Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe socialism does not require tyranny. It just requires a progressive income tax based on all income from all sources combined with a negative tax sufficient to allow all the population to be reasonably satisfied consumers. The biggest problems with our systems is the upper level taxes are far too little and welfare is too small to let the lower classes be successful consumers.
As more and more production will be done by unpaid robots in highly automated farms and factories something will be needed to provide for enough consumer income to afford to buy the products. This will frustrate the "everyday I get better and better" crowd but is far more peaceful and realistic than a stagnated society where a few owners live in fabulous wealth and the rest of the people wonder how to pay for supper let alone buy a fancy telephone from the robot factory.
People like you irk me.
You complain that you don't make enough money but you support "progressive Income tax", that says if you make more money, the government will take a higher percentage of your money. If government takes your money how can you save it or use it for a better life? ... It's gone and it did nothing to improve your life but supporters of the progressive tax system are happy, they think they hurt the rich. The government get trillions of our money and still can't balance the budget and you want to give them more?
Ok, so now we've made the progressive tax code supporters happy but middle class joe is determined to build a retirement fund. So he works even more, the government takes even more. Why can't you see the middle class trap?
Are you so jealous and envious of rich people that you're willing to hurt yourselves to "get the rich"? The progressive income based tax code doesn't affect the uber rich? Do you people hear yourself? Can you see how your reasoning is messed up?
As more and more production will be done by unpaid robots in highly automated farms and factories something will be needed to provide for enough consumer income to afford to buy the products.
Smart people have already figured out that times change. If your skill set was replaced by automation then a smart person would say ... I need a different skill set. Your fighting a change that is bound to happen, like it or not. You could whine and cry about it and you'll go nowhere or you could do as every other generation before us did... change with the times.
I've never heard such a whiny bunch of people in my life. See you in 10 years and you'll still be whining. Wake up! Democrats, Obama, Republicans are NOT going to legislate your prosperity, they are not going to legislate going back to the dark ages so you can get a job.
Poverty would not exist, so your last question and statement make no sense in that context.
You got to be kidding??? You actually believe that with socialism there would not be poverty? You got to be freakin kidding me. We'd all be poor. But you'll be happy because we'd all be "equally poor".
You got to be kidding??? You actually believe that with socialism there would not be poverty? You got to be freakin kidding me. We'd all be poor. But you'll be happy because we'd all be "equally poor".
I am about to give up on trying to debate anything with you. You keep ignoring that my assertions are based on what is in place in the Nordic countries right now and has been for a while. There are rich people who earned their riches in that system and there is a safety net to keep people from living in squalor like the impoverished do here. This is reality. That is what my points are based on. Yours are based on conjecture or based on systems that are not social democracies. One of your main arguments seems to be based on equating social democracy with communism. Classic misdirection.
Poverty would not exist, so your last question and statement make no sense in that context.
If some people are too greedy to accept an upper limit, they will have the safety net to keep them from starving until the tantrum is done. Plenty of people would be happy to work within the structure. A system that favors the moneyed minority is the problem being resolved. The new system would not pander to the problem child of the current one.
You are missing the flip side of your own argument. You keep talking about "greed" and the wealthy.
You say poverty wouldn't exist. Okay, fine. Does that mean that those not in poverty, but still in the lower economic levels would be happy and satisfied knowing that others had millions while they get by on hundreds and thousands?
Won't those people want millions also? Are you going to deny people the opportunity to acquire their own millions? Then the cycle begins.
For all the problems that come with capitalism, no one is permanently forced into abject poverty. The road to lower middle class may be difficult, but there is opportunity to rise above abject poverty. Basic housing and food is available for most people.
I am about to give up on trying to debate anything with you. You keep ignoring that my assertions are based on what is in place in the Nordic countries right now and has been for a while. There are rich people who earned their riches in that system and there is a safety net to keep people from living in squalor like the impoverished do here. This is reality. That is what my points are based on. Yours are based on conjecture or based on systems that are not social democracies. One of your main arguments seems to be based on equating social democracy with communism. Classic misdirection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReachTheBeach
So, the debate...
I don't think there is a way to achieve this kind of utopian society without socialism. I would like to hear someone argue differently.
^^ my bad, I thought you wanted a debate, I didn't realize you was trying to shove your socialist thinking up everyone's butt.
You believe and try to convince people that there would not be poor in a socialist country, you are DEAD WRONG. I don't care how you try to wrap it. You're wrong. Social democracy is just another way of saying socialism which can lead to communism. As I've said before, you believe in that type of government, stop spewing lies and move there.
Unlike you, I want better life than living in a socialist country i.e. social democracy will allow. Government can not and will not legislate my prosperity, Government will only do the minimum of what it can get away with... take a ride through the hood and housing projects to see for yourself.
OP, I think your heart is in the right place but you are being too simplistic. There are issues with ALL economic systems and it cannot be said that socialism is the great answer.
In one of my earlier posts, I mentioned motivation and being an innovator. In these countries, these ideas are frowned upon. From the article:
Quote:
The myriad successes of the Nordic countries are no miracle, they were born of a combination of Lutheran modesty, peasant parsimony, geographical determinism and ruthless pragmatism ("The Russians are attacking? Join the Nazis! The Nazis are losing? Join the Allies!"). These societies function well for those who conform to the collective median, but they aren't much fun for tall poppies. Schools rein in higher achievers for the sake of the less gifted; "elite" is a dirty word; displays of success, ambition or wealth are frowned upon. If you can cope with this, and the cost, and the cold (both metaphorical and inter-personal), then by all means join me in my adopted hyggelige home.
Isn't it "tall poppies" who drive innovation and advancement?
OP, I think your heart is in the right place but you are being too simplistic. There are issues with ALL economic systems and it cannot be said that socialism is the great answer.
In one of my earlier posts, I mentioned motivation and being an innovator. In these countries, these ideas are frowned upon. From the article:
Isn't it "tall poppies" who drive innovation and advancement?
- more than half of them admit to using the black market to obtain goods and services.
- Danes also have the highest level of private debt in the world
- The Danes of course also have highest taxes in the world,
- the elderly, the unemployed and the unemployable who live alongside Denmark's 22m intensively farmed pigs,
^^ my bad, I thought you wanted a debate, I didn't realize you was trying to shove your socialist thinking up everyone's butt.
You believe and try to convince people that there would not be poor in a socialist country, you are DEAD WRONG. I don't care how you try to wrap it. You're wrong. Social democracy is just another way of saying socialism which can lead to communism. As I've said before, you believe in that type of government, stop spewing lies and move there.
Unlike you, I want better life than living in a socialist country i.e. social democracy will allow. Government can not and will not legislate my prosperity, Government will only do the minimum of what it can get away with... take a ride through the hood and housing projects to see for yourself.
My point was that you seem to mostly ignore the statements I make and the supporting evidence and argue against things that I didn't say, offer no evidence and your manner seems arrogant and rude. That isn't debating IMO. That's just ranting.
OP, I think your heart is in the right place but you are being too simplistic. There are issues with ALL economic systems and it cannot be said that socialism is the great answer.
In one of my earlier posts, I mentioned motivation and being an innovator. In these countries, these ideas are frowned upon. From the article:
Isn't it "tall poppies" who drive innovation and advancement?
Thanks for the respectful rejoinder.
I read the article and some of the comments. It is an opinion piece and his opinion is not shared by many of the responders. Some reference competing sources of information that say his "facts" are not all true.
I don't think what they have is perfect. I think the objectives are better than ours (or what ours really seem to be). I don't think greed is the only and certainly not the best incentive for innovation.
I am very lucky. I worked hard, but mostly I just happened to find a job that I am a good fit for and things went well for the company. I am no more deserving of good medical care than the homeless. Migrant farm workers should be able to offer the same educational opportunities to their children as I can offer mine. That's how I feel about it anyway.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
