NJ tax hike on rich and wealth redistribution?

[Benton]

(09-17-2020, 02:49 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: So can you guys help me understand the problems Socialism would cause in a country and how Socialism can destroy a country?  Is Venezuela a Socialist country?  That gets thrown out there a lot.

Venezuela's biggest problem was an economy reliant on oil high prices, corruption and bad money management. 

As Bels said, socialism is the government owning businesses and industry. If the government is well ran and people do what's best for the community, socialist societies can work. And generally they don't because people do what's best for themselves and few large entities are ran well (no corruption, nepotism, etc). 

Socialism gets thrown out a lot here incorrectly. Having pricing controls isn't socialism. Having industry regulation isn't socialism.

Take healthcare. A lot of time, reforms are met with "THAT"S SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!!" 

And it's not.

We already have subsidized medicine (the government paying critical access hospitals to stay open, eating tuition costs for healthcare workers, paying for healthcare for the poor or elderly, writing off unpaid bills to hospitals, etc); we just don't get much out of it. Why? There are lots of reasons, but part of it is the lack of price controls and standardization. A procedure in one state may be double the cost in an adjacent state, or even from hospital to hospital. That's true with drug costs, too, where there's not a lot controlling what manufacturers can charge. If a company wants to increase the cost of insulin 500%, there's not a lot the consumer can do to stop them. And government doesn't intervene much because stepping on free market toes is considered socialism.

[*bfine32*]

(09-17-2020, 03:25 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I have to, but my brother talked me down from it a little a few years ago. 10% of your income is a lot more damaging to the guy making $500 than to the guy making $5,000,000.

The happiest folks in the Nation if we went to a flat tax would be the wealthy.

The maddest would be the folks that complain about the wealthy getting "tax breaks". 

[Mickeypoo]

Thank you again for all the responses.

[BigPapaKain]

(09-17-2020, 03:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The happiest folks in the Nation if we went to a flat tax would be the wealthy.

The maddest would be the folks that complain about the wealthy getting "tax breaks". 

No doubt there.

[Benton]

(09-17-2020, 03:25 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I have to, but my brother talked me down from it a little a few years ago. 10% of your income is a lot more damaging to the guy making $500 than to the guy making $5,000,000.

Agreed, and that's a big part of why we've kept the escalated system. Everybody pays at least X; those making a higher amount pay X+4%; those making much higher X+8%; etc 

20 years ago I favored a flat tax. I don't know how feasible it is with income disparity combined with a lack of representation for the majority of people. I mean, a flat tax would be fine if everybody got a share (affordable healthcare, affordable education, job access, etc). But with representation as it is now, that doesn't happen.

[Earendil]

(09-17-2020, 02:17 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Can you please explain how?

The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%—And That's Made the U.S. Less Secure


https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/

[Mickeypoo]

(09-17-2020, 07:38 PM)Earendil Wrote: The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%—And That's Made the U.S. Less Secure


https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/

But if the 1% owns a lot of the huge businesses, wouldn't the 90% consuming be responsible for the 50T by consuming?

Not arguing, just trying to understand.  

[Belsnickel]

(09-17-2020, 08:03 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: But if the 1% owns a lot of the huge businesses, wouldn't the 90% consuming be responsible for the 50T by consuming?

Not arguing, just trying to understand.  

Yes and no. It's a lot more complex than that. It's be difficult to get into in this forum and I'd probably have a hard time trying to break it all down, anyway.

We've had a lot of talk about socialism in this thread. Socialism and capitalism are economic systems that exist on opposite ends of a spectrum. Neither one is inherently good or bad, but the human factor is what makes them so. Human greed causes people in socialist societies to game the system and take more than they need and contribute less than they can. Capitalism is also influenced heavily by human greed as the false idea that perpetual, infinite growth is not only possible but is the goal in life and as such maximizing profits is the way to get there. In both situations you have people that are the best at gaming the system exploiting those that aren't. This exploitation comes in the form of not only profiting from sales and services, but also underpaying the workers what their labor is worth. If companies actually paid the workers the true value of their would be no profit to be had, so capitalism continuously works on a system of exploitation.

[BigPapaKain]

(09-17-2020, 08:03 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: But if the 1% owns a lot of the huge businesses, wouldn't the 90% consuming be responsible for the 50T by consuming?

Not arguing, just trying to understand.  

Maybe if those with $50T didn't pocket $45T of it.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-17-2020, 08:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yes and no. It's a lot more complex than that. It's be difficult to get into in this forum and I'd probably have a hard time trying to break it all down, anyway.

We've had a lot of talk about socialism in this thread. Socialism and capitalism are economic systems that exist on opposite ends of a spectrum. Neither one is inherently good or bad, but the human factor is what makes them so. Human greed causes people in socialist societies to game the system and take more than they need and contribute less than they can. Capitalism is also influenced heavily by human greed as the false idea that perpetual, infinite growth is not only possible but is the goal in life and as such maximizing profits is the way to get there. In both situations you have people that are the best at gaming the system exploiting those that aren't. This exploitation comes in the form of not only profiting from sales and services, but also underpaying the workers what their labor is worth. If companies actually paid the workers the true value of their would be no profit to be had, so capitalism continuously works on a system of exploitation.

Interesting.  Thank you.

[fredtoast]

We have to have a capitalist economy because competition drives progress and efficiency. But unregulated capitalism is pure evil because if values profits over human lives and the environment. This is not a theory. It has been proven by history.

So what we need is a capitalist economy with strong government regulation to protect the individual citizens. Oppression and exploitation by the wealthy elite is just as bad as oppression and exploitation by a fascist political leader.

Lower and middle class citizens do not have the resources to protect themselves from oppression and exploitation at the hands of the wealthy, so in a democracy we give them a vote. This gives them the power to elect a government that will protect them.

[fredtoast]

(09-17-2020, 08:03 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: But if the 1% owns a lot of the huge businesses, wouldn't the 90% consuming be responsible for the 50T by consuming?

Not arguing, just trying to understand.  

The 1% needs a labor force from the 90% in order to produce their wealth.  

Wal mart is making record corporate profits because they can pay many of their employees less than a living wage and the taxpayers are left footing the bill for the government assistance that their employees need to get by.

75% of the people enrolled in Medicaid live in a household with at least one employed person.

Over half of the people who receive food stamps are employed.

1 in 10 full time employees receive some form of government assistance.

Basically US taxpayers are subsidizing the workforce of large corporations so that they can rake in higher profits instead of paying a living wage.

[Mickeypoo]

Thank you for the replies Fred.

[Belsnickel]

(09-18-2020, 02:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We have to have a capitalist economy because competition drives progress and efficiency. But unregulated capitalism is pure evil because if values profits over human lives and the environment. This is not a theory. It has been proven by history.

Does it, though? If the competition of capitalism drives progress then why does it create wealth and income inequality. The most common argument for capitalism is that the competition drives innovation (I think that might have been the word you were thinking of), but the competition in the private sector isn't necessary for innovation. We've seen many innovative discoveries come from the government or be government funded. Socialism can also be very innovative and efficient.

The point I'm making here is not that we should be a socialist economy, but rather we need to get out of the mindset, which is faulty, that capitalism is better than socialism, so long as it is regulated. We need to recognize that both systems are fine, but it is the human element that corrupts them and it is for that reason that a regulated mixed economy is best.