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?
In 1996, the United States federal government reported that the net worth of the top 1 percent of people in the United States was approximately equal to that of the bottom 90 percent.[5]
If you're naive enough to believe that the reason the bottom 90% have such little wealth because they are untalented, lazy or unlucky then you have a very narrow world view.
All socialists ever talk about is this idea of entitlement to people.
No. That's you, the neocons. Socialists of any colour want fairness. Mabye I'm crazy but I don't think it's fair that people on the other side of London have more than ten times my wealth, because they were lucky enough to be born into the upper middle classes.
Equality shouldn't be forced. In fact, you should be arguing communism if you want true equality.
I haven't done that, and I don't want that. I want everyone have the same chance to make it. Equality of opportunity. Not absolute equality.
One of the primary reasons wealth has such a bad effect on social mobility is because it is taxed so lightly, and because there is an entrenched idea of entitlement in the psyches of almost all political structures.
So you're saying that we should tax wealth, and then we can truly have a Socialist government? Well how do we tax wealth, according to you?
All socialists ever talk about is this idea of entitlement to people.
We talk about giving people basic rights, so that people don't have to worry about them individually.
Here in Britain, a lot of good could be done by closing loopholes on tax avoidance, which large corporations exploit to the utmost, at least here in Britain. Universally though, taxing some of the value of net assets per individual. An already existing example is inheritance tax.
To go further though tax receipts on interest prevents people from inheriting millions, and living off the interest comfortably without having to work a day in their lives. In addition taxing stocks and shares prevents people from siphoning their earnings into the stock market to avoid tax. Lot's of little steps which would add up to billions in tax receipts.
Here in Britain, a lot of good could be done by closing loopholes on tax avoidance, which large corporations exploit to the utmost, at least here in Britain. Universally though, taxing some of the value of net assets per individual. An already existing example is inheritance tax.
To go further though tax receipts on interest prevents people from inheriting millions, and living off the interest comfortably without having to work a day in their lives. In addition taxing stocks and shares prevents people from siphoning their earnings into the stock market to avoid tax. Lot's of little steps which would add up to billions in tax receipts.
I suppose. I still prefer income tax rather than a wealth tax.
We talk about giving people basic rights, so that people don't have to worry about them individually.
A right is an entitlement that the government can not take away. It is NOT an entitlement that the government gives. A right to free speech means the government can not take away your ability to say whatever you want.
A right is not something that is given, it is something that is unable to be taken away.
A right to health care would mean you are allowed to have health care and that the government can not take it away. It does NOT mean the government should provide health care.
You can believe people are entitled to health care all you want, but if people are entitled to have care, they should also be entitled to decline the care. Anyone who declines the care should also have the right not to pay for care if they are not going to take it in the first place.
If you believe in people having entitlements, at the very least, you should believe people to have the right to turn down the entitlements as well as avoiding having to pay for such entitlements.
Let's assume there's a man with 20 million dollars. Everyone else in the country only has 500 dollars, however, everyone else in the country also have a nice home, car, television, clothes, food, and plenty of affordable entertainment. Everyone is happy except the guy who wants the 20 million dollars to be divided by everyone because compared to the millionaire, everyone is poor, despite how everyone lives luxurious lives.
A right is not something that is given, it is something that is unable to be taken away.
You Americans often use such grand rhetoric when talking about rights. They are merely artificial constructs. And you are quite wrong. Under the US system only constitutional rights cannot be taken away. All other rights are given by whim of the legislature.
You Americans often use such grand rhetoric when talking about rights. They are merely artificial constructs. And you are quite wrong. Under the US system only constitutional rights cannot be taken away. All other rights are given by whim of the legislature.
I tried explaining that to him but meh. i just went along with it and called them entitlements so that he would be happy.
All other rights are given by whim of the legislature.
Taking a utilitarian standpoint, rights are there because we have the ability to perceive happiness and sadness, and associated feelings to the two. Happiness is one thing that is innately preferable to sadness. And this ability to feel happy or sad creates rights because the end becomes creating the greatest good for the greatest number.
Taking a utilitarian standpoint, rights are there because we have the ability to perceive happiness and sadness, and associated feelings to the two. Happiness is one thing that is innately preferable to sadness. And this ability to feel happy or sad creates rights because the end becomes creating the greatest good for the greatest number.
So having universal healthcare will make many people happy, therefore, it is a right?
You Americans often use such grand rhetoric when talking about rights. They are merely artificial constructs. And you are quite wrong. Under the US system only constitutional rights cannot be taken away. All other rights are given by whim of the legislature.
Partially true, the only rights that can not be taken away are constitutional rights. However, I'm only throwing words like "right to healthcare" around as an example. I find it funny how you're saying I'm using rights in such a grand rhetoric way when...
We talk about giving people basic rights, so that people don't have to worry about them individually.
It's like saying people are "entitled" to healthcare. One would assume that someone who is entitled to something is also able to decline whatever it is they are entitled to. Just saying.
It's like saying people are "entitled" to healthcare. One would assume that someone who is entitled to something is also able to decline whatever it is they are entitled to. Just saying.
People can decline education just like they should be able to decline healthcare. Go to a private hospital and pay the doctors individually without an insurance or government.
