POLITICS American Economics

Discussion in 'Politicants' started by lylsmorr, Feb 26, 2019.

  1. RockyHill

    RockyHill Loves Auburn more than Tennessee.

    Sorry, I missed the last part the first time. Uh, yeah duh. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

    Do you want to be purely capitalistic? If not, what is it you want to get rid of? Public schools? Fire departments? Only progressive taxation?
     
  2. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    What modern nation does not?
     
  3. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    How is it diluted? How do you figure that taxation is counter to, opposed, opposite of, etc... capitalism? Never in the history of capitalism has there not been taxation. Ever. And no one ever expected there to be no taxes.
     
  4. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Inferior? How? The way I see it, either someone else fills the void immediately, or demand outpaces supply and the price goes up... thereby making the risk or palpable. Market forces don't just stop.
     
  5. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    If there is an alternative to the real world, I am interested in living there on the weekends.
     
  6. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Dude... Define these terms as you understand them.
     
    RockyHill likes this.
  7. cpninja

    cpninja Member

    Socialism requires the means of production to be owned by workers/the public, not by private capital. The whole wealth redistribution angle is a feature of how socialism works, but it isn't what defines socialism or determines if a system is socialist or not
     
  8. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    That's what I think, too. But socialism has been used as a catch-all term nowadays for any progressive policy so people seem to be confused as to what it actually looks like. Venezuela is socialist because they nationalized/seized several industries and set the prices of goods regardless of market forces, not because of how they do healthcare or taxes.
     
  9. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    If they needed someone to not participate in order to take over market space... not real hard to figure.
     
  10. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    This is how markets works right now, every day. The risk/benefit is too low for some, so either others step in or the cost goes up to reflect the lower supply and the risk/benefit equation changes. That is capitalism and a free market. The tax rate has nothing to do with it so long as the market is free and industry/production is privately owned.

    You guys came at me on the wrong tack, imo. The trade off is that it would make the American markets less competitive globally for many things.
     
  11. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Is this why American politics is so binary, black and white now? Has it become commonly believed that any policy that isn't conservative is socialist or a slippery slope to it? There are many things left of American conservatism that is not in any way socialist by the definition of the word. And the most "socialist" aspect of the American economy is actually agriculture, where prices are tightly controlled and farmers are paid not to produce in some instances, and have received 7 billion dollars in handouts in the last year to offset the trade war with China... I don't think anything else comes closer to being socialist, and even that isn't exactly socialist.
     
  12. lylsmorr

    lylsmorr Super Moderator

    How about key features?

    Capitalism
    • private property, which allows people to own tangible assets such as land and houses and intangible assets such as stocks and bonds;
    • self-interest, through which people act in pursuit of their own good, without regard for sociopolitical pressure. Nonetheless, these uncoordinated individuals end up benefiting society as if, in the words of Smith’s 1776 Wealth of Nations, they were guided by an invisible hand;
    • competition, through firms’ freedom to enter and exit markets, maximizes social welfare, that is, the joint welfare of both producers and consumers;
    • a market mechanism that determines prices in a decentralized manner through interactions between buyers and sellers—prices, in return, allocate resources, which naturally seek the highest reward, not only for goods and services but for wages as well;
    • freedom to choose with respect to consumption, production, and investment—dissatisfied customers can buy different products, investors can pursue more lucrative ventures, workers can leave their jobs for better pay; and
    • limited role of government, to protect the rights of private citizens and maintain an orderly environment that facilitates proper functioning of markets
    I say the US under your proposed "capitalistic" high tax model would check probably 4 of those 6. I don't see how the 2nd and 6th would be the case.

    Socialism

    • Collective Ownership: In socialism, all means of production are owned by the community, i.e., Government, and no individual can hold private property beyond certain limit. Therefore, it is government who utilises these resources in the interest of social welfare.
    • Economic, Social and Political Equality:Under socialism, there is almost equality between rich and poor. There is no problem of class struggle.
    • Economic Planning: Under socialism, government fixes certain objectives. In order to achieve these objectives, government adopts economic planning. All types of decisions regarding the central problems of an economy are taken in the economic plans. There is a Central Planning Authority, who plans for the economy.
    • No Competition: Unlike capitalistic economy, there is no cut throat competition. It means lack of competition as state is the sole entrepreneur.
    • Positive Role of Government: In socialism, government plays significant role in decision making. Thus, government has complete control over economic activities like distribution, exchange, consumption, investment and foreign trade etc.
    • Work and Wages According to Ability and Needs:
    In socialistic economy, work is according to ability and wage according to need. It is said that under socialism “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs, is socialism.”

    • Maximum Social Welfare: The sole objective of socialism is the maximum social welfare of the society. It means that there is no scope of exploitation of labour class. Government keeps a close eye on the needs of the poor masses while formulating plans.

    Your ideation would check 2, possibly 3, of those boxes directly - (i) and (ii) are borderline since so much wealth is being taken away. 5 and 7 check boxes.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2019
  13. Volst53

    Volst53 Super Moderator


    We do a really poor job of teaching economics in this country.

    Agriculture is also a total house of cards in this country too with tons of waste and cronyism.

    However we do produce cheap food, even though processing and production is becoming more and more centralized.
     
  14. lylsmorr

    lylsmorr Super Moderator

    And as with all things, in my opinion, the more freedom and focus on the individual the better.

    I'm not opposed to a small tax but I do not like the idea of people being looked at as a funding source and/or only a collective.
     
  15. lylsmorr

    lylsmorr Super Moderator

    I don't see anything as black and white here. I think of it more as a sliding scale between socialism and capitalism. The closer it is to individuality and capitalism the better.
     
  16. RockyHill

    RockyHill Loves Auburn more than Tennessee.

    Lyls, in that long post are you working on the assumption from IP’s post where he said 70% on 14m plus?

    If so, I can still make a strong argument that even with that change, our economic system checks all of your capitalism boxes and none of the socialism boxes.

    And again, I can’t emphasize this enough, you called me a moron in this thread. More than once.
     
  17. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    We're a nation. You don't think that makes us a cooperative enterprise?
     
  18. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Yes on private property, self interest, competition, market mechanism, freedom to choose, and limited role of government.

    Not collective ownership. Not "no problem of class struggle." No more economic planning than presently. Definitely competition. No complete control over economic activities. No work and wages according to ability in needs in a marginal tax rate. Not maximum social welfare present either.

    If we live in a capitalist country now, we still would. If you think a higher tax rate makes it socialist, I just don't know how you come to that conclusion based on what is here.
     
    RockyHill likes this.
  19. doolmeonce

    doolmeonce Member

    Define it however you like, but there are absolutely socialistic trends. The top 10% is responsible for 70% of income tax revenue, and almost 45% pay no taxes at all. Over half of the federal budget is healthcare and social security. Obviously generalizing, ie most in the lower tax brackets still pay Fica and medicare, federal budget also includes corp income taxes, etc., but redistribution already exists on a massive scale. Does anyone believe the top 10% are relying on medicare or Medicaid or social security for healthcare or retirement, yet they are funding a disproportionate amount of it? A 70% income tax is nonsense, not matter what the income level is and I can't believe anyone could argue that it is capitalism.

    At any rate, individuals will simply drop salaries to a lower bracket and get paid in equities, move corporations offshore and leave money elsewhere, etc. Hell, if I made 10M and was told I had to pay 70%, I'd incorporate myself & write off every rental payment, utility bill, ounce of food and sliver of toilet paper as operating expenses, put a chunk in an IRA that would in turn invest in companies I owned, and claim about 3M in income resulting in a 2m tax burden. Which is about 20%, and what I find fair at that income level.

    The widening of the class gap is disturbing. If folks don't like how much Bezos makes, skip shopping on amazon. Lebron? don't watch NBA. Taxing those at the top does nothing, as these are the ones with the most influence to create the next loophole. We can keep running on this hamster wheel and pretend that 'reform' is going to do something, when in reality is just recycling the same shit for the same damn people but pitched a different way so people have something to talk about. Or we can start having real discussions about how to fix real problems.

    edit: anyone making over 40K a year playing video games should absolutely, unequivocally be taxed at 70%. Or more
     
  20. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    I didn’t say anything about capitalism. You are going to make the system so unprofitable at the high end with a 70% rate that there will just be very few willing to go the extra mile to break into that. It’s capping success and it shouldn’t be on the table. It especially shouldn’t be on the table when a large portion of the country doesn’t pay income taxes.
     

Share This Page