Originally posted by: blackangst1
What part of our republic as our founding fathers framed it said anything about equality in ownership? The idea that we should somehow find a way to take from the pie at the top and somehow "give" it to the bottom is the very definition of socialism. As a part of this problem I would ask: how in the hell do you do it and stay within the bounds of the constitution? IMHO you cant.
The constitution doesn't address the topic, but gives the government broad powers to act for the 'public welfare'. That's how they designed it. The constitution doesn't say anything about protecting wildlife and national parks or putting a man on the moon; about programs to encourage development of poor urban neighborhoods or having an earned income tax credit, but those are all programs that are fine under the constitution. So is a large (or small) degree of what you call socialism. For example, the choices on tax rates by income.
The problem is that you take a word for one end of a spectrum, "socialism", and apply it to a situation where the steps are relatively small and the situation far from"socialism".
Isn't it socialist that our towns have fire departments and libraries which people pay taxes for, are government-run, and provide these services to all, even undercutting book sales?
So, is the nation a socialist nation because of these steps? No; and nor is it because the excesses of concentration of wealth are mitigated by some policies.
In fact, it's funny, the same people who worry about that say nothing, usually, about the policies which allow for the higher concentration of wealth.
Think of socialism not as specific steps, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit or others which can be applied to low or high concentrations of wealth, but rather think of it as an overall level of 'socialist' programs in the country. When our nation has monopoly government-run healthcare, airlines, auto manufacturing, banking, and so on, you can say it's socialist; the fact it has some limited areas, like those mentioned or the post office and Amtrak, doesn't make this a socialist nation - which wouldn't be unconstitutional, anyway.
That's a great thing about our republic, the voters can have a lot of say over what happens without their hands too tied to a 1789 document on the policy level.
I also see you ran smack into the exact behavior I described; to quote myself:
*No one*, practically speaking, is for equal money for everyone. The argument against wealth equality to an extreme is a red herring, a straw man, a phony issue since no one's pushing it...
So when you refer to "equality in ownership", you're doing this exact behavior or arguing against a position no one has; the issue is preventing extreme inequality in ownership.
And that's good for the economy and the people. The *only* 'losers' are the very wealthy who are still the very wealthy, but not quite as much so.
The poor shouldnt get a bigger piece of the pie just because they are poor. The converse is true also...the rich shouldnt give up a part of their pie just because they're rich.
I'll agree with you, in a way; if the inequality is at a moderate level, by which I mean the economy is operating with large incentives for productivity and not at the more extreme levels of wealth preservation by the wealthy, then you don't need to fix it; but unfortunately, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" and you do need to take steps to avoid the natural trend to what humanity has usually had, a few very rich and masses of poor.
In fact, not even the far right wing opposes many of the steps our government takes to prevent those extremes; those too are 'socialist' by your definition, but not controversial.
It might be tedious to get into examples, so I'll hope you can identify some.
Again, this idea flies in the face of a democracy.
It hardly flies in the face of democracy - which is the unnatural re-distribution of power to deny the billionare disproportionate power by giving him and a poor man each one vote - for the people to vote policies that benefit themselves and benefit the nation overall by curbing the extremes of concentrations of wealth.
One thing about the rich: they KNOW how to prioritize expenses, live within a budget, and plan for tomorrow. The poor dont. I have seen this for years in my jobs, as previously said.
Rather than digress to the topic of the behavior of the poor and the rich, I'll say that I think you are neglecting the huge area of systemic issues which artifically protect the wealth of the wealthy not for any reason of earning it, but as a function of their power to protect their own interests; and that you're over-generalizing, while there's some truth to your point.
Sure, it's a grand idea to take from the rich and give it to the poor. But how? Garnish their accounts? Tax them more? We already have a progressive tax system.
It's not a grand idea absolutely; it is insofar as preserving that middle level of inequality in wealth, when needed.
How? The Estate Tax is an outstanding measure, putting individual merit ahead of who your parents are for determining your share, which increases the nation's productivity.
Let's preserve the progressive tax system; after decades of clobbering it, such that the burdens are reversed from business and the wealthy paying the much larger shares in, say, the 1950's to where business now pays much less than indivuduals, and the top tax rates are slashed from 90% to under 40%, there is a movement for the 'flat tax', which would further increase ineuqality. There are plenty of methods for doing it which are good for the economy, when done to very high concentrations of wealth.
The statisic I mentioned earlier about the 50-50 split on wealth going to 75-25 for the top 5% of people, and a new one I'll mention that nearly 100% of all productivity gains in the economy in the past 25 years have gone to the top 20% (after inflation) - unprecedented in the nation's history, as I understand, contrary to the idea that the gains are shared - it's clear that the system is not in the 'middle' situation. It's moving to the wealthy's favor.
Which leads me to another thought, although a bit off-topic. All this talk of the rich moving assets off-shore and companies moving operations off-shore...
You raise an important and valid issue, but as you noted, a separate one from this topic.
Back to my point about the poor. The MAIN reason they cannot get out of poverty or lower class is their own fault. It's not for lack of opportunity, it's lack of discipline financially. If they cant learn to manage $20k/year, how could they possibly manage $40k/year? Or $80k/year? They cant. Or, more exact, they wont.
You're wrong by denying part of the issue. It's a combination of factors. It's like saying that people who live in smog and who smoke are entirely to blame because they smoke.
I think it's probably just a lack of awareness of the systemic issues which do limit these people. That ignorance is a terrible influence on the debate on economic policy.
Hey, let's cut the taxes on the rich and increase the public liability for their expenses some more, and say it's all the poor's fault.
Here's my caveat: There's an exception to every rule, but the exception MAKES the rule. Also, as I've said, generalities are generally true. Of course some DONT have a chance in life. Of course SOME get stepped on by someone. But the majority are just too lazy or unmotivated to do any better.
Caveat noted, but I think you are still far off the mark in denying the other issues. But not many people are aware of the macro policies and their impact, so they blame the poor.
The bottom line point I'm making is to debunk the myths that the only thing to watch is one side of the spectrum, the excessive equality, and to point out excessive inequality is just as harmful to society, if not more harmful; to stop worrying about only 'socialism' and see where it helps, while not worrying about the other side, which is hidden even by the lack of a good word for it. What's the equivalent of "socialism" for describing the counterpart policies which INCREASE the inequality of wealth to extremes?
The way the public debates issues, the simple fact they have words like 'socialism' to toss around for one side of the issue, and have to invent cumbersome phrases about the 'excessive inequality of wealth' for the other side of the issue, itself biases the debate. This can be seen by the fact that during the eras when something was done, they did make catchy words for the policies against the excessive concentration of wealth; "Robber Baron" is still catchy today, a century after it was used.
Ain't it funny how that works? It is an issue of who can pay for the propaganda to get 'their' buzzwords into the public debate, but that's going off topic.
