes you feel my ideas would violate your rights, that is your problem. I disregard what any law of any country says at this moment, and talk only about what I consider to be efficient. Which is what you do in a general discussion.
"I like how you just say "lol" when you have no response to legitimate questions asking you to support your position with some sort of reasoning to explain what is obviously illogical behavior."
Sorry, but I find my responce to be appropriate to phrases such as "America is losing its superiority of wealth and standard of living over the rest of the world as it becomes more socialist. Surprise." You did not pose any questions, and showed no will to have a discussion w/ expressions like
to support your desired socialist welfare state
You've been accepting watered down socialism for so many years
You have no right to my earnings. If you disagree with this statement, you are wrong. And a bum. And a waste of life.
etc.
You should take note of the attitude you have been taking since the beginning of our conversation before calling me a "kid" and a "retard".
Well, you simply need to look at the economic history. The reason our(America's) economy became so strong was due to the capitalistic ways, not because of government programs. If you do look into the American history you'll see that socialism failed various different times. Even FDR's New Deal was a failure and the only reason he got bailed out was because of WW2. Welfare and other such programs were a good idea when they were originally created. When FDR first created them, they were for people above the age of 60 years old and the average life span then was 55, so it was for a very limited population. I firmly believe we should have kept it for the small percentage of the population (who truly cannot help themselves at all, not the welfare queens etc) and not expand it to every single child like todays liberals want to do.
On my final note to you, Juuustaaas, this is a debate so you shouldn't expect for the person to be coddling you throughout the argument.
> Justinian I wrote:
> With my present knowledge of economics, I have a rough time understanding how the economic elite would have a preference for socialism, but it seems they do.
Why is that? If they don't, how is it that people powerful enough to institute socialist reforms are able to get the power to do so?
By socialist reforms I mean increasing regulations on the economy and "welfare state" institutions.
They're human. Humans desire status. Money no longer represents status. Nobody cares who's rich anymore. But donating millions to charities, or protesting the war in Darfur helps garner positive publicity, or supporting some popular plebian position, increases one's status. People applaud them, hold banquets and ceremonies for them, name buildings for them, talk about them, remember them fondly, and otherwise validate their existence.
An alternate explanation is they believe in an afterlife and are seeking admission to the higher planes for eternity. 
Whichever you believe...even if you believe another explanation, the answer is self-interest. There are more valuable things to people than money and people with boatloads of excess money are often quite willing to trade some in if it benefits them in some other way.
>>it is not my duty to take into account every set of rights that every country grants its citizens<<
You do not think that an explanation ought to be offered when you take from another human being? You don't have to know of countries where people have rights to understand that taking someone that isn't yours without explanation is inherently wrong. We're not going to agree on many things here. But you decline to explain your position and throw petty insults instead. If you're not going to explain yourself (or if you are not capable), why post here?
>>Nobody cares who's rich anymore. <<
Yeah. Right. Money is the power to buy status and political power. Money's still at the top. It's still at the top of socialist states, perhaps more so; the people are just kept even more ignorant of the power game than in more capitalistic states.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Socialism and the Elite
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.