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?
Okay, father. Well, since you don't care about other people, then I guess you don't like cities. You will probably die alone, on your own little island.
A team is not made up of individual players, but rather players with the same goal in common.
everyone on a team isnt the same skill level though, theres always some better than others, and how many associations do you know that only have one team... there needs to be competition
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.
So in the end, the person who makes 26,000 ends up with 15,600. The person who makes 25,000 makes 25,000.
So you have a gray area, to break 25,000, you need to make at least 41,666. If you make anything less than that but more than 25,000, you end up with less money than someone who simply has 25,000.
What's the point in making 41,000 a year if you end up with less money than the person who makes 25,000?!
Now for your wall of text on the front page.
You said that if you make 50,000, you would keep 30,000 after taxes. Everything after that (until you mentioned libertarians) is not important. What's important is that you compare what you would have if you didn't pay taxes.
Basically, with taxes, you end up with 30,000.
Without taxes, you would end up with 22,000.
How you spend your money with the 30,000 isn't important. You did make quite few errors, but seeing as how they aren't important, I'll ignore them.
You didn't take into consideration the cost of all the things the government is paying for.
If you spend 28,000 on necessities without taxes, it would be fair to assume (for sake of argument) that the necessities would cost the government 28,000 as well. If you pay the government 20,000, the government is now in debt 8,000.
So yes, the person paying taxes did save money. But the government is now in debt and the person paying taxes today should be aware that his children will have to pay off the debts in their future.
So you have a gray area, to break 25,000, you need to make at least 41,666. If you make anything less than that but more than 25,000, you end up with less money than someone who simply has 25,000.
I brought this up in his profile as I didn't really want to get into it much here. Since you brought it up I will post my solution to this problem here. Thought keep in mind I'm still not to hugely interested in discussion, so don't expect to much of a reply if any.
This could work better with a more gradual tax increase. From $26,000 a person pays 2% in taxes. this goes up 1% for every $1,000 reaching a roof of 40% at an income of $64,000.
There are likely still gray areas in there but it won't be quite as bad at those lower incomes.
This could work better with a more gradual tax increase. From $26,000 a person pays 2% in taxes. this goes up 1% for every $1,000 reaching a roof of 40% at an income of $64,000.
The United States is currently using a system very similar to this. I don't see the need for change.
everyone on a team isnt the same skill level though, theres always some better than others, and how many associations do you know that only have one team... there needs to be competition
There is a competition against the opposing team, not in between your own teammates.
I am not talking about companies, I am talking about people.
So why should I bother doing any work then? I mean I might as well just work enough to make $25,000. And just let the rich pay for the rest.
Fine. You can do that.
Not to make this into a battle of pessimism. But everyone dies alone.
How so?
what goal would that be?
To live comfortably.
So in the end, the person who makes 26,000 ends up with 15,600. The person who makes 25,000 makes 25,000.
So you have a gray area, to break 25,000, you need to make at least 41,666. If you make anything less than that but more than 25,000, you end up with less money than someone who simply has 25,000.
What's the point in making 41,000 a year if you end up with less money than the person who makes 25,000?!
I brought this up on MageGrayWolf's profile. If you look on there, I was discussing the gradual increase tax.
What I suggested was that, if you make less than $30 000 annually, you don't have to pay taxes. If you make less $50 000 or less, you get to keep a minimum of $30 000. If you make more than $50 000, then you pay 40% taxes. That way, the minimum income will be $30 000.
Now, you're probably going to say, well, if you somebody who makes $50 000 gets to keep $30 000 and the person who makes $41 000 also gets to keep $30 000. Well, MageGrayWolf solved this with having a gradual increase in taxes by saying there is a gradual increase until there is a cap of 40% on taxes.
It makes it much more fair, doesn't? I suppose a flat tax isn't as simple as it is supposed to be.
Basically, with taxes, you end up with 30,000.
Without taxes, you would end up with 22,000.
Without taxes, you keep a minimum of $35 000, but that's only if you don't have a family and you spend your money conservatively. If you even have one child, you already can't afford it.
How you spend your money with the 30,000 isn't important. You did make quite few errors, but seeing as how they aren't important, I'll ignore them.
So I guess it doesn't matter if I just spend all my money on gambling or drugs.
Also, what errors did I make?
You didn't take into consideration the cost of all the things the government is paying for.
Can you please clarify? I don't know what you're referring to.
If you spend 28,000 on necessities without taxes, it would be fair to assume (for sake of argument) that the necessities would cost the government 28,000 as well. If you pay the government 20,000, the government is now in debt 8,000.
If a man who makes $100 000 annually, pays $40 000 in taxes. If it takes $28 000 to pay for the services, then there is a surplus of $12 000. That covers the $8 000 debt. gitit?
Okay, this makes sense because the world's best and brightest won't bother going into fields where their talents would be used. Hell why should I become a doctor/lawyer/engineer when the government is just going to take my money anyway.
Did you read the responses in the Barack Obama thread?
What do people have against socialism? People socializating in society.
It is unsound in a utilitarian perspective.
The rest, is up to the free market.
Precisely.
Give the government your money, let them decide how to spend it, and you just reap the rewards.
*sarcasm*because obviously the government knows better than you do what is best for you!*/sarcasm*
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
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.
Why would anybody want that?
I dunno - gee...
Your attacking what you believe the end result is of Libertarianism. Socialism is necessarily worse.
Quoted previously:
Government spending money - it "stimulates" the economy more if they don't spend the money at all. It's fallacious to look at the amount of money spent, but instead, you have to look at capital.
The value of money is dependent on how people value money, which itself is dependent on the supply of money and the amount of goods buyable with money. Ultimately, the economy itself depends not on the money itself, but on the goods that are produced.
We'll look at 3 scenarios - Government spends the money, Government burns the money, Government taxes less.
Scenario 1 - Government spends the money
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.
Now let's look at scenario 2.
Scenario 2 - Government Burns the Money
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.
Scenario 3 - Government taxes less
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.
/quoted previously
Please critique and find the fallacy.
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.
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.
Since the government takes a much smaller profit from you than a business, you can afford to pay those taxes.
And what is business but groups of people. Again - "Nonprofit" only redistributes not creates. It is no better than for profit.
I don't understand the argument that high taxes means heavy chains.
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.
Before I comment, I would like to compliment your very well laid out argument. Now,
You see, if taxes do anything, they prevent things from happening.
While this for the most part is true (read any microeconomics text book). You have to look at certian things the government does that do directly affect us. For example, policing and defense. Both of these branches of the government, funded by taxes, continue to keep our country safe. Other than that I agree with you though.
Also, sorry for not mentioning this in the previous post. But you have to remember when the government burns money, it's at the expense of the government. The money it would have to burn has to come out of circulation, thus the government is essentially paying for money to throw away. Which it definitely does currently but not as extreme as you seem to make it.
Even so, education (excluding college) is already socialized in the United States, and look how cussing bad it currently is.
SURE?
it isn't! and I'll explain you why!
the school is payed by the ones that live around it.
so, a school in a rich suburb is rich. it has good sportfields, the best teachers, and nice, new, books in the library.
a school in a poor part of the city is poor. it has less good teachers, the school library may have chewing-gummed, non-up to date books, and leaking basketballs.
do you call that social? thats not social, that's not the same chances for everybody!
the school is payed by the ones that live around it.
Uhhh, how is that not socialism again?
that's not the same chances for everybody!
We tried to give everyone the sames chances for everyone, it was called No Child Left Behind. But all these liberals flipped the cuss out about it. Beyond that, do you just want me to do worse so they can look better?
