A lesson on why socialism never works

[j2k4]

"Most of the rich..." referring to who, precisely?

Do you propose a standard by which wealth is subject to a determination of the worth/merit of an individual?

Do you think you are worth more or less than you earn, Rat?

To whom do these decisions fall?

Elected officials whose primary compulsion is to be re-elected?

The "rich" (to whom you ascribe such greed), who may just decide you should pay a higher rate than they do?

You generally decry the greed of American capitalism; what do you think of the potential for punitive/repressive taxation authored by whomever is charged with dictating the tax code?

The relative worth of a soldier or nurse compared with a CEO is not best parsed in monetary terms...if a CEO (by dint of his intellectual capacity and creativity) employs even a mere double-handful of people who in turn support their families, is his societal contribution not on a par with a nurse or a soldier?

If not, explain this, please.

Also:

Please define "excessive"?

That's not what I said.

I don't believe most of the Rich have earned their money, agreed. I even gave examples of poorly paid people that I believe are worth more than them.

I didn't say those that have earned it should be more favourably taxed. A Tax system should be open and transparent; above all it should be simple.

If not, then you get the situation we have today whereby the Rich and Corporations take advantage of loopholes to avoid the Tax they should be paying. This increases the burden on everyone else.

There are examples of people in this country earning very substantial sums and paying less Tax than those on very modest incomes. Any system that allows this is morally bankrupt, as are the people that do it.

I also declared that the threshold where one should pay any Tax from an Inheritance should be much higher than it is at present. I do not believe that you should not be able to look after your family after you've gone.

However, as I've said, there is a limit.

At the moment I'd put that at 7 figures: Say everything over £1,000,000 should be taxed as income to those individuals that inherited.

You will notice that those that have substantially above this would still be able to reduce the Tax burdon by spreading the money around his familly.

I also do not believe that people should be forced to sell their Homes (as an example) to pay Tax. I have no problem with this Tax being deferred if it is tied up in assets, or indeed that the Government becomes a temporary non-voting shareholder if there is a Company involved, until that debt is paid.

Oh.

Stunning to hear these types of things occur over there, where socialism (the "cure") has held sway all these years.

What do you suppose that means.

Btw-

Just as an exercise, try to construct a reasonable-sounding paragraph or so, designed to justify or validate the idea of confiscatory taxation of estates/inheritances.

Every time I've tried it, it hasn't worked at all; it comes out sounding as if government interests (which are not uniformly sound) always trump those of the individual.

Just for larks, how about a system whereby the government stipulates an amount to be ceded, and the party in question is allowed to designate the charities/causes to be enriched?

Just casting about, you see.

[Snee]

By the paragraph, then:

What the author is doing assuming is that money is, and should be, rewarded proportionally to how you perform (like a grade ought to be), which isn't really happening in any system I know of.

It shouldn't be?

It isn't?

It "happens" all over the place, all the time, here in the U.S.

Happens all the time?

Some people work hard all their lives, and end up with nothing.

Some don't lift a finger, and inherit billions.

"all the time" is not quantifiable, and even if it were, it doesn't happen every time, which is the point. No current system is fair.

Our media makes sure you hear naught about it, though, preferring to present the errants as if they are the norm, which they most definitely are not.

I'd argue that most people who are considered wealthy, with regards to monetary means, in the US, and in most of western society at that, have way more than they'll ever need, and most likely way more than they are worth.

It's not just what's in the media either, it's what I actually see in real life.

If some of the people I've had the distinct displeasure of working with got paid after what they accomplish, they'd be paid in negative sums, but they aren't. Meanwhile, the women doing the salaries in some places I've been consulting at work harder than I, but make considerably less.

Communism, and socialism to a lesser extent, does away with that kind of thing, after a fashion, and just states that everyone should have equal means to live, also eliminating social classes and such. Basically it does away with the idea of money as a reward.

How do communism and socialism "do away with that kind of thing"?

It doesn't reward people with money.

Communism in its purest form removes money as a reward, and ensures that everyone has enough to live, and more or less the same to live with.

(In theory it does, in reality that hasn't really had the chance to happen yet. Mainly, I'd say, because some people are still locked in the notion that they need to have more than others, and some of those people always find the way to the top.)

Socialism, as I see it, keeps people from dropping too low or rising too high, but it's less strict.

The social democracy I'm in just tries to keep people from dropping too low.

How do communism and socialism "state" everyone should have "equal means to live", i.e., if my neighbor has a Volvo S80, and I have the S40, My government can be expected to address this iniquity, and forthwith, too.

Bugger the model and make of your car. The point is that the intent is to make sure that there's neither poverty, nor extreme wealth. No one's children has to go hungry, and no one sits on more cash than they and their entire family can spend in their entire lifetime.

Social classes and such are "eliminated"?

Do communism and socialism "eliminate" personal judgement as well?

You're talking about a, well...you couldn't call it a society, rightly - after all, you're talking about cloning, but by means of legislature and judiciary, rather than scientific means.

No, I don't, but thanks for trying.

Saying that you ought not have lots more stuff than your neighbors won't strip you of your individuality.

Nor does saying that making money shouldn't be the way you distinguish yourself.

Kinda scary-sounding, if you ask me...I mean, gee whiz, Snee, you and I aren't equal - may be more appropriate to say we are not...congruent.

Nor, I think, would you want us to be.

This is not the same as saying there should be no distinction between those who do a greater service to society, and those who do not. <10% of the population aren't allowed to sit on >90% of the wealth, whether they actually did anything to earn it, at that, though.

You speak as if there were a pile of something, designated "WEALTH", upon which a small group of people have set up shop for the express purpose of poking others off it.

One more time:

Wealth is not finite.

Wealth is not zero-sum proposition.

One can make a pile of one's own to sit on, as can one's neighbors and relatives.

Ever heard of inflation? Pump more currency into the equation, and it'll only end up being worth less per unit.

Means, by which I mean food, materials for homes, ground to build them on, fuel for your car, and so forth, ARE limited. And will continue to be so. The more limited, the more valuable.

Until the stuff is available in an unlimited supply, you'll still have more of what there is, if you have more to spend to begin with. Everyone can't have what, say, Bill Gates has. Because there's not enough on the entire planet to go around.

I'd wager that a lot of people, if not most, would have a higher standard of living, if things were distributed more evenly, though.

Which brings us right back to the silly example as featured by yon made up texan nutter: Grades are purely an intellectual construct, and an ultimately arbitrary one at that. Money is similar, but not the same.

There's no upper limit to what you can own, money-wise, but there's almost certainly an upper limit to what you need, or can use. There's an upper limit to how good marks you can get, on the other hand.

I'll agree with you in part when it comes to equality. We aren't created equal. And it'd be pretty boring if we had to be. I'd not mind if the total sum of our wordly possessions were equal in terms of value, though. And I'm saying that without knowing which of us currently has more.

[j2k4]

Nothing you posted explains how the trade-off of government ineptitude for individual creativity ends up as a plus.

Do this for me, Snee:

Recount for me the greatest-ever example of a successfully-run government business, or government invention; please reserve for yourself the entire history of the known universe to draw from.

Planes, trains, automobiles, computers, stoves, cell-phones, magnetic-resonance-imaging, banks, washers & dryers, the shingles on your roof and whatever-else your house is made of, the concrete or asphalt under your feet/wheels...

All of these things are the result of the people endeavoring to be rich and make money, not people consumed by an all-encompassing altruism.

Government can confiscate and legislate, but that is all.

Governments aspiring to creativity are merely profligate...again, historically-speaking.

Besides which, to whatever extent you would claim your own government to have successfully experimented with socialism, one does not just jerk the economic "engine of the world" (to whatever diminishing extent we may still claim that to be the case) off it's tracks and send it in another direction.

I wish I had more time to respond, but I am off to personally replace an employee who is sick.

BTW-

Do I owe him for the shift he's missing, or does the government?

[clocker]

Recount for me the greatest-ever example of a successfully-run government business, or government invention; please reserve for yourself the entire history of the known universe to draw from.

NASA- specifically, the Apollo program which resulted in 1969's Moon landing.

Nothing you posted explains how the trade-off of government ineptitude for individual creativity ends up as a plus.

"Government ineptitude" has become such a cornerstone of your posting that one could easily conclude that you are not actually a conservative, rather a full-blown anarchist.

[j2k4]

NASA- specifically, the Apollo program which resulted in 1969's Moon landing.

I'll grant that one - tel me about all the others.

Nothing you posted explains how the trade-off of government ineptitude for individual creativity ends up as a plus.

"Government ineptitude" has become such a cornerstone of your posting that one could easily conclude that you are not actually a conservative, rather a full-blown anarchist.

A bit of a leap, that.

Tell me why you believe so heartily in socialism.

Or do you.

[clocker]

You asked for one example and I provided one.
Now I'm supposed to spend the next "X" weeks writing all the others?

Re: "a bit of a leap"...
Why don't you provide some examples of what you would consider proper government powers and examples of same.

[j2k4]

You asked for one example and I provided one.
Now I'm supposed to spend the next "X" weeks writing all the others?

Re: "a bit of a leap"...
Why don't you provide some examples of what you would consider proper government powers and examples of same.

Your PM box is full, brother.

As to proper government powers, start and end with defending our borders, which used to be kind of a staple concern, I believe, and is currently not even on Washington's radar.

Make a few laws, a tad bit of regulatory oversight...work the job part-time, go home and make room for the next guy.

It's just that simple.

[clocker]

PM box now empty.

I assume that in this pastoral eden you describe you'll be riding to work- wait, will you even have to work?- on a unicorn.
Sounds great.

Also sounds completely unrealistic, but you can't have everything.

[Rat Faced]

As to proper government powers, start and end with defending our borders, which used to be kind of a staple concern, I believe, and is currently not even on Washington's radar.

Make a few laws, a tad bit of regulatory oversight...work the job part-time, go home and make room for the next guy.

I don't agree.

I would agree with "Defending our Nation" or "Defending our Society". Would even have had a little sympathy for "Defending our Culture".

Borders are only one part of a Country, and frankly they are probably not the most important. The Citizens are.

[Snee]

Nothing you posted explains how the trade-off of government ineptitude for individual creativity ends up as a plus.

Do this for me, Snee:

Recount for me the greatest-ever example of a successfully-run government business, or government invention; please reserve for yourself the entire history of the known universe to draw from.

Planes, trains, automobiles, computers, stoves, cell-phones, magnetic-resonance-imaging, banks, washers & dryers, the shingles on your roof and whatever-else your house is made of, the concrete or asphalt under your feet/wheels...

All of these things are the result of the people endeavoring to be rich and make money, not people consumed by an all-encompassing altruism.

First of all, let's examine some of what you are on about there:

Let's see. Airplanes - we have them, in the shape they are today, because of war, that's what pushed their development. Wars are generally run by governments. For that matter a lot of our technology looks like it does today because of wars. I'm pretty sure it's also affected cell-phones.

Concrete/asphalt - The romans invented concrete, pretty hard to say why they did it, tbh. Taxes paid for a lot of the applications, anyhow. Then and today.

Asphalt? Well, I don't know who invented it, but I do know who plans and builds the public roads over here. That would be the government.

Secondly, as for innovations, the thing is that basically all the medical (and other) research that comes out of our universities, is sponsored in part or in full by our government.

Furthermore they provided our powerlines, most of our railroads, and sponsored cheap housing. They run most of our hospitals, our schools, and the aforementioned universities. They provide us with power, in part. They subsidize medication, and medical treatments. And so on, and so forth.

And for that matter, this entire country is their business, and it's running relatively well.

Government can confiscate and legislate, but that is all.

Governments aspiring to creativity are merely profligate...again, historically-speaking.

Besides which, to whatever extent you would claim your own government to have successfully experimented with socialism, one does not just jerk the economic "engine of the world" (to whatever diminishing extent we may still claim that to be the case) off it's tracks and send it in another direction.

I don't really think you see the point. As long as we need money, and it's available as a reward, ie: if you do something good, you may be rewarded with more money, that will drive somedevelopment, as people need to eat, and most of us don't want to worry about where our next meal is coming from.

If society is restructured, so that everyone has things enough to live well, that doesn't mean there can't be rewards, even if money ceases to be a concern.

Just look at all the people who want to be famous, in one way or another. People will always find ways to motivate themselves.