• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Capitalism vs. Socialism

A

Anubis08

Senior member
I agree some people need help, but welfare is not a job. I'm not trying to insult anyone, but it is true. Also, as my title says, in capitalism what you earn is yours. Socialism is more for equality. Why are people like Hillary Clinton pushing for taxes to equalize us as a nation.
I can undertand giving low income families breaks and I think we should, but we should not turn around and make up that deficit by overtaxing others.

America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, but ironically, they punish the successful.

All I'm saying through my ramblings is different people will make different salaries, but tax should be an equal burden to all while still leaving enough to live on and currently it does not.
 
No taxation is morally defensible, because it doesn't even pass one of the basic tests of morality. See sig for why.
 
We are supposed to read 137 pages to find out all taxation is bad? No thanks.

I doubt you will find many socialist around here. People just argue about the amount of taxation and government assistance. My basic theory: it's much cheaper to help folks out and keep them participating in society than it is to build prisons and incarcerate them.
 
Originally posted by: Anubis08
I agree some people need help, but welfare is not a job. I'm not trying to insult anyone, but it is true. Also, as my title says, in capitalism what you earn is yours. Socialism is more for equality. Why are people like Hillary Clinton pushing for taxes to equalize us as a nation.
I can undertand giving low income families breaks and I think we should, but we should not turn around and make up that deficit by overtaxing others.

America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, but ironically, they punish the successful.

All I'm saying through my ramblings is different people will make different salaries, but tax should be an equal burden to all while still leaving enough to live on and currently it does not.
Click to expand...

I agree, a person who makes more should not be punished. Taxes are just too high, generally speaking.
 
To put it in short words.

A strong middle class can not exist is a purely capitalistic system. It is a result of government intervention of several forms.
 
Originally posted by: Todd33
We are supposed to read 137 pages to find out all taxation is bad? No thanks.
Click to expand...

No, you can use your head and the table of contents to scroll down to the chapter that says: "The Ethical Justification of Capitalism and Why Socialism is Morally Indefensible."
 
Originally posted by: Anubis08
I agree some people need help, but welfare is not a job. I'm not trying to insult anyone, but it is true. Also, as my title says, in capitalism what you earn is yours. Socialism is more for equality. Why are people like Hillary Clinton pushing for taxes to equalize us as a nation.
I can undertand giving low income families breaks and I think we should, but we should not turn around and make up that deficit by overtaxing others.

America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, but ironically, they punish the successful.

All I'm saying through my ramblings is different people will make different salaries, but tax should be an equal burden to all while still leaving enough to live on and currently it does not.
Click to expand...


The very top tax bracket is somewhere around 30%. When I start making a few million per year, I'll give up my share, because as much as I want that third house, I don't really need it as much as the kid a few blocks away needs to go to the doctor. What's more, it's in my interest for those around me to get the education they're capable of - that poor kid I'm sending to the doctor might just be the one to cure whatever ailment I develop. He's more likely not, but it only takes one, and more practically it's nice for everyone to have driver's ed, the ability to count out my change, and enough education to understand being fleeced by politicians. After all, thier votes count just as much as mine.

Too much progressive tax is a bad thing, yes. If it rose to 100% at the top, no one would bother to make reported earnings beyond that amount, but it's not. There's certainly room to argue for adjusting the taxation we have, but it's not as simple as "it should be an even 30% for everyone!" I can afford $300,000 off of my million a heck of a lot easier than that kid's family can afford even 10% ($3000) off of their $30,000 a year.
 
Originally posted by: oreagan
Originally posted by: Anubis08
I agree some people need help, but welfare is not a job. I'm not trying to insult anyone, but it is true. Also, as my title says, in capitalism what you earn is yours. Socialism is more for equality. Why are people like Hillary Clinton pushing for taxes to equalize us as a nation.
I can undertand giving low income families breaks and I think we should, but we should not turn around and make up that deficit by overtaxing others.

America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, but ironically, they punish the successful.

All I'm saying through my ramblings is different people will make different salaries, but tax should be an equal burden to all while still leaving enough to live on and currently it does not.
Click to expand...


The very top tax bracket is somewhere around 30%. When I start making a few million per year, I'll give up my share, because as much as I want that third house, I don't really need it as much as the kid a few blocks away needs to go to the doctor. What's more, it's in my interest for those around me to get the education they're capable of - that poor kid I'm sending to the doctor might just be the one to cure whatever ailment I develop. He's more likely not, but it only takes one, and more practically it's nice for everyone to have driver's ed, the ability to count out my change, and enough education to understand being fleeced by politicians. After all, thier votes count just as much as mine.

Too much progressive tax is a bad thing, yes. If it rose to 100% at the top, no one would bother to make reported earnings beyond that amount, but it's not. There's certainly room to argue for adjusting the taxation we have, but it's not as simple as "it should be an even 30% for everyone!" I can afford $300,000 off of my million a heck of a lot easier than that kid's family can afford $3000 off of their $30,000 a year.
Click to expand...

You fail to recognize two things:

1. The government is a horribly inefficient medium of compassion. Good private charities are much better if you wish to try to help others.

2. The free market is actually the most efficient anti-poverty program ever created. For this reason reduction of taxes on the "rich" actually benefit wage earners. More on that here.
 
I'm sorry, that didn't say anything about taxation, it was about socialism. I fail to see how we can have a government with taxation, or is it progressive taxing you dislike?

I guess a complete free market looks great on paper, until you realize greed is the fundamental driving force in mankind. The house of cards then falls apart when reality sets in.
 
the top bracket is 30%??? YEAH RIGHT...

The Federal Tax is 35% for the top bracket (42% under Clinton and 70% under Jimmy Carter). That might not seem like much, but add on state tax (another 10% in most states like California), Sales tax, gas tax, property tax, and before Bush the dividend tax and death tax. Pretty much everything we do or spend gets taxed. By the time its all said and done, the top bracket is easily paying 60-65% of their income to the govt. If that aint socialist then i dont know what is...

Edit: Oh, and btw, the top bracket starts at $200,000, not a few million. $200,000 nowadays really isnt rich, its just upper middle income.
 
Originally posted by: Todd33
I'm sorry, that didn't say anything about taxation, it was about socialism. I fail to see how we can have a government with taxation, or is it progressive taxing you dislike?

I guess a complete free market looks great on paper, until you realize greed is the fundamental driving force in mankind. The house of cards then falls apart when reality sets in.
Click to expand...

Taxation and socialism are inseperable. People are greedy, that is true, but the free market is not a medium for their greed. Greed is only applicable to zero sum games. For instance, if I dumped gold coins on the floor and said "Ok, let's divide these up." and you said "Ok, I want them all!" That would be greed, because when you grab more coins I get less.

Since the free market is not a zero sum game, greed does not apply to it. People create wealth in the free market, they do not grab it from some fixed pie. To say someone is "greedy" because they wish to create more wealth than someone else is quite absurd. The free market actually punishes greed by stigmatizing those who try to rip people off.
 
I am still trying to find the person that this quote derived from.

?With Capitalism a few people will prosper and many will suffer. Under Socialism everyone will suffer equally.?

The biggest problem I have with methods of reallocating wealth has to do with how these polices dampen the incentives to achieve (on both a micro and macro level).

In a utopian world where everyone gets paid equally, who will take on the responsibilities of being doctors, engineers, and scientists?

Count me out?.I?d rather be a Californian fruit fly inspector for 50 k per annum.
 
Definitely an interesting topic, and I can see benefits to both a flat tax rate and a progressive rate (and to other types of taxes altogether).

First, we need to accept the fact that basic survivability will create a lower limit to what a family or person can survive on. So, based on that it makes it much more difficult for a lower income person to pay the same tax rate as a higher income person because they are much close to that limit. So from that standpoint, it makes sense that you'd tax low income people very little, and higher income people more heavily (since they can theoretically more easily absorb the cost).

Second, we have a situation where the tax laws are very complex, and people who make lots of money can "invest" in tax and finance advisors so they end up paying very little in taxes because they are able to report very little taxable income (I guess the more cynical among us could liken it to money laundering, but really it's just a good investment if you can afford to do that, and have enough wealth to invest in those areas).

I guess we all know that taxes are how the government redistributes the wealth, which in some ways is good and other ways not so good. Maybe charities would be more efficient, but I can guarantee that there would be far less overall money available if people had the "option" of paying taxes. I sure wouldn't be donating over 25% of my income if I didn't have to. I have my own bills to pay!

I think I could support a progressive tax rate that topped out @ 15-20%, but then much higher taxes on luxury items that the wealthy typically use. Also, I'd want to get rid of all the tax free investment crap that people can hide behind. But to help mitigate that I would get rid of Capital Gains taxes (to make it easier to save without needing to have a financial advisor, two tax lawers, and one criminal lawer to oversee the rest of them). The luxury tax would generate income when people actually use their money (instead of when they are struggling to save) and would prevent a regressive tax on everyday items that poor folks need. The elimination of capital gains would make it much easier for people to accumulate wealth, even if they were not able to add to their invenstments, and the flatter tax rate would help out those in the upper middle class and those who live in expensive areas and therefore have high incomes but don't have much left to save (as a Californian, this is something that would help me...maybe).

Of course I'd also cut way back on certain government expenditures.

First, the WAR ON DRUGS would reach a truce. Pot would be leagalized and regulated just as cigarettes and alcohol. I'm not sure about the more addictive drugs, but they would probably be regulated more like prescription drugs or maybe stay illegal. The goal behind this action would be to reduce the prison populations, free up law enforcement to focus on violent crimes, and reduce the incentive for drug related violent crimes in the first place (less expensive drugs means that users will be less likely to steal for drug money, and less profits will make dealing drugs less attractive and will reduce associated gang problems.)

I'm sure there are many more ways to make things more efficient, but one things is certain, and that is that in addition to their being much wasted tax money, there are also many good things that come from tax money (public schools, university systems, roads, etc.). Unfortunately, I think most politicians like to cut the most useful programs first just to punish all us citizens for wanting lower taxes.

-D'oh!
 
Dissipate,

Very interesting article, thank you for steering me towards it.

I will be back when I've finished reading it.

Edit: Already I see where this might be heading, and if so, I think that it presupposes that property rights were initially (historically) distributed fairly. We'll see whether or not he addresses this point.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
By the time its all said and done, the top bracket is easily paying 60-65% of their income to the govt. If that aint socialist then i dont know what is...
Click to expand...

...of their REPORTED income, you mean....
psssttt.... you're not supposed to report everything you make...
 
Originally posted by: Anubis08
I agree some people need help, but welfare is not a job. I'm not trying to insult anyone, but it is true. Also, as my title says, in capitalism what you earn is yours. Socialism is more for equality. Why are people like Hillary Clinton pushing for taxes to equalize us as a nation.
I can undertand giving low income families breaks and I think we should, but we should not turn around and make up that deficit by overtaxing others.

America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, but ironically, they punish the successful.

All I'm saying through my ramblings is different people will make different salaries, but tax should be an equal burden to all while still leaving enough to live on and currently it does not.
Click to expand...


Hi,

Interesting analysis you have there.

I can undertand giving low income families breaks and I think we should, but we should not turn around and make up that deficit by overtaxing others.
Click to expand...

So, if there's a certain amount of cash that needs to be generated by government to balance a budget, and you agree that some people deserve tax breaks (as do I), then without taxing others who earn more to a larger percentage of their income - how is that defecit resolved?

Cheers,

Andy
 
The title undermines the Topic, it's not a choice between Capitalism/Socialism, there are a myriad of combinations between those 2 extremes. The trick in a Society is to determine what works best for that Society.
 
Why tax differently for the more you make?
Click to expand...

Don't look at it that way... it is not really what you are taxed but, rather, what you have after taxes as compared to others and the variance between you and their effort expended or their limitations.

It is easy to see that even if an MD pays 50% in total tax she will still have a significant multiple over the Construction laborer. The income available to use is the value of the various professions and if you really study it you'll see that each profession and craftsman or whatever has more or less maintained a constant and equal separation.
 
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Why tax differently for the more you make?
Click to expand...

Don't look at it that way... it is not really what you are taxed but, rather, what you have after taxes as compared to others and the variance between you and their effort expended or their limitations.

It is easy to see that even if an MD pays 50% in total tax she will still have a significant multiple over the Construction laborer. The income available to use is the value of the various professions and if you really study it you'll see that each profession and craftsman or whatever has more or less maintained a constant and equal separation.
Click to expand...


This is one of the primary factors I was talking about when I referred to stifling the incentive to be successful. The total amount of money that you are being taxed does matter to most people, especially when they are considering the option of falling into a higher tax bracket or not (as in making more money).

For instance, pretend that a rich business tycoon is pondering the idea of opening up another shop, or creating a new chain of stores. If he knows that this event could potentially land him into a progressively higher tax bracket, he may reconsider pursuing this path.

I know first hand that I would, especially if my year end figures proved to be less beneficial (or even the same). This is why many Americans would rather opt for making twenty grand under the table (illegitimately) than a few thousands more that is actually being declared for taxes.

Similar principles apply in my scenario, except on an increasingly amplified scale. As with most economic events, our market, and more importantly the people within it, follows trends created by incentive. If you take away this incentive to accomplish more (through increasingly stronger taxation) you also risk the chance of taking away one of our society?s most crucial benefactors (the motivation to do better).

This is just one of many perspectives that could be shined onto this discussion.
 
Socialism works in Scandinavia...best example i can thing of with social policy, rights and freedoms, no sanctions due to bad leadership.

Their economies are good, standard of living is high, no deficit, good education and health, no poverty, sure the rich get tazed a lot, but they still ahve an upper class, not as rich as americans but how much do you honestly need.

Anyways, ultra low taxation (capitalism) is still ot be tested and has a lot of assumptions. Very debatable, since based on economic theory which in itself is contradictory and very grey at times. But on the other side, socialism is proven to work. So if you are looking for betterment of humanity, socialism is the only proven success.
 
Originally posted by: Stuntnot as rich as americans but how much do you honestly need.
Click to expand...

See, this is the statement I have a problem with. Who are you to judge what is or what is not an appropriate level of wealth for another person?
 
Originally posted by: DeeKnow
Originally posted by: ntdz
By the time its all said and done, the top bracket is easily paying 60-65% of their income to the govt. If that aint socialist then i dont know what is...
Click to expand...

...of their REPORTED income, you mean....
psssttt.... you're not supposed to report everything you make...
Click to expand...


he's not taking into account that the truely wealthy make most of their money from investments. not income.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591840198/qid=1093522073/">Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else
by David Cay Johnston
</a>


a good book on it
 
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: Anubis08
I agree some people need help, but welfare is not a job. I'm not trying to insult anyone, but it is true. Also, as my title says, in capitalism what you earn is yours. Socialism is more for equality. Why are people like Hillary Clinton pushing for taxes to equalize us as a nation.
I can undertand giving low income families breaks and I think we should, but we should not turn around and make up that deficit by overtaxing others.

America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, but ironically, they punish the successful.

All I'm saying through my ramblings is different people will make different salaries, but tax should be an equal burden to all while still leaving enough to live on and currently it does not.
Click to expand...

I agree, a person who makes more should not be punished. Taxes are just too high, generally speaking.
Click to expand...

Taxes too high? What would you find acceptable? Our taxes are the lowest they've been in decades and we rank as oneo of the lowest taxed nations of the industrialized world?

I think the point here is that we need balance. You don't want to overtax the rich for two reasons: (1) the government provides basic services fine but tends to waste excess money and (2) a certain amount of greed is great for keeping the economy efficient... (example: seucess of capitolism vs communism). HOWEVER, when taxes have a completely flat rate, you unfairly give an advantage to the rich. Those born into wealth, have a large advantage over those that are not. America is suppose to be the land of opportunity. Also, if youhave lots of money it leaves you with a greater amount that you can reivest as opposed to poor people that cannot use their money to make money since they have to use it to eat. Thus, thier opportunities for making money are limited. This wouldn't be a problem except for money is passed down over the generations and gives an unfair advantage to those that never earned it. Anyway, you can't get rid of this unfair advantage completely without over taxing the rich and hurting the economy. Thus, you have to find a balance. One that adresses the interests of both groups and tries to preserve as much equality to the opportunities we have when we're born while not negatively impacting the incentive for more money.

Ultimately, at the heart of this, is the fact that money has a certain "utility". 10% of a poor man's wages would have been used for food. As opposed to 10% of a rich man's wages wich would have been used for toys or to make more money. The poor man will place more value on his 10% lost than the rich man will even though, monetarily the rich man's amount was more. So you tax the rich man a little more and it actually gererates tax revenue with less negative affect than a flat tax would have. However, finding out those optimum levels is the trick because you can still tax too highly and hurt the economy worse.
 
Wow... that's some drivel. Did you know the author managed to write well over 100 pages of this thing without mentioning externalities, and claims that there is no such thing as a monopoly?

"It will be argued that, contrary to much that has been written in the economics literature on
monopoly and public goods, neither problem exists or, if they did exist, would still not suffice in any meaningful sense to prove any economic deficiency in a pure market system. Rather, a capitalist order always, without exception and necessarily so, provides in the most efficient way for the most urgent wants of voluntary consumers, including the areas of police and the courts. With this constructive task completed, the argument will have been brought full circle, and the demolition of the intellectual credibility of socialism, morally and economically, should be complete."

They somehow fail to realize that the capitalism they espouse is no more 'pure' than it is practical. It's simply an economic version of 'take as much as you can defend'. In pure capitalism, all affected parties are involved in the process of contracts, including such nebulous ones as 'the environment', 'the future', and more obvious ones like 'your neighbors'. In short, if capitalism is to function efficiently, it needs an infinite set of markets, all agents need standing in all contracts, and no trading can happen until everyone has chosen their consumption for this 'period' and all 'future' periods. And even then it still doens't work!

BTW pure capitalism and pure socialism both have excellent results on paper. And neither could ever be implemented because they both assume the cost and time involved in processing information is zero. Which is obviously not true.

I can't believe someone took the time to write this - it's going on my wall of shame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top