Okay, I want to debate about this because it been on my mind for a while. I love the good ol' US of A and all, but I honestly have some serious doubts about our government and economy. I really don't agree with our capitalist economy. I see the fairness and all, but the wealth gap is ridiculous! And when an economic collapse occurs like is happening now, the rich stay rich and it's the poor who take the fall. If you've ever read Andrew Carnegie's "Wealth of Nations," he supports capitalism by arguing that even though the wealth gap grows bigger and bigger, the general quality of life for everyone improves. While this is true in times of good fare, in economic downturns I believe that it is the poor and the middle class who take a hardest fall. If a rich man and a poor man both lost the same PERCENTAGE of their income, the rich man would still live a very comfortable life whereas the poor man might starve. I think the US should move towards a socialist economy, but not completely socialist. I think large corporations should be taxed a much higher percentage and likewise with the superrich. Discuss?
I'd have to say I agree with the idea of tax based on percentage, but that would lead to our elite class taking their wealth elsewhere. This would popularize the ever clichéd 'Swiss bank account'. Even so, the government's controllers are made up of the wealthier part of the United States. Although most are not the mega-rich, swimming in a pool of money, go-to-France-for-the-weekend rich, I do think their social status will have an effect on the policy on taxing they choose. They might be fair to a point, but face it. Politicians are human. Greed will effect them. Sorry to crush dreams of a perfect government, but I don't think one exists. If so, please point me to it. I'm not at all defending that way the United states if governing, there are no quick fix governments for the problems that we have gotten ourselves into. Ten trillion dollars in debt won't vanish due to a tax percentage, but it might help those that it effects most.
At the same though, I think because the lower and middle class will be better off and have more money to spend, the better market will keep the companies here.
You make a point there, but since we've lost that upper class, paying income taxes here and there, where would that money they contributed (them now being in 'Swiss') come from? Would we have to tax middle class more to make up for the gap in taxes now being payed? Money always goes somewhere, and always has to come from somewhere. Thats the main thing you have to think about. With new plans, however great they may seem - Where did the money come from, where is it going, and how did it get there? How is paid for? I'm off for today though. Enough debate for one day. Hope to see more input later. ^_^
Ooh, good point. I suppose, then, that the corporation would be taxed, even the foreign ones? So the private CEo or president can go and sit pretty with his money in a Swiss bank, but the corporation will take the bigger tax blow and asa result the exec's will get less pay.
Not to be a pain but Carnegie didnt write Wealth of Nations... Adam Smith did; Carnegie wrote The Gospel of Wealth. Aaaaanyway, as previously stated there is no "quick fix" for this mess, but we can't blame anyone in particular for it though. This was a joint effort (and dont think Clinton isn't responsible for this either >O ) The market would naturally fluctuate (in theory) according to a basic Sine wave in an inflation/recession cycle. Our meddling had ruined the potential for this, instating minimum wage (for example) was a mistake, while it helped lower classes step up for a while.... it also lead to the glorious mess we have today... so on and so forth etc etc
I've always liked the ideals of communism but although I'm no politics major I know it always collapses. Communism would work if it were a state of mind rather than a state of government.
Communism is a total joke, even from a "theoretical" standpoint. As far as I'm concerned, too much of communism is based off of mysticism, seeing how "historical materialism" is basically the "unconscious drive behind class struggle", which on itself sounds like a bunch of mystical bullshit. As an atheist, I do not like religions. Communism is no exception to my distaste.
I was raised in Russia, exposed to a lot of communism. I don't think it works. I am for capitalism. If you are able to earn money, if you're smart or hardworking person, then all the credit to you. Why share?
This is why I said I liked the ideals. If communism worked the world would be a Utopia with everyone equal. Unfortunately we as humans are not programmed to function that way. I'm also an atheist if you compare Communism to religion you must hate all political systems? Or authority? Church and State is separate in my mind.
I like the way our system it is right now, but a few things need to be changed IMO. We have a progressive income tax, and it certainly takes its toll on the rich, but it needs to be adjusted. Right now, we are taxing too much money from the poor, which is not right IMO. I think the 35% for $300k+ is fine as is though. The main thing I don't like about our system right now is the HUGE bureaucracy we have. I mean, its gigantic. Slim it down, save billions of dollars. Also take out all that pork-barrel legislation. That's what state taxes are for, no need to go whining to the federal gov't for millions to build a bridge to no where. Wow, I probably worded a lot of stuff badly and make sense whatsoever. meh...
Apologies on the gospel/nations thing. I was talking about Carnegie's. Personally I think a capitalist economy is doomed. Capital is not forever; it is like a waterfall that will eventually, inevitably, dry up at one end and pool in the other.To keep it working, water needs to be taken back from the pool and fed into the waterfall again, over and over. It's such a frustrating paradox because yes, I fullheartedly believe that if you do a job and earn more money, why should you be taxed more than someone who earns less? However, at the sae time I also think it's unfair that there are people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. who have more money than they could ever spend and live exaggerated, ridiculous lifestyles while so many people earn barely enough to survive.
But who gets to decide that you have more than you need? How much is too much? Who qualifies to get what is taken from you? In 2006 Warren Buffet "the sage of Omaha"contributed $37BILLION to the Gates Foundation. He has said for years he always wanted to give the bulk of his fortune away. This is just a beginning for him. Bill Gates (only worth about $58 billion) & The Foundation: The primary aims of the foundation are, globally, to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, and, in the United States, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology. It is now, and always has been, education that matters. Education that gives people what they need to bring themselves out of poverty & despair. NOT handouts. If handouts worked to get people out of poverty there wouldn't be generations of families living on welfare. For a time, to get a foothold, no problem. But NOT for generations :nope: If handouts worked, even in terms of something as simple as birth control, there wouldn't be so many unwanted pregnancies. If handouts worked the 3rd world nations wouldn't be in such dire straights. Nope :nope: it's education that works!!! *climbs down from her soapbox*
I agree with what you say about education. The issue people have with capitalism is it is unfair. Now we all know life is unfair. How can you try and solve this unfairness? Taking money from richer people who have worked hard for it and giving it to poorer people isn't fair. The only way you can have fairness in the world is if everyone has the opportunity to become the next Bill Gates and for that to happen you need an education. I can understand communism why is a doctor paid more than a trash collector? Yes the doctor has had to go through a lengthy education and saves lives but if the trash man doesn't come to that doctors house he has to get rid of his own trash. If all the jobs that get paid lower wages than doctors became vacant could that doctor go to work? No. Society needs everyone who works. I couldn't just choose one of the options I think they all have good qualities but they also all have major drawbacks.
Anyone noticed how Russia is turning capitalist and USA is turning socialist? :maha: I find it amusing.
I think it's bloody stupid that you are complaining (by 'you' I mean the collective you). Your country and mine was built on capitalism. America has been the world superpower for decades because of capitalism. And now because you are heading towards a major recession you are blaming it? Greed got you into this, guess what will get you out. Communism does not work in practice that has been proven. Why even bother talking about it?
Very good point. However, the system of education today is not optimal as it's often based on capitalism as well. If you want to go to a very good school, it's not only the grades that do it, you often have to pay a pretty large fee. If all schools were completely government funded, the status of certain schools would probably just increase, while letting even the poor in. I'm frightened everytime I hear "college funds". I mean, seriously? Education is supposed to be free and the natural outcome of a completly free (higher) education would result in the most suited people getting the education.
Of course communism doesn't work in practice. Read my posts, I explicitly stated that it's flawed. But my point is that SOCIALISM is arguable better(?) than CAPITALISM.
Hold on right there... Superpower? You make it sound like that's something good. Of course you should always strive for the better, but not when your gain makes such a big loss for others. There's a difference between running a marathon and winning fairly, and cutting off all your competitors legs.
I just found this topic to be interesting because we just had an economic system test in social. But I mean USA has always been known for its free market ideas since who knows when, with the monopolies and what not. But yeah we are seeing that even now, the economic is effecting the whole world {My friend's USA based company retrenched her because of the economy and she moved to Singapore all by herself from Malaysian } Anyways my point is, as Canada, we've been under the ideas of Keynesian economics for a loooooooonggg time. And now we are starting to think that won't work either. I am not too keen on USA economics but we are all seeing now that it's going downhill for the time being. The question really is, what kind of economic principles should we be following now, cuz our oh so great Keynesian economics are failing as well. Communism's complete practice might not have worked, proven by Stalin, Hitler, etc etc. But if you think about it, Keynes had a socialist viewpoint, yet he allowed capitalist ideas and actually formed a pretty good economic system. Communism as a whole rarely worked, I guess but the only example I can think of and the only person I can think of who sort of moved his nation away from communism was Gorbachev from USSR way back when =P {Sorry I am actually horrible at this debate stuff and I probably have all my facts wrong But I guess it's a good...study method for social..?? }