I`ve often wondered whats wrong with Socialism. I really can`t find a fault. Wait a minute, I`m not talking about the kind which is viewed as Capitalism`s arch enemy, I`m talking about the kind where its something that's funded by society, so, I guess, yeah, socialism - common ownership (of the socially funded thing, whatever form that thing may take on) for someone's greater good, though not necessarily society's.
Example, public education, paid for by society - sure some pay more than others, some don`t even pay. Fire department, paid for by society. Health Care, roads, defense, police, social assistance,charities, political contributions, and RRSP`s, to name only a few. Oh I know, wait a minute, charities. political contributions, RRSP`s ? They're not paid for by society, no? Bob earns 40,000 and has a tax bill of 15%, 6000. Tom, earns 40,000, gives 1,000 to a charity of his choice, and reduces his tax by 300. But the government needs 12,000 to cover costs, so it either borrows 300,( only to introduce a new cost called interest - which places added pressure to either tax more, borrow more or cut services), raises tax's to get the additional 300, or reduces services. Ultimately, Bob will own a portion of the consequence of Tom giving money to a charity. Now I'm sure you all can argue the pluses of this program, and I certainly hope so, because that would be the socially responsible thing to do. Wait till Tom decides to pump money into his RRSP, and shifts even more tax burden onto the Bob's in the world, just so he can enjoy a better retirement. Sure bob can do that too, but if all the tom's and bobs do it, well, then the tax rates would simply be adjusted to zero out the tax effect of everyone paying less. But we all know, that not everyone can do it, but everyone owns the consequences of it. Thus, even RRSP's are socialistic programs. And I suppose we could do with a lesson on corporate socialism, where society pays for many corporate expenses, so that corporations can earn money. Another time perhaps. Maybe we should change the names of our leaders to Marx, Lenin and Mao. (You pick who's who.)
Example, public education, paid for by society - sure some pay more than others, some don`t even pay. Fire department, paid for by society. Health Care, roads, defense, police, social assistance,charities, political contributions, and RRSP`s, to name only a few. Oh I know, wait a minute, charities. political contributions, RRSP`s ? They're not paid for by society, no? Bob earns 40,000 and has a tax bill of 15%, 6000. Tom, earns 40,000, gives 1,000 to a charity of his choice, and reduces his tax by 300. But the government needs 12,000 to cover costs, so it either borrows 300,( only to introduce a new cost called interest - which places added pressure to either tax more, borrow more or cut services), raises tax's to get the additional 300, or reduces services. Ultimately, Bob will own a portion of the consequence of Tom giving money to a charity. Now I'm sure you all can argue the pluses of this program, and I certainly hope so, because that would be the socially responsible thing to do. Wait till Tom decides to pump money into his RRSP, and shifts even more tax burden onto the Bob's in the world, just so he can enjoy a better retirement. Sure bob can do that too, but if all the tom's and bobs do it, well, then the tax rates would simply be adjusted to zero out the tax effect of everyone paying less. But we all know, that not everyone can do it, but everyone owns the consequences of it. Thus, even RRSP's are socialistic programs. And I suppose we could do with a lesson on corporate socialism, where society pays for many corporate expenses, so that corporations can earn money. Another time perhaps. Maybe we should change the names of our leaders to Marx, Lenin and Mao. (You pick who's who.)
