I've stated my opinions on Socialism before in other threads, but it wasn't the appropriate place to put the. I have debated with several of you on my ideas, but I crave a more in depth debate.
I think the government should provide services that humans are entitled to. The rest are luxuries, and those luxuries should be provided to companies. These are thing an individual person should have.
The government should provide healthcare, education (this includes money for universities), water, electricity, waste management, parks, and roads.
There should be a 40% tax on anyone who make $25 000 or more annually. That means, if you make $25 000, you don't pay taxes. If you make $26 000 annually, you have to pay 40% tax.
Here is a scenario. The average man makes around $50 000, no? If you make $50 000, then you get to keep $30 000.
With those $30 000, you only have to pay for your mortgage, car, food, and family.
The rule of thumb for paying a house, is five times your annual salary, or five years worth of income. A person who makes $50 000, should buy a house that is around $200 000. If you take out a mortgage for twenty years, you have to pay $10 000 a year. Right there, you only have $20 000 to spend.
Now, an average car that costs $12 000 lasts about six years. If gas costs $50 a month, then in one year, you spend $600 in one year. Right there, you have spent $22 600 and have $ 7 400 to spend.
Food for one month costs around $300 a month. In one year, that is $3 600. So now you have spent $26 200.
Television, phone, internet costs around $100 a month, so in one year, you spend $1 200 on that. Now, you have spent $27 400. The rest, $2 300, can go to your savings.
In your second year, since you already have a car, you have $12 000 extra. Furniture in total costs around $10 000. So, you have spent $25 400 on basic things. The rest of that, $4 600, can go to your savings.
So now you have a car, furniture and beds, a home, television, phone, internet, food, and gas in two years, without going over your budget.
In your third year, since you have another $12 000 to spare, since you already bought your car and furniture. Now, you if you always put $5 000 for every year, on savings, you have $7 000 to spend on whatever else you want. I think that's a pretty good deal. You can collect shoes, buy toys and games for your children, and actually live your life.
Now, for Libertarians, they would do other things. Everything would be privatized.
If the average person makes $50 000, they get to almost all of it. Let's see how that works out.
So, education costs around $9 000 a year. Healthcare costs $10 000 a year. Utilities, such as water, lighting, electricity, etc. costs around $9 000. Water costs $250 a month, so annually, $3 000. Electricity costs monthly, $350 a month, so annually $4 200. Gas costs $600 you have. Internet, phone, and television costs $1 200.
So all that costs, $28 000. That's more than what you would spend in taxes. Taxes only cost $20 000.
Even if you have no children, or conserve your money wisely, you only have, at most, $5 000 extra. Now, wouldn't you miss parks, roads, public transportation, and other things?
It is regulation, and highly regulated at that. Socialism is a political/economic state in which the production and ownership of the nation is communal within the populace. If America were a socialist nation we would have equal distribution of wealth, property, and rights. We definitely do not have anything close to that.
Certainly we have some socialist aspects, like welfare and such, but simply because some programs have commonality with socialist philosophy does not mean that they have arisen from socialism.
It is regulation, and highly regulated at that. Socialism is a political/economic state in which the production and ownership of the nation is communal within the populace. If America were a socialist nation we would have equal distribution of wealth, property, and rights. We definitely do not have anything close to that.
Did you even bother to read the definition of socialism I posted? I understand that you are in a macroeconomics class in school or whatever, but please don't mistake a highschool class for authority on the subject. Read the definition, look at what is evident, and analyze the results. Here, let me help (again)
the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Let's analyze this one:
In law, vesting is to give an immediately secured right of present or future enjoyment.
So ownership and control of all production, distribution capacity, money, property, etc. should be secured and held, without the ability to be forfeited, by the community as a whole, i.e. every citizen.
Do we see this in America? Especially on a large scale? Or do we see something similar? Or something contradictory?
So ownership and control of all production, distribution capacity, money, property, etc. should be secured and held, without the ability to be forfeited, by the community as a whole, i.e. every citizen.
Every citizen has education, taxes, social security, defense, and basic rights.
But socialism is about the community, including corporations. Corporations are also regulated, and distribute the wealth through taxes.
Every citizen has education, taxes, social security, defense, and basic rights.
No, not really. There are numerous minority groups who are granted extra, or less, rights than the average person.
But socialism is about the community, including corporations. Corporations are also regulated, and distribute the wealth through taxes.
Except that corporations do not supply an immediate and secured interest in their capital and means to every other member of the community, which is the most basic premise of socialism. Privately held corporations, especially in a free market economy, are diametrically opposed to socialism.
Implying that someone without a high school education has given you a good reason :P.
Haha. Clever. I like what you did there. lul.
No, not really. There are numerous minority groups who are granted extra, or less, rights than the average person.
The US law is designed to be Socialistic, but in reality, it is not. True, women earn less than men doing the same job, so yes.
Except that corporations do not supply an immediate and secured interest in their capital and means to every other member of the community, which is the most basic premise of socialism. Privately held corporations, especially in a free market economy, are diametrically opposed to socialism.
No, they are not all privately held. What the hell do you think stocks are? Stocks are shares in a publicly traded company. Each person that holds stock in a corporation is buying a percentage of ownership.
These are called publicly traded companies. Many companies are publicly traded, mainly because it is a great source of extra capital, but not all of them all. And the process of public trading is limited to those with the means to purchase ownership, it isn't granted equally among all members of the community.
So yet again, another major aspect of American society and politics that is opposed to, not in concurrence with, socialism.
No, they are not all privately held. What the hell do you think stocks are? Stocks are shares in a publicly traded company. Each person that holds stock in a corporation is buying a percentage of ownership.
True. My father owns a private company.
I don't know. I'm tired. All I know is that the US is a Socialist hybrid of some sort, just like it is a capitalist hybrid of some sort.
All I know is that the US is a Socialist hybrid of some sort
Again, not exactly accurate. Some similarities are not indicative of socialism. Some policies are applied because they are deemed effective, not due to any underlying socio-political policy at work.
Again, not exactly accurate. Some similarities are not indicative of socialism. Some policies are applied because they are deemed effective, not due to any underlying socio-political policy at work.
But you can't say having universal education or social security isn't socialistic, nor can you say the same about regulating business.
I know the US is Socialistic, because it collects taxes. Germany is my dream country, but too bad the language is murder to learn. I'd rather go to Israel.
You cannot label a country socialist merely because it collects taxes. Saying tax collection is socialist, therefore all countries that collect taxes are socialist, falls pray to the ''all terrorists are muslims, therefore all muslims are terrorists'' logical falacy.
At its basest level, socialism is about the compassionate nature of man, not about tax collection. I'm sorry but it really is a very odd criteria you are choosing to define socialism.
In any case you merely have to look at America in comparison to the rest of the developed world to see that you guys have the least humanitarian version of capitalism.
Also, I'm surprised Germany is your dream country. Would imagine socialists would love Scandanavia more. Far more socialist than Germany.
Responding to OP, that makes me not want to increase my income. Having such a high tax rate and low bracket (especially for only 25k >.< makes me not want to get a better job because I would loose more then I gain.
If I get 25k, I don't pay 40% right? If I get a promotion and start making 26k, now I have to pay 40% to the government, therefore in the end resulting in me making less money then I would have if I didn't get my promotion.
To me, there should only be two tax brackets. One for people who make less then around 300k-400k and those who make more then that. Those who make 300k-400k pay around 15%-20% and those who make more pay 25%-35%.
