Socialism is good (speech, dictator, 2014, doctor)
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.
You can't be truely free and socialist. A socialist state basically says humans can't make their own decisions and its up to the nation to provide life roles to them. Sort of like cradle to grave welfare for all.
I guess socialism does have one positive: you don't get a subculture of tightwads who live to game the system.
You also get more people who truly love their country(universal healthcare for all)
The successful high achievers are not penalized in Europe for being so, unlike in the U.S.
It's not really as clear cut as that, you have to earn a certain percentage before income tax even applies to you in the UK and like the US we also have a minimum wage. The price of houses is far more expensive in places like London than many areas in the US and property tax is quite expensive, there is even talk of a new tax on million plus houses and it should also be noted that there is some debate as to whether to raise the upper tax limit for the wealthy for the rich to 50%. Saying that the UK doesn't tax according to citizenship and there are a number of loopholes which can be used by the wealthy to avoid many taxes.
You can't be truely free and socialist. A socialist state basically says humans can't make their own decisions and its up to the nation to provide life roles to them. Sort of like cradle to grave welfare for all.
I guess socialism does have one positive: you don't get a subculture of tightwads who live to game the system.
You also get more people who truly love their country(universal healthcare for all)
The problem is that none of them want to pay for it.
They want it but want the rich to pay for it, not them.
How many want to see their FICA, their part, raised an additional 10% or more ?
Are you willing to agree to 16% FICA so that everyone can have free health insurance ?
It's not really as clear cut as that, you have to earn a certain percentage before income tax even applies to you in the UK and like the US we also have a minimum wage. The price of houses is far more expensive in places like London than many areas in the US and property tax is quite expensive, there is even talk of a new tax on million plus houses and it should also be noted that there is some debate as to whether to raise the upper tax limit for the wealthy for the rich to 50%.
Even including all that, the TOTAL tax burden is borne the most by lower-income earners. Look at the chart that shows the progressivity of ALL taxes, shown below. Lower-income UK citizens PAY for what they get. It isn't all mostly free for them like it is here in the U.S.
No. While some forms of socialism are necessary in any decent society (Police, Schools etc...) it must not extend into the free market, which provides opportunity and allows Man to pursue his goals and prosperity. It creates wealth, promotes the growth and exchanging of ideas, creates jobs, and ensures that the consumer gets the best product at the best price thanks to competition.
In short, I'm a capitalist. It has its flaws yes, and it does need some Government influence to stop monopolies and regulate things, but Capitalism works. Socialism does not. Capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings, socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. It's philosophy is one of mediocrity and selfishness, of blaming others and wanting the world to owe you something. It's completely unambitious and unproductive. It creates nothing, just poverty and oppression for all.
I know leftists like to point out European countries as shining examples of socialism, but they're actually not. They are capitalists as well, their economies are based off of buying and selling and trading of goods and services for profit just like we are. They just have a few more social programs than we do, but they aren't socialists.
Its republicans that call the Europeans "socialists", and they call the Europeans "socialists" 1,000x more than democrats do.
Nothing is good in large doses. Too much water no matter how pure will kill you with water poisoning. Pure Capitalism where the market monitors itself will have company's dumping toxic waste in your well if it makes investors a dime. Communism kills intensive and leads to dictatorship. Nothing is good in large doses. We need socialized parts of our system to make any system work. Public education keeps a aristocratic system somewhat in check, We need a socialized military, police dept., fire dept., ect. We even need a socialized health care system. It frees up people to start business without fear of losing coverage, taking risk without worrying about losing their live savings if while they are setting up that business they are hit with catastrophic illness. We don't need a collective system like communism. Where the state gives out based on need and you give according to ability. Sounds like it would work on paper but it fails in practice.
Socialism means we really value people and their needs
Instead of saying all dollar bills are created equal
We finally impose all men and women created equal in their capabilities and needs
What's bad here? It's good actually
"Socialism is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.
On a personal note I would oppose all forms of socialism, except for a socialist system were (citizens) owned the means of production.
A socialist system with cooperative enterprise or state/government ownership, would be like the USSR, or it would resemble the total "uselessness" of the US government.
Why not it worked for the soviet union what can possibly go wrong?
The USSR's socialist system was controlled by power hungry dictators, and it was controlled by military officials.
If teachers, doctors, scientists, construction workers, and everyday people controlled the USSR's socialist system, perhaps it would have been different?
Last edited by chad3; 03-10-2014 at 07:23 PM..
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.
