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?
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?
So you're depending on the rich to cover the loss created by the government. It makes sense if you throw only 2 people into the equation, one rich man and one middle class man. However, this just doesn't work when you have a whole country.
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.
You still have a gray areas, but they aren't as big or as easy to spot.
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.
If you have a child under a taxless system, you must assume someone had one under the tax system as well. If you add another child, you have to add the costs for both systems. The added cost in the tax system would be added onto the government's debt.
So I guess it doesn't matter if I just spend all my money on gambling or drugs.
Also, what errors did I make?
How you spend your money afterwords isn't important for comparing which saves more money.
Anyway, you made a few math mistakes. You also forgot to calculate interest on house payments.
Well, since the other thread got locked, I'm going to copy and paste here some stuff I posted there.
I have another question, dear libertarians. Basically you think that the government can't do anything better than private companies, but in a democracy the politicians are chosen by the people, so isn't libertarianism like saying that people are too stupid to vote a smart politician?
(reply by stuntman)They are. I never argued against that point.
Well, in this case libertarianism is not very democratic, because it's like a majority of people voting for a party, and a minority of libertarians that want to reduce the government's powers because they think it's doing wrong, even have been voted democratically
So you're depending on the rich to cover the loss created by the government. It makes sense if you throw only 2 people into the equation, one rich man and one middle class man. However, this just doesn't work when you have a whole country.
Why not?
You still have a gray areas, but they aren't as big or as easy to spot.
Again. You just say that I am wrong, but never point it out.
If you have a child under a taxless system, you must assume someone had one under the tax system as well. If you add another child, you have to add the costs for both systems. The added cost in the tax system would be added onto the government's debt.
Taxes collected of $100 000 or more will cover those children for life.
How you spend your money afterwords isn't important for comparing which saves more money.
How you spend your money afterwardsis important for comparing which saves more money.
I am talking about which saves the people more money. You are talking about which saves the government more money. The government makes money automatically by taxing.
Anyway, you made a few math mistakes. You also forgot to calculate interest on house payments.
Read the OP again. Furniture and mortgage are both discussed there.
Well since NoName wants us to talk about this here, I'll go ahead and do it.
Dear Libertarians, does this sound like your life?
This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. Then, I brushed my teeth with that water, filtered to standards set by the EPA and my state. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration. At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank and printed by the Federal Bureau of Engraving and Printing. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school. I park my car on the street, paved and maintained by the Department of Transportation, and put quarters issued by the United States Mint into the parking meter. Then, after spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, I drive back to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and the fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.
I then log onto the Internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right. Keep government out of my Medicare!
Are you mentally retarded? In the Barack Obama thread, I responded, in this thread I give you a link to that response, and now you want it again. Get the **** out of here if you are going to be so stupid as to ignore my responses twice.
Are you mentally retarded? In the Barack Obama thread, I responded, in this thread I give you a link to that response, and now you want it again. Get the **** out of here if you are going to be so stupid as to ignore my responses twice.
It didn't seem to be a sufficient response. You didn't even address the heart of my argument, and instead, you said:
Either way you're paying for it, so it really doesn't matter. The government just does a better job of paying for it than a business.
And I know you responded to NoName's argument, but you also have to address mine. And it DID show beyond the shadow of a doubt that government spending is inefficient, regardless if it was copied and pasted from another source.
People think that socialism is good because the money 'goes around'. The problem is, the government gets their sticky hands on it and some of it goes to them, whereas if you just gave someone the money yourself, they get all of it. If you want to give, just give your money yourself. Giving through the government isn't worth it.
People think that socialism is good because the money 'goes around'. The problem is, the government gets their sticky hands on it and some of it goes to them, whereas if you just gave someone the money yourself, they get all of it. If you want to give, just give your money yourself. Giving through the government isn't worth it.
Government has to make a profit, just not as much as a corporation.
Government has to make a profit, just not as much as a corporation.
Not completely understanding that... It's not like the government wouldn't get any money. Of course we would still pay taxes, but raising taxes to 'spread the wealth' is just an idea for the government to get more money they can spend.
