Forums → WEPR → Barack Obama

What do people have against socialism? People socializating in society.

Education is private, only more expensive, healthcare is private, only more expensive, parks will be private and limited, roads will be private, and pretty much everything not related to war or law is private and expensive.

And to top it off, people have to pay it for themselves.

Why would anybody want that? I'm not saying, tax the rich and give to the poor, but have high taxes at the same rate. Everybody has a 40% tax if your income is over $25 000. It seems like a lot, but, in my world where the water, electricity, television, healthcare, education, parks, college roads, lighting, and a few others things are government funded, you really only have to pay for your car, home, and family.

Give the government your money, let them decide how to spend it, and you just reap the rewards.

If you earn $50 000 a year, then you keep $30 000 and only have to pay for your home, your car, and your family's food.

The average cost for education for the full thirteen years may cost up to $80 000. University may cost up to $140 000. $220 000 for your child to receive a decent education if you send him to a private school. Yes, student loans and all that, but that is the price for the education.

Since the government takes a much smaller profit from you than a business, you can afford to pay those taxes. You get what you would be paying anyway from the government. Instead of being a lone fish in the water, you are assisted by the other $320 million people in this country.

I don't understand the argument that high taxes means heavy chains. Either way you, pay for the services offered, just to a different person, a nice person.

Yes, the government is corrupt at times, but businesses are even more corrupt.

They want to make a profit, not run a society.

The government is there to RUN a society. To rule the people.

They are not perfect, but I just cannot seem to find that Libertarianism is better.

What do people have against socialism? People socializating in society.

The rest, is up to the free market.

Give the government your money, let them decide how to spend it, and you just reap the rewards.

Education is private, only more expensive, healthcare is private, only more expensive, parks will be private and limited, roads will be private, and pretty much everything not related to war or law is private and expensive

Why would anybody want that?

The average cost for education for the full thirteen years may cost up to $80 000. University may cost up to $140 000. $220 000 for your child to receive a decent education if you send him to a private school. Yes, student loans and all that, but that is the price for the education.

Since the government takes a much smaller profit from you than a business, you can afford to pay those taxes.

I don't understand the argument that high taxes means heavy chains.

Reality check time~~

Nobody is saying anything against them, I just think that the republicans are not making the rich people pay their fair share.

Pffah. Taxes are taxes, not much a single party can do about it. Under our current tax system, implemented by both parties, let me show you some reality (up for some math?):

Let's take 100 rich people, who say, make $10,000,000 in a year. The government will then take 34% of their money. This equates to about $3,400,000. When you multiply this by 100, you get $340,000,000. That's how much those 100 rich people pay.

Now take 10,000 middle class families, who make about $60,000 a year. The government will take about 22% of their income, which equates to about $13,200. Now multiply by 10,000, and you get $132,000,000.

Who pays more?

Who needs that money more? The rich who have 6 million left over or the middle class who has 47000 left over?

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh would pay $7.
* The eighth would pay $12.
* The ninth would pay $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
* The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

You shouldn't be entitled to other people's money just because you need it. No matter if you're taking from the middle class, the poor, or the rich, you're taking their money.

I hate the argument "who needs it more?" What happened to ownership? What ever happened to saving your own money for yourself? What ever happened to private property?

But I would prefer to pay for everything, and keep the full $50,000. Why let the government take care of me when I'm capable of taking care of myself?

Remember that a big chunk of the taxes goes to the army. And if no one paid taxes, the army wouldn't have almost any monetary resource. Yea, sorry, but I cannot imagine millions of persons giving voluntary money to the Army.

Plus it isnt all Bush's fault for the economy going down the toilet

Let's say a flat tax of 5% is levied on income. If Person A makes $100, they pay $5. Someone who makes $1000 only pays $50. Now, tell me who is worst off, the guy who makes $100 a month and needs to pay living expenses or the guy who $1000 who pays the same living expenses?

Yes it is. He spent a few trillion on the war, and that ruined the economy completely.

MORE LIKE BARACK OPANDA

The wars were deemed necessary. There was also a couple of hurricanes and a terrorist attack during his presidency, you going to blame that on him too?

All of these things will cost more money out of your own pocket. This doesn't necessarily mean they will be more expensive though.

Libertarians believe the people should pay for their services directly. Socialists believe the government should pay for the people's services using the people's money.

No matter how you look at it, the people are paying for these services.

If you make $25,000 and you give up 40% in taxes, you are left with $15,000. All those services cost $10,000 dollars. You did pay for them. If there was a way to obtain these services for less than $10,000 dollars, there's no way you could possibly know because you don't control where your money goes. You're assuming that in a free market, if you make $25,000, you're going to spend more than $10,000 on all those services.

Why not keep our money and we reap the rewards from the services we choose to buy?

But I would prefer to pay for everything, and keep the full $50,000. Why let the government take care of me when I'm capable of taking care of myself?

If you don't pay for these services yourself, then you pay for them through taxes. If you save money by paying through your taxes, then your government is giving you money they don't even have. They are going into debt.

But you need to understand that all the other fish are also taking money from the pot. If everyone puts in 10, and they all expect at least 11, there's no way to make it happen without someone losing money.

True.

Not true.

Let's assume businesses are corrupt. In a free market society, you choose which corrupt business is the least corrupt. After you choose the least corrupt business, other businesses start to lose money because they need you as a customer, so they have to lower their prices. Then they become less corrupt. Competition keeps greed in check.

When you give the government money, the government goes to those businesses. Those businesses are still corrupt though. However, they don't have to provide the best services or the best product to their customers, because they aren't making money off of their customers but rather the government. The only people the businesses need to cater to are the bureaucrats. The businesses then pay these bureaucrats so that the government will go to them. Therefore, the government doesn't choose the business that is the least corrupt, but rather the business that promises the bureaucrats the most money.

The government may be "non-profit", but if you don't make a profit, you go into debt. If the government goes into debt, the people have to work off that debt. Profit is not a dirty word. Profit is the opposite of debt. Debt should be the word we fear, not profit.

It is unsound in a utilitarian perspective.

k.

[quote]Precisely.

*sarcasm*because obviously the government knows better than you do what is best for you!*/sarcasm*

Wow. You really think the economy and government are some magic hat, and you can pull out whatever you want out of it.
Yes, and while you're at it, have everyone be paid 1 Trillion dollars a year and have houses cost 1 cent! That's a good idea!!! And if you refuse to sell a house, then you should be jailed because you're stealing from the masses.

I dunno - gee...

Your attacking what you believe the end result is of Libertarianism. Socialism is necessarily worse.

If the government spends the money, they must choose where to spend the money. Now, understand how the free market works - by companies competing with one another, there is competition, and the most able company - the one that is the most able to engage in mutually beneficial trades with consumers is the one that will be victorious.

Government spending, however, upsets the mutually beneficial trades between consumer and company by helping one particular company - giving it an unfair advantage over the other companies. Thus, certain companies may be favored that are more inefficient at satisfying the consumer (through mutually beneficial trades) than other companies because of government sponsorship.

It looks awful - the government is burning the money! However, notice that the government is - 1. Decreasing the supply of money, and 2. Not affecting the amount of goods in the country. They are doing nothing but affecting inflation. In fact, they are making everyone else's money worth more!

Obviously, severe deflation, like in the Great Depression can have a negative impact, especially if a person is at a constant income or making constant payments over several years. However, notice that you're not hurting the economy directly - you're only making everyone else's money be worth more.

If the government taxes less, then the government will have a smaller share of capital, meaning that people will have a relatively larger share of capital. Because of this, people will be able to have certain trades that they would not have had otherwise. Through free trade, they will be able to "stimulate" the economy in a more efficient way.

Gee - how in the world does someone pay for all that now?

But how would the government redistributing - not making - wealth help this at all? You're forcing goods this way and that, whereas the goods would normally travel in the direction of peoples' wants and needs. Thus, capitalism is the best "form" of socialism - it accomplishes socialism's end.

And what is business but groups of people. Again - "Nonprofit" only redistributes not creates. It is no better than for profit.

It is certainly clear you don't understand it from your idea that my objection to it is that it's a burden on my soul. You see, if taxes do anything, they prevent things from happening. They prevent people from having extra capital to expand their business or to save it (which isn't bad - it decreases inflation and doesn't change the amount of GOODS, which is all that is important), and it is allowed to go elsewhere to people who didn't "earn" their money through mutually beneficial trades and instead rely on the force of the government to operate.