Socialism vs Capitalism

[jp1]

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.

I was going to give you a well thought out response, but plenty of others have already raked your ass over the coals by now, so I will give it a pass.

 

[LouderVol]

"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.

for way too many of them the reason bad things happen to them is become they are dumb, lazy, and make bad choices. certainly not all, but WAY WAY too many. its why I had to give up volunteering, way too many of the people I was there to help put absolutely zero effort into their lives and just expected to be cared for.

and considering what the welfare "floor" is in this country, no its not punishment enough. people on welfare in this country have better lives than 99% of people who died before 1950, and probably a large chunk of the population alive today.
Food, shelter, healthcare, phones, various child support, all provided.

there is a difference in helping people willingly, and stealing from people to give to programs which prolong a system of enforced reliance on the government. I have no complaints with temporary programs for those who find themselves in a bad spot, or permanent ones for those who are truly unable to take care of themselves. I DO have a problem with people who get hooked on the government and never wean themselves off.

and I really want to know what welfare recipients you have been around that have struck you as rational or concerned about the societal faux paux of taking aid? My experience is its the opposite. you talk to their kids and they want to grow up like mom and/or dad, just collecting a check from the government. where they grew up there is absolutely no pressure to get off of government welfare, if anything its the opposite. They will actively chastise and berate those trying to better themselves, turning their back on the community or their family. being on the government take is seen as a very valid, and often preferred, career path.

 

[85SugarVol]

People are overwhelmingly irrational. Rational people are rational.

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

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.

Dude typed out “people tend to be rational”

And hit the post button.

 

[LouderVol]

Dude typed out “people tend to be rational”

And hit the post button.

I really want to know who he deals with on the daily. especially all these rational people on welfare.

 

[Vol737]

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!

Promise you “they” have already thought of that and will give it the old college try.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Promise you “they” have already thought of that and will give it the old college try.

Say "Hello" to your smart phones and TVs.

 

[LouderVol]

Say "Hello" to your smart phones and TVs.

yup. I never will forget during the Tic Tok hearings they were all upset that it was a foreign nation that was spying on US citizens. it wasn't that US citizens were being spied on, its just that someone else besides them was doing it, that was the problem.

 

[jvol1]

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.

It's more that if jeff were paying the taxes, then that would be more money from the less wealthy that could spent at Amazon. As it is I would say jeff isn't maximizing his wealth by forcing potential sales to go to the govt in the form of taxes instead.

 

[jvol1]

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

Generally speaking wealth is created by economic activity. For whatever reason wealth tends to concentrate in capitalistic societies, creating a situation where a few small players control a disproportionate amount of the societies resources.

 

[Vol8188]

Generally speaking wealth is created by economic activity. For whatever reason wealth tends to concentrate in capitalistic societies, creating a situation where a few small players control a disproportionate amount of the societies resources.

That's a very bland statement and not accurate. Not all "economic activity" creates wealth. For example government spending is economic activity. If that created wealth you could simply make countries wealthier by continually introducing new taxes and/or continually taking on new government debt.

France for example has a large amount of govenrment spending (depending on the year you look at, the most in the world), yet a very poor population compared to the US. The upper end of their middle class make around 40,000 a year the lower end is around 19-20k a year. 20k is their middle class. If France was a state it would be the poorest of all US states

I agree wealth "tends to concentrate in capitalistic societies", but not in the way you mean it. Wealth tends to be concentrated specifically in the most capitalistic of societies (Ireland, US, Switzerland, Luxembourg, etc), while countries with less economic freedom like China tend to have far less wealth.

Do you believe the average person lives better in societies with more or less economic freedom (capitalism)?

 

[n_huffhines]

It's more that if jeff were paying the taxes, then that would be more money from the less wealthy that could spent at Amazon. As it is I would say jeff isn't maximizing his wealth by forcing potential sales to go to the govt in the form of taxes instead.

Man, I wish I understood any of this.

But I think this is an appropriate response...because the government spends well beyond our means, taxing Bezos more will do nothing to put money and benes in the less wealthy population's hands. The federal government spends what they spend, regardless of tax revenue. Congress isn't going to say "we got more $ from Bezos so let's start this social program." They just say, "let's start this social program." Extra $ from Bezos would just go to servicing the debt.

 

[McDad]

It's more that if jeff were paying the taxes, then that [Jeff's taxes paid] would be more money from [for??] the less wealthy that could spent at Amazon. [Jeff's increased taxes decrease the tax burden of the less wealthy?...jeff's taxes are used to subsidize the less wealthy?] As it is I would say jeff isn't maximizing his wealth by forcing potential sales to go to the govt [how would sales be forced to go to the government?] in the form of taxes instead. [sales as taxes? sales in lieu of taxes? sales taxes?]

I've tried to understand this post several times by reading and re-reading. It doesn't make any sense. So, I tried to simplify it. Please help me understand.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

I've tried to understand this post several times by reading and re-reading. It doesn't make any sense. So, I tried to simplify it. Please help me understand.

I understand his posts when reading them less.

 

[VOLS INC.]

Man, I wish I understood any of this.

But I think this is an appropriate response...because the government spends well beyond our means, taxing Bezos more will do nothing to put money and benes in the less wealthy population's hands. The federal government spends what they spend, regardless of tax revenue. Congress isn't going to say "we got more $ from Bezos so let's start this social program." They just say, "let's start this social program." Extra $ from Bezos would just go to servicing the debt.

This man’s preachin!!!

 

[KB5252]

I've lived long enough and watched other countries flail, succeed and tank over the years to find to one absolute conclusion. Socialism as an idea isn't evil.........capitalism as an idea isn't evil. The strict implementation of either is however. The best practice is a combination of both at the same time tailored to fit the specific needs of the society in which it operates. Some of the European models are good starts.

With all that said until we break the current political stranglehold our two part system has no real change has a chance and whatever philosophy we choose to follow is doomed.

 

[McDad]

I've lived long enough and watched other countries flail, succeed and tank over the years to find to one absolute conclusion. Socialism as an idea isn't evil.........capitalism as an idea isn't evil. The strict implementation of either is however. The best practice is a combination of both at the same time tailored to fit the specific needs of the society in which it operates. Some of the European models are good starts.

With all that said until we break the current political stranglehold our two part system has no real change has a chance and whatever philosophy we choose to follow is doomed.

What are your thoughts on a model with strict implementation of capitalism in the public sector and strict implementation of socialism (communism) in the private sector? Both would be voluntary, of course. People could choose to live in a local commune and opt out of the capitalism. Private socialism would also be voluntary as charitable giviing.

 

[Orangeburst]

What are your thoughts on a model with strict implementation of capitalism in the public sector and strict implementation of socialism (communism) in the private sector? Both would be voluntary, of course. People could choose to live in a local commune and opt out of the capitalism. Private socialism would also be voluntary as charitable giviing.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I was going to give you a well thought out response, but plenty of others have already raked your ass over the coals by now, so I will give it a pass.

Guarantee you he still thinks he's right.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I've tried to understand this post several times by reading and re-reading. It doesn't make any sense. So, I tried to simplify it. Please help me understand.

He's saying if Bezos were taxed more, and the proletariat were taxed less, they would spend more this increasing Bezos' tax burden. It would result in increased tax revenue. It's idiotic

 

[Orangeburst]

jp1 and jpvols1 has gotten me confuddled..lol
and they are both blue

 

[KB5252]

What are your thoughts on a model with strict implementation of capitalism in the public sector and strict implementation of socialism (communism) in the private sector? Both would be voluntary, of course. People could choose to live in a local commune and opt out of the capitalism. Private socialism would also be voluntary as charitable giviing.

I'm not sure, I'm strictly going by observations. And what I've seen done in the more successful European models. Some of those may not even work on a scale as large as ours.

Any models like that in practice today I could refer to?

 

[jp1]

jp1 and jpvols1 has gotten me confuddled..lol
and they are both blue

Other dude is jvols1.

 

[McDad]

I'm not sure, I'm strictly going by observations. And what I've seen in dune if the more successful European models. Some of those may not even work on a scale as large as ours.

Any models like that in practice today I could refer to?

That's a fair question. I am not aware of any models like that. To be candid, I am not aware of any models which are strict implementation capitalist or socialist...especially ones where participation is voluntary.

Our economic and government systems are far more democratic-socialist than our founding. Ironically, a big chunk of our Federal spending provides an umbrella of safety for the countries we routinely think of as democratic-socialists so they can spend their money on social programs instead of military programs.

 

[82_VOL_83]

"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.

No they don't
Yes, I'll give you this but "bad" policy is subjective
No, unless they deserve protection
Yes, I'll give you that but stealing it from me in the form of taxes and then lining politicians pockets with 90% of it is not making me happy
And I'll need a link for the last phrase.

 

[82_VOL_83]

People are overwhelmingly irrational. Rational people are rational.

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

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.

So much better than my reply.