Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ocasio-Cortez: Morally correct > actually correct

Collapse

Google Ads

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by TTURedRaider View Post

    I know Democratic Socialist not a revolutionary but you said you would be purged. I just think its interesting that you know that but still press on. Like advocating for the French Revolution despite knowing you are going to end up at the guillotine.

    I don't mind advocating to give capitalism a chamfered edge but when others want to make it a bevel I think they go too far. You said it yourself before...

    "1. Liberals come to power with the help of socialists.
    2. Socialists push a bit too far for liberals."



    1919 betrayal... Woodrow Wilson or what happened in Germany?
    Isn't that what everyone does, though? They work towards a better future while trying to be mindful of the potential consequences.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Spartan View Post

      The US became an example after 1933, but not really a great one because it has many of the drawbacks of both market and command economies.

      If you're asking what I would change about a market economy, it's the same platform I've laid out elsewhere. I would abolish all consumption and productivity taxes in favor of wealth taxes. I would limit the total amount of money any individual is allow to donate to political candidates and provide a public fund available to all candidates who manage to get on enough ballots to be able to win the election. I would incentivize at least partial labor ownership of all publicly traded corporations. I would abolish all means based social assistance and replace it with a single non-means based UBI. You get the idea.
      Okay cool, that simplifies things. Not sure on the first part, just because I can't see it being successful in the long run. Wealthy people are wealthy because they're exceedingly good at hiding their money. I like the stuff about limiting political donations and public campaign funds. I don't mind the partial labor ownership either in principle, but it has to be a 100% voluntary process. Make it an option, basically.

      Getting rid of welfare programs and replacing them with something like UBI isn't a bad idea either, but here's an alternative. Instead of basing it on income and creating welfare cliffs or just handing people money, how about we incentivize productive behavior? This doesn't necessarily have to be a traditional job, it can even be volunteer work or public works programs. The reason I suggest this is, as I'm sure you well know from your life experiences, giving people free shit with no strings attached tends to have a negative impact on their overall well being. Of course people have needs, but they also have a psychological need to strive and overcome adversity. If you tie this to some sort of work, you create a situation where that's possible for most people in a way that cutting them a check just won't.

      Oh, and one more thing. If we're talking about social programs, there needs to be additional aid for the elderly and disabled. I would insist on strict criteria on what classifies as disabled to keep the spending under control, but it would be 100% necessary to ensure they're taken care of.
      Last edited by tOSUfanboi2; 01-11-2019, 02:14 PM.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by tOSUfanboi2 View Post

        Okay cool, that simplifies things. Not sure on the first part, just because I can't see it being successful in the long run. Wealthy people are wealthy because they're exceedingly good at hiding their money. I like the stuff about limiting political donations and public campaign funds. I don't mind the partial labor ownership either in principle, but it has to be a 100% voluntary process. Make it an option, basically.

        Getting rid of welfare programs and replacing them with something like UBI isn't a bad idea either, but here's an alternative. Instead of basing it on income and creating welfare cliffs or just handing people money, how about we incentivize productive behavior? This doesn't necessarily have to be a traditional job, it can even be volunteer work or public works programs. The reason I suggest this is, as I'm sure you well know from your life experiences, giving people free shit with no strings attached tends to have a negative impact on their overall well being. Of course people have needs, but they also have a psychological need to strive and overcome adversity. If you tie this to some sort of work, you create a situation where that's possible for most people in a way that cutting them a check just won't.

        Oh, and one more thing. If we're talking about social programs, there needs to be additional aid for the elderly and disabled. I would insist on strict criteria on what classifies as disabled to keep the spending under control, but it would be 100% necessary to ensure they're taken care of.
        Taxes: It is successful when properly applied. Wealthy people can claim earnings overseas to avoid income taxes and hoard their money to avoid consumption tax, but as long as they have real property in the US, own cars, planes, boats, or stocks that are registered in the US, they can't hide from wealth taxes.

        Corporate ownership: This goes hand in hand with wealth taxes. Corporate income taxes are no different from individual income taxes. Penalizing productivity is stupid. Instead, lower the capital gains tax rate for owning any corporate stock that is owned by labor proportionally to how much labor owns. So, as an example, company A is 5% labor owned and dividends are taxed at 45% but company B is 40% labor owned and taxed at 36%.

        Welfare: You make a good point about adversity, but I don't think you have more positive results for kids who are utterly destitute because their parents are utter pieces of crap than you do for kids who just barely scrape by at subsistence levels because their parents are utter pieces of crap.

        I've also considered your last point. As to disability, you have the same problems from means testing as you do for income. You will always have that gray area where some people who deserve it won't get it while others who don't will. They're much better off all receiving assistance or none. For the elderly, the best solution I've come to has been to have an old age pension pegged to the federal real estate tax for the median one bedroom home together with their regular UBI. Some will still get by at subsistence levels while those who planned ahead should do better.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Spartan View Post

          Taxes: It is successful when properly applied. Wealthy people can claim earnings overseas to avoid income taxes and hoard their money to avoid consumption tax, but as long as they have real property in the US, own cars, planes, boats, or stocks that are registered in the US, they can't hide from wealth taxes.

          Corporate ownership: This goes hand in hand with wealth taxes. Corporate income taxes are no different from individual income taxes. Penalizing productivity is stupid. Instead, lower the capital gains tax rate for owning any corporate stock that is owned by labor proportionally to how much labor owns. So, as an example, company A is 5% labor owned and dividends are taxed at 45% but company B is 40% labor owned and taxed at 36%.

          Welfare: You make a good point about adversity, but I don't think you have more positive results for kids who are utterly destitute because their parents are utter pieces of crap than you do for kids who just barely scrape by at subsistence levels because their parents are utter pieces of crap.

          I've also considered your last point. As to disability, you have the same problems from means testing as you do for income. You will always have that gray area where some people who deserve it won't get it while others who don't will. They're much better off all receiving assistance or none. For the elderly, the best solution I've come to has been to have an old age pension pegged to the federal real estate tax for the median one bedroom home together with their regular UBI. Some will still get by at subsistence levels while those who planned ahead should do better.
          The problem with a wealth tax is that they could easily leverage their paper wealth over paper obligations to minimize taxable value.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Foster4Prez View Post

            The problem with a wealth tax is that they could easily leverage their paper wealth over paper obligations to minimize taxable value.
            That's a problem with implementation. A solution exists.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Spartan View Post

              That's a problem with implementation. A solution exists.
              Its simple - if you want nice things you pay a goddamned tax or you can live in Somalia where there's no tax no nice things and everybody is a fucking pirate - the purest form of capitalism

              Comment

              Working...
              X