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.
What an obtuse generic bot-like post that sounds as if it came directly from the basement of the Kremlin.
Are you joking? The old USSR was the epitome of HUGE government. Not smaller. This sounds like a bot comment that says conservatives Trump is really a leftwing Russian.
When capitalism is nothing more than an adjunct of the state, then it certainly is fascism. And that is what "Social democracy" demands. Social democracy = Socialism with new curtains.
Those policies don’t improve the prosperity of everyone. The “prosperity” enjoyed by those who did not earn it is equally matched by the “reduction in prosperity” faced by those that did earn it.
Well clearly I was on the mark when I called you out for being disingenuous. If my claim was baseless before you've certainly provided basis in this comment. I'll use a simple example to illustrate - $20 given to a destitute person could make that person's day. $20 taken from a billionaire? He'll barely notice. "Equally matched by the reduction in prosperity," please...how can you not re-read that and scoff?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
You can’t take something from one person, give it to another, and claim that both are better off as a result of that transaction.
Yes it is no secret that social democracies involve some form of wealth redistribution. By everyone, I'm referring to the aggregate, not every single human being. But again, I think you knew that. Will a billionaire be less well off with x number of millions taken from his billions? Well yes of course. But the "harm" suffered by the billionaire can help make life less hard than the bottom. Effectively you're cutting down the ceiling a bit in order to raise the floor. That's the basic gist.
I'm perfectly willing to go down the moral argument path to defend leftist policies. I just find it a little pathetic that right wingers on this forum, even the libertarian faction, often resort to these shaming tactics as their primary strategy for their tax/policy positions. They want poor people to feel guilty for wanting life to be a little less hard and a government that could provide better services. It's pathetic because they're capitalizing on the insecurities of those less well off to gaslight them into thinking they're parasites or somehow less-than, and morally in the wrong for supporting social democratic policies, all in order to enable their ideal system of extreme selfishness, that benefits the rich at the expense of the poor.
You know what I'd rather see? The intellectual, brass-tacks argument. Of the "x policy will improve x aspect of our economy" variety. I never see conservatives, libertarians, or anyone on the right here make it. What are the economic reasons Republican tax policy makes sense? What about libertarian tax policy? Is there some number or stat that you think would do worse with a tax system more in line with Keynesian Economics or Modern Monetary Theory. What about economic growth, GDP, or what have you?
But we don't hear about any of that. Instead it's condescending comments like yours judging those who are struggling and would appreciate a government that helped make life a little better for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
I’m not accusing anyone of stealing, and I’m not trying to persuade anyone to my side. Those on the receiving end of taxpayer funded largesse don’t generally switch sides.
That's exactly what you were implying, and your denial is dare I say, disingenuous? Honestly I would've respected you more if you just showed your true colors, rather than backing off and playing the faux-offended card.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncguy50
When capitalism is nothing more than an adjunct of the state, then it certainly is fascism. And that is what "Social democracy" demands. Social democracy = Socialism with new curtains.
People who resort to reductive arguments like yours or "social democracy = Venezuela," aren't worthy of being taken seriously. I'm not going to debate a Flat Earther, so why would I debate you? It'd be like trying to negotiate a settlement of a claim that's that only realistically worth $250k max, but your opening demand is $2 million. In short, come back when you want to get serious.
Well clearly I was on the mark when I called you out for being disingenuous. If my claim was baseless before you've certainly provided basis in this comment. I'll use a simple example to illustrate - $20 given to a destitute person could make that person's day. $20 taken from a billionaire? He'll barely notice. "Equally matched by the reduction in prosperity," please...how can you not re-read that and scoff?
Yes it is no secret that social democracies involve some form of wealth redistribution. By everyone, I'm referring to the aggregate, not every single human being. But again, I think you knew that. Will a billionaire be less well off with x number of millions taken from his billions? Well yes of course. But the "harm" suffered by the billionaire can help make life less hard than the bottom. Effectively you're cutting down the ceiling a bit in order to raise the floor. That's the basic gist.
I'm perfectly willing to go down the moral argument path to defend leftist policies. I just find it a little pathetic that right wingers on this forum, even the libertarian faction, often resort to these shaming tactics as their primary strategy for their tax/policy positions. They want poor people to feel guilty for wanting life to be a little less hard and a government that could provide better services. It's pathetic because they're capitalizing on the insecurities of those less well off to gaslight them into thinking they're parasites or somehow less-than, and morally in the wrong for supporting social democratic policies, all in order to enable their ideal system of extreme selfishness, that benefits the rich at the expense of the poor.
You know what I'd rather see? The intellectual, brass-tacks argument. Of the "x policy will improve x aspect of our economy" variety. I never see conservatives, libertarians, or anyone on the right here make it. What are the economic reasons Republican tax policy makes sense? What about libertarian tax policy? Is there someone number or stat that you think would do worse with a tax system more in line with Keynesian Economics or Modern Monetary Theory. What about economic growth, GDP, or what have you?
But we don't hear about any of that. Instead it's condescending comments like yours judging those who are struggling and would appreciate a government that helped make life a little better for themselves.
That's exactly what you were implying, and your denial is dare I say, disingenuous? Honestly I would've respected you more if you just showed your true colors, rather than backing off and playing the faux-offended card.
People who resort to overly reductive arguments like yours or "social democracy = Venezuela," aren't worthy of being taken seriously. I'm not going to debate a Flat Earther, so why would I debate you? It'd be like trying to negotiate a settlement of a claim that's that only realistically worth $250k max, but your opening demand is $2 million. Come back when you want to get serious.
No matter how you try to spin it, you’ve described a zero sum game in which the aggregate ISN’T better off. It’s mathematically impossible.
The only offense I’m taking is when people like you make baseless accusations. Support your claims with quotes from me, but don’t mischaracterize my position.
If you look across ALL countries and ALL economic, religious or political systems, there is a small small number of people who really make themselves ultra rich by their own hard work. A tiny tiny percentile.
Then there are always those that trample on others rights etc to steal their wealth. And you have the inherited wealth that often are squandered after a generation or two.
Its a Bell curve, where there are fewer and fewer people able to make more then their regular salary.
Then, you have a large part of people who have it worse and worse the further down the IQ scale or health scale or socioeconomic scale you go.
What Social Democracy does or should do, is tax people who earn more, because their benefit of another $ is less then those lower down the economic scale.
Simplistic: If you place 100 people in a room.. 1 or 2 of them are VERY smart, and able to navigate in their respective political and economical system and make a lot of money. If they do it by empowering other people its good.. if they do it by exploiting other people with their power its bad (monopoly etc)
Then you have 20-30 people who are well above average who can manages themselves or to make a good living.
Then down you go towards the median..
And on the other side of the scale, you have fewer and fewer people who can manages themselves or create wealth, no matter the economical or political system they are born into.
And at the very bottom, there are the "outcasts" of the 100. Mentally ill, abused as children, very Low IQs, genetical defects etc etc etc...
Now, what the Right-wingers argue, "Its their fault... I made it.. so should you".. and should only help themselves.. or are only willing to help by some kind of charity of their choice whom they could give a few $ to feel better. They don´t want to be taxed, because they belive everybody is in it for themselves. So "I" should not be bothered by "You", just because "We" are born in the same country, state, city, street etc etc..
But when all evidence shows that they actually can´t help themselves or are able to hold onto jobs, pay rent, stop hearing voices or seeing things.. the Right wing argument is "Taxes are stealing from me".
Social Democracy, recognizes that people on the top, have less need for their last $. When they have Billions or hundreds of Millions being taxed more, it hurts them less then people of the lowest 30-40% of the country earning less.
And if those who earn more, because they are gifted, born lucky, lived in the right part of the country at the right time in history, are taxed progressively more and distributed with public goods, so that the bottom half and the absolute lowest bottom can take part in the economy by reducing their cost of entry, you raise the floor for everybody.
While those on the top are taxed more, they also benefit more from the of bottom part of the population being better of.
Less poverty is better for everybody!
Last edited by Northman83; 02-04-2019 at 05:33 AM..
Well clearly I was on the mark when I called you out for being disingenuous. If my claim was baseless before you've certainly provided basis in this comment. I'll use a simple example to illustrate - $20 given to a destitute person could make that person's day. $20 taken from a billionaire? He'll barely notice. "Equally matched by the reduction in prosperity," please...how can you not re-read that and scoff?
Yes it is no secret that social democracies involve some form of wealth redistribution. By everyone, I'm referring to the aggregate, not every single human being. But again, I think you knew that. Will a billionaire be less well off with x number of millions taken from his billions? Well yes of course. But the "harm" suffered by the billionaire can help make life less hard than the bottom. Effectively you're cutting down the ceiling a bit in order to raise the floor. That's the basic gist.
I'm perfectly willing to go down the moral argument path to defend leftist policies. I just find it a little pathetic that right wingers on this forum, even the libertarian faction, often resort to these shaming tactics as their primary strategy for their tax/policy positions. They want poor people to feel guilty for wanting life to be a little less hard and a government that could provide better services. It's pathetic because they're capitalizing on the insecurities of those less well off to gaslight them into thinking they're parasites or somehow less-than, and morally in the wrong for supporting social democratic policies, all in order to enable their ideal system of extreme selfishness, that benefits the rich at the expense of the poor.
You know what I'd rather see? The intellectual, brass-tacks argument. Of the "x policy will improve x aspect of our economy" variety. I never see conservatives, libertarians, or anyone on the right here make it. What are the economic reasons Republican tax policy makes sense? What about libertarian tax policy? Is there some number or stat that you think would do worse with a tax system more in line with Keynesian Economics or Modern Monetary Theory. What about economic growth, GDP, or what have you?
But we don't hear about any of that. Instead it's condescending comments like yours judging those who are struggling and would appreciate a government that helped make life a little better for themselves.
That's exactly what you were implying, and your denial is dare I say, disingenuous? Honestly I would've respected you more if you just showed your true colors, rather than backing off and playing the faux-offended card.
People who resort to reductive arguments like yours or "social democracy = Venezuela," aren't worthy of being taken seriously. I'm not going to debate a Flat Earther, so why would I debate you? It'd be like trying to negotiate a settlement of a claim that's that only realistically worth $250k max, but your opening demand is $2 million. In short, come back when you want to get serious.
Here's all you need to know, as published in a Washington Post article. And I've also included a link to the actual research paper on which the article is based, which provides plenty of additional sources:
Pay careful attention to what the scatter plot graph tells us. European countries tax regressively and consequently redistribute much more wealth in the form of social welfare programs like national health care, extended family leave, etc., and have a much lower income/wealth gap.
Additionally, the heightened income inequality in the US compared to Europe is an artifact of our extraordinarily highly progressive federal tax system. An economist can explain it best...
Quote:
[Economist Anatole] "Kaletsky argues that over-reliance on progressives taxes creates "a perverse incentive for governments to promote income inequality. If the solvency of the state and the ability to fund basic services for the poorest people in society depends on the rich getting even richer, it is tempting for even the most progressive politicians to support widening inequalities."
That's what's inherently wrong with a progressive tax system such as we have here in the US; it distorts and exacerbates income/wealth inequality by necessity in order to maximize tax revenue. The Europeans and Scandinavians have figured that out, and therefore rely most heavily on regressive taxes such as VAT and MUCH flatter income tax brackets. Consequently, their wealth gaps are much lower than that in the US as their governments' perverse incentive to make the rich even richer in order to maximize tax revenue has been removed.
She's a perfect example of the complete failure of government
education and the leftist teachers unions.
Their indoctrination of new generations of completely ignorant, always offended, young socialists who
know nothing except spewing out leftist talking points as established fact.
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.
