Socialism vs Capitalism

[Vol737]

Denmark is the most egalitarian country in the world---and it's a social-democratic country that "gives people things"--such as free education
and health care. Same with Sweden and Norway. Successful countries, all. We are the only one of 37 OECD countries that does not have nationalized health care. Everyone else in the world has got it wrong and we've got it right? Please. There are many millions of Americans who have no health care insurance at all.

Don't tell people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and then pay them a poverty-level wage that makes getting ahead impossible. Capitalism is a good thing; vulture capitalism is a bad thing. We've had a lot of vulture capitalism in the U.S. since the late 1980s.

Medicare - medical insurance/services for retirees

Medicaid - medical insurance/services for the poor/indigent care

TriCare - medical insurance/services for retired career military members

Obamacare/ACA was supposed to solve the 10% of the population that didn’t have health insurance. What happened? You mean it didn’t work?? Many people on the ACA also pay no premiums at all, IOW…it’s subsidized by taxpayers yet again. To say we don’t have socialized healthcare is not accurate.

 

[jmacvols1]

Bro, do you know how much easier and better Bezos' company has made my life? I can buy a very affordable product with 10k ratings at 4.5 stars, know it's good, and have it arrive at my door tomorrow so I can take my kids to the park instead of the store. Why should I care if he's taxed more? I'm not going to see any of that money.

Leslie's Pool Supply tried get me to pay them $30 to install wings on my vacuum. I got them on Amazon for $7 with new shoes included. They're marking it up like 400% for 1 minute of labor. The brick and mortar store making peanuts in comparison tries to take advantage of me as much as anybody. Amazon makes that much more $ because they make consumers' lives that much better.

...how many 1000's of jobs Amazon has created.

 

[jmacvols1]

Denmark depends on Capitalism to fund its socialism... and is less socialistic than the US....wealthy Nordic countries tried socialism in th 70s killing their economy retuning back to capitalism...

The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

When the U.N. released its latest index of “happiest countries,” it probably came as no surprise to Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that all of the Scandinavian countries finished in the top ten. They often cite them as models for their far-left policy prescriptions.

www.heritage.org

Still, the socialism in Denmark comes at a high price with some of the highest taxes in the world...

Economists in Denmark to America: Yeah, We're Not Socialist | Ben Johnson

Denmark and the Nordic “socialist” countries have more economic freedom than the United States, according to some surveys.

fee.org

"In fact, taxes are much higher in Denmark—especially on the poor and middle class. The government confiscates more than half of virtually all incomes. Low-income Danes pay an effective marginal tax rate of 56 percent; the middle class pays 57 percent."

"The biggest difference is Denmark’s high consumption taxes. Its value-added tax (VAT) imposes a 25 percent tax on the sale of every item—and additional taxes apply on coffee, beer, and chocolate.

The section on the tax imposed on vehicle owners makes fascinating reading. How many Americans know that “in Denmark you pay 1,200 USD yearly in car-ownership tax for a pickup truck”?

 

[LouderVol]

Because it frees up more money among workers to spend in the market thus generating more profits and economic activity. For whatever reason there tends to be great concentration of wealth as the winners continue to win, like bezos, musk, or gates, who end up with more than anyone could possibly use or need. That wealth tends to just stay tied up in financial instruments, instead of being used productively. So the economy at large starts to benefit from a wealth tax after there has been sufficient capital formation. Basically, see Capitalism in the 21st century by thomas picketty.

Most proposals for a wealth tax are modest starting at .5% at $500k and peaking at 2.5% at 2.5m. Many working class folks could live completely tax free. For me, I'd end up paying more than I am currently, depending on what my capital gains are, but not by much.

you do realize that like 90% of the uber riches wealth are not tied up in financial instruments. most of their wealth is speculative based on the value of loans they have on actual property/companies/whatever they own. Whatever Musk is "worth" and all his wealth could literally not be liquidated into a mountain of cash because it doesn't exist. and that would ignore all the damage liquidating those assets would do to our economy. its the same for all of them. The wealth tax would never hit these guys like you think, because its not wealth like you or I can imagine.

 

[jvol1]

Why should working class people not pay taxes? What’s fair (there’s that word, again) about a system that places the entire burden on a minority?

I think this kind of the little league coach approach to taxation. People should bear burdens in relation to their ability to bear them. If we're fortunate enough to be a wealthy enough country to have working folks live federal income tax free that should be embraced.

 

[jvol1]

1) freed up money among workers goes into the market? What percentage of that money goes to the illicit drug trade and winds up across the boarders?
2) How do you determine the 2nd bolded statement? What qualifies you to make that statement?

1) what people spend their money on is their business. Presumably many would choose to upgrade their lifestyle instead of drugs.
2) as far as I know, these billionaires have plenty left after meeting their needs. More generally, companies like apple spend money on stock buybacks instead of other projects because they have no other use for the capital. The argument is that surplus capital in our society is reducing returns on investments long term.

 

[jvol1]

Bro, do you know how much easier and better Bezos' company has made my life? I can buy a very affordable product with 10k ratings at 4.5 stars, know it's good, and have it arrive at my door tomorrow so I can take my kids to the park instead of the store. Why should I care if he's taxed more? I'm not going to see any of that money.

Leslie's Pool Supply tried get me to pay them $30 to install wings on my vacuum. I got them on Amazon for $7 with new shoes included. They're marking it up like 400% for 1 minute of labor. The brick and mortar store making peanuts in comparison tries to take advantage of me as much as anybody. Amazon makes that much more $ because they make consumers' lives that much better.

I dont have anything against billionaires. It's more about more efficient use of capital than and bettering the economy than reducing the size of Jeff's mega-yacht fleet.

 

[Orangeburst]

Dems want to tax unrealized capital gains. Yet no difference in parties.

Biden’s tax on unrealized gains will hit far more taxpayers than he claims

It could grow to hit millions of Americans over time, harm the economy, and is very likely unconstitutional.

thehill.com

 

[n_huffhines]

I dont have anything against billionaires. It's more about more efficient use of capital than and bettering the economy than reducing the size of Jeff's mega-yacht fleet.

It's hard to imagine that taxation is going to result in more efficient use of that capital. It likely wouldn't make any difference at all. $169 billion is nothing to the federal government, and they don't need to actually have the money to spend it. They just spend it whether or not they take it from Bezos. That money would fund the government for 10 days and then Bezos wouldn't have any more capital for his businesses to operate for the government to tax. It's over.

 

[hndog609]

you do realize that like 90% of the uber riches wealth are not tied up in financial instruments. most of their wealth is speculative based on the value of loans they have on actual property/companies/whatever they own. Whatever Musk is "worth" and all his wealth could literally not be liquidated into a mountain of cash because it doesn't exist. and that would ignore all the damage liquidating those assets would do to our economy. its the same for all of them. The wealth tax would never hit these guys like you think, because its not wealth like you or I can imagine.

One of the best shorthand examples of what you're saying I can recall was part of a Chris Rock bit. It went something along the lines of

"Shaquille O'Neal is "rich"...the guy that signs his checks is "wealthy".

 

[82_VOL_83]

1) what people spend their money on is their business. Presumably many would choose to upgrade their lifestyle instead of drugs.
2) as far as I know, these billionaires have plenty left after meeting their needs. More generally, companies like apple spend money on stock buybacks instead of other projects because they have no other use for the capital. The argument is that surplus capital in our society is reducing returns on investments long term.

So you are OK funding drug cartels and no answer to the 2nd question. Got it.

 

[MG1968]

I think this kind of the little league coach approach to taxation. People should bear burdens in relation to their ability to bear them. If we're fortunate enough to be a wealthy enough country to have working folks live federal income tax free that should be embraced.

Thanks to things like the earned income tax credit, there are more people living with zero federal liability than ever before.

And, could you please explain what you mean by “working folks”?

 

[turbovol]

Medicare - medical insurance/services for retirees

Medicaid - medical insurance/services for the poor/indigent care

TriCare - medical insurance/services for retired career military members

Obamacare/ACA was supposed to solve the 10% of the population that didn’t have health insurance. What happened? You mean it didn’t work?? Many people on the ACA also pay no premiums at all, IOW…it’s subsidized by taxpayers yet again. To say we don’t have socialized healthcare is not accurate.

I didn't say that our health-care system was private. Certainly, a significant part of our health-care system is government-funded. I said we're the only OECD country that doesn't have a nationalized system.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Because it frees up more money among workers to spend in the market thus generating more profits and economic activity. For whatever reason there tends to be great concentration of wealth as the winners continue to win, like bezos, musk, or gates, who end up with more than anyone could possibly use or need. That wealth tends to just stay tied up in financial instruments, instead of being used productively. So the economy at large starts to benefit from a wealth tax after there has been sufficient capital formation. Basically, see Capitalism in the 21st century by thomas picketty.

Most proposals for a wealth tax are modest starting at .5% at $500k and peaking at 2.5% at 2.5m. Many working class folks could live completely tax free. For me, I'd end up paying more than I am currently, depending on what my capital gains are, but not by much.

This is the stupidest thing written in the PF, and that's saying a lot. Let's go to a government run digital currency while we're at it.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I hope this was supposed to be in blue font.

Welcome back!

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Flat tax and a luxury tax.

via constitutional amendment, with NO deductions

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

...how many 1000's of jobs Amazon has created.

None in Alexandria Occasional Cortex's district.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I think this kind of the little league coach approach to taxation. People should bear burdens in relation to their ability to bear them. If we're fortunate enough to be a wealthy enough country to have working folks live federal income tax free that should be embraced.

Wow. Tell us you are a Marxist without using the word.


Good job.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

 

[82_VOL_83]

I think this kind of the little league coach approach to taxation. People should bear burdens in relation to their ability to bear them. If we're fortunate enough to be a wealthy enough country to have working folks live federal income tax free that should be embraced.

So, living income tax free are you?

 

[LouderVol]

I think this kind of the little league coach approach to taxation. People should bear burdens in relation to their ability to bear them. If we're fortunate enough to be a wealthy enough country to have working folks live federal income tax free that should be embraced.

No, people should bear the burden they cause. which would still mean the rich pay more, but it also means that no one gets a free ride, and can essentially tank their life to live off of taking more from other people. Especially when they can hide behind voting themselves more of other people's money.

 

[jvol1]

No, people should bear the burden they cause. which would still mean the rich pay more, but it also means that no one gets a free ride, and can essentially tank their life to live off of taking more from other people. Especially when they can hide behind voting themselves more of other people's money.

"Tanking" your life is punishment enough. What are you saying exactly? Someone's going to be drug addicted and homeless to cause the rich tax pain? People tend to be rational. Bad policies cause bad outcomes. The strong should protect the weak, and the rich should happily take up for the poor, who usually have an unfortunate reason for their poverty.

 

[Vol8188]

I think this kind of the little league coach approach to taxation. People should bear burdens in relation to their ability to bear them. If we're fortunate enough to be a wealthy enough country to have working folks live federal income tax free that should be embraced.

How do you believe wealth is created on a national level? In your mind why is America wealthier than country x, y, or z?

 

[McDad]

People tend to be rational.

People are overwhelmingly irrational. Rational people are rational.

Bad policies cause bad outcomes.

All government policies produce intended and unintended consequences. Some can be called "good" or "bad" depending on your judgement and philosophy.

The strong should protect the weak, and the rich should happily take up for the poor, who usually have an unfortunate reason for their poverty.

The people in this country have demonstrated, and continue to practice, a level of private charity and benevolence which is unprecedented. Not only for our fellow citizens but to people all across the globe. Your "should" is already in practice and working well.

 

[Vol737]

This is the stupidest thing written in the PF, and that's saying a lot. Let's go to a government run digital currency while we're at it.

Oh, it’s coming. And we’re getting there sooner rather than later, unfortunately.

 

[VOLS INC.]

Oh, it’s coming. And we’re getting there sooner rather than later, unfortunately.

Personally I think we should assign a government official to every household. We can combat climate change by having that official ensure the family is not eating too much meat, recycles, and only flushes the toilet after a deuce. They can ensure the house is a gun free zone. They can closely monitor our speech so we don’t utter any anti-Govt language and/or Hate speech. All of our problems gone in an instant!