BF2S Forums Socialism defined...

CameronPoe wrote:

Mitch wrote:

Maybe you dont want the Superhype Yacht! Maybe your life-long dream as a bottle collector when you were a teen, was to own the superhypermegaglobal Yacht someday. And then, while you were collecting your bottles, you thought of an invention to make collecting bottles easier, you got a patent, started producing it, and now your a billionair because everyone buys it. Enjoying every cent of your income. You bask in your superiority, knowing that you got here because you used your brain, and worked hard, and had the productive mindset.Now you see that your government is going to steal that money you earned, and give it to the failures who werent as smart as you! and who dont deserve anything more than what they can supply for themselves!!!!!!!!!!!

You live in a country and a society in which you were given the opportunity and an economic arena in which you could do that. That country is a living breathing entity of 300 million people whose lives affect each other daily. Your country isn't just a flat empty plain of land where 'everything is possible'. It's a country with railtracks, highways, interstates, hospitals, schools, universities, colleges, medical clinics, airports, seaports, a postal system, telecommunications infrastructure. You OWE that country for the opportunity. The sacrifice of a few ivory back scratchers is an irrelevance. You should be grateful to your country for providing you with an economic arena in which you could become a success - an economic arena built on a mix of entrepreneurialism and taxpayers money.

I'm all for a good few socialistic elements in society but sometimes I can say it goes over the top. I mean my mom works 50-80 hours a week (little sleep, work 90% of the day), yes that much, to keep her head above the water now. She runs her own company (she's a lawyer) and the taxation (52% or higher on income alone) combined with sloppy employees (who are hard to fire, if you say you can't financially afford them the court disagrees 7/10 times and you'll have to compensate them with a redicoules amount of money) - these employees are lawyers btw - so they suck up a huge amount of money, and deliver nothing (she has to work harder to compensate) make it incredibly hard to still believe in this 'socialism hooray' idea.

And still, there are these goddamn socialist parties over here that want more taxation and make firing employees even harder. Most people that vote socialism just don't know how fucking hard someone has to work if you own a company. There goes your myth of buying a super yacht out of the window.

(additional ; dad refuses to pay alimentation -- I go to a private school so the money you get for childsupport is low, the government support you get is very low if your parents let you go to a private school.)

It pains me to see my mom work so much every day, and see people still yelling and screaming that taxation on people like her should be higher, just because her income is higher (of which most goes into the company to keep it running)

Mitch wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Mitch wrote:

Maybe you dont want the Superhype Yacht! Maybe your life-long dream as a bottle collector when you were a teen, was to own the superhypermegaglobal Yacht someday. And then, while you were collecting your bottles, you thought of an invention to make collecting bottles easier, you got a patent, started producing it, and now your a billionair because everyone buys it. Enjoying every cent of your income. You bask in your superiority, knowing that you got here because you used your brain, and worked hard, and had the productive mindset.Now you see that your government is going to steal that money you earned, and give it to the failures who werent as smart as you! and who dont deserve anything more than what they can supply for themselves!!!!!!!!!!!

You live in a country and a society in which you were given the opportunity and an economic arena in which you could do that. That country is a living breathing entity of 300 million people whose lives affect each other daily. Your country isn't just a flat empty plain of land where 'everything is possible'. It's a country with railtracks, highways, interstates, hospitals, schools, universities, colleges, medical clinics, airports, seaports, a postal system, telecommunications infrastructure. You OWE that country for the opportunity. The sacrifice of a few ivory back scratchers is an irrelevance. You should be grateful to your country for providing you with an economic arena in which you could become a success - an economic arena built on a mix of entrepreneurialism and taxpayers money.

No, I owe the hard working people who started this shit, not the government! (hypothetically)  I owe Bill Gates because his OS runs my whole fucking companies computer system.
I owe the guy who started a shirt printing company because he prints my clothing line.
I owe the guy who started Ebay because he sells my companies shit.

Do you get what im saying?

And when i start a *whatever* Company, that supplies stuff to the public, ill get respect for it. And ill get money for it. And ill do whatever the fuck i want with that money because its MINE, its all fucking MINE.

End of fucking discussion.

No, you owe America for providing the infrastructure and security necessary to create an industrial empire.  An economy cannot survive without the combined effort of millions of people working together for a common goal.  That goal may be to make themselves richer, but in doing so, they make the system even stronger.

And yes, we need taxes, unless a world without Police, Teachers, First Responders, Roads, Electricity, Airports, and Armed Forces sounds good to you.

CameronPoe wrote:

You live in a country and a society in which you were given the opportunity and an economic arena in which you could do that. That country is a living breathing entity of 300 million people whose lives affect each other daily. Your country isn't just a flat empty plain of land where 'everything is possible'. It's a country with railtracks, highways, interstates, hospitals, schools, universities, colleges, medical clinics, airports, seaports, a postal system, telecommunications infrastructure. You OWE that country for the opportunity. The sacrifice of a few ivory back scratchers is an irrelevance. You should be grateful to your country for providing you with an economic arena in which you could become a success - an economic arena built on a mix of entrepreneurialism and taxpayers money.

I always have been grateful.
I am grateful.
I will always be grateful.

That is one of the reasons I volunteered for the Armed Forces, to give back top my country. But it was a personal choice. Although I wish it was mandatory in some fashion, but that's another story. As a naturally born US citizen, you don't have to do anything, but abide by the laws and pay taxes. Or face the consequences. Your choice. Freedom wins, everyday and night.

Last edited by (T)eflon(S)hadow (2008-02-19 12:56:06)

CameronPoe wrote:

dayarath wrote:

I'm all for a good few socialistic elements in society but sometimes I can say it goes over the top. I mean my mom works 50-80 hours a week (little sleep, work 90% of the day), yes that much, to keep her head above the water now. She runs her own company (she's a lawyer) and the taxation (52% or higher on income alone) combined with sloppy employees (who are hard to fire, if you say you can't financially afford them the court disagrees 7/10 times and you'll have to compensate them with a redicoules amount of money) - these employees are lawyers btw - so they suck up a huge amount of money, and deliver nothing (she has to work harder to compensate) make it incredibly hard to still believe in this 'socialism hooray' idea.

And still, there are these goddamn socialist parties over here that want more taxation and make firing employees even harder. Most people that vote socialism just don't know how fucking hard someone has to work if you own a company. There goes your myth of buying a super yacht out of the window.

(additional ; dad refuses to pay alimentation -- I go to a private school so the money you get for childsupport is low, the government support you get is very low if your parents let you go to a private school.)

It pains me to see my mom work so much every day, and see people still yelling and screaming that taxation on people like her should be higher, just because her income is higher (of which most goes into the company to keep it running)

You can't be serious that she gets taxed 52% on her entire income? In Ireland you pay no tax on anything until you earn more than €19,000. Anything between €19,000 and €32,000 you pay 20% and everything over €32,000 you pay 41%. You also get tax credits for being a single parent family. It sounds like the Dutch system has some flaws.

39.1% tax bracket is the highest here, for people earning around $300,000+

Illinois charges you 3% of your federal tax liability as state taxes, so a rich guy in Illinois can expect 42.1% tax, plus local sales tax (8.5%), but our taxes are among the highest in the nation.

edit: Dayarth, if that's true, holy crap is your system messed up.

Last edited by S.Lythberg (2008-02-19 12:25:04)

dayarath wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

You can't be serious that she gets taxed 52% on her entire income? In Ireland you pay no tax on anything until you earn more than €19,000. Anything between €19,000 and €32,000 you pay 20% and everything over €32,000 you pay 41%. You also get tax credits for being a single parent family. It sounds like the Dutch system has some flaws.

39.1% tax bracket is the highest here, for people earning around $300,000+

Illinois charges you 3% of your federal tax liability as state taxes, so a rich guy in Illinois can expect 42.1% tax, plus local sales tax (8.5%), but our taxes are among the highest in the nation.

edit: Dayarth, if that's true, holy crap is your system messed up.

It is imo. 52.00% taxation on income is way too fucking high. 19% taxation on products you buy (they wish to make that 20%, redicoules.) one of the highest gas taxations in the world and more.

And the gov. still complains they have a shortage of money, I seriously would never consider living in this country if I were to start a company.

well, I'm never bitching about taxes again...

come to Illinois, we'll party with my 12.5% taxes

The forced redistribution of wealth is wrong. Excessively taxing a wealthy person and/or successful corporation because they are successful is unfair. And it is just as unfair if the same wealthy individual or corporation were to exercise their power and influence in a way to benefit themselves.

Of course it's interesting to note that only both wrongs can occur in the presence of a recognized government.

In a truly open market system void of government intrusion it would devolve to a "buyer beware" system. Truly useful, safe and enjoyable products would produce wealth and junk would produce bankruptcy.

I suppose liberalism is popular because we as a society only focus on the negative. It's easy to find stories about the guy that cheated his way to a billion dollars. It's easy to find a corporation that bought a Senator to benefit it's bottom line. People are lazy by nature and collectively we all look for ways to "work smarter, not harder". And, when taken to its logical conclusion, it's just another way of suggesting that anyone who is successful cheated. Liberalism looks at the worst in people. It assumes an unfair playing field is already in place. Or that you're incapable of success because you're black or you have a Southern accent or some other stupid manufactured reason. The presumption is that neither "smarter" nor "harder" work can produce success. Only lying and cheating.

Everyone has heard of Enron but did you know there was a story on CNN just last week about a man who worked at a $11/hour job for most of his life and when he died it was discovered he had millions. Who did he offend? What did he do wrong to qualify a higher tax bracket or punitive tax code? Oh, right... he was rich. What a terrible crime. Look how he manipulated the system. He had millions of dollars right under your noses... did you feel diminished when you saw him pushing his mop around your office? No. Do you feel diminished now knowing at night he was laughing at you while rolling around naked in his big stash of dollar bills? Yeah, he should pay... right? That bastard! How dare he work hard and save all those extra pennies! The nerve of that guy.

How can you say that a CEO is undeserving of his paycheck when you are not a CEO? How do you know when he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night? How do you know what he does all day long to make sure his company's product is competitive? What does it matter who he sleeps with or where he vacations?

I think it is pathetic that the very same liberals who would punish a wealthy person or corporation for their success feel completely justified in just handing over hundreds of millions of dollars to a "deserving" PowerBall winner. How moronic is that?

Sounds to me like someone might suffer from just a little envy.

Last edited by earth.citizen (2008-02-19 13:55:21)

earth.citizen wrote:

The forced redistribution of wealth is wrong. Excessively taxing a wealthy person and/or successful corporation because they are successful is unfair. And it is just as unfair if the same wealthy individual or corporation were to exercise their power and influence in a way to benefit themselves.

Of course it's interesting to note that only both wrongs can occur in the presence of a recognized government.

In a truly open market system void of government intrusion it would devolve to a "buyer beware" system. Truly useful, safe and enjoyable products would produce wealth and junk would produce bankruptcy.

I suppose liberalism is popular because we as a society only focus on the negative. It's easy to find stories about the guy that cheated his way to a billion dollars. It's easy to find a corporation that bought a Senator to benefit it's bottom line. People are lazy by nature and collectively we all look for ways to "work smarter, not harder". And, when taken to its logical conclusion, it's just another way of suggesting that anyone who is successful cheated. Liberalism looks at the worst in people. It assumes an unfair playing field is already in place. Or that you're incapable of success because you're black or you have a Southern accent or some other stupid manufactured reason. The presumption is that neither "smarter" nor "harder" work can produce success. Only lying and cheating.

Everyone has heard of Enron but did you know there was a story on CNN just last week about a man who worked at a $11/hour job for most of his life and when he died it was discovered he had millions. Who did he offend? What did he do wrong to qualify a higher tax bracket or punitive tax code? Oh, right... he was rich. What a terrible crime. Look how he manipulated the system. He had millions of dollars right under your noses... did you feel diminished when you saw him pushing his mop around your office? No. Do you feel diminished now knowing at night he was laughing at you while rolling around naked in his big stash of dollar bills? Yeah, he should pay... right? That bastard! How dare he work hard and save all those extra pennies! The nerve of that guy.

How can you say that a CEO is undeserving of his paycheck when you are not a CEO? How do you know when he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night? How do you know what he does all day long to make sure his company's product is competitive? What does it matter who he sleeps with or where he vacations?

I think it is pathetic that the very same liberals who would punish a wealthy person or corporation for their success feel completely justified in just handing over hundreds of millions of dollars to a "deserving" PowerBall winner. How moronic is that?

Sounds to me like someone might suffer from just a little envy.

CNNMoney wrote:

In 2004, the ratio of average CEO pay to the average pay of a production (i.e., non-management) worker was 431-to-1, up from 301-to-1 in 2003, according to "Executive Excess," an annual report released Tuesday by the liberal research groups United for a Fair Economy and the Institute for Policy Studies.

That's not the highest ever. In 2001, the ratio of CEO-to-worker pay hit a peak of 525-to-1.

Had the minimum wage risen as fast as CEO compensation since 1990, the researchers calculated, it would now be $23.03 an hour instead of just $5.15. And the average production worker would be making $110,126 a year instead of $27,460.

The authors of "Executive Excess" note, too, the great disparity between the average defense CEO's pay – $11.6 million last year – and that of a military general with 20 years' experience, who makes $168,905.

Do you believe that the average CEO does more work in a day than the average American does in 2 years? Do they work a hundred times harder than military generals?

For comparison the average CEO pay in Japan is merely 55 times the median wage.

If you didn't know, in the majority of cases, CEO's are also the chair of the board of directors. This means the CEO's get to exhert a huge influence over what the CEO gets paid. What do you think would happen if companies let workers decide how much they want to get paid. CEO pay, especially in the US is well known to be completely uncorrelated with performance.

Between 2000 and 2005 CEO pay rose by 84%, the median wage dropped 0.3%.

Clearly the system is entirely fair and has no massive bias towards the rich......

As far as the idea of free markets without government intervention goes they certainly don't exist in reality. State intervention for the rich is huge. Almost no high tech industry would exist if it weren't for massive government subsadies and research done using public money. When rich companies fuck up they get huge amounts of public money to bail them out. The world is run by the rich, for the rich. The only real question is to what degree.

As far as the idea that everyone's ultimate position in society, CEO or janitor is determined by how smart they are or how hard they work, a rather startling fact rises that of the rich western countries, the US has the lowest social mobility. Your place in society when you are born is more strongly correlated to your place in society when you die in the least socialist countries (US,UK) than the more socialits countries (Scandinavia). If people were justly rewarded for however much effort they put out in their life there should be no particular correlation at all.

You say yourself that it would be unfair if wealthy individuals or corporations used their power to influence the government for their own benefit.

John Dewey wrote:

Government is the shadow cast by business over society

He knew more about this stuff that all of us combined.

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Des.Kmal wrote:

what do you think?

I think you just posted a really shit story that doesn't 'define' socialism well in any way, shape or form.

Not least for the fact that if it wasn't for socialism my parents would never have been able to send me to university where I attained a degree in engineering that repays the government/people of Ireland to the tune of tens of thousands of tax dollars a year through the job I was able to get with my degree.

Simplistic bollocks. Back to the drawing board Kmal.

lol at theory that socialists believe rich people are evil. Every wants to get rich, even socialists. Socialism is not meant to prohibit the accumulation of wealth - it just advocates being a little more 'society-minded'.

Hmmm...in this evil capitalist country, my parents couldn't afford to send me to university. So I earned scholarships and worked. One of those scholarships involved service to my country after graduation.

Strange that I was able to get an engineering degree without government-imposed wealth redistribution.

thank you. you dont need the government to pay for your college. get a scholarship, get student loans.

dont depend on the government.......

do it yourself.

In the US, the folks are not united at all. Should be called the Me-Myself-and-I-States-of-America

I, the people.

FEOS wrote:

Cam, I'm not saying you didn't have to work hard to get your degree. What I am saying is that the situation you described (being poor yet still being able to attend university) is not unique to a socialist system. Or, more specifically, lack of a socialist system does not prevent poor people from being able to attend university here.

Hand UP, not hand OUT.

Of course. Both systems have poor people attending college/uni. They're just different systems.

sergeriver wrote:

Just for the record, Ireland is a capitalist country that doesn't forget about its people, and that's why they have the social system described by Cam.  Many people in the US think that if the state uses your tax money to help other people to get a decent education or health system that is kinda Communist.  Remember, Capitalism and Socialism are not mutually exclusive.  At the end of the day if other people are doing better you'll be doing better yourself.

No. We believe that government-mandated wealth redistribution is socialist and anathema to the foundations of American life.

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Just for the record, Ireland is a capitalist country that doesn't forget about its people, and that's why they have the social system described by Cam.  Many people in the US think that if the state uses your tax money to help other people to get a decent education or health system that is kinda Communist.  Remember, Capitalism and Socialism are not mutually exclusive.  At the end of the day if other people are doing better you'll be doing better yourself.

No. We believe that government-mandated wealth redistribution is socialist and anathema to the foundations of American life.

Using taxes to cover the needs of poor people is not wealth redistribution.  Improving the conditions in which your fellow countrymen live is improving yours.  That's not Communism or Socialism as you conceive Socialism.  That's having a social network.  If you help a poor family to send their kids to school and Uni you'll get qualified people, if you don't you'll get more people depending on Social security.

Which is why the US has a fairly robust higher education grant and loan program, along with scholarships offered privately and through the universities themselves.

Providing for those who are UNABLE to provide for themselves is one thing...providing for those who DO NOT provide for themselves (wealth redistribution) is quite another.

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

No. We believe that government-mandated wealth redistribution is socialist and anathema to the foundations of American life.

Using taxes to cover the needs of poor people is not wealth redistribution.  Improving the conditions in which your fellow countrymen live is improving yours.  That's not Communism or Socialism as you conceive Socialism.  That's having a social network.  If you help a poor family to send their kids to school and Uni you'll get qualified people, if you don't you'll get more people depending on Social security.

Which is why the US has a fairly robust higher education grant and loan program, along with scholarships offered privately and through the universities themselves.

Providing for those who are UNABLE to provide for themselves is one thing...providing for those who DO NOT provide for themselves (wealth redistribution) is quite another.

Not providing for those who are unable to provide for themselves because there are some assholes who take advantage of the system is worse IMO.