• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

America: What's wrong with "socialism", anyway?

theprestige

Penultimate Amazing
theprestige
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
80,064
Location
The Antimemetics Division
You put a ceiling on individual wealth.

You put a floor on individual poverty.

Most people have a to work a little harder, and get a little less.

But nobody has too little, and nobody has too much.

What's the problem?

Nightmare Mode: provide your own definition of "socialism", and answer the question on your own terms.
 
theprestige said:
You put a ceiling on individual wealth.

You put a floor on individual poverty.

Most people have a to work a little harder, and get a little less.

But nobody has too little, and nobody has too much.

What's the problem?

Nightmare Mode: provide your own definition of "socialism", and answer the question on your own terms.
Click to expand...

It's the first part I have a problem with.
And who decides what is Too Much.
And people are going to resent working harder and getting less.

I am not against a net or social programs per se, but if the above is Socialism then I am against it for the reasons stated and one other big one:It Won't Work. People work better when they will directily profit from it.
 
Factory worker A makes 50 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory worker B works harder and makes 300 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory workers A and B make the same paycheck.
Factory worker B sees no benefit for working harder and drops production down to 50 Thingamajigs in a week, like worker A.
Entire production drops. Soon there are not enough products for the population. Society crumbles.
 
dudalb said:
It's the first part I have a problem with.
And who decides what is Too Much.
And people are going to resent working harder and getting less.

I am not against a net or social programs per se, but if the above is Socialism then I am against it for the reasons stated and one other big one:It Won't Work. People work better when they will directily profit from it.
Click to expand...

As a socialist I'm against the first part. I know of no Socialist who would cap people's earnings.

On the other hand, I do believe in an increasing tax scale, the more you earn, the higher percentage of tax you pay. The really big earners should, in my opinion, be taxed anything up to 50% with maybe more for multi millionaires. That way, no matter how much a person pays in tax as a percentage, the highest earners will still have the most money.

Personally, I see that as a fair system that can afford to support the whole country with support for all.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
As a socialist I'm against the first part. I know of no Socialist who would cap people's earnings.

On the other hand, I do believe in an increasing tax scale, the more you earn, the higher percentage of tax you pay. The really big earners should, in my opinion, be taxed anything up to 50% with maybe more for multi millionaires. That way, no matter how much a person pays in tax as a percentage, the highest earners will still have the most money.

Personally, I see that as a fair system that can afford to support the whole country with support for all.
Click to expand...

That ain't' it. That's a progressive tax system
 
:)
dudalb said:
It's the first part I have a problem with.
And who decides what is Too Much.
And people are going to resent working harder and getting less.

I am not against a net or social programs per se, but if the above is Socialism then I am against it for the reasons stated and one other big one:It Won't Work. People work better when they will directily profit from it.
Click to expand...

What would happen if there was a poll to see which professions are the least and most attractive? Those jobs least liked (garbage collector, coal miner, undertaker ) woul get the highest income. Movie stars and professional athletes would be the least paid.:)
 
Last edited:
The Painter said:
Factory worker A makes 50 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory worker B works harder and makes 300 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory workers A and B make the same paycheck.
Factory worker B sees no benefit for working harder and drops production down to 50 Thingamajigs in a week, like worker A.
Entire production drops. Soon there are not enough products for the population. Society crumbles.
Click to expand...

OK, so factory worker B works harder and still gets the same paycheck as factory worker A. Factory CEO doesn't make a single Thingamajing and gets paid 50 or more times as much as A or B. If you train A or B for a week, they can do Factory CEO's job.

Factory workers A and B are Teabaggers, so they are proud to accept their lot.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
I prefer utopian socialist ideas with no money. Like Star Trek.
Click to expand...

It's easy to live without money when you have replicators and holodeks.

Yeah, I never quite got the bit about bragging about money being abolished by then. And replaced with what? Maybe the idea was to emphasize that people in the 24th century had decided to not be so greedy and just amass as much money as possible, but still going from that to having no money at all is a long step.

Eliminating money is akin to eliminating people putting value on things and that's just not going to happen.
 
I think we should get rid of our socialist military. How dare the U.S. government take my hard-earned money to pay for armed forces when there are perfectly good private, mercenary armies available!!!11!1 :jaw-dropp
 
The Painter said:
Factory worker A makes 50 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory worker B works harder and makes 300 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory workers A and B make the same paycheck.
Factory worker B sees no benefit for working harder and drops production down to 50 Thingamajigs in a week, like worker A.
Entire production drops. Soon there are not enough products for the population. Society crumbles.
Click to expand...

And of course this has nothing to do with socialism. You get inequity like this because the invisible hand of the marketplace doesn't always "care" about such inequities.
 
ask anyone who lived in the USSR or North Korea.

they will tell you ALLLLLLLL about..the "glories" of Socialism.
 
Thunder said:
ask anyone who lived in the USSR or North Korea.

they will tell you ALLLLLLLL about..the "glories" of Socialism.
Click to expand...

I've been to the Russian Fed, last year, actually. Capitalism isn't quite addressing all of their social issues either.

And since when was North Korea socialist? They are a dictatorship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom