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?
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.
Government can spend as much as they want! As long as social security doesn't ruin it. **** old people not dying.
Government has to make a profit, just not as much as a corporation.
Kevin - your view is zero-sum. Only in a zero-sum world does profit=stealing from the masses. Government is non-consensual. Business is consensual. This automatically makes business better.
Government can spend as much as they want! As long as social security doesn't ruin it. **** old people not dying.
But again - you could say ... well, you can just keep printing money. But you see - you're not CREATING any goods whatsoever. You're only decreasing the value of money because you have more money, and just as many goods. Thus, you're only redistributing money to the government - it's analogous to a flat tax - just more unfair to the old people and the retired people whose life savings are now worth less.
Kevin - your view is zero-sum. Only in a zero-sum world does profit=stealing from the masses. Government is non-consensual. Business is consensual. This automatically makes business better.
How is it nonconsensual? You elect the government. You give the government your money, it helps you. In government, you can find out exactly what is happening. Just go watch C-SPAN. How do you know what Humana One is doing at the moment? You don't.
But again - you could say ... well, you can just keep printing money. But you see - you're not CREATING any goods whatsoever. You're only decreasing the value of money because you have more money, and just as many goods.
Obviously, but I am not talking about that, straw man.
Thus, you're only redistributing money to the government - it's analogous to a flat tax - just more unfair to the old people and the retired people whose life savings are now worth less.
I changed my mind about a flat tax, entirely. The flat tax is there after $64 000. Also, it is unfair for old people to keep living if they are not benefiting society and just being a drain. To give people, who have never saved a penny in their lives, free money is just ridiculous.
i didn't look much into taxe systems, nore do i think that it's the real problem in our societies. the important problem is the inefficiant destribution of resources, corruption and the privatization of entitled resources(water, electricity, real estate, food) as for sex note beeing essential i couldn't disagree more with that statement (essential not only for reproduction) actually you could say that many things are in place becaus of that i.e. hierarchy
I personally think that the federal Government shouldn't control any of this. There are two jobs that the federal Government needs to do: make laws, and have a military to protect the people. The rest should be controlled by the states. The state government should provide healthcare and education. Utilities should be through the city or private companies. This way, it drives down cost, the provided health care doesn't suck like Canada's, and the people are happy. Health care is a really touchy issue, though. Some people don't want the Government paying for healthcare, cause then that means that they get to call the shots, and basically decides who dies and who lives. Witn independent Healthcare, most of the time, companies will keep fronting the money as long as you keep paying them. Also, more stuff provided by the Government, means a bigger Government, which will mean that the Government will need more money to run, so taxes will ultimately go up.
I personally think we should do half- and- half. Have a free market, but it's the state Government's job to pass regulations and such in place to protect customers, especially for health care. For example, if a person has had a policy with a company for some period of time, and he or she becomes terminally ill, said company cannot cancel the policy. Also, regulations on how much people pay, etc. The mandates will be controlled by the states, not the federal Government, so it will be a lot easier to manage. If a person makes little money, then the State has a health care system for them. Like medicare/medicaid, but for people who make low income and meet certain eligibility standards. There are plenty of programs out there to help people, the problem is that there are people who don't need it, and take advantage of the system anyway. The government needs to clean up and make stricter regulations on these things.
What do I know though? I'm just a nineteen year old with no idea how government really works. I'm not a politician, just a very argumentative person who sees that the government sucks.
I personally think that the federal Government shouldn't control any of this. There are two jobs that the federal Government needs to do: make laws, and have a military to protect the people. The rest should be controlled by the states. The state government should provide healthcare and education. Utilities should be through the city or private companies. This way, it drives down cost, the provided health care doesn't suck like Canada's, and the people are happy. Health care is a really touchy issue, though. Some people don't want the Government paying for healthcare, cause then that means that they get to call the shots, and basically decides who dies and who lives. Witn independent Healthcare, most of the time, companies will keep fronting the money as long as you keep paying them.
I disagree with everything you said for reasons I've stated before.
Also, more stuff provided by the Government, means a bigger Government, which will mean that the Government will need more money to run, so taxes will ultimately go up.
That's the plan.
I personally think we should do half- and- half. Have a free market, but it's the state Government's job to pass regulations and such in place to protect customers, especially for health care. For example, if a person has had a policy with a company for some period of time, and he or she becomes terminally ill, said company cannot cancel the policy. Also, regulations on how much people pay, etc. The mandates will be controlled by the states, not the federal Government, so it will be a lot easier to manage.
Heavy regulations keep the free market in check. You realize that companies could corner the market by raising the price of bread to $50 a loaf. If every company in the market does this, then the consumers have no choice but to by it. Without government regulation, this would happen. Would you like to pay $500 for an entire stack of bread?
If a person makes little money, then the State has a health care system for them. Like medicare/medicaid, but for people who make low income and meet certain eligibility standards. There are plenty of programs out there to help people, the problem is that there are people who don't need it, and take advantage of the system anyway. The government needs to clean up and make stricter regulations on these things.
Sorta what I want.
What do I know though? I'm just a nineteen year old with no idea how government really works. I'm not a politician, just a very argumentative person who sees that the government sucks.
I would expect more from a nineteen year old, but maybe you're just not into politics.
No you don't: 1. Not everyone votes 2. If you're on the "losing" side of the election, you still have to live with the government.
The "majority" electing the government has absolutely nothing to do with an individual consenting to the government.
You give the government your money, it helps you.
Actually, you don't consent to that either. Taxes are under the threat of imprisonment. Think about this - if they DID benefit you, why wouldn't there be a bunch of donations to the government?
Obviously, but I am not talking about that
Then how can the government spend "as much as they want"?
Heavy regulations keep the free market in check. You realize that companies could corner the market by raising the price of bread to $50 a loaf
You realize that companies compete with each other so that one company that best satisfies the consumers will be benefitted (just like natural selection :P). If one company prices it at $40 a loaf, that would run the $50 companies out of business, and then what about a $30 loaf or a $10? With capitalism, those that charge the smallest amount of price for the best product will end up becoming the most successful businesses.
No you don't: 1. Not everyone votes 2. If you're on the "losing" side of the election, you still have to live with the government.
The "majority" electing the government has absolutely nothing to do with an individual consenting to the government.
1. Wanna know the secret to having 100% participation in voting? Make it a crime to NOT vote, like in Australia.
2. With a multi-partisan Congress, everyone gets better representation.
Actually, you don't consent to that either. Taxes are under the threat of imprisonment. Think about this - if they DID benefit you, why wouldn't there be a bunch of donations to the government?
You consent every time you pay taxes because you aren't forced to. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't, but there will be consequences.
Then how can the government spend "as much as they want"?
The only money the government should have should come from its own citizens, not China's citizens or not printed paper. As long as there are taxes, the government will be able to pull itself up.
Great example. After the Reagan Era (1980 - 1992), there were lowered taxes, but government funding was low. When Clinton came into power, he raised taxes, and the economy pulled itself out of the mini-recession it was in.
You realize that companies compete with each other so that one company that best satisfies the consumers will be benefitted (just like natural selection :P). If one company prices it at $40 a loaf, that would run the $50 companies out of business, and then what about a $30 loaf or a $10? With capitalism, those that charge the smallest amount of price for the best product will end up becoming the most successful businesses.
Do you know what cornering the market is? If a business undercuts another, bigger business, then that bigger business will either buy it out, or try to negotiate so that business raises it to $50.
Stop saying capitalism. Socialism is the same thing as capitalism.
1. Wanna know the secret to having 100% participation in voting? Make it a crime to NOT vote, like in Australia.
Participation in voting is not an end in itself, so such an idea is creating tyranny. And how is that a democratic thing at all!?!? You don't "choose" to do that - that involves coercion!
2. With a multi-partisan Congress, everyone gets better representation.
But neither of these make you choose to do stuff. You're not addressing #2 that even if you're on the losing side, you still have to live with it. If I don't agree to X, then the government can still force me to do it. THAT is not agreement at all on my part!!!
Great example. After the Reagan Era (1980 - 1992), there were lowered taxes, but government funding was low. When Clinton came into power, he raised taxes, and the economy pulled itself out of the mini-recession it was in.
This is an inductive evidence - you stated a general rule. You're affirming the consequent - this proves nothing!
And there are many variables here. How do you know that the economy "ulling itself out of the mini-recession it was in" had to do with government spending at all???
Deductive evidence has demonstrated that government spending hurts the economy, as you will never see what would have happened had people freely chosen according to what they WANTED rather than their money forcibly taken away from them and used for other purposes.
Do you know what cornering the market is? If a business undercuts another, bigger business, then that bigger business will either buy it out, or try to negotiate so that business raises it to $50.
Yeah but businesses can be created that charge $40 and are more efficient - capitalism works to benefit the consumer, because the consumer selects the good companies and "selects out" the bad.
Stop saying capitalism. Socialism is the same thing as capitalism.
This is an inductive evidence - you stated a general rule. You're affirming the consequent - this proves nothing!
And there are many variables here. How do you know that the economy "ulling itself out of the mini-recession it was in" had to do with government spending at all???
Deductive evidence has demonstrated that government spending hurts the economy, as you will never see what would have happened had people freely chosen according to what they WANTED rather than their money forcibly taken away from them and used for other purposes.
Then there is no way to prove that Socialism is better than Libertarianism or vice versa without giving examples of it.
What evidence shows that government spending hurts the economy as long as there is revenue to support it?
I give you examples where government spending has worked, yet you say it is not valid. You give me "evidence," whatever you think that is, that shows that government spending doesn't work and will never work because it blinds them away.
Now, since math is always solid "evidence" (I hope), I think I'll use that. Let's say your taxes are $5 000. Let's say healthcare costs $6 000. Now what? Answer that, and I will answer anything you want, within reason.
