Socialism. And a bit about taxes...

Split from Star Wars.

1). ?!
2). Socialism flourishes in a democracy and in a republic based system of electorial government. A government student loan, a government grant is a perfect example of socialism.
3). Socialism is not communism. That's like saying a republic is the same as a republic. You are correct about socialism being the "return of wealth" to the electoriate. Yet, however, this does not mean a classless society or elimination of poverty and the such.
Communisism is the form of government where there is no class structure, and such likeness'.


I am a true blue democratic capitalist, with socialist views. I believe theat every citizen of Canada does have the inalienable right to free medical care, of the highest quality available, housing that is not degrading, a socialnet, but like the ones in Europe where if you're on the dole then you have to at least do something for the public commonwealth.

The democracy here in British Columbia, Canada, is finaly evolving to a regional electorate; where there is an elected council per region, not just one person per district.

I would really like to see this form of a democratic government, but with two add features: An elected senate, and a system where once the form of government(Liberal, Conservative, Socialist cores) is elected then the non partisan leader is elected. In this system the best person for the leadership of a province or nation would lead the form of government the people have chosen. This would eliminate the "Liberal Party, or the Conservative Party being elected. It would put the onnice on the non partizan leadership.

To me this would be the next logical step in the evolution of Democracy.

 

I'm sorry to react to this even though it's off topic, but I have to set it straight. Socialism is NOT Communism and doesn't strive to become communism. Not all the money is the government's, and not everyone gets the same amount, and no one is supposed to be put away to work to the government's desires of the five year plan.

Under a social democratic government, just like under a liberal or a conservative government, the rich still get the most money and still have the most money. They merely pay a higher percentage of it to the government! In the dutch progressive tax system everyone pays the same amount of taxes over a low income but when your income reaches a certain point, you are taxed a higher percentage over the amount that crosses this point. So you still pay around 35% income tax for one part, like everybody else, but for what you get more (the other part) you pay up to 52%.

The tax income is partly used to fund the government's actions, just like in any other type of government, and partly used to redistribute wealth. Those in need get a fee; the elderly get a fee; the unemployed get a fee but are stimulated to find a job, etcetera. It is in no way a government that takes all the money and does with it what it wants.

In the way I see it.

 

A graduated income tax is not a unique feature of a socialist economy. Canada and the U.S. have a graduated income taxes, which is too high by the way!

 

Yes you are right, the taxes are way too high. In Canada the highest I have been taxed is 52% on my income. 52% that's rediculous.

I think this type of discussion should be moderated and all posts relating to them should be placed somewhere else. So wwe can concentrate on the "Star Wars"?

By the way, Governemnts don't have money. It's your money, we elect individuals, to administer our affairs in our best intrests. I know I remind my Municipal, Provincial, and Federal representitives of this fact; they don't like being reminded that they are my public servant, and that if they fail to execute their positions properly taht they will be replaced.

 

And now they are. Please continue the debate about socialism here.

 

Yes, but it is one of the points a socialist government would emphasize if in office. In Holland this system is a result of years of social democratic governments.

It served just to point out that a socialist government doesn't take everyone's money just like any other government.

Skua! This is my section!

 

True, but this does cut both ways...
Technically the system we have is that we elect some guy that we think will do the best job, then 4 years later we can choose to keep him or not. What he does in between is his business.
Technically Mr Blair & Mr Brown could spend the entire Budget on pink & yellow striped balloons, and there is bog-all we can legally do to stop them. Protest, yes. Petition, yes. But will that stop them? No.
They won't get re-elected, though, which is their incentive.

I like the old Athenian model - people are proposed and elected to posts (without their involvement), and after a period of time a vote is held on whether they'd done a good job.
If yes, they're kept on. If no, they're killed.

Provides a good incentive, I'd have thought...

 

Socialism=high taxes.

In the USA we have been moving this way for years due to the bleeding heart liberals in Congress.

I'll take capitalism, keep my money, and pay my own way. For those not willing to work, let them starve. Welfare and socialist programs should be for needy individuals, not lazy ones.

A bit cold perhaps, but that's how I feel.

:smok:

 

You can't just brush all the unemployed in the corner of those unwilling to work. This is not the only cause for unemployment, and it sounds short-sighted to me to think so.

Some people, and everywhere in the world there are groups of them, are structurally denied work. In Holland among these victims of discrimination are immigrants and Muslems.
Others can't get a job because of some physical or mental defect, which doesn't exactly makes them needy but does make them unattractive for employers. If the defect is serious enough, they'll never get a job because they can't execute it properly for any given reason.
The most common form of unemployment, however, is conjunctural and structural; this unemployment is caused by the economic status and direction of a country. When demands are low, production will be low and people will be fired. If an economy is in recession (as it is recovering from almost everywhere today) then these unemployed can't get themselves another job because no employer wants any more people.
Then there's seasonal unemployment; the ice cream truck won't have much work in wintertime, so he is temporarily unemployed.

This list of reasons why people are unemployed just goes on and on. They are not one group. They are not all lazy and most of them really do need the fee.

 

Socialism as a pure definition, like pure communism, is much different from the way it is actually practiced. Ask most any left-of-center politician, in any country, if money earned ultimately belongs to the state, or to the individual who earned it, and they will say the state. The state then takes what it needs and graciously allows the individual to keep the rest. This is tyranny, but is an unusually common view. The New York Times' new Executive Editor, Michael Kinsley, preaches this view to anyone who wishes to listen. Politicians are usually more careful because they realize how explosive stating such a view could be. And, as practiced, Socialism isn't return of wealth to the electorate, it is redistribution of wealth and therein lies the problem.

 

I just don't understand why you object to this?! The only thing a social democratic government does, if executed correctly, is to take some of the wealth surpluses where they arise and redistribute this surplus among those who have too little to live from. If this is somehow wrong to you then you hardly have a feeling fo those in need; if I interpret it correctly the rich must get their money and the poor might as well starve if it were up to you. This will never solve anything, of course; the poor will get poorer and the rich will get richer. This is a problem! People who are already rich don't need more money, while a whole lot of people really do - to survive! Don't you think that people who can buy themselves a third car could also afford to pay a little more taxes to accomodate those who don't get enough money to buy their daily food or shelter?

Of course there are socialist governments who abuse the money they get, and of course there are those who get money from the government for no reason, or just because they don't want to work. This is wrong. But this is also not the essence or the norm for such a government.

 

Roel,

I completely agree there is a need for welfare programs as I previously stated; for the needy.

If a person does not fall into those brackets of needy people and is just living off the system like so many lazy Americans do, we are better off without them.

:smok:

 

Such is the difference between the view of most people in the U.S. and those in Europe. While you may agree that the state can graciously allow people to keep a portion of their salary and not call it tyranny, we say that the money belongs to those who earn it. Those who earn it then graciously (or sometimes not) allow the state to keep a portion of it. And it's not just semantics, it's a mindset.

And I don't agree with allowing those who cannot provide for themselves to suffer, but cannot is the operative word. Far too much money is spent on social services for those who can, but refuse to, provide for themselves.

One more comment on another topic (I don't want to redirect the Star Wars topic again), after some research I must applaud Denmark, UK, The Netherlands, and Norway on their amounts of International Economic Aid. Very impressive indeed!

 

But who clasifies them as needy or lazy.

If a person is so stupid that every job he/she goes for they fail the interview, is it their fault, likewise if a person is lazy but clever and fails every job interview. Who is to judge him as being lazy.

So how do you tell the lazy from the stupid.

Simplistically speaking.

 

Lazy or Stupid, I could care less. Not an issue. Both are in the same bracket.

 

the point greg pitts is trying to make is that there are a lot of people on welfare in the us who shouldn't be on it. i personally think that welfare needs to be reformed again and more strictly than in 1996. before the great depression, people were expected to work hard and live on what they had earned. if you worked hard, you were rewarded. then with the New Deal, people's thinking changed, and they began to think that the gov't owed it to them to support them. this is where this philosophy began. it was needed in the great depression, but not now. before, charities, helping organizations and churches helped out those in need. that's how it needs to be now. the gov't shouldn't have to be a big "daddy" for everyone to run to. and we as citizens and fellow humans need to step up and help.

 

Agreed. I have no problem with helping people who *can't* work, for one reason or another; I've been in that boat myself. Or those who are working but are presently having a rough time of it. However, I strenuously object to people sitting around collecting checks from the government and not even *trying* to find a job! I bust my chops eight hours a day, five days a week (sometimes more) to earn my money, and if I can do it, then they can, too.

 

Welcome Victorian England.

 

Welfare is only one part of where taxes go.

The 2 main areas that 'socialist' taxes go to are:

Education
Healthcare

Myself, I fully support the idea that anyone can receive whatever care they need, for free (except perscription drugs have a modest fixed price).
I haven't really used it much myself - I have probably paid more tax than I have used health-wise, but that's ok. I'm happy to know that my money keeps people alive & healthy.

Education is similar, except I'm almost certainly still paying that one off!.

When first introduced, the NHS (National Health Service) was marvellous.
Sadly, both the NHS and Education have suffered greatly, as they have become political footballs in an attempt to try & secure more votes.

 

The main difference seems to be that those who disagree with redistribution of wealth would agree to charity organizations taking care of the needy, while those who agree with it leave it to the government. Basically this means that some want to give some of their own money to do good while others leave this to the government as a greater power, giving off more so that the government can do more good. I would rather belive in concentration of money to be spent on public welfare, but this is where we disagree.