• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

What's wrong with "Democratic Socialism"?

wiretap said:
Based on what it costs for critical functions of government, less than 15% GDP.
Click to expand...

What would the percentage per person be like in your estimation?

Equal taxation to all, none of this progressive tax bracket shit where some people are actually getting money back and some people pay over half their income.
Click to expand...

The point is a person who makes 10,000 needs most of his money merely to survive, but someone making a million dollars can afford to pay more.

That's alright, you just have a fundamental misunderstanding of what charity is.
Click to expand...


I never said it was charity. In fact, I've never heard anyone say it was charity.

We're talking about the functions of government. And guess what, the rich pay more for services like the military, the police, building roads, if for no other reason because they make more money. So in that respect the poor benefit more than their money's worth. Are we going to complain about this, saying that it's forced charity?
 
Zenze said:
If $250,000 is before he pays his employees then he doesnt make $250,000.

And if he does make $250,000 the average american only earns $50,000 so considering he earns five times that amount I would consider it upper class.

Also about the idea of building the economy from the upper class down... it seems silly to think that somehow aiding the upper class helps the middle class more than it helps the upper class itself...
Click to expand...


10
 
ZDroid1 said:
The point is a person who makes 10,000 needs most of his money merely to survive, but someone making a million dollars can afford to pay more.


We're talking about the functions of government. And guess what, the rich pay more for services like the military, the police, building roads, if for no other reason because they make more money. So in that respect the poor benefit more than their money's worth. Are we going to complain about this, saying that it's forced charity?
Click to expand...

first WHO is making $10K a year? federal minimum wage is over $15K a year..

second paying more for no other reason than having more is 100% class envy as Ive said many times... its also discriminatory

third the rich paying more for services (discriminatory) isnt the only problem here in regards to "forced charity" a huge percentage of the population actually 'earns' money by filing taxes...... they receive more in return than they paid in......... this is paid for by stealing more money from the rich........ this is the US version of robin hood.... if they need every penny so badly that they have to take a discrimanatory amount from the rich.. then why are they giving the poor more back than they paid in?
 
ZDroid1 said:
What would the percentage per person be like in your estimation?



The point is a person who makes 10,000 needs most of his money merely to survive, but someone making a million dollars can afford to pay more.




I never said it was charity. In fact, I've never heard anyone say it was charity.

We're talking about the functions of government. And guess what, the rich pay more for services like the military, the police, building roads, if for no other reason because they make more money. So in that respect the poor benefit more than their money's worth. Are we going to complain about this, saying that it's forced charity?
Click to expand...
1. I won't even make an attempt at teaching you math.. you need to learn how to divide on your own.

2. No, those people don't need my money. They need to make their own money. Giving them "free" money and services is not an incentive to work harder.

3. Well, I guess it isn't charity when the government forces you to do it.. a more proper name would be involuntary servitude. That's something this country has fought against throughout history. It's scary we're turning back to it, and people such as yourself support it.
 
copestag said:
first WHO is making $10K a year? federal minimum wage is over $15K a year...
Click to expand...
I think the figures chosen were just representations of round amounts, just as easily you could say $x vs $x*100.

copestag said:
...if they need every penny so badly that they have to take a discrimanatory amount from the rich.. then why are they giving the poor more back than they paid in?
Click to expand...
I think the point is that in most western societies the rich will always pay a disproportionately higher amount to fund society than the poor(although not necessarily a high %)

The reason is quite simple, most people could not pay their own way in society, and therefore the wealthy either pay to fund the services provided to the poor, or the poor would not receive those services from the State.

As the State is charged to look after everyone equally it is forced to either provided equally poor services to all, or increase taxes on the only people able to pay higher taxes to increase the provision of services.

There are places where the citizens have direct control over the amount of taxes provided, and it has been known for the government to present a budget for the year, which aims to provide a set of services for $x, based on a tax rate of y%, but when put to the vote the citizens vote for a lower tax rate of y*0.75%. The government has then been forced to cut the services it provides. Inevitable the citizens then complain about the low level of services, and of course it's the poor that are most effected, because they can't buy additional services from the private sector like the wealthy can.

I can't think of any perfect system, the best we can hope for is as fair a system as possible; the rich will always subsidise the poor, the trick is to not provide unnecessary services and provide the necessary services as efficiently as possible.
 
mpw said:
I think the figures chosen were just representations of round amounts, just as easily you could say $x vs $x*100.


I think the point is that in most western societies the rich will always pay a disproportionately higher amount to fund society than the poor(although not necessarily a high %)

The reason is quite simple, most people could not pay their own way in society, and therefore the wealthy either pay to fund the services provided to the poor, or the poor would not receive those services from the State.

As the State is charged to look after everyone equally it is forced to either provided equally poor services to all, or increase taxes on the only people able to pay higher taxes to increase the provision of services.

There are places where the citizens have direct control over the amount of taxes provided, and it has been known for the government to present a budget for the year, which aims to provide a set of services for $x, based on a tax rate of y%, but when put to the vote the citizens vote for a lower tax rate of y*0.75%. The government has then been forced to cut the services it provides. Inevitable the citizens then complain about the low level of services, and of course it's the poor that are most effected, because they can't buy additional services from the private sector like the wealthy can.

I can't think of any perfect system, the best we can hope for is as fair a system as possible; the rich will always subsidise the poor, the trick is to not provide unnecessary services and provide the necessary services as efficiently as possible.
Click to expand...


This ^ is an EPIC FAIL! wow
 
The fallacy here is that poverty is a choice. Poor people are poor because the choose not to work hard.

The facts that many people simply don't have the opportunity, and that things of necessity are simply too expensive, are denied. And even when they're not denied, they say the poor should just suffer and die. It's no one's obligation to help.
 
TambourineMan said:
Yup, from each according to the ability to each according to their need. Spread the wealth around.
Click to expand...

No one wants to take it to that extreme. The rich can keep their wealth and enjoy it, and maintain their lifestyle as it is. And we're not going to be subsidizing anyone's XBox and LED TV.

All we're saying is that there are some basic necessities that many people fail to obtain. The government should intervene to help them, and taxes will fund that effort.

The rich need to understand that they don't exist in a vacuum. They live in the same world as the rest of us, and their wealth is derived from the needs and desires of the consumers, the average Joes, and even the poor. It is also in their best interest to not let all that fall apart because then their own wealth would vanish.

Bill Gates wouldn't be rich if no one could afford to by MS Windows or Office.
 
ZDroid1 said:
The fallacy here is that poverty is a choice. Poor people are poor because the choose not to work hard.

The facts that many people simply don't have the opportunity, and that things of necessity are simply too expensive, are denied. And even when they're not denied, they say the poor should just suffer and die. It's no one's obligation to help.
Click to expand...

are you serious? this is 2010 theres no such thing as oppurtunity not available for ANYONE............ earlier you questioned the thinking that the poor are lazy or idiots...... saying theres no oppurtunity for the poor to better themselves is the kind of thinking that makes this statement 100% true

if a person is poor and cant see any oppurtunity to better their situation then I will wholeheartedly 100% say they are definitely lazy or an idiot

of course none of that really matters since there is NO SUCH THING as poor in the United States
 
Copestag,

We're going to agree to disagree. I think getting rich, or even just maintaining a comfortable lifestyle, requires a combination of skill, talent and luck. Some people simply lack one or more. Not ALL of us could have founded Microsoft. Not all of us have the skill and talent and luck to become the President.

Some people struggle hard just to be a waiter at a restaurant, and even that isn't always enough to pay the rent.
 
copestag said:
are you serious? this is 2010 theres no such thing as oppurtunity not available for ANYONE............ earlier you questioned the thinking that the poor are lazy or idiots...... saying theres no oppurtunity for the poor to better themselves is the kind of thinking that makes this statement 100% true

if a person is poor and cant see any oppurtunity to better their situation then I will wholeheartedly 100% say they are definitely lazy or an idiot

of course none of that really matters since there is NO SUCH THING as poor in the United States
Click to expand...

If life were only as simple as you seem to want it to be... :rolleyes:
 
nobody said it was 'simple'....... but thats exactly the point isnt it?...... if its not simple then its too hard...... so easier to blame those who didnt mind how hard it was and made something of themselves.......... sounds like youve summed up the excuse for being lazy
 
When I was in college in a philosophy class, we studied something called the Wilt Chamberlain Argument. Now it's referred to as the Michael Jordan Argument. The premise is that Michael Jordan has made huge amounts of money strictly through God-given talent, so he should be taxed enough so that his income is equivalent to everyone else. We had some interesting debates about that. Check it out if you can. I think I got the title right.

As long as our government puts things in effect like NAFTA, the middle class is going to go downhill. It is impossible for American workers to compete with workers in other countries who will do the same job for pennies on the dollar. Until countries like China and India have the same standards of living we do, jobs will go overseas with the policies our government has in place.

I personally would like to see a flat tax rate across the board. Maybe 10%. There are many arguments for and against that, but I would like to see it happen.

I think everyone can better themselves, but it is easier for some than others. There are many factors involved such as what type of family you were born into, where you were born and many others. Many are not well of due to choices they made, and many are rich because of luck. I think we have an entitlement attitude in this country now more than ever with more people expecting the government to help them with more and more things. I believe in smaller government, but that's not going to happen. We are well on our way to being similar to a European country. Is that bad? I think so, but judging by the way people have voted in recent elections, my way of thinking is a minority.

Thanks for the interesting thread. There have been good points on both sides. It definitely gives me something to think about.
 
hakr100 said:
Former President Bush made 77 trips to Crawford TX on Air Force One.

At a bare minimum, for the flights alone, Bush's 77 vacation trips to Crawford cost us $226,072 per trip. That's $17,407,544 so he could ride his bicycle in the woods and clear brush for the cameras.

The minimum cost per trip to Crawford TX is $226,072. That's just the estimated cost of flying Air Force One round trip - about two hours of flight time each way at $56,518 per hour.

http://oversight.house.gov/From the House committee on government

THE COST OF PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE
PRESIDENTIAL POLITICAL TRAVEL
PREPARED FOR
REP. HENRY A.WAXMAN

This report assumes that flight operating costs are $56,518 per hour for Air Force One and $14,552 per hour for Air Force Two. These figures are based on the per hour cost figures cited by GAO for fiscal year 2000, adjusted for inflation.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the President
Click to expand...
 
Or look at pelosi's tab on air fare ;)

Aww crap we're off topic again, time to close it down twospirits.
 
ZDroid1 said:
The fallacy here is that poverty is a choice. Poor people are poor because the choose not to work hard.

The facts that many people simply don't have the opportunity, and that things of necessity are simply too expensive, are denied. And even when they're not denied, they say the poor should just suffer and die. It's no one's obligation to help.
Click to expand...

It is a choice, people are what they are because of choices they've made. Anyone that says otherwise is just making excuses. The only thing one can say that the successful have which the unsuccessful don't have is "Willpower".

Opportunities are "taken", not "given". Just like liberty. Go watch "Pursuit of Happyness".
 
dark4181 said:
It is a choice, people are what they are because of choices they've made. Anyone that says otherwise is just making excuses. The only thing one can say that the successful have which the unsuccessful don't have is "Willpower".

Opportunities are "taken", not "given". Just like liberty. Go watch "Pursuit of Happyness".
Click to expand...

I have general agreement with that. I think it covers a bit too much ground, though, in real life. I'd like to amend those remarks to:

"It is a choice; most people are what they are because of choices they've perceived as available to them."

"Anyone that says otherwise is just making excuses. The only things one can say that the successful have which the unsuccessful don't have is access to more choices."

"Opportunities are "taken" by those who know about them and have access to them."
 
dark4181 said:
It is a choice, people are what they are because of choices they've made. Anyone that says otherwise is just making excuses. The only thing one can say that the successful have which the unsuccessful don't have is "Willpower".

Opportunities are "taken", not "given". Just like liberty. Go watch "Pursuit of Happyness".
Click to expand...


Maslow's hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cycle of poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Pursuit of Happyness Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom