I'm a Dem but i think socialism is bad

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

heymrdj

Diamond Member
May 28, 2007
3,999
63
91
Sorry to hear that man.. 26 so young.

Kinda reminds me of my dentist.. she was 25, just got married and her husband dropped dead within 2 months. They still can't figure out how.. went to sleep and didn't wake up, 26 years old. :(

I appreciate it. It really hit hard with me being 29. Grew up with him barely .5 mile away. EMT thought aneurysm, waiting for the results still. Brushing his teeth at 7AM and collapsed at the sink. Wife called 911 and they couldn’t revive him. He was even a volunteer fire fighter in his community.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I don't think there is such a thing as a "self made millionaire". Did the millionaire create his own parents and his own genes? Did he create the country he was born into? Did he deliver himself as a baby in good health? Did he create the schools that taught him (and his potential workers) or build the roads he walked on to get to those schools? Did he personally clean and filter the water he drank?
No. We like to ignore all these things when we publicize fairy tales of entirely self-made millionaires even when clearly these are the biggest and most important determinants of financial success in the US (were you healthy as a child, were your parents educated or wealthy, did you get access to a good education, etc etc).

They have to justify having more as being somehow better rather than mostly being luckier. I readily admit to being lucky in ways I don't even understand. And never mind that being a decent human being is really a lot more important than having someone to look down on.

They reek of self righteousness & greed.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
There seem to be two "socialisms" that everyone keeps throwing back and forth at one another.

One is economically focused socialism, the kind that includes things like nationalization of industry and obscene taxes on the "wealthy". The other is socially focused socialism, which includes things like nationalized healthcare and social safety nets.

The first should be shunned at all costs, by everyone. It has never worked and will never work in the long term. The second is worth exploring imo.

It seems to me that people who are afraid of socialism type 1 and those in favor of socialism type 2 are always yelling at each other about apples vs. oranges.

While I certainly wouldn’t support nationalizing industries high taxes (over 70% top marginal rate) on the rich are common sense and supported by the economics literature. It’s just good public policy.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
They have to justify having more as being somehow better rather than mostly being luckier. I readily admit to being lucky in ways I don't even understand. And never mind that being a decent human being is really a lot more important than having someone to look down on.

They reek of self righteousness & greed.
Because I see self righteousness and greed to be mere symptoms of the real problem, the fact that we have all been conditioned to hate ourselves, a terrible illness that destroys the self and society also, coupled with the fact this is the last thing anybody wants to see about themselves, I would support recognizing how destructive those two conditions are without having at the same time contempt for those who suffer from them. Because I believe we all have this illness, any contempt for others who also suffer from it just creates the reluctance to see it in ourselves. As long as we are unaware of how we really feel about out ourselves, we won't have the tools of self realization and self acceptance that are needed to face our actual condition, much less do anything about it in a proscriptive manner.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
It's human nature to do as little as possible. Your mind will trick you to not do much, because it doesn't want to exert much energy.

And this is where all you conservatives take the wrong turn, punches in that one way ticket going the wrong way and just floors it.
Ill grant you that that is one aspect of our personality yet there is SO many other ways to motivate this species OTHER than the whip. And that is what is so extraordinary hard for you guys to understand.

The greatest ideas has not sprung from people getting whipped.
 

dasherHampton

Platinum Member
Jan 19, 2018
2,543
488
96
While I certainly wouldn’t support nationalizing industries high taxes (over 70% top marginal rate) on the rich are common sense and supported by the economics literature. It’s just good public policy.

What income levels are you referring to? I hope you don't believe that a successful neurosurgeon who makes million a year should pay 700,000 in taxes.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
What income levels are you referring to? I hope you don't believe that a successful neurosurgeon who makes million a year should pay 700,000 in taxes.

That’s not how marginal rates work though. For him to pay $700,000 would mean someone with an income of $1,000 would be paying $700 in taxes.

From what I’ve read the optimal rate is as high as about 75% for incomes in excess of the top percentile, so probably like $500k or more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nickqt

cfenton

Senior member
Jul 27, 2015
277
99
101
Yes, but those countries are very small compared to America. What works for Sweeden or Denmark would be difficult to enforce here. Think about it. If we tried to emulate one of those Nordic countries, it would go down to the state level. Each state would have a say. So, you'd have true socilism in the blue states and a lot of push back in the red states. IMO, we would see a wave of people moving north. And why not. Free health care. The need to work less. Free college. Do you really think states like Mississippi or Arkansas would follow the socilism route? Do you really think most people there would like to see their taxes raised? Hell no.

I'm not sure what the downside is for the northern states in this scenario. If people move north, they bring their taxes with them. If a large percentage of the population of Mississippi moves north, then Mississippi will be highly incentivised to match the benefits offered in the north.

I could be wrong. I just don't see it working out, and TBH I doubt socilism will ever make it in America. I tell people all the time, "If you wait for the government to fix your life you are in a world of hurt. It's up to you. No one is going to do it for you." Remember Obama's Change, Hope. Or Trump's Make America Great Again. How has that worked out for the average American? Yet, I met a foreigner last week. He's from Romania. Within a 5 year span he's opened 2 businesses, and is about to open his third. He also works 16 hours a day. People don't want to hear the truth though.

That's not healthy at all. We shouldn't be idolizing people who overwork themselves. Some tiny fraction of the population can do that sustainably, but it would destroy most people. If you have to work like that to get ahead in a very rich society, then something is wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whm1974 and heymrdj

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,017
8,545
136
It works in Japan, which has 130 million people. They are huge.

Japan is a very homogenous population in terms of ethnicity and cultural background. In terms of political decisions, this means that everyone has pretty much the same cultural baggage and outlook on things. Chance's are that the Japanese people from opposite ends of the country are still very similar, and face a lot of the same issues, and share most of the same history. So it's probably a lot easier and faster for the 130 million homogenous Japaneses (or even the nordic countries like Sweden) to agree to do something. As oppossed to 300 million Americans who are being indoctrinated to not agree on anything.

By contrast, the US is even bigger, in both land and population, and we have quite a few ethnicities and geographic divisions. It's not unusual for say... a white person of French descent in Maine to have a very different outlook from a person of Cuban descent in Miami. And both of them might feel very different from a black person from Southern California. And a Native American guy in Oregon might feel different about things than any of the other three. And all four are going to carry different ethnic, geographic and cultural baggage. Americans in general have this perception that the only time it is appropriate to get everyone to work together on a serious problem is when there's a war. Otherwise, its often "Fuck off, I've got mine, you're on your own." It's easier to maintain support for government services if you don't have the problem of some people whining and grousing about paying taxes to pay for benefits used by "those" people.

The problem with this countries policies regarding social programs such as healthcare, and education... it simply comes down to US vs THEM. Why should I help the rural farmers, when I live in a metropolis? Why should I help the urban dense folks, when I live in the country? Why should I help the people of California when I live in Kentucky? Why should I help the poor, when I am rich? Why should I help the impregnated, when I don't have or want kids? In the USA, it's the cult of individualism. If you can't do completely for yourself, you don't deserve help. Everything that might help you outside of yourself or your family or philanthropy..is a handout. And you should turn to the church for handouts, or go beg in the street. And if you beg in the street, for god's sake stay out of my sight. Your misfortune annoys me. Listen to some of these people that call into talk shows, bitching about tax dollars paying for poor kids school lunches.

Also, in the US so many people are so infatuated by wealth and power. And the wealthy and powerful have created this hyped-up bullshit Ayn Rand inspired narrative that their hard work and ingenuity justify their controlling such a disproportionate amount of wealth. If you aren't rich, it's probably because you are lazy, stupid or took some "loser job" like school teacher or social worker. Ethnic diversity within the population isn't the main issue, but it's an issue IMHO, ethnic diversity creates negative attitudes towards socialized services because minority ethic groups are viewed as "others". People who came from somewhere else to take advantage of American society. Fine if they want to compete in the marketplace. Not so ok if they are receiving benefits that the "locals" have to pay for.

Sadly..I see a hard sell in the US towards socialized services such as healthcare and education in the near future. I could be wrong, but we can't agree on shit..
 
  • Like
Reactions: UglyCasanova

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,521
136
What income levels are you referring to? I hope you don't believe that a successful neurosurgeon who makes million a year should pay 700,000 in taxes.
Always always always when someone rails against a 70% top tax rate it is because they do not understand our tax system at all. Then when they are informed how the system works, do they reevaluate their position and adjust accordingly? No, they ignore it and continue to believe stupid things.
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
Yes, but those countries are very small compared to America. What works for Sweeden or Denmark would be difficult to enforce here. Think about it. If we tried to emulate one of those Nordic countries, it would go down to the state level. Each state would have a say. So, you'd have true socilism in the blue states and a lot of push back in the red states. IMO, we would see a wave of people moving north. And why not. Free health care. The need to work less. Free college. Do you really think states like Mississippi or Arkansas would follow the socilism route? Do you really think most people there would like to see their taxes raised? Hell no.

I could be wrong. I just don't see it working out, and TBH I doubt socilism will ever make it in America. I tell people all the time, "If you wait for the government to fix your life you are in a world of hurt. It's up to you. No one is going to do it for you." Remember Obama's Change, Hope. Or Trump's Make America Great Again. How has that worked out for the average American? Yet, I met a foreigner last week. He's from Romania. Within a 5 year span he's opened 2 businesses, and is about to open his third. He also works 16 hours a day. People don't want to hear the truth though.


You raise a great point and implementing at the federal level would be yet another power grab by DC at the expense of what our country was founded on which was power to the states. We have 50 little incubators to come up with ideas to solve this but somehow think no we need to implement nationwide because of reasons. Let states come up with ideas and proposals and the ones that work others can adopt, the ones that don’t the other 49 learn not to do that.
 

dasherHampton

Platinum Member
Jan 19, 2018
2,543
488
96
Always always always when someone rails against a 70% top tax rate it is because they do not understand our tax system at all. Then when they are informed how the system works, do they reevaluate their position and adjust accordingly? No, they ignore it and continue to believe stupid things.

The discussion wasn't about the US tax system. It was about economic socialism in general.

I was simply trying to find out what income levels he thought should be subjected to a 70% tax.
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
I’d be curious for those that support basic income is this on top of the other welfare and safety nets that are out there or do we do away with those programs and only hand out UBI? So for someone receiving section 8, ebt, and Medicaid what is the UBI for or is it to replace the others?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
You raise a great point and implementing at the federal level would be yet another power grab by DC at the expense of what our country was founded on which was power to the states. We have 50 little incubators to come up with ideas to solve this but somehow think no we need to implement nationwide because of reasons. Let states come up with ideas and proposals and the ones that work others can adopt, the ones that don’t the other 49 learn not to do that.

Yeh, multinational capitalists love the divide & conquer routine. And, uhh, never mind all the federal programs that work at the national level, like SS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heymrdj

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,091
37,284
136
You raise a great point and implementing at the federal level would be yet another power grab by DC at the expense of what our country was founded on which was power to the states. We have 50 little incubators to come up with ideas to solve this but somehow think no we need to implement nationwide because of reasons. Let states come up with ideas and proposals and the ones that work others can adopt, the ones that don’t the other 49 learn not to do that.

TFW people actually seem to miss antebellum America. lol
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,521
136
The discussion wasn't about the US tax system. It was about economic socialism in general.

I was simply trying to find out what income levels he thought should be subjected to a 70% tax.
Yes but you clearly thought a 70% tax meant someone who made a million dollars has to give $700,000 to the tax man.

The reality is that someone who makes $11M would have to give $700,000 of that last million to the tax man while paying a normal rate on the first $10M.

The $25,000 question for you is, now that you understand our tax system, do you think that a 70% tax rate on income over $10M/per year makes sense? Or do you want to fall back on some other bullshit excuse?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,007
8,040
136
I’d be curious for those that support basic income is this on top of the other welfare and safety nets that are out there or do we do away with those programs and only hand out UBI? So for someone receiving section 8, ebt, and Medicaid what is the UBI for or is it to replace the others?

Everyone's plan is different in scope, and what else it pushes out and/or replaces. My own, equal to 25% of personal income, is large enough to fully repeal and replace all those other programs. Healthcare aside, UBI would be the sole "welfare" that exists.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,521
136
I’d be curious for those that support basic income is this on top of the other welfare and safety nets that are out there or do we do away with those programs and only hand out UBI? So for someone receiving section 8, ebt, and Medicaid what is the UBI for or is it to replace the others?
UBI replaces welfare, of course.
 

dasherHampton

Platinum Member
Jan 19, 2018
2,543
488
96
Take a pill, man.

The discussion had nothing to do other the US tax system. I know people who think incomes of a million dollars should be taxed at 70%.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,007
8,040
136
...do you think that a 70% tax rate on income over $10M/per year makes sense?

Personally I'd cap total taxation at 50%.

Including for high incomes such as $10m and above. Unless the difference of that tax, nationwide, could be calculated and demonstrated as having a solid purpose. Without due cause, I'd seek a more balanced approach than 70%.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,017
8,545
136
Devin Nunes (R-Benghazi) says that having to ask for a straw at a restaurant is socialism.

"I want to be given what I want without even having to ask for it, because making me actually do something to get what I want is socialism...

I can give credit to the Republicans for one thing - decades of calling everything they don't like "socialism" is working now, although this tactic may someday backfire and get people to think that maybe socialism isn't such a bad idea. They seem to be bringing back the whole Red scare tactic. Congressional Republicans have been explicitly told to hit the "SOCIALISM" scare-button as often and as loudly as possible? They think this is a winning message. And, in fact, they're probably right when it comes to voters "of a certain age" whose formative years included the Better Dead than Red philosophy being blasted at full strength.

The die-hards haven't got the memo yet that the whole red-baiting thing is both beyond its sell date, and laughingly anachronistic in the "old man yells at clouds" way. "commie" was the go-to slur for everything that was adverse to them, real or imagined.