Do You Think The Rich Should Be Taxed More?

PoliTalker said:
Hello and welcome goldkam,



Which is why it is absurd to use these as examples to support a theory that socialism doesn't work. Those who give examples such as Venezuela and Greece are overlooking that much of Europe has more socialism than the USA, and is doing fine. Their people are happier and live longer than Americans do.



Thank you. And that is the important point so often overlooked. It is inapplicable to our nation to argue whether socialism or capitalism is best. We have a mixture of capitalism and socialism. We simply need to get the balance right for the needs of our nation.

I believe that entails taxing the rich more to pay for government social programs to try to mitigate the social destruction wrought by American capitalism. Simply stated, the richest capitalists need to pay for the poverty they have caused.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

Do you have any evidence that highlights that pure socialism does actually work and function governing a society? The sectors of socialism may work but the notion of pure socialism simple doesn't. Equality in all aspects of society, simply by looking at the basic human behaviours, says so. In relation to the countries, how are you measuring overall happiness? Life expectancy in Venezuela is lower than the US.

No doubt.
 
Nordberg said:
Socialism is working fine in many countries. They have fairer countries with better safety nets and universal heath care. They all have high coefficients of happiness than we do.
Click to expand...

Its not actually socialism though. Pure socialism implies equality in all areas of society. Its just principles of socialism.
 
goldkam said:
Its not actually socialism though. Pure socialism implies equality in all areas of society. Its just principles of socialism.
Click to expand...

It does???

Can you expand on that...perhaps provide some evidence that "pure socialism" implies equality in all areas of society?

How do they propose to get everyone to be the same height, for instance? Everyone as pretty or handsome? Everyone as intelligent as the next?
 
goldkam said:
Its not actually socialism though. Pure socialism implies equality in all areas of society. Its just principles of socialism.
Click to expand...

Socialism as an economic system is government ownership of the means of production and distribution meaning the major industries of the state. Other views, like equality, are ideological variations of socialist philosophy.
 
Frank Apisa said:
It does???

Can you expand on that...perhaps provide some evidence that "pure socialism" implies equality in all areas of society?

How do they propose to get everyone to be the same height, for instance? Everyone as pretty or handsome? Everyone as intelligent as the next?
Click to expand...

Evidence is not needed when that is the definition of socialism. That is a derivative of communism "a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism" under Marxist theory.

Well of course that is irrational and not a justified comment. Its the systems and roles in which equality enacts, not the transformation of the human conditions.
 
Flash said:
Socialism as an economic system is government ownership of the means of production and distribution meaning the major industries of the state. Other views, like equality, are ideological variations of socialist philosophy.
Click to expand...

I am pertaining my views to the socialist principles I was taught and in which I have justified my opinion with being "a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism" based on the theory of Karl Marx
 
goldkam said:
I am pertaining my views to the socialist principles I was taught and in which I have justified my opinion with being "a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism" based on the theory of Karl Marx
Click to expand...

And my description of socialist describes that "transitional social state." Of course, Karl Marx has been proven very wrong since socialist states do not necessarily become communist and no communist state has seen the state "wither away." He also saw communism coming about from industrialized urban workers where it actually occurred in more rural, agricultural states (China, Cuba, Russia).
 
Quetzalcoatl said:
Should they pay more for their water? How about their food?
Click to expand...

This has worked well for the substantial people when it comes to housing, they've consistently used their ability to pay more for housing to segregate themselves from society and rig the game. The power structure has done the same with clean water and healthy food versus food deserts in our internal colonies.

Nestle pays much less for public water than citizens do, so they can bottle is and sell it to the little people. While Flint water is still toxic, and Flint is not unusual.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41354370/.../us-cities-worst-drinking-water/#.Wu8mXu8vyos
 
goldkam said:
Evidence is not needed when that is the definition of socialism. That is a derivative of communism "a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism" under Marxist theory.

Well of course that is irrational and not a justified comment. Its the systems and roles in which equality enacts, not the transformation of the human conditions.
Click to expand...


Well, you are wrong...and of course, evidence is not needed to show that you are.

You just are because it is written here.

Right?
 
Hello goldkam,

goldkam said:
Thank you.

Do you have any evidence that highlights that pure socialism does actually work and function governing a society? The sectors of socialism may work but the notion of pure socialism simple doesn't. Equality in all aspects of society, simply by looking at the basic human behaviours, says so. In relation to the countries, how are you measuring overall happiness? Life expectancy in Venezuela is lower than the US.

No doubt.
Click to expand...

Why are you talking about pure socialism?

There is no viable/probable bill advancing through either house which would impose pure socialism, and no president who would sign it if there was. It's a non-issue. Americans like capitalism too much. It's like worrying that the sky will fall.

We are not Venezuela and we never will be. We will never have their problems. It's not a good comparison at all.

Taxing the rich more is not socialism.

Taxing the rich more is what we need to do to bring in enough money to pay for the government we have.

The deficit is too big. We are shooting ourselves in the foot. We need more revenue.

Senator Marco Rubio admits the rich took the tax cut and ran. Very little trickled down. Big corporations are doing stock buy-backs, not creating jobs or raising wages appreciably. A few bonuses as they also lay off thousands of workers does not help the economy. The economy is not strong enough to make up for the lost revenue of giving the rich a huge tax break.

The debt to GDP ratio is 106%. The debt and the deficit are too high to support that tax break.

US Debt Clock

We really need to have a tax hike for the rich to get our house in order.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello goldkam,



Why are you talking about pure socialism?

There is no viable/probable bill advancing through either house which would impose pure socialism, and no president who would sign it if there was. It's a non-issue. Americans like capitalism too much. It's like worrying that the sky will fall.

We are not Venezuela and we never will be. We will never have their problems. It's not a good comparison at all.

Taxing the rich more is not socialism.

Taxing the rich more is what we need to do to bring in enough money to pay for the government we have.

The deficit is too big. We are shooting ourselves in the foot. We need more revenue.

Senator Marco Rubio admits the rich took the tax cut and ran. Very little trickled down. Big corporations are doing stock buy-backs, not creating jobs or raising wages appreciably. A few bonuses as they also lay off thousands of workers does not help the economy. The economy is not strong enough to make up for the lost revenue of giving the rich a huge tax break.

The debt to GDP ratio is 106%. The debt and the deficit are too high to support that tax break.

US Debt Clock

We really need to have a tax hike for the rich to get our house in order.
Click to expand...

We were a rigged primary away from President Sanders.
 
Hello Threedee,

Threedee said:
We were a rigged primary away from President Sanders.
Click to expand...

And the problem with that would be?

I would have voted for him. There is nothing to fear from having him as our leader. He would have made an excellent president. He never advocated for pure socialism. He is a Democratic Socialist. That means we vote for the things we want to use socialism for. Things such as paid college. It does not mean we become purely socialist. Capitalists would still be free to make all the money they want to.

You know, there is a reason the super-rich class wants to keep the masses dumb and uneducated. Stupid people are easier to fool with propaganda. Makes it far easier for them to use the power of crony capitalism. And that is exactly what President Trump is doing. He has chosen industry insiders to lead agencies which are supposed to regulate industry. That's why EPA has not shut down one single polluter, is trashing good regulations, and why DOE is trying to kill public education. That's why the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is no longer protecting consumers. You know under President Obama, that agency returned billions of dollars to consumers which was illegally extracted from them? Did you also know all of that shut down as soon as Trump's pick Mick Mulvaney took over? Nothing has been returned to consumers who were ripped off since.

"Let's say there was a federal agency charged solely with protecting consumers from financial abuse. And let's say that agency was so good at its job, it succeeded in returning $12 billion to consumers who had been ripped off by greedy banks and lenders.

How would you reward that agency?

If you're President Trump, the answer is to slash its funding by 23% and get rid of rules "that unduly burden the financial industry.""

""It's open season on consumers," said Sally Greenberg, executive director of the National Consumers League. "The most predatory actors — payday lenders, student loan companies, the debt collection industry — can operate with virtual impunity from federal regulators at the bureau.""

LA Times
Click to expand...

It's just sad to see crony capitalism ruling the day. We've got to fix all that.

Did you even LOOK at the link US Debt Clock? Do you understand the tax cut has not helped the economy, and now we are not collecting anywhere NEAR enough revenue to pay for the country? President Sanders would never have signed off on that tax cut for the rich. He would have raised their taxes and we would have zero deficit now. That is a far healthier situation for the future of the economy.
 
Last edited:
If the tax cut has not helped the economy, then why are we suddenly looking at 3% GDP for the first time in a decade? Why is the unemployment rate, at a 17 year low, projected to hit a 50 year low next month?

If you're really serious about the budget, you would not be championing the candidate who wanted to waste all of that money on student loans.
 
Threedee said:
If the tax cut has not helped the economy, then why are we suddenly looking at 3% GDP for the first time in a decade? Why is the unemployment rate, at a 17 year low, projected to hit a 50 year low next month?

If you're really serious about the budget, you would not be championing the candidate who wanted to waste all of that money on student loans.
Click to expand...

links
 
goldkam said:
Evidence is not needed when that is the definition of socialism. That is a derivative of communism "a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism" under Marxist theory.

Well of course that is irrational and not a justified comment. Its the systems and roles in which equality enacts, not the transformation of the human conditions.
Click to expand...

without capitalism there is no true freedom

it has to be properly fettered to keep it from eating itself

those who hate regulation hate freedom
 
PoliTalker said:
It is logical to tax the rich more because the poor can't pay any more and the government needs it.
Click to expand...

The rich are the only ones who can be taxed more. The poor don't have enough, and the middle class is the main driver of the economy. We need to increase taxes on the rich enough to balance the budget, with a little extra to start paying down the debt. The rich would still have more than everyone else.
 
Threedee said:
If the tax cut has not helped the economy, then why are we suddenly looking at 3% GDP for the first time in a decade? Why is the unemployment rate, at a 17 year low, projected to hit a 50 year low next month?

If you're really serious about the budget, you would not be championing the candidate who wanted to waste all of that money on student loans.
Click to expand...
Trump said it’s suppose to go to 6%, I’m still waiting and hoping he is right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top