Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others but Some Girls Are Bigger Than Others...

Guybrush · 06-26-2009, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucifer_sam

don't worry, you're damn polite compared to all the neo-communist wankers out there.

i think one of the major hurdles which prevents a large-scale socialist policy from being accepted into our economic policy is that it's almost an antithesis to the American dream -- the ideology that if you work hard, success and a good quality of life will follow. that's not to say that other people can't afford to have a decent living, but intrinsic to many Americans is the idea that the means to provide for yourself is well within your own power and certainly your responsibility, not the government's.

I have some vague understanding of that and it is true that you don't have to work as hard here to accomplish your goals (if they are reasonable goals, such as getting an education with a job to fit later on). As I hinted at in my earlier post, I've been nurtured by the state my whole life, I've gotten surgery, I've gotten a quality biology education which included trips to the north polar ice cap, driving snow scooters over glaciers and weeks spent away on fieldwork where we had dinner at restaurants every night and so on paid by the government. The apartment I live in is part paid by the government (~40% of all my cash comes from them, so they also sponsor my beer drinking and other things). They've spent a huge amount of money on me and the government will do it for my children as well.

For the government, it's an investment. When a freshly educated doctor or biologist such as me comes out of school, he will have cost the state a lot of money. However, when that doctor has kept his job and paid his taxes for X amount of years, he will become a giver. It might happen late in his career (higher education is expensive), but on average that's what happens. That's part of why the government can afford to keep this up. The wonderful thing is that it doesn't matter who you are, where you come from or how much money your family makes. You'll get a quality education for free if you want one. To me, that is freedom - it gives you many options in life that many people won't have in a country where you need money to be free.

However, it probably does make people a little lazier and a little more secure in the knowledge that there is a safety net should things go wrong. However, I also think it raises the quality of life and I think that's one of the top things of what a society should do, raise the quality of life of the people.

Of course we don't have the same ideals (american dream) as you guys do in America and neither do we have the same political history - in particular we don't have much of a cold war and history with hostility towards leftist thinking. I think historically, people in Norway have been mostly concerned about not starving and if you could put food on the table and it was your table to put it on, then that was your life goal accomplished right there. Traditionally, we've valued modesty and getting by on what you need. Our society is rich, but it's never been able to churn out the kind of extravaganza you guys have overseas so we don't know all that except from what we see on the telly.

I realize though I probably seem more red than I am and I'm probably portraying Norway as a redder country too. I'm for a regulated market. I don't like the idea of the private sector entering schools and health care and I'm currently for protecting our agriculture from having to compete with outside markets (which is why Norway is not part of the EU, our farmers wouldn't make it), but shoes, books, CDs and other things I don't mind - bring on the competition. I believe it's important that people should be able to accomplish things and be rewarded for ambition, motivation and hard work, but I also believe in the government as a provider and nurturer of the people with free education and health care where providing the best service, not making money, is the number 1 priority. I'm sorta for the golden middle road although it might percieved a little more to the left over here than it is in America.

Miltamec Soundsquinaez · 06-26-2009, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayJamJah

You're right that Buffett does feel it's his duty to give back, but he is in favor of a flat tax, he was upset (really he was) that he was only taxed 18% (because of capital gains which as you correctly noted are taxed at a considerably lower rate) of his income. Buffett believes in philanthropy and does have a disdain for the widening gap between the elite rich and the middle class. But his solution is an equitable tax system and accountability from the wealthy to the soceity that allowed them to attain such wealth.

concerning my post
First, we need to raise the minimum wage in all 50 states to $10 per/hr. This ensures a decent living wage, if you're working full time. Most of that wage increase will be coming from a CEO. It will be a big adjustment for them, but I won't lose any sleep over it.

The average CEO makes something like 300x as much as their average worker. Now, meanwhile does he work 300x harder? No, in fact he/she works less hard than the average factory worker. They can just hire an economist and a secretary to basically run the company for him, so he can cut out at 2p.m. to hit the links.

Now, shouldn't a CEO be rewarded for working his way up the corporate ladder? Maybe they did, maybe his position was inherited down from their father. I wish they would be making 10x - 20x as much as the average worker. This would still be easily enough of an income to live well beyond their means, and would enable the minimum wage increase.

If these happened, we'd be getting closer to fairness, not there yet, but a big step. Then you could have the flat tax. Another idea would be to eliminate the income tax, and set a flat sales tax of about 30% on all purchases. Then businesses would just be taxed at a higher rate. Set the tax so businesses aren't hurt too much or rewarded too much. Then, those that spend a lot are penalized up to a point where if they couldn't afford to spend much more, they would just have to stop spending.

That sounds like a blow to the economy, but it would hopefully cause a lot of unnecessary products to quit being made, and have a shift towards the emphasis of making more and better commodities. More people working in agriculture, opening up water treatment facilities. Finding better drilling techniques and cheap, more effective alternative energy.

Son of JayJamJah · 06-26-2009, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Firstly, at no point has there ever existed full-fledged communism, let alone in the past century. Secondly, what does it mean, to you, for a political ideology to "fail"? Was it the collapse of the Soviet Union that brought you to this verdict that socialism has been proven a "failure"? Thirdly, if you knew the first thing about socialism, you would be aware of the fact that the notion that, under socialism, everyone necessarily receives equal compensation for their labour is an absolute myth.

Marxists view profit as being a very contemptible incentive for the progression of society to begin with, and it is the very essence and purpose of the transitional stage of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat (or, socialism) to strip society of that subversive, detrimental, deplorable, paternal "reward-punishment" psychology. It is what separates Marxism-Leninism from the perceived idealism of anarchism and left-communism.

See, "human nature", in the sense that champions of capitalism so regularly use the term, must refer to something characteristic of all humans at all times. For example, the "stalk and pounce" impulse is characteristic of all felines at all times. The insatiable greed of humans, however, is quite apparently not characteristic of all humans at all times, and even when it is characteristic of us, it evinces in many differing ways - not all of them being entirely materialistic. Under capitalism, there is ceaseless uncertainty about the future, and thus one is forced to continually strive to accumulate more because of the risk of losing what he/she has. As follows, under capitalism, it is quite rational to be greedy. In an egalitarian society, the same rules do not apply. Looking at it from a more evolutionary viewpoint: if the instincts and physicality of a species are shaped by its environment, and humanity's primary environment is society, we are not insatiably greedy hence capitalism, we live in a very prominently capitalist world hence the insatiable greed found so often in so many of us. As humans we are quite apparently capable of compassion and selflessness, we've simply been thrust into a situation in which competitiveness, aggression and greed are rewarded.

Which governments, exactly, are you referring to? Have you not also perceived of the crumbling of a myriad of capitalist nations? What about the Misean, anarcho-capitalist Somalia? There's a prime example of exactly where lassez-faire gets us.

The "free" market is anything but free. Where is the freedom in being compelled by the threat of starvation and death to sell your labour-power to a member of the class towards whom the system is slanted in the first place?

To the first paragraph; yes I'd say the collapse of the Soviet Union is what you call failure, if you disagree fine, but I think that's a bit of a reach. As for as no real communist nations, maybe in theory the don't fit the bill exactly, but perception is reality and if you asked anyone if the USSR was a communist state, they'd say yes.

The first bolded comment to me is the crux of our dissension. I think that's a good thing for a person. The second bolded one is me calling BS. This is never an issue for anyone in America who does not deserve it. I'll explain more if you need me to.

Capitalist governments collapse when there is government corruption which is why I favor less government not more.

I still think you were a bit harsh with some of this and other posts leading up to it, we disagree and you're not changing my mind anymore then I'm changing yours. Questioning my understanding of the issues is very disrespectful, questioning my way of thinking is always acceptable.

Sorry for the delayed response.

mr dave · 06-26-2009, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toretorden

Compared to your America, I live in a very socialist society. Here I'm a student which means I don't have a job and get by on a government loan which I only have to pay back part of in the future when I'm working so yes, I'm smooching off the state (my biology education is free - payed for by the state). I don't feel bad about it because when I buy something, I pay money to the government and when I get hired as a biologist, I'll give back to the government in the way of taxes. What comes around goes around, but in the end most people are net givers to society which makes it better for all.

just curious about your education setup here. i live in canada and we get called 'socialist' often enough. when it comes to education pretty much anyone can get a government student loan. i can only think of one 3 other people besides myself who paid them off. one person i went to school with takes pride in the fact that he HAS NOT MADE A SINGLE PAYMENT in 9 years since graduating (he'd also be cheering the wealth redistribution like mad in this thread).

do you have to pay extra taxes when you finish school in order to cover your education or is it just part of the package of being an independent adult in norway? is it something everyone has to pay into regardless of whether or not they continue their education past high school? just curious here.

personally i don't like the idea of giving someone a free ride (like the example above). like so many people have mentioned it seems to be more of a social philosophical change that would have to occur more than an actual economic change. thing is for a lot of us (especially those with humble beginnings and proud upbringings) having to hand over a portion of the gains we've made through the work we've done for people who only want to help themselves is a VERY bitter pill to swallow, especially when they're holding up an altruistic front like it's for the benefit of everyone and not at all because of envy of their neighbors.

Guybrush · 06-26-2009, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr dave

just curious about your education setup here. i live in canada and we get called 'socialist' often enough. when it comes to education pretty much anyone can get a government student loan. i can only think of one 3 other people besides myself who paid them off. one person i went to school with takes pride in the fact that he HAS NOT MADE A SINGLE PAYMENT in 9 years since graduating (he'd also be cheering the wealth redistribution like mad in this thread).

do you have to pay extra taxes when you finish school in order to cover your education or is it just part of the package of being an independent adult in norway? is it something everyone has to pay into regardless of whether or not they continue their education past high school? just curious here.

personally i don't like the idea of giving someone a free ride (like the example above). like so many people have mentioned it seems to be more of a social philosophical change that would have to occur more than an actual economic change. thing is for a lot of us (especially those with humble beginnings and proud upbringings) having to hand over a portion of the gains we've made through the work we've done for people who only want to help themselves is a VERY bitter pill to swallow, especially when they're holding up an altruistic front like it's for the benefit of everyone and not at all because of envy of their neighbors.

You have to pay off your loan, but you're not taxed any different.

You should read my last post, it goes a little bit more into detail about how things are over here. A potential problem with a capitalist society in which you get classes and wealth inequity is if you need money to get an education, that may create a lower class unable to get the same high education as the upper classes. That could have many negative implications for society so I think it's better when everyone has a chance to become whatever they want, regardless of the wealth of their families. It gives people freedom to be what they want as well as create a well educated society with people of professions that will benefit it.

As I wrote in my previous post, you don't get it for "nothing". I mean that's part why taxes tend to get higher when you get more socialistic. The government nurtures you, gives you an education, food on your plate while you learn a trade or whatever and eventually you start making up for that by paying taxes (also explains why the government is not "stealing" from you, you're paying back some of what society already gave you and will give your children).

A political system that gave free education and health care for nothing in return wouldn't work at all so the idea is rather dumb. I know you all know this, but I've seen "getting stuff for free" tossed around a few times now and it's not like that.

IamAlejo · 06-27-2009, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miltamec Soundsquinaez

Good point. Earlier in the thread JJJ pointed out that Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are the 2 richest men in America, and give a lot to charities and such.

I think it's worth pointing out that these men are both staunch Democrats, and thus, less likely to be big free marketers. I'm not sure with Gates, but I'm pretty sure Buffett is on record as referring to the current tax code as 'insane', and he feels it is his civic duty to pay a lot more, especially since he gets most of his from capital gains, and they're only taxed at like, 15%.

Ummm, he has the ability to pay more if he wishes. Just because you aren't forced doesn't mean you can't.

And what's worth pointing out that they are Democrats for?

IamAlejo · 06-27-2009, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miltamec Soundsquinaez

concerning my post
First, we need to raise the minimum wage in all 50 states to $10 per/hr. This ensures a decent living wage, if you're working full time. Most of that wage increase will be coming from a CEO. It will be a big adjustment for them, but I won't lose any sleep over it.

The average CEO makes something like 300x as much as their average worker. Now, meanwhile does he work 300x harder? No, in fact he/she works less hard than the average factory worker. They can just hire an economist and a secretary to basically run the company for him, so he can cut out at 2p.m. to hit the links.

Now, shouldn't a CEO be rewarded for working his way up the corporate ladder? Maybe they did, maybe his position was inherited down from their father. I wish they would be making 10x - 20x as much as the average worker. This would still be easily enough of an income to live well beyond their means, and would enable the minimum wage increase.

If these happened, we'd be getting closer to fairness, not there yet, but a big step. Then you could have the flat tax. Another idea would be to eliminate the income tax, and set a flat sales tax of about 30% on all purchases. Then businesses would just be taxed at a higher rate. Set the tax so businesses aren't hurt too much or rewarded too much. Then, those that spend a lot are penalized up to a point where if they couldn't afford to spend much more, they would just have to stop spending.

That sounds like a blow to the economy, but it would hopefully cause a lot of unnecessary products to quit being made, and have a shift towards the emphasis of making more and better commodities. More people working in agriculture, opening up water treatment facilities. Finding better drilling techniques and cheap, more effective alternative energy.

Wouldn't raising the minimum wage increase labor costs which in effect would raise the costs of goods? Goods that minimum wage labor need to have a "decent living".

And lol at a flat sales tax of about 30% on purchases. And you are trying to help the lower/middle class?

lucifer_sam · 06-27-2009, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

Wouldn't raising the minimum wage increase labor costs which in effect would raise the costs of goods? Goods that minimum wage labor need to have a "decent living".

And lol at a flat sales tax of about 30% on purchases. And you are trying to help the lower/middle class?

yeah i'm pretty sure that kid has never taken an economics class in his life. either that or he genuinely hates the working class.

there is absolutely no reason for which the lower and middle classes could benefit from increased excise taxes. it's like a steel-toed kick in the nuts for people that don't have much of an expendable income.

IamAlejo · 06-30-2009, 11:59 AM

Sorry to bring this to the top but the news of Canada lowering it's corp tax rate got me remembering some posts on here. [US economic rant begin]

The problem a lot of posters here as well as the politicians in the US have failed to realize is that higher tax rates do not necessarily equal higher tax revenues. Instead we have politicians who continually play the populist message of trying to ensure that corporations aren't screwing the little guy [the middle class], and we are far more likely to see higher tax rates on these corps than any reductions for these corps/people that truly drive the economy.

Miltamec Soundsquinaez · 07-03-2009, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

Wouldn't raising the minimum wage increase labor costs which in effect would raise the costs of goods? Goods that minimum wage labor need to have a "decent living".

And lol at a flat sales tax of about 30% on purchases. And you are trying to help the lower/middle class?

No, to pay for the worker's wage increase, I propose CEO's take a huge pay cut.

Here's the math:
500 people work for a factory all year with no turnover (hypothetical), make $7 per/hr. work 40 hrs. per/wk.
That's a pre-tax bringhome of about $15k per yr.
If the average CEO makes 300x that, then we'll say the CEO for that company makes $4.5 million/yr.
The total of all the menial workers salary would be $7.5 mil./yr.

Now, let's raise the worker's wage to $10 per/hr. 40 hrs. per/wk.
pre tax-about $21k per
Total menial salary about -$10.5 mil yr.

So, total menial wages at $7 per hr. for 1 year-$7.5 million
total menial wages at $10 per hr. for 1 year-$10.5 million

A $3 million difference, and the CEO already makes $4.5 million, so take it out of his check, and he's down to $1.5 million per/yr. and the workers got their wage increase. The CEO could still easily pay off a 30 year mortgage on a million dollar home in 1 year, and still have several hundred thousand left over for that year. In this example the CEO would have taken a cut to only be making 100x as much as the average worker as opposed to the national average of CEO's which is making 300x.

Now, I propose we have make the CEO only making 10-15x as much as the average worker. You get the point, CEO's are making way too much.

06-30-2009, 11:59 AM	#129 (permalink)
IamAlejo Muck Fusic Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Virginia Beach Posts: 1,575	Sorry to bring this to the top but the news of Canada lowering it's corp tax rate got me remembering some posts on here. [US economic rant begin] The problem a lot of posters here as well as the politicians in the US have failed to realize is that higher tax rates do not necessarily equal higher tax revenues. Instead we have politicians who continually play the populist message of trying to ensure that corporations aren't screwing the little guy [the middle class], and we are far more likely to see higher tax rates on these corps than any reductions for these corps/people that truly drive the economy. __________________ a man, a plan, a canal, panama