democrats, socialists? - Political Forum

sung251 · 04-14-2007, 08:10 PM

It seems that the current economic platform for the democrats seem to be somewhat socialist in nature. Supporting the proportional income taxes, welfare, distribution of money, high taxes, min wage. Simply i am surprised that the greatest capitalistic country in the world would make concessions with socialism. (must be the doings of those Keynesians)

Brother Oz · 04-14-2007, 08:17 PM

Quote:

the proportional income taxes, welfare, distribution of money, high taxes, min wage

That is not socialism. That is a welfare state, espoused by Social Democrats. It is also supported by Socialists generally, but it's not actually socialist.
Plus, the democrats do not want these at anywhere near the level that socialists want to put them. Your Democrats want tax levels that are about the same as our Conservatives.

sung251 · 04-14-2007, 08:21 PM

welfare state is a weak form of socialism. Plus, increasing min wage, is it a good idea? i think its a total mistake

Brother Oz · 04-14-2007, 08:26 PM

Quote:

welfare state is a weak form of socialism

No, it's seperate.
Socialism is state control of the means of production. That has nothing to do with tax and minimum wage levels.

top gun · 04-14-2007, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sung251

welfare state is a weak form of socialism. Plus, increasing min wage, is it a good idea? i think its a total mistake

That may be but it is a false assumption that Democrats are somehow "socialist" in the first place.

Democrats did come up with a Social Security system and a Medicare system that is meant to give some safety net from poverty stricken old age. This money is taken out of each taxpayers check their whole working life. Then when they retire they draw back out of that system. It's their money. The problem is the government often raids that system to fund other programs.

There is some welfare for mothers not working and with children up to 3 years old. Then they must be in an approved job training program or their government checks are cut off. The welfare program was drastically cut back under Democratic President Bill Clinton.

Minimum wage had not gone up in 10 years. That is certainly not an unreasonable time frame for any raise.

Many Democrats would like to see national healthcare but only because drug costs, doctor & hospital charges and private heath insurance costs have seen a huge and constant inflation rate. It is now so costly that many working Americans either don't even have healthcare offered at their job or cannot afford what is offered. This only creates a system where more & more people use the most expensive medical treatment of the emergency room. National healthcare would be an attempt at giving every American good basic healthcare.

As far as taxes the substantial difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is only how tax revenue is spent. Not how much. In fact under President Clinton he completely wiped out our budget deficit. We actually had a surplus. Under a Republican, Bush, government has grown more than at any other time in history and we have a huge budget deficit again. Plus we have war spending spinning the spending wheel at an additionally blinding speed. The Bush tax cuts that gave the huge tax cuts to those making over 200K per year was much more symbolic than substantive and the funding that he cut back to the states which often caused them to raise costs in effect canceled out whatever little cut regular middle class workers received.

Don't let yourself be fooled by the catch phrase "tax cut". It often gives a false representation of what's really going on.

yhwhluver · 04-16-2007, 12:20 AM

Yes, Democrats came up with Social Security and Medicare, which is doing what? Getting the public to rely on the government for retirement and medical expenses. The system is terrible and only worked because of the baby boom (more workers supporting each retiree). The idea that the money you put in is the money you draw out is not true. The money you put in goes to those drawing out now. The money you draw out is what others are putting in. It doesn't work like a 401(k) or IRA. Yes the government raids the funds and spend it like there's no tomorrow, but I don't see very many Democrats with an idea on how to fix it.

Yeah, Bill Clinton helped out with cutting programs back and balancing the budget, but the President isn't the one who does all the work. The Congress, which was run by Republicans, and some true conservatives at the time (not like the past few years), had to propose the bills for this to happen.

I don't see where government has the right to tell you as an employer how much to pay your workers. That's a short step to the government running the company itself.

I am ok with only one reason of having a deficit, and that's when we're at war, which we are currently in. Bush is not a conservative, and he's pretty liberal with his spending habits. That's what I don't like about him. However, his tax cuts have actually increased revenue, and I'll try to explain why.

See, there are poor people, which pay basically nothing in taxes. There are middle class people, which pay a little bit in taxes. Then there are rich people, the top 25% of income earners, who pay a whopping 84.6% in taxes. Now, if you have three people: one poor, one middle class, and one rich. The poor person pays $0. The middle class person pays $15.40. The rich person pays $84.60. Now, if there is a 25% reduction in taxes, then the poor person gets no reduction in taxes and the rich person gets $21.15 back. Well, that's unfair because the poor person got nothing. The middle class person only got $3.85 back. The tax cut must be for just the rich since they got the most money back! See how stupid that is? Now I know the numbers may not be exactly right, but the point is still the same. A percent of a higher amount is higher than the same percent from a lower amount, and that is always greater than 0!

Now, many of the rich people are not employees, but rather employers. Employers tend to higher employees to work for them. When taxes go down, the employer tends to spend more money, because they have more of it. They tend to spend more money on more employees and other taxable neccessities, thus, more taxes are generated. Read up on Adam Smith, then you'll get the idea that taxes are bad for business.

If you still don't understand, say so and I'll try it a different way. Oh, and by the way, many economists believe and the government has shown that if the tax cuts stay in place, we'll have a surplus within the next 5-10 years.

Eddie · 04-16-2007, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yhwhluver

I don't see where government has the right to tell you as an employer how much to pay your workers. That's a short step to the government running the company itself.

Just like society has the "right" to tell you as an individual how much you can beat your kids before going to jail. :shrug:

Quote:

Originally Posted by yhwhluver

I am ok with only one reason of having a deficit, and that's when we're at war, which we are currently in. Bush is not a conservative, and he's pretty liberal with his spending habits. That's what I don't like about him.

That seems like a rather unconstructive position. Whenever the government invests in future generation, it would seem prudent to run a decifit (or at least be prepared to do it if the investment requires it). Furthermore, running decifits may also be the only way out of a recession.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yhwhluver

That's what I don't like about him. However, his tax cuts have actually increased revenue, and I'll try to explain why.

See, there are poor people, which pay basically nothing in taxes. There are middle class people, which pay a little bit in taxes. Then there are rich people, the top 25% of income earners, who pay a whopping 84.6% in taxes. Now, if you have three people: one poor, one middle class, and one rich. The poor person pays $0. The middle class person pays $15.40. The rich person pays $84.60. Now, if there is a 25% reduction in taxes, then the poor person gets no reduction in taxes and the rich person gets $21.15 back. Well, that's unfair because the poor person got nothing. The middle class person only got $3.85 back. The tax cut must be for just the rich since they got the most money back! See how stupid that is? Now I know the numbers may not be exactly right, but the point is still the same. A percent of a higher amount is higher than the same percent from a lower amount, and that is always greater than 0!

Now, many of the rich people are not employees, but rather employers. Employers tend to higher employees to work for them. When taxes go down, the employer tends to spend more money, because they have more of it. They tend to spend more money on more employees and other taxable neccessities, thus, more taxes are generated. Read up on Adam Smith, then you'll get the idea that taxes are bad for business.

Actually, that does not follow from economic theory at all and Adam Smith would not agree with your analysis. From a micro-economic standpoint, cutting the income tax for employers have no effect on employment since employment is derived from the supply and demand for labour. And the demand for labour is derived from the relationship between the marginal cost for employing on one hand and productivity and price on the other. The supply is related to availiable and willing units of labour. From a macro-economic standpoint it could make a difference either way, and you need to consider tax as merely redistribution of resources. If you cut taxes, you do not increase the amount of resources in the economy. You might create more or less efficiency but this does not automaticly follow and needs to be explained rather than simply assumed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yhwhluver

If you still don't understand, say so and I'll try it a different way.

Please do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yhwhluver

Oh, and by the way, many economists believe and the government has shown that if the tax cuts stay in place, we'll have a surplus within the next 5-10 years.

Please explain this further.

lordoftheworld · 04-16-2007, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Oz

That is not socialism. That is a welfare state, espoused by Social Democrats. It is also supported by Socialists generally, but it's not actually socialist.
Plus, the democrats do not want these at anywhere near the level that socialists want to put them. Your Democrats want tax levels that are about the same as our Conservatives.

Ive studied European Politics and what Oz says is very true. Our Democrats are nothing like socialist parties in Europe. But that kind of thinking would never fly here in America. When the government wants to take over the energy companies, then they are trying scoialism.
Oz are you from Great Britain?

lordoftheworld · 04-16-2007, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yhwhluver

Then there are rich people, the top 25% of income earners, who pay a whopping 84.6% in taxes. Now, if you have three people: one poor, one middle class, and one rich.

Are you saying there is a tax bracket that pays out 84.6% in taxes? or in income taxes? or what?

Brother Oz · 04-16-2007, 06:39 PM

Quote:

When the government wants to take over the energy companies, then they are trying scoialism.

Precisely. Socialism isn't about high taxes and welfare payments, though most socialist states do that, it's actually about the government running things. For example, Socialist governments in Britain nationalised all the energy, the water, the trains, the telecoms, and the health service. All of these have since been privatised by capitalist parties, except health. In some countries on the continent, some of these are still nationalised. Most European states have a nationalised train system, because they tend to work much better than privatised ones, and health because it's a lot more cost-efficient. With other things there is not always such a difference. Nationalised telecoms businesses, for example, tend to do very badly.

Quote:

Oz are you from Great Britain?

Yes. I live some of the year on the south-east coast of England, and some on the south coast of Wales.