ForumsWEPRSocialism

191 24939
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

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?

Let the trolls begin!

  • 191 Replies
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

What evidence shows that government spending hurts the economy as long as there is revenue to support it?

All government spending comes at a cost - the revenue would have been in the citizens' hands and used for their own means, which stimulates the economy more. So comparatively, it loses.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

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.

Huh??? Are you trying to say that government spending makes costs magically disappear? If only that were the case!
EnterOrion
offline
EnterOrion
4,220 posts
Nomad

Hey guys, I have an idea.

Let's let people choose to pay for taxes, and have the government set the budget to that.

We'll see how much people like them.

Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

Let's let people choose to pay for taxes, and have the government set the budget to that.

Great idea, and they can initiate government spending with donations. Surely, since government spending benefits everyone, people will participate.
thepyro222
offline
thepyro222
2,150 posts
Peasant

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?


This is why we have multiple bread companies. They could do this if they were a monopoly, but Teddy Roosevelt saw to it that that would never happen. The competition is going to keep the cost of bread low. If bread ever does get too high, then the Government steps in and evaluates the cost of production, the shipping costs, and all that logistics jazz, then gives the company(ies) the maximum price that they can have said loaf of bread at.

would expect more from a nineteen year old, but maybe you're just not into politics.

This sounds like an immature personal attack. I'm into politics a lot, just not budget crap, because it's extremely complicated. Besides, I've never even seen the inside of the White House, how the hell do any of us know how to run the country? I'm 100% sure that you would do just as bad a job as anyone else would. Quit talking outta your a$$. you don't know how to run a country, so don't act like you do.
thepyro222
offline
thepyro222
2,150 posts
Peasant

Hey guys, I have an idea.

Let's let people choose to pay for taxes, and have the government set the budget to that.



Great idea, and they can initiate government spending with donations. Surely, since government spending benefits everyone, people will participate.


Lulz... you do realize that people would never pay taxes if they didn't have to? People would never choose to pay taxes, but they would still expect the Government to serve them on a silver platter. This is why the Government has laws that make people pay taxes. Now they may not be good, but they're the best we got.
EnterOrion
offline
EnterOrion
4,220 posts
Nomad

Lulz... you do realize that people would never pay taxes if they didn't have to?


That would be the intention.

but they would still expect the Government to serve them on a silver platter.


They should learn life doesn't come on a silver platter at all, let alone the most red-tape wrapped, unreliable, corrupt form of entity on the planet.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

Now they may not be good, but they're the best we got.

It puzzles me why people think that a "small" amount of tyranny is "necessary."

The earliest civilizations were dictatorships, and the lower-class inhabitants in them believed that, even though the dictator was cruel, that he was somehow necessary. It has carried over here - the idea that obedience is an absolute good, no matter how ridiculous or reasonable the order may be. And it is up to people to break the psychological bonds that chain them.

Corrupt governments are neither necessary nor ideal. Yes, we can do better.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

This is why we have multiple bread companies. They could do this if they were a monopoly, but Teddy Roosevelt saw to it that that would never happen. The competition is going to keep the cost of bread low. If bread ever does get too high, then the Government steps in and evaluates the cost of production, the shipping costs, and all that logistics jazz, then gives the company(ies) the maximum price that they can have said loaf of bread at.


Go watch the Informant!
This sounds like an immature personal attack. I'm into politics a lot, just not budget crap, because it's extremely complicated. Besides, I've never even seen the inside of the White House, how the hell do any of us know how to run the country? I'm 100% sure that you would do just as bad a job as anyone else would. Quit talking outta your a$$. you don't know how to run a country, so don't act like you do.


You kept claiming you didn't know anything, so I figured maybe politics wasn't your subject to talk about. I'm actually pretty confident that if absolute power were given to me, I would save this country.
0ShimZ0
offline
0ShimZ0
116 posts
Nomad

I'm actually pretty confident that if absolute power were given to me, I would save this country.
yep so were hitler, stalin, and many others.
On a economic level hitler did actually pretty well(if you don't take into consideration the rest!), ruling a country seems simple but in practic you have to make sure that many people get their way, which is very hard. and not to forget neihbouring countries(and much more....)
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

It puzzles me why people think that a "small" amount of tyranny is "necessary."


If you have a viable alternative to the tax and spend model, I'd like to hear it. The fact is people, even in relatively free economies like in America, rely on the government an awful lot more than they think they do. If you want to live in a post industrial society and maintain the same standard of living you are used to, services need to be provided for on a large scale. Government spending is the only effective way of doing this.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

On a economic level hitler did actually pretty well(if you don't take into consideration the rest!),


Sorry for the DP, but I'm sick and tired of people saying Hitler was good for the German economy. He sacked the only decent economic minister post WW1 Germany had up to that point, failed to meet the ideologically motivated economic aims the Nazis set out to achieve, as well as creating artificial GDP growth through military expansion.

There was so much spare capacity, it would have taken a drunk baboon not to grow the German economy at that point. He was just lucky with the timing of his coming to power.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

yep so were hitler, stalin, and many others.
On a economic level hitler did actually pretty well(if you don't take into consideration the rest!), ruling a country seems simple but in practic you have to make sure that many people get their way, which is very hard. and not to forget neihbouring countries(and much more....)


No he didn't. Eventually, fascism, theoretically, sprouts a command economy, which is never good.

All I need is one week to make my changes. It can't be that hard to raise taxes to 50%, elimate loopholes in taxes, reform the government system, and a couple other things.
What would happen to a world without taxes?


The rich would get richer, and the poor would get poorer. That's a world without taxes.
loloynage2
offline
loloynage2
4,206 posts
Peasant

Socialism is a great way to help the maximum amount of people, it cost more, but atleast it's not greedy.

What would happen to a world without taxes?

Without taxes there are no governments. Without taxes there are no countries. Without taxes there is no help. Without taxes only the rich can live well. Without taxes there would be no real economy. Basically without taxes there are no foundations to any big society.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

Just to let everyone know, the US is a socialistic country. Every modern democracy is a hybrid form of socialism, so stop saying that socialism is bad because we have adopted socialism since the US has been founded.

Showing 106-120 of 191