Which of these socialist ideas do you support?

[greenvilledoc]

High corporate tax rate
Income tax
Social Security - retirement age NEEDS to be raised to 70+
Welfare
Disability
Unemployment - i agree with @OrangeTigerTower and @scotchtiger on this one, people should be working to better themselves or help the state/locality provide services. This is not far from Obama's proposal of a nationwide, extensive Americorps Though, im not sure why they dont see it as a massive expansion of the federal government. I mean, those people will become federal employees to an extent.
Public pre-k - study after study after study says pre-k improves life outcomes, the government should provide it, free of charge to everyone. plus, it allows people to get back into the workforce after having a baby quicker.
Public elementary school - everyone deserves an elementary education
Public secondary school - everyone deserves a high school education
Public trade school - not everyone should go to college
Paid family and maternity leave
Public University
Socialized Healthcare - i believe its the role of the federal government to provide a baseline of healthcare to its citiznes
Farm subsidies
Corporate bail outs
Infrastructure (roads rail ways, air ports)
Police
Fire departments
Prison system - i believe its the role of the government to rehabilitate people who have committed certain crimes. not sell them into the prison industrial complex who's shareholders demand their repeated and constant incarceration.

I'm on board with you on almost all of this, particularly the elimination of the private prison system, which is a disgrace.

I do have a quibble with high corporate taxes, as I'm pretty big on providing a positive environment for businesses to compete in, but otherwise I think having a fairly robust social safety net is a good thing - my understanding is that crime rates drop dramatically under those circumstances, but I may be mistaken. If it's safer for me and my family and I can help someone out without hurting our situation, I'm all for it.

I would like to see if we could accomplish this without increasing government revenue (i.e. taxes), and I think it's possible despite the rhetoric from both sides. I just don't want to see tax systems in place like they have in Scandinavia as I think it stifles small business and innovation.

At any rate, I'm not really familiar enough with the details of most any of this stuff to intelligently comment, so vague generalities is about the best I can do lol.

 

[Clemblack]

High corporate tax rate
Income tax
Social Security - retirement age NEEDS to be raised to 70+
Welfare
Disability
Unemployment - i agree with @OrangeTigerTower and @scotchtiger on this one, people should be working to better themselves or help the state/locality provide services. This is not far from Obama's proposal of a nationwide, extensive Americorps Though, im not sure why they dont see it as a massive expansion of the federal government. I mean, those people will become federal employees to an extent.
Public pre-k - study after study after study says pre-k improves life outcomes, the government should provide it, free of charge to everyone. plus, it allows people to get back into the workforce after having a baby quicker.
Public elementary school - everyone deserves an elementary education
Public secondary school - everyone deserves a high school education
Public trade school - not everyone should go to college
Paid family and maternity leave
Public University
Socialized Healthcare - i believe its the role of the federal government to provide a baseline of healthcare to its citiznes
Farm subsidies
Corporate bail outs
Infrastructure (roads rail ways, air ports)
Police
Fire departments
Prison system - i believe its the role of the government to rehabilitate people who have committed certain crimes. not sell them into the prison industrial complex who's shareholders demand their repeated and constant incarceration.

These are all wonderful ideas. How do you pay for it?

 

[cuandcofcfan]

Makes one wonder how all those socialist Scandinavian countries do so well. Overall, much better than us. Hmmm....

http://www.bullshitexposed.com/scandinavian-socialism-debunked/

 

[BAnksMcFadden]

Steal the crayons from Walmart. Cost is built in to each crayon. OP forgot to include stealing what is not yours in his bolded section.

as opposed to stealing your own stuff?

 

[BAnksMcFadden]

i dont understand what you dont understand.

you have REPEATEDLY advocated for returning to various times in our history when African Americans were outright marginalized or enslaved. you cant advocate returning to such a time while ignoring the realities of those times. it seemed, based on your post above, that you were saying the US, pre 1860, was a utopia of sorts. a reasonable person cannot ignore the fact, that, during that time, African Americans were literally enslaved all over our country. you cant seperate slavery from the day-to-day lives of americans pre 1860. hence the question. you seem to prefer a time in america when blacks were either enslaved, or segregated, or completely marginalized. what dont you understand about our questions? slavery, jim crow laws, segregation, those were significant facts that had impacts on everyone's lives at the times you keep pining for. its not surprising people are calling you out.

and you make yourself out to be a myopic idiot by consistently referring to karl marx and/or saul alinsky in refuting people's points.

AA's were'nt literally enslaved all over the country, they were litteraly enslaved in certain areas.

 

[iceheart08]

These are all wonderful ideas. How do you pay for it?

taxes. im comfortable giving 40-50% of my income to the government to provide for all of this.

 

[iceheart08]

AA's were'nt literally enslaved all over the country, they were litteraly enslaved in certain areas.

you are right, they were only literally enslaved in large parts of the country. original point still stands though.

 

[BAnksMcFadden]

taxes. im comfortable giving 40-50% of my income to the government to provide for all of this.

Why do you not believe that you deserve every dollar that you work hard for,and that others should profit off of your hard work?

 

[iceheart08]

Why do you not believe that you deserve every dollar that you work hard for,and that others should profit off of your hard work?

for one, our ability to function in this society is highly dependent upon the structures, rules, laws, and people around us. so i think its our responsibility to ensure that those things are fully funded.

i also believe, as a person who earns a good bit of money, I am morally obligated to help those around me, so i pay my taxes and give to charities that i believe in, as well as volunteer my time. i have an honest belief that its our responsibility to share with those less fortunate and I dont see it the way you phrased your question, as others profiting off my "hard work".

my hard work entitles me to live a life that is comfortable. I rarely cant buy things that I want (i mean, i dont own an M5 or anything), I eat well, have a nice bed to sleep in, and have a wonderful family, all as a result of my hard work. I dont believe that i "deserve" every single thing im given, so I give some of it back to people who werent born as lucky as I was, or didnt have the support structures, opportunities etc etc that I've had.

why do you believe you are entitled to every dollar that you earn? you already probably pay close to 35% in taxes, do you disagree with that?

 

[BAnksMcFadden]

for one, our ability to function in this society is highly dependent upon the structures, rules, laws, and people around us. so i think its our responsibility to ensure that those things are fully funded.

i also believe, as a person who earns a good bit of money, I am morally obligated to help those around me, so i pay my taxes and give to charities that i believe in, as well as volunteer my time. i have an honest belief that its our responsibility to share with those less fortunate and I dont see it the way you phrased your question, as others profiting off my "hard work".

my hard work entitles me to live a life that is comfortable. I rarely cant buy things that I want (i mean, i dont own an M5 or anything), I eat well, have a nice bed to sleep in, and have a wonderful family, all as a result of my hard work. I dont believe that i "deserve" every single thing im given, so I give some of it back to people who werent born as lucky as I was, or didnt have the support structures, opportunities etc etc that I've had.

why do you believe you are entitled to every dollar that you earn? you already probably pay close to 35% in taxes, do you disagree with that?

I most certainly do disagree, i think 15_20% would properly fund everything that we NEED as a society , without giving lazy people hand outs. Also I totally agree that you should help the less fortunate, though your government should not mandate it. Being free means making your on decisions this doesn't limit itself to social interaction, but also to economic decisions. Every tax dollar that goes to government programs is one less freedom you have. Everyone knows the Socialism leads to communism which is basically all citizens being slaves to the government.

 

[Clems0nTiger]

I most certainly do disagree, i think 15_20% would properly fund everything that we NEED as a society , without giving lazy people hand outs. Also I totally agree that you should help the less fortunate, though your government should not mandate it. Being free means making your on decisions this doesn't limit itself to social interaction, but also to economic decisions. Every tax dollar that goes to government programs is one less freedom you have. Everyone knows the Socialism leads to communism which is basically all citizens being slaves to the government.

slippery slope
You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

 

[SpartanTiger120]

I don't know who these tests were conducted on, exactly, or how they were administered. I can guarantee you, though, that there is a HUGE, GIGANTIC issue in South Carolina with Medicaid patients selling prescription narcotics. The talk in this state of testing them is not to see if they're smoking weed, but rather to see if the pain meds they have been prescribed are actually in their system before they get them re-filled.

These tests were conducted on welfare recipients in states that have passed legislation requiring welfare recipients to be drug tested. Throughout these states less than 1% of people are testing positive, and the overall cost of administering the testing exceeds what's being saved by denying benefits.

The 1% figure does not mean that only 1% of recipients use any illicit drugs, rather it's proof that the testing programs themselves aren't effective due to the short window for testing positive. Yes, studies show that 10% of the population has used an illegal drug, so the 1% figure does stand out, but those are the results.

Your issue is entirely different and interesting to say the least. I could potentially be behind something like that, especially if there was reasonable suspicion to test a given individual. But that scenario is completely different: someone is given drugs and you are confirming that those drugs are being used as intended. Your testing for something you know should be there instead of going on a fishing expedition in a sea of needy people.

 

[petegroove]

Where t g e HECK did that come from, and what does that have to do with the discussion we are in?

I simply answered the question.

Boy, liberals can NOT HELP but view everything through the lens of conflict between races, sexes, and income groups.
Vongrats, your Karl Marx training must be complete...

Liberals, race, sex, income groups? Marx? I said nothing of all that, it's YOU with the conflicted view of things.

I asked about slavery because your example of a libertarian utopia was one that was built and running on free labor, more of an economics question.

To be fair on a few points, (1) a true libertarian society would have no laws making slavery illegal, so that works for your utopian example, and (2) I suppose I am liberal, as is most everyone, when compared to the way far right of center views you have shared on TI.

 

[Clemblack]

taxes. im comfortable giving 40-50% of my income to the government to provide for all of this.

Wait a second ... I'm confused. I already pay 40 - 50 % of my income to the government. Don't you?

I was asking how you'd pay for the extra programs you mentioned that haven't already been implemented.

 

[Clems0nTiger]

Liberals, race, sex, income groups? Marx? I said nothing of all that, it's YOU with the conflicted view of things.

I asked about slavery because your example of a libertarian utopia was one that was built and running on free labor, more of an economics question.

To be fair on a few points, (1) a true libertarian society would have no laws making slavery illegal, so that works for your utopian example, and (2) I suppose I am liberal, as is most everyone, when compared to the way far right of center views you have shared on TI.

As a slight amendment, I think you refer to anarchist, rather than libertarian, in point (1). I tend to lean libertarian and we definitely lean "liberal" on civil liberties. Not every libertarian believes in society without government at all costs.

 

[Clems0nTiger]

Wait a second ... I'm confused. I already pay 40 - 50 % of my income to the government. Don't you?

I was asking how you'd pay for the extra programs you mentioned that haven't already been implemented.

Wow, congrats on your tax bracket, lol.

 

[ClemsonGuy99]

#&%@ Son of a rabbit!!! Hot dammitt mannn lol. I am not sure to laugh at the short sightedness of this post OR piss at myself for being curious at the ongoing discussion. After watching VCU not show up or no commitments today and since I am here, here is my take. The whole political spectrum can be sum up in this post just reading responses. People's true feelings and political ideology just drips out in their response. Individuals particular politicians want to eliminate programs, US government departments and professions cause it does not fit THEIR need in their life. I find it humorous that people especially politicians can do with out education :/ The $&$@ folly of this post is each one you outline effects MILLIONS of Americans. I don't have a garden in the backyard and live in a city so let's eliminate Farm subsidies. The alternative is trading another country for what we have grown here at home. Our economy has thrive with a balance of socialism and capitalism. I can argue for the last 36 years we have tilted heavy towards capitalism causing this discord and CEO financial equity gap.

I would give y'all the kumbya Hakuna Matata line ~ let's find common ground, see what departments can be streamline or reorganize, reexamine structure if social programs and etc. Fact is it will take a political party to win all three houses to accomplish this goal in their vision. In our current political climate, I do not see the necessary cooperation from the right.


By the way corporate bailouts could not even get the Democratic Socialist to vote for it. Bail outs is Plutocracy

So far this is just about the only post in this thread that makes sense.

 

[SpartanTiger120]

Wait a second ... I'm confused. I already pay 40 - 50 % of my income to the government. Don't you?

I was asking how you'd pay for the extra programs you mentioned that haven't already been implemented.

The highest income tax bracket taxes at a rate of 39.6% for those individuals making $415k, joints making $466k, and heads making $441k. No one pays 40-50%, though the highest might as well be 40%. Thus if you bumped the highest rate up to 50% and did some more maneuvering below (and above by making a higher tax bracket threshold) you could pay for some extra programs.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/2016-tax-brackets

 

[Clemblack]

The highest income tax bracket taxes at a rate of 39.6% for those individuals making $415k, joints making $466k, and heads making $441k. No one pays 40-50%, though the highest might as well be 40%. Thus if you bumped the highest rate up to 50% and did some more maneuvering below (and above by making a higher tax bracket threshold) you could pay for some extra programs.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/2016-tax-brackets

Do what?

Are you actually arguing that federal income tax is the only tax you pay?

 

[Clemblack]

Wow, congrats on your tax bracket, lol.

Apparently I'm the only one ITT who hasn't figured out a way to avoid paying all taxes except for federal income taxes.

 

[FreeSC]

Private schools also don't pay for busing. Private schools also don't provide lunches to kids that can't afford them. Everybody that can go to a private school can afford to go to a private school. And the majority of kids that are homeschooled, I homeschooled by people that are confident enough to do so. Would you suggest that we should make more of our population be educated by the uneducated public? The thought of that scares the shit out of me. And homeschooling completely ignores half of what education is, socialization. Many homeschooled kids coming to the real world completely unable to perform even the basic social functions.

Idiot.

Ah yes, answer real world dollars and test results with feel good stuff.

First, the things you mention are a tiny % of dollars spent.
Once you eliminate the 52% waste, OUTSIDE the public schools, the actual cost of private vs public schools is actually on the same scale. Costs of school lunches is maybe 1%. Insignificant.
The point is, the socialist public education is HORRENDOUSLY wasteful. I have proven you empirically wrong on private education being much cheaper than public.
You were wrong.
Private education is superior on results, too. While the average public school student is a 50th percentile student, the average private school student is a 63rd percentile student.
They are just better.

As for not trusting parents with their OWN KIDS, I find this to be twisted thinking.You trust your kids with total sytangers more than you trust them with yourself?
Not all parents may be qualified to homescool, there should be qualifications.
And there will be a tiny fraction that, for a short time, didn't do the right thing.
But given the DRAMATICALLY SUPERIOR education, at half the price, it is a no brainer to kill public education. The data is very, very simple and very clear.
Same with the US Post office. Subcontract it out, cut costs in half. More beaurocratic waste. The government isn't even CLOSE to being efficient at anything.

 

[scotchtiger]

taxes. im comfortable giving 40-50% of my income to the government to provide for all of this.

That's fine that you are, but I know that I pay way, way, way more than my fair share. I don't think it's right for others to decide that I should give away half of the resources that I use to provide for my family.

You should have the option to contribute as much as you like, but you should only be required to contribute a more appropriate percentage of your income. Maybe 15-20% maximum.

 

[Clems0nTiger]

Apparently I'm the only one ITT who hasn't figured out a way to avoid paying all taxes except for federal income taxes.

I get what you're saying, but most of what was mentioned in this thread were federal in nature.

 

[scotchtiger]

The highest income tax bracket taxes at a rate of 39.6% for those individuals making $415k, joints making $466k, and heads making $441k. No one pays 40-50%, though the highest might as well be 40%. Thus if you bumped the highest rate up to 50% and did some more maneuvering below (and above by making a higher tax bracket threshold) you could pay for some extra programs.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/2016-tax-brackets

Tax rates are outrageous. The only maneuvering should be to flatten the tiers and generally lower taxes by a significant amount.

 

[Clems0nTiger]

Ah yes, answer real world dollars and test results with feel good stuff.

First, the things you mention are a tiny % of dollars spent.
Once you eliminate the 52% waste, OUTSIDE the public schools, the actual cost of private vs public schools is actually on the same scale. Costs of school lunches is maybe 1%. Insignificant.
The point is, the socialist public education is HORRENDOUSLY wasteful. I have proven you empirically wrong on private education being much cheaper than public.
You were wrong.
Private education is superior on results, too. While the average public school student is a 50th percentile student, the average private school student is a 63rd percentile student.
They are just better.

As for not trusting parents with their OWN KIDS, I find this to be twisted thinking.You trust your kids with total sytangers more than you trust them with yourself?
Not all parents may be qualified to homescool, there should be qualifications.
And there will be a tiny fraction that, for a short time, didn't do the right thing.
But given the DRAMATICALLY SUPERIOR education, at half the price, it is a no brainer to kill public education. The data is very, very simple and very clear.
Same with the US Post office. Subcontract it out, cut costs in half. More beaurocratic waste. The government isn't even CLOSE to being efficient at anything.

You can't compare public schools to private schools, though. Consider who can attend private vs who has no choice but to attend public.

 

[nmerritt11]

You can't compare public schools to private schools, though. Consider who can attend private vs who has no choice but to attend public.

well I know if you are a really damn good athlete you can go wherever you want so there is that

 

[Clems0nTiger]

well I know if you are a really damn good athlete you can go wherever you want so there is that

Yes, I know what an outlier is.

 

[Samtiger]

Ah yes, answer real world dollars and test results with feel good stuff.

First, the things you mention are a tiny % of dollars spent.
Once you eliminate the 52% waste, OUTSIDE the public schools, the actual cost of private vs public schools is actually on the same scale. Costs of school lunches is maybe 1%. Insignificant.
The point is, the socialist public education is HORRENDOUSLY wasteful. I have proven you empirically wrong on private education being much cheaper than public.
You were wrong.
Private education is superior on results, too. While the average public school student is a 50th percentile student, the average private school student is a 63rd percentile student.
They are just better.

As for not trusting parents with their OWN KIDS, I find this to be twisted thinking.You trust your kids with total sytangers more than you trust them with yourself?
Not all parents may be qualified to homescool, there should be qualifications.
And there will be a tiny fraction that, for a short time, didn't do the right thing.
But given the DRAMATICALLY SUPERIOR education, at half the price, it is a no brainer to kill public education. The data is very, very simple and very clear.
Same with the US Post office. Subcontract it out, cut costs in half. More beaurocratic waste. The government isn't even CLOSE to being efficient at anything.

Until you test like students, test results mean nothing. And I'm not trying to take sides, just an educator. You can go to any public high school in the Clemson area, take the top ten percent, and they will out-preform private schools. There are very good private schools, but until you dictate that they take ALL students, comparing their test scores means nothing.

 

[BHPTiger]

Makes one wonder how all those socialist Scandinavian countries do so well. Overall, much better than us. Hmmm....

They don't have to pay for their own defense.

 

[Clemblack]

I get what you're saying, but most of what was mentioned in this thread were federal in nature.

OP's list includes many agencies/programs that are not federal.

 

[Clems0nTiger]

OP's list includes many agencies/programs that are not federal.

Not 25% of your total income worth.

 

[Clemblack]

Not 25% of your total income worth.

I don't understand your point.

 

[Clems0nTiger]

I don't understand your point.

That you are not spending anywhere near 40-50% of your income, today, on any subset of the items mentioned in icehearts wish list.

 

[Clemblack]

That you are not spending anywhere near 40-50% of your income, today, on any subset of the items mentioned in icehearts wish list.

I disagree. 50% is admittedly high, but I think 40% is all over it.

 

[Taints fat ugly lover]

The highest income tax bracket taxes at a rate of 39.6% for those individuals making $415k, joints making $466k, and heads making $441k. No one pays 40-50%, though the highest might as well be 40%. Thus if you bumped the highest rate up to 50% and did some more maneuvering below (and above by making a higher tax bracket threshold) you could pay for some extra programs.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/2016-tax-brackets

Stupid post. I guess you don't pay sales tax, food taxes, property taxes, state income taxes, etc.

 

[Capt. Backstrap]

You think that it's only Medicaid patients? If so, your head is in the sand. On a sidenote, Medicaid patients can get way less opiates than privately insured patients. Opiate addiction and the selling of opiates is a huge problem in this country, and it's not limited to Medicaid patients. Serious reform is needed when it comes to controlled substances, but it is unlikely to happen, as the medical lobby has very huge sway.

I simply pointed out the medicaid abuse problem we have in South Carolina, which is a huge problem, because the post I responded to was about "welfare." I fully realize that self-sustaining, non-"welfare" people abuse drugs, too. The difference is that they are abusing them on their own nickel, or at worst, the nickel of the insurance company to whom they pay a premium. Medicaid abusers, not so much.

 

[rjohn19]

im surprised there is ANY support for fam subsidies. they are a form of protectionism that is keeping produce prices artificially high to benefit multi-national corporations. it is, literally, corporate welfare. never-mind that the subsidies, as mentioned, are going to producers who grow crops that are literally killing Americans WHILE making them dumber.

I am not at all opposed to safety nets for family farms. The more we screw with the climate, the dicier farming becomes and I can't imagine even this board's lunatic fringe calling farmers lazy. And I also can't imagine the world population backing up to the point we need less food.

 

[scotchtiger]

I disagree. 50% is admittedly high, but I think 40% is all over it.

You guys can pay whatever you want, but 40% of your income direct to the federal government is insane.

Then add state tax (7% in SC), FICO, the employer share of FICO, property taxes, sales tax, etc.

In what world does it make sense to work until summer every year just to pay taxes? Taxes should be a small percentage of your earnings, not the majority or anything remotely close.

 

[Clems0nTiger]

You guys can pay whatever you want, but 40% of your income direct to the federal government is insane.

Then add state tax (7% in SC), FICO, the employer share of FICO, property taxes, sales tax, etc.

In what world does it make sense to work until summer every year just to pay taxes? Taxes should be a small percentage of your earnings, not the majority or anything remotely close.

He was combining everything.

 

[scotchtiger]

He was combining everything.

Well that would be an improvement over my current tax liability, so I suppose it's a step in the right direction. That said, working until June just to pay taxes is absurd.

It's crazy that the current income tax wasn't even implemented until 100 years ago, but now people are okay with forking over 40-50% of their earnings for poorly run government programs.