-today in the Forums, it was stated that socialism offers freedom and low taxes. This is what we have learned today, 3/9/13 from advocates of Social Democracy for the United States (A Social Democracy promotes a gradual and peaceful transition to socialism, according to Wikipedia)
Is this true?
Can it be proved?
Can a Social Democracy save us from the evils of capitalism as these advocates claim?
Of course it can be proven. Hide the evidence from socialistic countries, change the meaning of "freedom" to what is now considered "oppressed" and "controlled" and presto! Proven!
You've just changed your master from a corporation that wants your money to a government that demands your soul.
France has had the highest taxes, just above 51% for those not married and 41 % for families with two children. They wanted to tax the wealthy at 75%, there. They balked, on that, though. France is considered a socialist country.
Germany's unmarried are taxed at the 50% tax range. US in '05 had a tax rate of 11% for families with children. I wonder if that is true any more?!?!?
Not surprising, though, is it? All those baby sitting services, taking care of citizens from cradle to grave costs. It has to come from somewhere, and who but the citizens themselves.
I mean, yes, Greece is trying to pass it on to neighboring countries, but it isn't working out too well. Those other countries have learned from experience that excessive socialism doesn't work and don't want to support the Greeks. Now if we could just do the same.
If social Democracy or socialism is our only solution to the evils of capitalism, maybe we should think seriously about fixing the system we have.
So, how can we fix capitalism?
Any solutions. It seems like a monumental task.
Take the government out of the equation. Let capitalism control 95% of the time, with but minimal govt. interference.
It works, then.
- how does the government interfere? by preventing the market from being free: regulations, taxes, fines, stipulations of all sorts... will Obama Care effect our free market system? Wikipedia says that it represents the biggest government expansion and regulatory overhaul of the US healthcare since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. It has already had drastic effects. Businesses have had to move out of state, shut down, lay off employees to avoid having to pay for their employees' health care. How can businesses afford the increases? How?
And newscasters report that the unemployment rate is down less than 8%, but who's keeping track of the numbers of those who have given up looking for work after being laid off.
For others, full time jobs became part time jobs. Some have taken cuts in pay to rates they were earning twenty years ago; especially in the construction trade, which is down across the country. College grads don't know where to find work in the fields they have degrees in. Most take any jobs they can get at minimum wage.
We are a little closer to being a social democracy at this point and we are less free and taxes are increasing. How will we prevent them from increasing?
For one thing vote wisely.
Also, it is O.K. to look out for ourselves. It is Okay. We must... that is our job. If we look out for ourselves, no one else will have to. And we need to help each other on a local level. Hire people, Recommend people, Mentor people, Teach children the concrete skills they need to be able to read, write and do math.
Most importantly I would say, that we just can't give up.
Isn't that philosophy what brought us the Robber Barons? Isn't that what brought us the Savings and Loan Crisis? Isn't that philosophy what brought us the Great Bailout?
I'm a small business owner. But I am not indicative of the average person making decisions for a company in the world market. They don't care about the people who work to make their money. They care about their money only. And they will cheat and steal to get it. This belief that if we all work hard we can be like them is ludicrous. The average person would be appalled at the idea of a golden parachute at the expense of the stockholders. The average person would take the needs of the worker into account. They wouldn't fire 10% of their work force so management could rake in more profit over and above an already exorbitant salary.
I'm not an advocate of socialism, by any means. But capitalism has proven itself unable to regulate itself. Given freedom they would be free to drive thits country into poverty. There has to be oversight and regulations.
Yes and no. It brought us the robber barons (which unions - labor - helped end). On the other end, however, govt. caused the bailout directly, though it had little to do with labor controls.
We absolutely need some control over business. OSHA, EEOC, harassment laws, monopoly considerations, etc. We don't need to set prices and we don't need to 100 tax breaks for each company.
Suggestion down a slightly different angle; no corporate tax. Instead tax every dollar it pays to employees OR owners. Tax dividends when paid, tax stock when given, tax the "free" car each month. And tax it all as ordinary income, taxed in the month it is received.
Corporations now have little reason to control politicians. They can't get tax breaks OR money from that source, and that removes a big chunk of their power. Just a thought....
Problem, though - without govt. "controlling" the corporations via tax breaks and all, there is no longer a reason for corporations to lobby and give money to politicians, either. No reason for all those bribes, in other words.
Politicians would not be happy at losing a very lucrative cash cow...
It's a little more complicated than that. I still see ample gain for corporations owning the politicians. Even if they implemented something similar to what you have outlined.
Not true, companies and rich men were controlling politicians and state officials long before they were in charge of tax breaks, whether it be for claiming land, turning a blind eye to employee abuses or simply paying politicians to use the police force to put down protests the corruption of politicians is as old as time itself, it's the inevitable consequence of the concentration of wealth that capitalism creates.
True, and those things would all still exist. All we'd save are the bailouts, tax breaks and other direct financial gains by the corporate world. The rest would still be there, although they are under better control now than they were then.
(we need to vote out the corrupt politicians each chance we get. We should not have senators and representatives in office for 50 years... who get re elected due to pork barrel projects bringing money from Washington to their districts.... especially if If they are taking bribes from corporations...etc.)
The concentration of wealth is spread. It does not stay concentrated.
Absolutely, and I would vote against your senator doing that. Mine, on the other hand, only brings in money for things we really need. Like a new museum, a walking bridge in the park or an upgrade to the outdated sewer system we haven't bothered to keep in good repair or expand ourselves. We need the man right where he is, so he can take your taxes and given them to us.
Isn't that how it works?
-what is the check: The" treasure" of self sufficiency, as I mentioned before?" ha ha ha! Yes, I'm laughing at that answer now.
What is the Treasure, wilderness?
Stuff, luxury, modernization, convenience, maintenance, clean ups, bail outs, back room deals, bonuses, I am sorry... I just think if we could all agree what the treasure is we would find the way to keep every one on track as eric d. mentioned.
- Is there anything to keep us on TRACK???
We sorta need an answer on this one in order to fight socialism.
I think that term limits would go a long, long way to solving this particular problem. With (congressional) age comes evil, it seems. Or at least an attitude that cares far more about the politician than about their constituents.
Ahhh... to insure the ability of the people to maintain their self-sufficiency and freedom in a democratic republic, we might need term limits for senators and representatives to check the corruption which occurs due to an overfamiliarity with their own (kind) and a diminishing concern for their constituents.
I discovered that corporations are not taxed when / as they combine with other companies. I wonder if they were taxed at that point for that reason it would provide a bit of a check on the propensity of size / expansion of corporations..... ?
It is fun to notice that both Mexico and Vietnam have our (almost exact) Declaration of Independence. Socialists, Communists and Capitalists all sharing a common root of Self Declared Truths and Freedoms.
If you gave man a perfect map to a fantastic treasure, we would still get off track. If you take a hard look at Democracy and Communism -- you will be shocked at the lack of difference.
* State owned vs. Private owned?
* Group Needs vs. Individual needs?
* State Control vs. Individual choice?
* Rule by Law vs. Rule by Men?
* Inner State Commerce Regulation vs. Whole Country Commerce Regulation?
* Governmental Controls vs. Individual Sovereignty?
* Rule of Law Vs. Rule of State Policy
* Tyranny of Mob vs. Tyranny of the Few
Q. What is the treasure?
D. Individual Independence
I. Food stamps
J. Natural resources
K. Gold bullion
L. Gold and silver coins
O. Pursuit of Happiness
P. Guarantee of Happiness
Q. Provision for Common Defense
R. Regulation of (Inner State for US) Commerce
S. Social Security Benefits
T. Health Insurance
U. Welfare Money
V. Welfare Services
W. Self Reliance
X. Individual choice / Freedom
Y. Freedom of Worship
Z. Freedom of Speech
True or False:
- Some of the above is treasure for some people. __
- Some of the above is treasure for all people.__
- All of the above is treasure for some people.__
- All of the above is treasure for all people. __
What difference is there? Is one more benevolent and less self interested than the other? I think not fair lady.
Same serpent, two heads.
The real question is:
-what is the TRUE treasure that we all can agree upon?
Please answer that, fair gentleman!
-Is the *Treasure* not a system which could, if properly implemented, sustain a form of Self-Sufficiency? After all, when all is said and done, self-sufficiency is what enables us humans to survive. ( Note: Self sufficient people can and do assist others in their quests for self sufficiency and when they are in of need of assistance.)
BTW Communism promotes equality in poverty, (except for the few wealthy individuals in power.)
-Is robbing others who happen to be in a financially better position than you, a good illustration of benevolence?
- What is so bad about self-interest as along as the self-interested individuals are following laws that are in place?
My answer: B, D. O. Q. R. W. X. Y Z. these are the aspects of the true treasure which a Democratic Republic seeks to provide. And True for the second one: Some of the above is treasure for all people.
With the checks and balances put into place by the Constitution of the US, we have what we need to maintain a democratic republic. We just have to keep the Constitution at the forefront of all political thought.
Also, right and left can and have benefited each other. The humanitarian efforts of the left balance overly ambitious tendencies of the right. The industrious, self reliance of the right can balance the more coddling and protective side of the left. Yes, we can all get along. Yes, we can make freedom of economy work...if we regulate appropriately, vote wisely and commit to this experiment of self-governing. I hope this possibility is not three hundred years ahead of its time. If we loose it, we can get it back... but we will suffer in the meantime. I have a feeling we can't resist the NWO .
Or can we?
Many social democratic states do have lower taxes (Iceland and Finland for example) because they spend their money in different areas, instead of rampant "defense" spending healthcare etc.
A big chunk is, I think, due to their military spending. If we spent the same percentage of GDP that they do we'd be in great shape.
Instead, we police the world.
We are really only supposed to aiding our allies, as they need it, (while always ready to provide for our own (common) defense.)
Yes, well, our "allies" include a lot of countries that have no military, or one too weak to protect them.
More, though, is that "police" action. And I agree that that is something we need to curtail by a large percentage. It's one thing to help protect a section of ocean from pirates, it's another to continually go into other countries and fight their wars.
(No kidding... for oil.(?) Is that... has that... ever really been justified? in the realistic scope of things. What if we had not gotten involved way over there on the opposite side of the globe? What if we had just focused on our own sources of oil and energy. What if we had allowed alternate fuel vehicles to flourish? what if 911 had never happened. Oh, the agony of the modern world.)
So far, I haven't seen us do any drilling in Afghanistan. Or Iraq or Kuwait. Nor did we steal any oil. We've bought some, but very little from two of those countries.
Oil is a great whipping boy, and I'm sure there is at least a little truth there, but not what it's made to sound like.
Yep, it's a complex world, and we little people very seldom understand more than a minute bit of it.
I know...we can get a sense of that by researching on the internet... TMI there!.
I was looking at the World Bank and the World Bank, Inc... which was begun by FDR... looks like they assist other nations by funding their startup businesses and fighting for really great and truly humanitarian causes... we have been so caring about the social issues of other nations in the world...right?
Sometimes we do. A lot of people refuse to recognize the true good that the US does, but it is there and I don't regret that we contribute.
We also do a lot of harm, demanding that other countries and cultures conform to our idea of right and wrong, and I DO regret that.
And, sometimes, we do things that (we hope) will ultimately benefit us. Those, as expected, are usually somewhere in between. We're not angels, we're not devils and although altruism is not uncommon neither is acting in self interest.
What is really nice is that capitalist countries basically insure their defense. Sick as it sounds, they are ultimately satellites of major powers. No communist major powers -- well then what?
On the contrary those nations secure their own defense through patriotism and will to fight, Finland has no standing army, Finland was invaded by the Soviet Union, Finland certainly received no significant aid and yet Finland effectively won that war despite facing the largest nation on earth.
Armies and "defense" spending (en mass) are not necessary for defense they are necessary to be able to oppress others and interfere in the affairs of others.
I have no problem with actual defense spending and many social democratic nations retain an army for defense they do not however (in any examples I can think of) use it for offense hence the disparity in spending.
I am in New Zealand right now. This is a social democratic system it has lower taxes at both corporate and personal levels than the US, it offers true public healthcare across the board and the other social services of a social democratic nation AND it allows greater freedoms in weapon ownership etc. than most of the United States it's certainly not legal for it's army to kill citizens without due process or spy on their conversations without a warrant.
More freedom less taxes.
I think that answers the actual question.
Hell for the taxes question I can even point to actual transitional socialist nations like Peru and Uruguay both with actual socialist parties in power who have significantly lower tax rates than the US.
The socialism increases taxes hue and cry is rubbish.
Do the people in New Zealand have a sense of self-sufficiency? Do they have a sense of their own freedom? Are they enthused and happy about life. Do they have choices? I would rather be poor than have the sense that I must
work for the sake of EVERYONE ELSE.
Some of our youth are very inclined, due to their age, to think that "caring about and working for everyone else," is the ticket.
Maybe for a little while they can maintain their humanitarian outlooks and efforts, but eventually they will see the truth of their own human nature. Eventually they will weary of not having a SELF. We can only be
"others-oriented" to the extent that we have a reason, a true will to do so.
We need to control our own lives for a sense of happiness.
We can't let go of our command over own own selves, lives and actions.
Do the people in New Zealand have a sense of self, i.e. working for their own purposes and their own lives with their own volitions?
Ultimately the treasure is within, rather than without. Joy of life is to be had when one is connected to one's own volition. (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness through self-sufficiency and independence.)
Q. What do all people want for themselves... that is to be decided by who?
But, do they have a sense of their own freedom... I wish I knew how the people are really living and feeling in these social democracies. Do they live as though they're in a country club? Is self-sufficiency over-rated in the modern world? Or is it still required/ possible in social democracies. How about in France and Germany which have the highest tax rates?
Yes they live happily and have higher employment rates by far (on average).
Germany has it's own policies which are very successful (their economy is thriving) but I do not know enough about them to say more, France has it's own new government and we shall see how it does it's too recent to make any comment.
I run an import export business.
I think there are quite a few non Americans around, a significant minority I guess.
Oh, thanks for reply... I didn't see that you came back. I was working on my dissertation up there... have a response to it?.
Are the people in New Zealand industrious? How is their economy? is it percolating or very controlled? Is it daytime right now? Is it beautiful?
Here is a mouthful for you, Australia is run as a democratic socialist constitutional monarchy.
Isn't that basically a banana republic?
Are you guys happily self-reliant in Austrailia? Is your economy percolating? Are your taxes low? Do you have freedom in life and in economics?
We are self reliant, yet intrinsicly linked to the global economy. Our ecomony is limping along with (0.5 %average) growth per quarter.
Our highest individual tax rate is 48.75%
Our economy is stable and we enjoy freedoms relative to other first world countries.
by Josak 6 years ago
One of the greatest criticisms leveled at socialist and perceived socialist nations is their high taxes, usually reinforced with the example of France and it's high tax rates under a newly elected socialist government.Let's examine that claim factually, a quick analysis will prove it false.For...
by Brian 8 years ago
I was talking with a group of friends the other day. and I suggested that there should be a national tax, where the money collected should be distributed evenly among every U.S. citizen, and I was labled as a socialist.I don't understand what would be so wrong about distributing that kind of money...
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
In both the Federalist Papers AND the Constitutional Convention, it is extremely clear the distaste most of those involved in creating today's America had for democracy, which they saw as mob rule which allows "emotion" rather than "reason" to drive important decisions.Friday's...
by JOC 6 months ago
This article tended to resonate with how the left and the right view the issue.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opin … union.html
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
It just occurred to me, and I wanted to record it before it slipped away again, that there are two types of Capitalism; Theoretical and Practical (Duh!) What I also noticed is that the endless debates about capitalism between the Right and the Left go on and on, into infinity without each...
by ga anderson 3 years ago
Much is heard of a demand that corporations and the wealthy pay their "fair share" of taxes, but I have heard little of what that share should be.With only a single restriction; that the discussion is about legal tax actions, what should that "fair share" be?One could say that...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|