My Brand of Socialism

[Buffy]

That added comment was in jest.

So you think that rape is funny?

Regarding the taxes, That figure I quoted is proper for the people that can afford to pay at that rate and stll not have any alteration in their current lifestyles since they would still have a large sum of this income as pocket money.

That does not address my original question: do you regard the fact that you would drive the most creative and productive people to move away from your society an acceptable trade-off? Don't you think that that dooms your society to--at the very least--mediocrity, and over time, failure?

 

Folly is often more cruel in the consequences than malice can be in the intent, :)

Buffy

[paigetheoracle]

Michaelangelica

 

When I talk of Islam, I mean the culture/societies/ countries, not individuals working on Western projects in the West (Your point about Moslem Nobel prize winners).

 

A society is defined by it's cultural limits (rules and regulations) - even Hypography Forums are, not to mention individual tastes and phobias. Even within a country you have old and outdated ways of looking at things, including within ours the Catholic Church and Christian Fundamentalism - look at Gallileo and The Inquisition, and the Churches attitude to abortion (Nicaragua's present attitude which tries to take the choice of the individual from them, leading to dangerous back street abortions).

 

Look also at The 'Second British Invasion' that Buffy mentions, when it comes to a punative tax system. Look also at the effect of Prohibition that I mentioned. Heavy handed restiction destroys initiative and kills creativity, no matter what the intention. A society works on freedom, not imposed attempts at fairness or any other arbitarily enforced rules.

 

Iran and Iraq, to a degree under Saddam Hussain, tried to modernize their cultures or followed through the movement of their people in that direction (former country) but The West, mainly America, seems to be trying to sabotage this as it has always done with South American countries, not run by dictatorships but on socialist principles.

 

In both cases I see hypocrisy and in the case of Iran - which is the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons on others, not to mention depleted uranium on Iraq? When it comes to oil America acts but when it comes to real need for intervention in somewhere like Dafur, nothing.

 

To cry 'prejudice' is to label, condemn and avoid investigating causes in further depth (unscientific). It is no more winning the battle than putting up the Berlin Wall. It is shutting out the different as much as Apartheid or Segregation did in The South and looking at at the end results maybe just as useful (In South Africa and Zimbabwe, white rule loss has led to disaster - because of Mugabe's tyranny and the mass exodus of whites when Black Rule started (look at the crime rates there since, with regards to rape, murder and burglary). I like Nelson Mandela and think he is a wise man but the Dark Continent has always been troubled by violence and corruption (Look at what happened to food aid, to countries like Somalia because of local crime barons - almost as bad as the Mafia's 'business cut' in the USA): Biafra, The Congo, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Dafur etc).

 

Check out what the removal of borders/ barriers does to an individual or a country. Study it as a scientist, not condemn it as a blind man. Watch Cesar Millan, The Dog Whisperer (What applies to Man also applies to animals - check out social order in packs and taboo's in primitive societies); Supernanny or other child psychology programs; Brat Camp etc.

 

Margaret Mead, the anthropologist, thought only a dedicated group of people can change society and I'd agree. Individuals can come up with ideas (as I've learnt to my cost) but without some support from others, these are stillborn, so freedom is not enough for growth within society, it also needs co-operation and willingness or suppression/ disinterest rules, okay?

[Michaelangelica]

Interesting post paigetheoracle although I think you might be replying to more than one thread here. Rep on its way though

As Buffy said we need to define our terms what is 'socialisim" to a Yank is not "socialism" to a European or Australian.

In my view you can have socialism and have democratic rights, freedoms and ideals.

 

In fact socialism may encourage these. In a dog-eat-dog pure capitalistic state (which may not exist) freedoms are constrained by the economic system. The fear of the future (no pensions , health care). The imperative of making money (to the exclusion of all else). The very marked contrast in distribution of resources such as information, wealth, opportunities, quality food and education.

As Buffy noted Scandinavian countries have

a strong affinity for promoting government-funded social welfare programs, they're all pretty fond of democracy and capitalism

 

While I agree with you that authoritarian regimes will most likely restrict creativity and innovation along with personal freedom: I do not agree that this necessarily happens in 'socialistic" states like Northern Europe, GB and Australia. In fact I would rank Australia in the top ten innovative nations- historically.

Of course Yanks seem to have a different interpretation of what is meant by 'socialism' (socialism=repressive communism (?)). You seem terrified and paralysed that any government 'social engineering' will lead to the collapse of democracy. That universal health care, unionisation of the workplace, or free education will lead to a nation of slovenly parasites- the end of the world as we know it!

 

I never saw so much wreath as I saw in my visit to the USA. Nor had I ever seen such poverty.

I discussed this with an American friend in NY who was appalled by the level of crime, drugs and prostitution in the city. I remarked that if Texas had no dole and NY had 6 months dole I would move to NY from Texas too-as many others were doing at that time (20 years ago). I also remarked that when the dole ran out iI would (if I could not get a job) resort to any means to survive. My friend did not see that this was a reasonable attitude/position to take. I was trying to convince him that the social security system in USA was creating the very problems he saw around him. He could not understand or comprehend my point of view at all.

If you are going to 'social engineer" do it properly, intelligently and with universal fairness.

 

These days we are all joined at the hip. What affects you affects me (See John Donne's poem No man is an Island in poetry thread). If a child misses out on eduction or timely health care it affects my future as well as his/hers.

[paigetheoracle]

Interesting post paigetheoracle although I think you might be replying to more than one thread here. Rep on its way though

 

(1) I am, plus throwing in a few other interesting thoughts on the subject, even if a little off topic in places

 

As Buffy said we need to define our terms what is 'socialisim" to a Yank is not "socialism" to a European or Australian.

In my view you can have socialism and have democratic rights, freedoms and ideals.

 

In fact socialism may encourage these. In a dog-eat-dog pure capitalistic state (which may not exist) freedoms are constrained by the economic system. The fear of the future (no pensions , health care). The imperative of making money (to the exclusion of all else). The very marked contrast in distribution of resources such as information, wealth, opportunities, quality food and education.

 

(2) I'd agree - neccessity makes us all dog eat dogs

 

While I agree with you that authoritarian regimes will most likely restrict creativity and innovation along with personal freedom: I do not agree that this necessarily happens in 'socialistic" states like Northern Europe, GB and Australia. In fact I would rank Australia in the top ten innovative nations- historically.

 

(3) Living in Scotland I know what you mean but Britain is losing it to the American model, especially since Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair (a Capitalist in sheeps clothing).

 

Of course Yanks seem to have a different interpretation of what is meant by 'socialism' (socialism=repressive communism (?)). You seem terrified and paralysed that any government 'social engineering' will lead to the collapse of democracy. That universal health care, unionisation of the workplace, or free education will lead to a nation of slovenly parasites- the end of the world as we know it!

 

I never saw so much wreath as I saw in my visit to the USA. Nor had I ever seen such poverty.

I discussed this with an American friend in NY who was appalled by the level of crime, drugs and prostitution in the city. I remarked that if Texas had no dole and NY had 6 months dole I would move to NY from Texas too-as many others were doing at that time (20 years ago). I also remarked that when the dole ran out iI would (if I could not get a job) resort to any means to survive. My friend did not see that this was a reasonable attitude/position to take. I was trying to convince him that the social security system in USA was creating the very problems he saw around him. He could not understand or comprehend my point of view at all.

If you are going to 'social engineer" do it properly, intelligently and with universal fairness.

 

(4) I've never been to America but I do have a cousin living there and I'd say it's getting worse rather than better from my second-hand information.

As for the UK it's the same. They're cutting back the lifelines and removing the net from under us tightrope walkers, so our ability to sit back and create independently, is being stiffled. When you fear, you don't experiment but pump out the same old hackery, which leads to boring repetition and abandonment by your audience (Hollywood at present and what nearly killed Disney).

 

These days we are all joined at the hip. What affects you affects me (See John Donne's poem No man is an Island in poetry thread). If a child misses out on eduction or timely health care it affects my future as well as his/hers.

 

(5) Too bloody true! Greed isn't sensible or neccessary, when you are the dominant life form on a planet. It's not that I'm against Socialism or Capitalism but I am against but what governments do under this banner and that is down to what is going on between the ears of the individuals in charge.

[Mike C]

So you think that rape is funny?

That does not address my original question: do you regard the fact that you would drive the most creative and productive people to move away from your society an acceptable trade-off? Don't you think that that dooms your society to--at the very least--mediocrity, and over time, failure?

 

Folly is often more cruel in the consequences than malice can be in the intent, ;)

Buffy

 

Where would these tax rebels flee? They have a government here that caters to them like no other government on the planet except maybe Hong Kong?

 

And how do you think these tax rebels would feel if they had to run their corporations for the same salary that the president in Washington gets?

 

If the president can run the US for that salary, then these corporate CEO's can do likewise for their smaller enterprises..

 

God Bless America, land of the free and brave!

 

Mike C

[Buffy]

So you think that rape is funny?

 

That does not address my original question: do you regard the fact that you would drive the most creative and productive people to move away from your society an acceptable trade-off? Don't you think that that dooms your society to--at the very least--mediocrity, and over time, failure?

Where would these tax rebels flee? They have a government here that caters to them like no other government on the planet except maybe Hong Kong?

 

And how do you think these tax rebels would feel if they had to run their corporations for the same salary that the president in Washington gets?

 

If the president can run the US for that salary, then these corporate CEO's can do likewise for their smaller enterprises..

I think we already got that you think that people who are motivated by money are evil, dear...

 

So I take it from your response that if such people move away from your little Nirvana--and as a result make it a third class country because it can't compete--that that's just fine with you?

 

The more my wrong, :)

Buffy

[Zythryn]

Mike, shouldn't your last line been:

God Bless America, land of the free [unless you make too much money] and brave!

:)

[Mike C]

Mike, shouldn't your last line been:

 

:)

 

Ha ha.

You forget that my use of freedom has nothing to do with capitalism.

Our Constitution today with all its Amendments, promotes equality and has outlawed the self serving type of people like I said, kings, dictators and etc.

It is structured to make sure no one can seize it as a self serving dictator would.

 

Our political system is corrupted by dollars with its current allowance of dollars in electing the politicians.

 

That is why I promote the reform of this system by using Government monies ONLY, rather than allowing the wealthy to use these dollars to reach the people with their advertising while the citizens cannot respond.

 

This one sided influence has an affect to influence the voters while they remain ignorant about the real issues that would benefit them.

 

With the PUBLIC FINANCING OF OUR ELECTIONS, this would make the politicians voice their opinions on what they have to say about politics,

We could allso elimiate the lobbyists as having improper inflience that short changes the peoples issues.

 

The current primaries are just promoting tne politicians to attack each other than be talking directly to the prople.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

I think we already got that you think that people who are motivated by money are evil, dear...

 

So I take it from your response that if such people move away from your little Nirvana--and as a result make it a third class country because it can't compete--that that's just fine with you?

 

The more my wrong, :)

Buffy

 

We are already moving in the direction of a 3rd class country when the 'new world order' was opened up to our corporations.

So now, these corporations are out sourcing jobs to the detriment of our economy.

 

This current war is not really our war since the target was the headquarters for this NWO.

Seems like its a war between the NWO and the Islamic Peoples Bomb to determine who is the one god that the bible promotes.

 

Mike C

[Zythryn]

Our political system is corrupted by dollars with its current allowance of dollars in electing the politicians.

 

That is why I promote the reform of this system by using Government monies ONLY, rather than allowing the wealthy to use these dollars to reach the people with their advertising while the citizens cannot respond.

 

This is one of the few areas I am in agreement with you on.

However, I disagree slightly with your second statement. If everyone that didn't have lots of money took an interest in politics they could, as a group, weild much more power.

For example, if 200 million people (middle and lower economic class) each donated just 10 dollars, that would be a huge contribution.

 

I believe our tax system should be there to promote activities that are benificial to our society as a whole. Saving money rather than spending it needlessly. Investing in business, starting your own small business. Helping your fellow man/woman.

 

Your system of taxation would reduce business growth. Without business growth, there are fewer jobs, with fewer jobs, more people need more assistance. Extremely high tax rates would turn us into a third world country IMO.

[Buffy]

We are already moving in the direction of a 3rd class country when the 'new world order' was opened up to our corporations. So now, these corporations are out sourcing jobs to the detriment of our economy.

I agree with that completely, but by increasing taxes to levels that remove motivations among the most capable citizens only makes the situation worse, not better.

 

So, saying this doesn't do much to support your thesis.

 

Can you point to some historical examples where high taxation provided long-term benefits?

 

I just want Texas to be number one in something other than executions, toll roads and property taxes, :phones:

Buffy

[Mike C]

This is one of the few areas I am in agreement with you on.

However, I disagree slightly with your second statement. If everyone that didn't have lots of money took an interest in politics they could, as a group, weild much more power.

For example, if 200 million people (middle and lower economic class) each donated just 10 dollars, that would be a huge contribution.

 

There are groups involved in various fields like environmental, party lines, small business, labor and etc. But they are no match for the corporate dollar influences. The latter contribute to both parties but most of it goes to the republican party by a ratio of 2-1.

 

I believe our tax system should be there to promote activities that are benificial to our society as a whole. Saving money rather than spending it needlessly. Investing in business, starting your own small business. Helping your fellow man/woman.

 

Taxes create jobs too.

The 'surplus, unneeded income that is stagnating when it is just saved, does not contribute to an active economy where the money keeps circulating by the spenders.

If there is any tax that should be eliminated, that is the 'sales' (consumer) tax. These spent dollars create more jobs because of the demand for the goods.

 

Your system of taxation would reduce business growth. Without business growth, there are fewer jobs, with fewer jobs, more people need more assistance. Extremely high tax rates would turn us into a third world country IMO.

 

I just answered above that buyers demands increase the business sales.

If there is no demand for goods, the business has no reason for expanding its production.

Sharing the wealth with the public (workers), increases the buyers market to increase the demands for goods.

That is the key to a prosperous economy, sharting the wealth.

 

Mike C

[Buffy]

The 'surplus, unneeded income that is stagnating when it is just saved, does not contribute to an active economy where the money keeps circulating by the spenders.

You're assuming no investment, which comes from people with capital.

 

The economic concept of the "multiplier effect"--which is the most powerful positive force on an economy--is almost exclusively influenced by the level of investment.

 

The Government has been shown to be a very poor investor (see the Soviet Union), in every area with the exception of those things that no one but the government can do, namely infrastructure such as roads, schools, civil services, etc.

If there is no demand for goods, the business has no reason for expanding its production.

And how will there be capital to do that expanding if its all taxed away as "excess income?"

If there is any tax that should be eliminated, that is the 'sales' (consumer) tax. These spent dollars create more jobs because of the demand for the goods.

I agree that sales taxes--what economists call "regressive taxes"--are unfair to people with lower incomes because their percentage of investment is lower. Without extensive and overly-complicated tinkering, they ensure that those with higher incomes actually pay a lower tax *rate*.

 

On the other hand, they are indispensable because they provide a mechanism for implementing public policy (e.g. taxes on cigarettes), and provide a much lower cost mechanism for enforcing the tax laws (its much cheaper to track 10 million businesses than it is to track 300 million people...unless you're proposing that everyone just works for the government...).

 

I guess its somewhat ironic that the countries that have higher tax rates, more progressive tax structures (rich pay more), and more social welfare programs, actually have much *higher* sales taxes (VAT in Europe) than in the US!

 

Economics is a subject that does not greatly respect one's wishes, :)

Buffy

[Mike C]

I agree with that completely, but by increasing taxes to levels that remove motivations among the most capable citizens only makes the situation worse, not better.

So, saying this doesn't do much to support your thesis.

 

I am talking about taxing the 'surplus, unneeded, stagnant' income of the billionaires and multi-millionairers.

The current top rate of 35-38% is just to low a level for the top earners.

At one time in the past, it was 70% and tne economy was doing well.

 

Can you point to some historical examples where high taxation provided long-term benefits?

 

Like I said above, it was 70% until the wealthy tax rebels started to cry. Than the level was being reduced gradually to its current level. So now with this NWO, billionaires are multiplying by the hundreds and the economy is stagnating.

 

I just want Texas to be number one in something other than executions, toll roads and property taxes, :)

Buffy

 

Well, you do need to finance the government operations and the republicans are spending our country into bankruptcy.

Do you believe in a balanced budget?

 

Mike C

[freeztar]

I am talking about taxing the 'surplus, unneeded, stagnant' income of the billionaires and multi-millionairers.

 

That "stagnant" income, as Buffy pointed out, is being invested.

At one time in the past, it was 70% and tne economy was doing well.

Can you provide a source for this?

[Mike C]

That "stagnant" income, as Buffy pointed out, is being invested.

 

You mean like buying up the competition and expanding outside the US?

 

Can you provide a source for this?

 

I was speaking from memory and I know I am right. The Almanac has no history of this, so I would have to check out the internet.

 

Mike C

[Buffy]

You mean like buying up the competition and expanding outside the US?

You might wish to study some accounting. When corporations buy others, it in essence costs nothing: they are merely converting a short-term asset (cash) into a long term one, often having no effect on owner's equity.

 

If you're trying to claim that this is the only or even the predominant use of short-term assets though, you'll have an extremely hard time finding data to support it. Microsoft may be "spending" $44 billion to try to buy Yahoo--again not a "real" accounting expense, but its also spending $10 billion or so (a direct charge to income: cash out the door) every year on research. Wal-mart builds obnoxiously large stores that employ hundreds both before and after construction.

 

What you call "excess" income is essential to any working economy: You're either going to have to let people keep and spend it, or you're going to have to let the government do the investing (which as I said, has an even more embarrassing lack of data showing this as a successful policy).

 

So, which is going to be the source of investment in Your Brand of Socialism?

 

An investment in knowledge still yields the best returns, :hihi:

Buffy