@EmperorNero,
xris, in the end, you can still have the opinion that the benefits of socialism are worth the detriments. That is up to everyones opinion.
But there are a few facts, mainly those fut forward by Mr. Fight the Power throughout this thread, that are simply a reality. You can argue the scale of their negative effects, but entirely denying them is simply factually incorrect.
When you acknowledge those, it would not have to change your conclusion to support socialism. Here we go, please come with counter-arguments.
Progressive taxing is creating a disincentive for productivity. It is like telling your child it gets 10$ for every F, 6$ for every E, 4$ for every D, 2$ for every C, nothing for every B, and a slap for every A.
Unless you offer an alternative definition of socialism, the nazis and soviets were a extreme brand of socialists. So were china and north korea. Which does of course does not mean that all socialism is bad.
The term communism does either describe extreme socialism, or a theory favoring common ownership instead of state ownership that according to communists themselves has never existed.
Forcedly taking someones money is immoral. That can be justified, but the action itself is still immoral.
I strongly believe that the disasters of capitalism are caused by interruptions from collectivism, not the flaw or contradiction of capitalism.
Only looking at the fact that a product in a capitalist market economy is distributed with greed instead of moral consideration, and therefore concluding that capitalism is immoral, is leaving out that greed is the reason there is a product in the first place.
*
Now to answer your last post. I would appreciate if you would try to poke holes...
xris wrote:So at what rate would you set this tax?
A flat tax rate would at first be calculated to fit demand of government income. It can even change every year. Note, that a simple tax code would completely eliminate the loop holes for the rich.
xris wrote:You would obviously have to put the rate of tax up by a very large amount to compensate for the very high earners paying so much less.
In my ideal scenario, government would be reduced in a degree that would require so little government income that everybody would pay less taxes than they do now.
We would still be able to have a compassionate society with education, order and security.
xris wrote:How would your teachers and low paid highly educated research workers think of your action?
Low income can be exempted from taxation until a certain income.
xris wrote:If you place it on purchases,how do you think the luxury product industry would view your massive increases?
A consumption tax is a whole thread for itself. Google FairTax, or see
here.
There is more consumption tax, but you keep your entire paycheck. And it only applies to new products, so saving the environment through reselling products instead of buying new ones would be rewarded. And it would tax the rich more than the poor, as they are the ones purchasing new products. There can be a few rates, for example one for necessities, a "normal" one and a higher one one for luxuries.
Also note, that drug dealers and criminals would pay taxes like anybody else.
xris wrote:You have observed socialists military objections? was that the communists or the Nazis.
You are right. Socialists can be quite militaristic on a world history scale.
What I meant was within our own politics. The people being in favor of socialism are usually the ones not favoring a strong military. For example Democrats and/or liberals. Another example are european nations - they are socialistic and have little military.
And a note on your comments about me seeing George W. Bush as a ideal Republican president. My biggest disagreement with Bush was, that he was a big spending socialist. Call me a Republican (with both
a small and
a big 'R') or a Bush-lover. But doing so because I dislike socialism, is a bit as if you call me a
dirty punk-rocker for listening to classical music.
