Creeping Socialism

[ironsides]

About 47 percent of Americans will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization. One could imply from this that 53% of American taxpayers support the other 47%. What a country and we still complain.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Yup the term Progressive in politics does indeed mean socialist. Ask YJ. He'll agree.
It was only recently that they were forced by legislation to always show a profit and pay stockholders and stockowners.

I am confused by that statement. How can a corporation be forced to show a profit? Does that mean GM, Ford, Chrysler and ENRON all broke the law? And if so what would their punishment be?

About 47 percent of Americans will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization. One could imply from this that 53% of American taxpayers support the other 47%. What a country and we still complain.

There is a very simple solution to this problem. Pay these underpaid wage slaves a decent salary and they will pay taxes just like everyone else. When you have millions of people working for little more than minimum wage it holds back the entire economy.

 

[JLM]

In most cases that won't work, you can't be paying workers more than the sum of the intake from the widgets they produce. The problem lies with the taxes - we are trying to finance through taxes services we can't afford plus the loss at the trough.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

In Canada, the top 10% control 53.0% of the nation's wealth.
In the USA, it is 69.8%.
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
Such disparity in wealth is not democratic.

No it is not democraticn nor should it be. Churchill wasn't kidding when he commented that democracy was the worst form of government, except all the others to come along now and again. Democracies are doomed to failure from the outset. If a majority rules that wealth should be redistributed equally, eventually a disparity of wealth will end up in the hands of the few, except these few will no longer be the business leaders, but the ruling class. Don't think for a minute that the power brokers in the Former Soviet Union, Cuba China, Venezuela, to name a few, are business people, not did do they lead the pauper's existance of their subjects.

Why are democracies doomed to fail? It only takes a small majority of people to defy their priniples or principles of fairness if it will make their lives better. Often they are looking for benefit they don't deserve and have not worked for. It does not even require a majority; if 19% are against, 20% are for, and 61% are indifferent, the motion passes.

This is how stupid and unfair legislation gets passed, and eventually, how despotic leaders can claim they were democratically elected.

 

[Spade]

Capitalism and democracy are not synonymous.

 

[JLM]

No it is not democraticn nor should it be. Churchill wasn't kidding when he commented that democracy was the worst form of government, except all the others to come along now and again. Democracies are doomed to failure from the outset. If a majority rules that wealth should be redistributed equally, eventually a disparity of wealth will end up in the hands of the few, except these few will no longer be the business leaders, but the ruling class. Don't think for a minute that the power brokers in the Former Soviet Union, Cuba China, Venezuela, to name a few, are business people, not did do they lead the pauper's existance of their subjects.

Why are democracies doomed to fail? It only takes a small majority of people to defy their priniples or principles of fairness if it will make their lives better. Often they are looking for benefit they don't deserve and have not worked for. It does not even require a majority; if 19% are against, 20% are for, and 61% are indifferent, the motion passes.

This is how stupid and unfair legislation gets passed, and eventually, how despotic leaders can claim they were democratically elected.

I heard it said once that if all the money in the world was distributed equally, with in two years, the people who had it in the first place would get it all back. :smile:

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Capitalism and democracy are not synonymous.

Neither are gasoline and air, how well capialism works depends on how the government works. Democracies can kill capitalism, or have it flourish, but they usually kill it eventually.

 

[taxslave]

I worked with a guy back in the 1980s who explained that the 'brown stubby' beer bottle was a symbol of the creeping socialism of the Trudeau era.

To an extent that is true. But only in that there was a law that said all beer must have the same bottle. Which makes sense from a recycling perspective.

I am confused by that statement. How can a corporation be forced to show a profit? Does that mean GM, Ford, Chrysler and ENRON all broke the law? And if so what would their punishment be?



There is a very simple solution to this problem. Pay these underpaid wage slaves a decent salary and they will pay taxes just like everyone else. When you have millions of people working for little more than minimum wage it holds back the entire economy.

Not that simple. EG: BC Ferries cafeteria staff is highly paid unionized but the quality of the food is rotten ronnies with a hamburger costing $10.00. It is only because they have a captive market that this happens. In town most people would simply avoid that by either going to a place that charges $3 for this quality of burger or go to a place that serves a $10 burger.

 

[JLM]

To an extent that is true. But only in that there was a law that said all beer must have the same bottle. Which makes sense from a recycling perspective.



Not that simple. EG: BC Ferries cafeteria staff is highly paid unionized but the quality of the food is rotten ronnies with a hamburger costing $10.00. It is only because they have a captive market that this happens. In town most people would simply avoid that by either going to a place that charges $3 for this quality of burger or go to a place that serves a $10 burger.

You hit the nail on the head. All the bullsh*t re B.C. Ferries employees is a subject for another thread.

 

[petros]

Quote: Originally Posted by Spade

Capitalism and democracy are not synonymous.

Neither are gasoline and air, how well capialism works depends on how the government works. Democracies can kill capitalism, or have it flourish, but they usually kill it eventually.

How well do Capitalists and Republics mesh?
​

 

[damngrumpy]

The last statement about the BC Ferries employees and the system itself need a closer
look. This is not a case of creeping socialism at all. Unionized employees or not these
people are not the suppliers of food, they merely serve it up. The management they
ferry system is responsible for the content. Believe it or not the government is not the
ones responsible either. Perhaps from a distance, but no longer directly. The BC Ferry
system was another of the lease out deals in reality and some private sector operator
was found.
Old WAC Bennett was a conservative and yet he realized there were certain services that
should be in public hands to ensure service without gouging the public that needed them.
In the fifties, it was the Social Credit government that took over the Ferries, BC Rail, the
Hydro, and even BC Gas. These institutions operated very well for many years until the
governments of the day decided to play political games with them. It was then that the over
all problems started and they started to lose large sums of money. Sometimes governments
with are particular view, left and right, starve some of the institutions, put them in debt and
then decide to privatize them, usually for short term cash to cover their deficits.
The problem is you and I paid for them got them to sizable inventory assets and someone
comes along buys them at fire sale prices and we get the bill.
This is why I say, we have to get beyond left and right politics, we have to ensure when we
start a program, we have ways of funding it in the future in good economic times and bad.
The Ferries is a prime example of something that is good for citizens, a necessary service
and tampered with by successive governments, for short term gain and then chided for being
a socialist idea when it was in fact instituted by a conservative government in the beginning.

 

[JLM]

The last statement about the BC Ferries employees and the system itself need a closer
look. This is not a case of creeping socialism at all. Unionized employees or not these
people are not the suppliers of food, they merely serve it up. The management they
ferry system is responsible for the content. Believe it or not the government is not the
ones responsible either. Perhaps from a distance, but no longer directly. The BC Ferry
system was another of the lease out deals in reality and some private sector operator
was found.
Old WAC Bennett was a conservative and yet he realized there were certain services that
should be in public hands to ensure service without gouging the public that needed them.
In the fifties, it was the Social Credit government that took over the Ferries, BC Rail, the
Hydro, and even BC Gas. These institutions operated very well for many years until the
governments of the day decided to play political games with them. It was then that the over
all problems started and they started to lose large sums of money. Sometimes governments
with are particular view, left and right, starve some of the institutions, put them in debt and
then decide to privatize them, usually for short term cash to cover their deficits.
The problem is you and I paid for them got them to sizable inventory assets and someone
comes along buys them at fire sale prices and we get the bill.
This is why I say, we have to get beyond left and right politics, we have to ensure when we
start a program, we have ways of funding it in the future in good economic times and bad.
The Ferries is a prime example of something that is good for citizens, a necessary service
and tampered with by successive governments, for short term gain and then chided for being
a socialist idea when it was in fact instituted by a conservative government in the beginning.

A lot of sense in what you say, but Old W.A.C. was wise enough to keep the Unions' noses out of Gov't run business. :smile:

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Quote: Originally Posted by Spade

Capitalism and democracy are not synonymous.



How well do Capitalists and Republics mesh?
​

Depends, a true republic is a far better environment for capitalism, and for freedom, but the US has been sliding away from its republic roots for quite some time as democracy pushes its way in, (democracy doesn't appear anywhere in either the Constitution or bill of rights). Republics have been given a bad name since they are used in monikers for totalitarian states such as Democratic Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of China, none are either democratic or republics by any stretch, they are just euphemisms concocted by despots in an attempt to ligitimize their regeimes.

A true republic has laws for and by the people written in a constitution, like a basic play book, that can't be overwritten easily. The US has been whittling away at contitutional rights for years. We are not a republic and our rights disappear with the stoke of a pen, depending on the current zeitgeist, very democratically of course.

Old WAC Bennett was a conservative and yet he realized there were certain services that
should be in public hands to ensure service without gouging the public that needed them.
In the fifties, it was the Social Credit government that took over the Ferries, BC Rail, the
Hydro, and even BC Gas. These institutions operated very well for many years until the
governments of the day decided to play political games with them.

There are certainly things that should be publicly owned, highways, waterways, essential services such as policing and so on. But when it comes to businesses they always seem to end up as the playthings of the government in power, no matter their political stripe. I see the point where government has to provide a public service where it is unfeasable for private enterprise. But I have also seen where government sevices grew to where they actually compete with private enterprise. There comes a point where public services should be privatized, but competition has to not only be allowed but encouraged. My phone bills were cut by 3/4 once competition was extablished. Competition for power generation and distribution out here is not only discouraged, but in most cases not even allowed, and my power bills have more than doubled since the crown corp. was privatized, a case where free enterprise is allowed to run amok.

Government has a role to play, but it never seems to stay in one place long enough. The swings are often wide and erratic, either too restrictive and choking business, or too liberal, allowing greed and chicanery to rule.

 

[petros]

A true republic has laws for and by the people written in a constitution, like a basic play book, that can't be overwritten easily. The US has been whittling away at contitutional rights for years. We are not a republic and our rights disappear with the stoke of a pen, depending on the current zeitgeist, very democratically of course.

The problem and exodus from the safety and freedom of a republic began when Corporation were given rights under the Constitution as Persons.

From that point on the US became a worthless democracy.

 

[gopher]

Plutocratic oligarchy must die!

 

[captain morgan]

My phone bills were cut by 3/4 once competition was extablished. Competition for power generation and distribution out here is not only discouraged, but in most cases not even allowed, and my power bills have more than doubled since the crown corp. was privatized, a case where free enterprise is allowed to run amok.

The other side of that equation is represented in the probability that the delivery of your power was not a true representation of the associated costs and was likely subsidized through other gvt revenues.

 

[mentalfloss]

The U.S. is not a democratic state, though I would like to know more about how 'true republic' would differ from a true democracy.

 

[Bar Sinister]

In most cases that won't work, you can't be paying workers more than the sum of the intake from the widgets they produce. The problem lies with the taxes - we are trying to finance through taxes services we can't afford plus the loss at the trough.

So far as the domestic market is concerned I see no reason why it would not work. What I am talking about is the poorly paid low level worker who barely earns enough to pay the food and rent. Paying a restaurant worker a higher wage might make your meal more expensive, but it might insure that the worker can make ends meet. All I am asking is that some of the cash paid to the top 20% of Canadians be redistributed to lower income earners.

In the case of exports Canada does not have a low wage export economy. For the most part Canada's exports rely upon a highly trained and well paid labour force.

Depends, a true republic is a far better environment for capitalism, and for freedom, but the US has been sliding away from its republic roots for quite some time as democracy pushes its way in, (democracy doesn't appear anywhere in either the Constitution or bill of rights). Republics have been given a bad name since they are used in monikers for totalitarian states such as Democratic Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of China, none are either democratic or republics by any stretch, they are just euphemisms concocted by despots in an attempt to ligitimize their regeimes.

A true republic has laws for and by the people written in a constitution, like a basic play book, that can't be overwritten easily. The US has been whittling away at contitutional rights for years. We are not a republic and our rights disappear with the stoke of a pen, depending on the current zeitgeist, very democratically of course.



There are certainly things that should be publicly owned, highways, waterways, essential services such as policing and so on. But when it comes to businesses they always seem to end up as the playthings of the government in power, no matter their political stripe. I see the point where government has to provide a public service where it is unfeasable for private enterprise. But I have also seen where government sevices grew to where they actually compete with private enterprise. There comes a point where public services should be privatized, but competition has to not only be allowed but encouraged. My phone bills were cut by 3/4 once competition was extablished. Competition for power generation and distribution out here is not only discouraged, but in most cases not even allowed, and my power bills have more than doubled since the crown corp. was privatized, a case where free enterprise is allowed to run amok.

Government has a role to play, but it never seems to stay in one place long enough. The swings are often wide and erratic, either too restrictive and choking business, or too liberal, allowing greed and chicanery to rule.

I'm not sure what you are talking about regarding republics. Canada, which is a monarchy, has the same guarantees of rights and liberties as does the USA which is a republic. Sweden, another monarchy is even more democratic than either Canada or the USA.

So far as provision of services is concerned I had a similar experience. When electricity was privatized in Alberta my power bill went up. When the government owned telephone company was sold off I experienced no decrease in my phone bill. When government liquor stores in the province were privatized the price of alcoholic beverages went up. Alberta currently has the highest liquor prices in Canada and it is not all due to taxes.

Almost certainly there are areas the government should stay away from, just as there are areas where the market economy fails utterly to provide a necessary service at a reasonable cost. The question is to decide what those areas are based on actual performance rather than ideological fixation.