Explaining Socialism

[Cyn]

Wait, does he use more than one? Why would it not be ready?

Edit: Damn him.

[Cyn]

This so called "democratic socialism" also most certainly entails a progressive income tax. All that person in the op did was substitute "pool our resources" for "tax the rich and give to the poor".

Why are you guys so ashamed of that?

And asking the govt. to get more involved in college funding is fucking retarded. It's the reason tuition keeps rising.

And show me the GOPer who will admit to "Give the rich massive tax breaks so that the middle class can carry the burden."

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I will. The last time the capital gains rate was lowered revenue increased.

And if you want to get rid of half the lobbyists in Washington, you could eliminate the corporate income tax.

But, we care more about taxing the hell out of rich corps and rich people than tax breaks that do good.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

This so called "democratic socialism" also most certainly entails a progressive income tax. All that person in the op did was substitute "pool our resources" for "tax the rich and give to the poor".

Why are you guys so ashamed of that?

And asking the govt. to get more involved in college funding is fucking retarded. It's the reason tuition keeps rising.

Skips over points in the article explaining that, doesn't cite ( respectable, proven ) sources. Typical swampy'let's repeat limbaugh/beck'PLD argument. If this guy and those like him opened a book other than the bible or right wing autobiography every other year there might be some headway made in this country.

[Demosthenes11]

I'm not sure I'm reading this correctly - progressive taxes are bad now?

[Talint]

I will. The last time the capital gains rate was lowered revenue increased.

And if you want to get rid of half the lobbyists in Washington, you could eliminate the corporate income tax.

But, we care more about taxing the hell out of rich corps and rich people than tax breaks that do good.

I could argue the finer points with more finesse, but instead I'll ask about something we appear to agree on, namely lobbyists sucking:

What makes you think "half" the lobbyists will go away if you eliminate corporate income tax? There's plenty more for them to lobby on.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I'm not sure I'm reading this correctly - progressive taxes are bad now?

I'm not saying they're bad, I'm just saying that whole "pool our resources" bit is just a synonym for "institute a progressive tax so the rich pay for the rest of society". Nothing in that article refutes that point, unless of course somewhere it says there wouldn't be a progressive tax, but let's get real.

[Demosthenes11]

saying lobbyists will go away after getting rid of corp income taxes implies that a certain amount of money / profit is enough for corps. That is fucking ridiculous lol.

[Cyn]

I could argue the finer points with more finesse, but instead I'll ask about something we appear to agree on, namely lobbyists sucking:

What makes you think "half" the lobbyists will go away if you eliminate corporate income tax? There's plenty more for them to lobby on.

And besides, eliminating corporate taxes to get rid of lobbyists is like shooting yourself in the head to cure a headache.

[Demosthenes11]

I'm not saying they're bad, I'm just saying that whole "pool our resources" bit is just a synonym for "institute a progressive tax so the rich pay for the rest of society". Nothing in that article refutes that point, unless of course somewhere it says there wouldn't be a progressive tax, but let's get real.

paying more = paying all. gotcha

[Mrbeansman]

Swampys right guys tax cuts are great the economy. Remember when we did that huge tax cut and we went into a recession anyway?

[Ikarys]

I'm not saying they're bad, I'm just saying that whole "pool our resources" bit is just a synonym for "institute a progressive tax so the rich pay for the rest of society". Nothing in that article refutes that point, unless of course somewhere it says there wouldn't be a progressive tax, but let's get real.

If the rich own all our resources, then they already pay for the rest of society in some way, shape or form. Either the rich hire individuals to utilize those resources directly, or they are taxed (thus "pooling" them), and in essence, fined by the government for their control of their own wealth. The only difference is that in the case where someone is directly hired, they at least have a contractual obligation to complete work or provide a service, whereas the government has to make no such promise with tax dollars.

Swampy, don't let the liberal elite propaganda machine spin a progressive tax as anything other than it is; a legalized apology for the ability to make money.

[Greatguardian]

People still argue with Swampy?

Have fun with that.

[Demosthenes11]

If the rich own all our resources, then they already pay for the rest of society in some way, shape or form. Either the rich hire individuals to utilize those resources directly, or they are taxed (thus "pooling" them), and in essence, fined by the government for their control of their own wealth. The only difference is that in the case where someone is directly hired, they at least have a contractual obligation to complete work or provide a service, whereas the government has to make no such promise with tax dollars.

Swampy, don't let the liberal elite propaganda machine spin a progressive tax as anything other than it is; a legalized apology for the ability to make money.

http://cdn.front.moveon.org/wp-conte...arren-MAIN.jpg

[Cyn]

If the rich own all our resources, then they already pay for the rest of society in some way, shape or form. Either the rich hire individuals to utilize those resources directly, or they are taxed (thus "pooling" them), and in essence, fined by the government for their control of their own wealth. The only difference is that in the case where someone is directly hired, they at least have a contractual obligation to complete work or provide a service, whereas the government has to make no such promise with tax dollars.

Swampy, don't let the liberal elite propaganda machine spin a progressive tax as anything other than it is; a legalized apology for the ability to make money.

So... tax breaks for companies that hire domestically and "penalties for making money" for the rest?

[Greatguardian]

Look, if the rich all hate their country then that's fine with me, but they should at least own up to it. You know, since any country is, at its heart, fundamentally comprised of its people - not its laws or policies. It is utterly impossible to simultaneously love a country and hate its people.

[Ikarys]

The first problem in that reply is not just a quote, and not just a picture of a quote, but a picture of a quote from a woman who went from Academia (being paid to lie to yourself) to Politics (being paid to lie to others).

So... tax breaks for companies that hire domestically and "penalties for making money" for the rest?

Yes, exactly. You want to outsource to India because they'll work for scale? Pay it back in taxes, because only unpatriotic, self-hating yuppies will buy it anyways. Real companies should not only keep all their earnings, but they shouldn't have to show a red cent of their bookkeeping to Uncle Sam. Made in America by Americans? The boss decides where the money goes, not the government. Pool that collectively, because the people who actually made money in the first place aren't the crack addicts who need a police force, fire department or "environmental protection agency" in the first place.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

http://cdn.front.moveon.org/wp-conte...arren-MAIN.jpg

This is why the "political rhetoric" in our country will never improve. Elizabeth Warren was a law professor at Harvard. Presumably she's in the 1% intellectually. Yet she sounds like a pyromaniac in a field of straw men. Not only that, but she says the rich didn't pay for any of that. Last I checked the rich paid taxes to.

Not even a Harvard Law Professor can recognize a straw man argument. We're fucked.

[Talint]

The first problem in that reply is not just a quote, and not just a picture of a quote, but a picture of a quote from a woman who went from Academia (being paid to lie to yourself) to Politics (being paid to lie to others).



Yes, exactly. You want to outsource to India because they'll work for scale? Pay it back in taxes, because only unpatriotic, self-hating yuppies will buy it anyways. Real companies should not only keep all their earnings, but they shouldn't have to show a red cent of their bookkeeping to Uncle Sam. Made in America by Americans? The boss decides where the money goes, not the government. Pool that collectively, because the people who actually made money in the first place aren't the crack addicts who need a police force, fire department or "environmental protection agency" in the first place.

Your incendiary rhetoric is hilarious.

You genuinely think that people should have to pay out of pocket for police, fire departments, and the like?

[Eurell]

Pool that collectively, because the people who actually made money in the first place aren't the crack addicts who need a police force, fire department or "environmental protection agency" in the first place.

Only crack addicts need those? What?