Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ahh I love this argument. so many misuses of statistics available.
On the left the tax rate, on the right the income tax....
The left says "omg it was 91%"
the right says "but tons of deductions!"
The right says "the effective tax rate of the top 1% was 44.4%!"
The left says...well they ussually stop there because the rights correct. But...yes theres always a but.
in 1960 the top .01% paid a effective tax rate of 71.4% (turns out those deductions only went so far)
today-top .01% pay a rate of approx 23%
Funny how that works out huh? Turns out there is a lot of class warfare between the 1%'ers and the .01%ers.
Yeah. the rights correct, there WERE a lot of deductions, but not like they claim. we could triple the rate on the truly wealthy, and be in the right ballpark.
let's clarify this a bit. When you say 'socialism' are implying the true definition of it or the sometimes
popular meaning of 'expanded welfare state'?
A 2011 Pew Research poll found that half the general population of the US respond 'positively' to 'capitalism' (only 40% are 'negative' about it), while only 30% respond positively to 'socialism' (and 60% are 'negative').
But the most recent group to move into voting age - those aged 18-29 in 2011 - have a markedly different perspective: support for 'capitalism' has fallen to 46% (and is now lower than opposition, at 47%), while virtually half now have a positive view of 'socialism' (and only 42% oppose it).
Of course, there could be various ways of reading all this. Does it imply that Americans are becoming much more left-wing, and, if trends persist, may completely re-think their economic system? Or is it more that 'socialism', which to children of the cold war was associated with the totalitarianism of the USSR, is by the younger generation more likely to be associated with more moderate interventions like increases to the minimum wage or universal healthcare?
let's clarify this a bit. When you say 'socialism' are implying the true definition of it or the sometimes
popular meaning of 'expanded welfare state'?
Well, my hope with the thread was to find out where Americans stand on this question - why do younger Americans seem to have warmed to 'socialism', and what do they in fact think is meant by that term?
For the time being I'm keeping my views on the matter to one side so that I can be reasonably neutral in the discussion (I'm not an American, so technically they're irreverent to this thread anyway).
So you mean, younger Americans are more amenable to socialism because they (mistakenly?) associate it with fairly mild changes to the systems that presently exist in the US (which are not what socialism is really about)?
Or, that older Americans oppose socialism [and they do very strongly, by 72% to 12% for those 65+] because they associate it with Stalin and Mao (who, some would argue, were not practicing what most socialists would advocate)?
Would those be the same people collecting more from Social Security and Medicare than they ever contributed? Would those be the seniors who benefit from Section 202 housing? Would those be seniors who are enrolled in the SNAP program?
I'm guessing you're from a middle class background.
If you were poor, you would know that income is not really distributed very widely. Nobody is getting rich off food stamps. The arts and our schools are struggling to stay afloat. Philadelphia public schools no longer have libraries. Soldiers who are risking their lives for our country are being paid peanuts, and are cheated out of a college education.
If you were rich, you would not being complaining about paying a 15% income tax, far lower that the middle- and upper-middle classes.
More and more middle-class people are sliding into poverty, yet the middle class seems to think it's the fault of the poor.
Young people have come of age at a time when it looks like capitalism is failing. After WWII hourly wages and economic productivity increased in tandem so everybody benefited from economic growth. Around 1980 they decoupled and the proceeds of growth went primarily to the rich. At first this didn't impact people's political outlook but as it accelerated after 2001 recession and then the 2008 financial collapse it has led to a fall in living standards that has affected the young the most.
The New Deal was enacted primary to save capitalism from its' own excesses, and it worked up until our society went in a different direction beginning with Reagan. A similar effort at reform is required again if capitalism is to be preserved.
The right likes to refer to things like universal health care as socialism, that isn't what socialism really is, but rather social democracy. The dangerous things to the left of that are real socialism. The right has made a major mistake in branding social democracy (which many people want) as socialism because they are then opening the door to people being receptive to things like collectivization and Trotskyite democratic communism (which would be a disaster).
The circumstances associated with the post WW2 economy were unique and not likely to be repeated. It was a blip in time. Global competition began in the 60's and then came technology.
Despite the so called prosperity of the 50's, 25% of the population lived in dire poverty.
But, many (most?) communists also consider themselves to be socialists. Stalin lead the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. I think the link you posted is an over-simplification of two terms that have lots of areas of cross-over, and areas of dispute.
ETA that the above is my view, which is not really what the thread is about. I'd be interested to know if you think of Brazil as a socialist country?
I would say Brazil, like most countries, has some socialist aspects, but for the most part is not socialist. It's really hard to explain to be honest haha.
Well, my hope with the thread was to find out where Americans stand on this question - why do younger Americans seem to have warmed to 'socialism', and what do they in fact think is meant by that term?
For the time being I'm keeping my views on the matter to one side so that I can be reasonably neutral in the discussion (I'm not an American, so technically they're irreverent to this thread anyway).
You should keep in mind that this thread has now been moved to a subforum that trends older and far to the right so that is going to change the dynamics of this conversation.
Socialist fascists, like Obama, are only interested in redistributing misery since it is impossible to multiply wealth by dividing it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
