So I personally work 60+ hours a week @ 12.87/hr, and despite my success, I am not turned off by the social aspect of socialism. Seeing how the government works today and seeing how other governments have failed at socialism, I don't believe it could work today nor would I like to see us waste our time trying. But understand that I support the idea of socialism, not because I want shjt handed to me, but because I believe there are people in this world who do not have the same success opportunities that I have achieved, and in some way, socialism could provide them that opportunity to better themselves.
And FYI, several of the process your brain performs to make decisions on a daily basis are metaphors for, and sometimes very literally, socialistic decisions.
@VibratingButtChomper, if more people understood it like you, there wouldn't be as much backlash. Most in favor of socialism don't want everything handed to them, they just want the same fighting chance that America claimed it would give to any and all.
@VibratingButtChomper, can we not help those less fortunate than ourselves voluntarily, without using socialism to force everyone to do it?
I'm all in favour of helping everyone succeed, but just think socialism isn't the right way to go about it. It's essentially saying "give us your money so we can redistribute it, or we'll send you to prison". Just doesn't seem right to me.
@VibratingButtChomper, so do you believe that each human being should have the same oppurtunities but different outcomes?
@VibratingButtChomper, "despite my success"
You make nothing. You would be contributing essentially nothing to the system. People like me however who earn far more than their demographic get fvcked for working really hard and being extremely productive. I'm already getting fvcked on my taxes/healthcare because I'm productive. Socialism isn't giving someone equality of opportunity, it's giving them equality of outcome.
If a man doesn't work he shouldn't eat. If a man wants to work for minimum wage and try to raise a family, he should pay for that by living a shjt life. I don't want to pay for someone else's irresponsibility.
@RustyFapwagon, ya but I dont want to work I just want money
@VibratingButtChomper, I'm 18 years old and am completely independent. I work two jobs 7 days a week while also going to school. With two years in the restaurant industry with serving experience I make roughly $1800 a week. I have worked my ass off for an education and a decent income and have done so completely on my own.
The oppurtunities are there it just depends on how hard an individual is willing to work. I don't think that I should be given more of a burden i.e. having less income to support myself with, to support someone else who doesn't work as hard. Oppurtunities are available to everyone, it just depends on how hard they want to work.
@RustyFapwagon, under the "democratic socialism" Bernie always talks about, unless you are making more than $250k a year, you wouldn't be paying more taxes than you are now. It's more about taking more money from the people who make more money than they can spend and helping out the people who are stuck in perpetual low income lives.
@Mendicant Bias, fortunately you are an outlier in this system. Most people want to work for their money. The bad part is, even though you're an outlier, you are the kind of person right and alt-right news organizations seek out to "show" that people who get handouts are lazy and don't want to work.
@iOS10, Or better yet people can start making better decisions in order to make it higher up. Look at the income between single parent homes and two parent homes, now tell me actions don't dictate your income value.
@iOS10, so it's ok to penalize people that worked really hard to make over 250k a year?
there is no such thing as "stuck in perpetual low income" in the US.
There are three things you need to do here to be above the poverty line:
1. Finish highschool
2. Work full time
3. Don't have a kid until you're at least 21 and married
If you do those things there is a less than 5% chance you'll be in poverty and over a 75% chance you'll be in the middle class.
@iOS10, it's actually done on *household* income. So a family household that earns $430K (top 1%) would potentially be taxed at 90% under a Bernie presidency, leaving them with $43K.
To me that just sounds criminal, when this family could well have many children that will need looking after.
@RustyFapwagon, there are areas of this country where the number of full-time jobs available is smaller than the number of work-age people and only the most successful of these people can afford to move. It's hard to move if you cannot pay to fix your car. It's hard to get a non-local job if you cannot pay your cell phone bill. It's hard to interview if you cannot afford a hotel. It's hard to start work if you don't have the money for a rental security deposit. These obstacles are not impossible to overcome, but to someone with a lack of resources and generational poverty, they seem insurmountable.
If you've ever worked with low income people like I have, you'd know that people are trying their best. Low-skill jobs are being replaced by machines. Medium-skill jobs are next. We're going to have to figure out how to live in a society where there simply aren't enough jobs for everyone.
Also, the middle class is shrinking.
@Ruupasya, I'll do you one better, I was low income. I moved out in highschool in an extremely low income area with high unemployment, busted ąss, graduated and moved. I had to work in a shjtty gas station and do landscaping just to make it though. Everyone is capable of doing that. I refuse to pay for someone else's bad choices.
@RustyFapwagon, I don't even make that much money (i make 11.75 and work roughly 50 hour weeks) but I'm still all for getting what you earn. I'm at least trying to better myself by going to college while working
@MrMoustache, Where on Earth are you getting those numbers? If memory serves his plan would have added four new income tax brackets for high-income households, with rates of 37 percent, 43 percent, 48 percent, and 52 percent. Your example of $430k falls into his 39.2% bracket. Which is marginal. Meaning that every dollar above 250k for that bracket would be taxed at 39.2% and the rest below 250k wouldn't be touched at all. So they'd only pay around 70k in taxes. Leaving them with approximately 360k after tax. Marginal rates my friend.
@Darthdoodie, flat taxes have proven to produce far more job creation and wealth mobility. Not to mention they're also more fair. Taking 40% of someone's income because they're successfully is discrimination. It's theft.
@Darthdoodie, ah yeah I think you're right. I do know that to be in the top 1% in the US you only have to earn more than around $430K in your household, and I remember listening to Bernie saying he would be willing to tax the 1% at 90% so that's where I got the numbers. Does that mean that everything you earn AFTER the $430K would be taxed at 90%?
@RustyFapwagon, kay well not sure what that has to do with my comment but here we go I guess. First, you can't just say "flat tax" that could mean dozens of different things all with key differences. A flat tax can be done many ways but most of those proposed around the personal income tax in the US are a regressive tax. This means that those with lower incomes would pay a higher portion of their income in total taxes than the wealthy would. How is it moral to tax someone making less than 30k at a 20% rate for example just so you can say the system is "fair" because the wealthiest would pay the same percent? The flat tax assumes egalitarianism by ignoring microeconomic individual differences. A man with a lower income is already using a large portion of that income just to eat, have shelter, water etc. That 20% gone could literally kill him. Whereas a wealthy man wouldn't have such trouble. In short, if you tax everyone the same, the burden will always fall more heavily on the poor.
@MrMoustache, In that situation yep that'd be how it would work. But even I think 90% is bonkers. That's like WWII level taxes. Bernie's plan capped out at 54.2% for anyone making over 10 million. So every dollar over 10 million would effectively turn into 46.8 cents. Maybe you were confused about his capital gains tax cause that changes the math a bit. But that's a different can of worms.
@Darthdoodie, that isn't true. What will happen is increased wealth mobility. Also getting taxed at 20% making 30k a year is pretty normal in most of the US when you factor in what you pay into Medicaid and state tax as well. You can absolutely live on that as a single person in your own place in most of the US. If you're married and have two sources of income or can claim dependants in addition to your marriage that becomes even more money in your pocket.
Most people that are poor in the US are poor because they don't have jobs, not because they're over taxed. You don't know what you're talking about.
@Darthdoodie, I don't think anyone has proposed making the poor paying 20% income taxes, but they need some skin in the gain. Right now, most of the poor end up making money off taxes by getting big refunds because of tax deductions and the earned income credit. This means the only thing they know about taxes is they want other people taxed more. And also, just because a wealthy man doesn't "need" anything over 430k is irrelevant, he earned it, it's his. He has no less of a claim to his money than someone making 30k.
@VibratingButtChomper, You are all basing everything off the logical fallacy that the harder you work, the more money you make. That is absolutely false and you only have to look as far as OUR PRESIDENT to see this fact. It comes down to the people in power want to keep it, and socialism gives more power to all people. The US has one of the worst wealth distributions in modern history and the Donald Trump's will be damned if that is going to change because you want to be healthy or educated without debt.
@iOS10, I can see how taking money from the rich, as Bernie suggests, makes sense to some people. Until you actually analyze the ramifications of it. The rich are the ones who grow the economy through investments. They don't just keep their money lying around their houses. They invest that money into the economy, which creates jobs. Taking money away from them to give to the poor would slow down economic growth. The people that money is given to aren't going to invest it.
Here's why I'm against socialism. One dollar accomplishes different things in the hands of different people. In the hands of a rich person, that dollar will be invested and go towards economic growth. In the hands of a poor person, that dollar will go towards general living expenses. I'd rather that dollar go towards something that benefits everybody rather than something that only benefits one person.
@RustyFapwagon, I swear every damn time I see you trying to "debate" on this app you either ignore points made, straw man people, or resort to childish personal attacks. How old are you? Because you seem to have the same capacity for civil discourse as a child being put on timeout. What in anything I wrote led you to believe I am of the opinion that the poor are over taxed? That's antithetical to my entire argument and you'd realize that if you had the honest intent of having a conversation instead of attacking a pre-made caricature of what a liberal is in your mind. I say good day sir.
@Darthdoodie, I'm here to fvck with people and create butthurt. I know I'm right I don't have to convince you or want to convince you.
Cry about it.
@MrMoustache, we had this argument before. The redistribution of wealth is not what socialism is.
Socialism would involve altering what percent of your income you pay in taxes depending on how much money you make. That way people with less money don't pay as much taxes as people with a lot of money.
@CriTiKa1, you're making a huge assumption about rich people.
I have personally met 4 billionaires and 2 millionaires. Three of the billionaires don't give a damn about money because they couldn't spend all their money if they tried to. Both of the millionaires are cheap bastards who don't give a cent away that they don't have to.
The fourth billionaire was Mark Cuban.
@RustyFapwagon, you are very clearly the one that doesn't know what you are talking about.
Most people in the US are poor because the only jobs they can get have glass ceilings that aren't much higher than minimum wage.
@I Are Lebo, so government mandated stealing is socialism? Yeah. I know. That's why I don't like socialism.
@MrMoustache, that's not government mandated stealing. It's recognizing the fact that if you make someone who makes $1,000 a month pay $100 in taxes, it screws them over far more than if you make someone who makes $100,000 a month pay $10,000
@I Are Lebo, So taxes aren't government mandated stealing?
Can you tell me what would happen if I refused to pay my taxes? Would I be fined and go to jail or something?
@I Are Lebo, if those are the only jobs that they can get, that's because they haven't invested in themselves. While it's true good paying jobs aren't available like they use to be. If someone really wanted a good paying job they are still able to earn it if they tried.
@VibratingButtChomper, if you feel that way, then you can donate to the less fortunate. I dont see how people think its right to decide what others should do just because they think its a good idea.
@TaoOfThug, you are right that how much you make isn't based on how hard you work. That's because working hard is nothing special. Even a monkey can work hard. It's what you do, how valuable your skill is, and what you produce. Like Trump or not, he knows how to produce wealth. That's why he has been successful. And America is against wealth distribution, so not like that's a bad thing.
@MrMoustache, this land does not belong to you. It belongs to the government. They just rent it to you.
If you don't pay them for the privilege, not right, privilege for living there, then you become a problem that needs to be dealt with.
Tell me, do you support the military? Because it's budget comes from a Socialist policy that gets its revenue from your taxes. As does your public school system, your police force, your fire department, etc.
@MrMoustache, bruh not even France taxes the rich 90%
@Darthdoodie, do you know how percentages work?
@I Are Lebo, taxation isn't socialist. Socialism is when industries are controlled by the govermemt. Socialism has nothing to do with taxes.
@RustyFapwagon, awwww the little fvcknugget is so poor and pathetic that he needs to make anonymous internet people feel bad just so he can have any impact on reality in his shltty life. Be honest with your worthless self, this is the only medium you can talk to people with because nobody wants to be your friend or fvck your ugly ass isn't it?
@I Are Lebo, oh wow. I guess that's how slave owners must have thought:
"They have the privilege of being on my land, so it's up to me what I do with them".
So much for the land of the free...
@I Are Lebo, No, I'm not making any assumptions. Where do rich people keep their money? Do you think they have storehouses full of cash? No. They put it in banks. What do banks do with money people give them? Do you think they just have stacks of cash in vaults? No. Banks invest in the economy. Business loans, mortgages, car loans, etc. Other rich people take more direct approaches to investing. Stocks, hedge funds, venture capitalism, etc. But whether it's done directly or indirectly, all of them invest their money into the economy.
@Oujosh29, this is a good point, investing in yourself us key. Started at McDonald's and hated it, but worked so i could afford trade school and now i have a company truck and make good money.
@MrMoustache, now idk this info so i am asking for a clarification. With taxes only the amount over, say 250k, is taxed at the 90% not the full 250k. Under the plan u talk about would it be 90% on the full amount or just the last bit. Uuge difference. Uuge.
@I Are Lebo, i was paying about 200 a month on a 1k salary while in school. I also was living very well for myself because i dont throw my money around wastefully like some people.
@I Are Lebo, that's not true at all. Well over half the people below the poverty line are unemployed
@butthole bread, yeah I think it might be everything after the amount, so perhaps I was a bit hasty with that original comment.
If anyone knows for sure on this then please comment and let us know.
@Donald Drumpf, lol u mad?
@RustyFapwagon, no but you're pretty sad
@Oujosh29, Let me put it to you this way. I've made 100k+ this year already and I work maybe 10 hours a week. I basically write checks for a living. And my workers create all the value yet can't afford to send their kids to college. The more money you have, the easier it is to make money. The system is rigged. Luckily for me, the media does such a good job convincing you that it's someone else's fault that nothing is likely to change anytime soon. So enjoy your student debt while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Keep doing what the TV tells you! Cheers!
@TaoOfThug, that's a cushy set up. Why don't you pay your workers a better wage then? If you are so into wealth distribution, why wait for the goverment to do it? It's always easy to be for taking away other people's money. The system isn't rigged, just play the game. I've been successful because I don't whine about it being rigged. I got free college through the military, great job afterwards, got my masters while working, and just got a huge better job because of it. None of that is anything no one else is capable of. So keep believing everyone is a helpless snowflake being kept down by the man.
@Oujosh29, I already do pay them 50% more than they are worth. You see any massive paradigm shifts in the economy because of it? The system is absolutely rigged. Coming from someone who is on the side of the rigging!! If this isn't getting through to you nothing will. Keep slaving your life away man. No one is more enslaved than the man who believes he is free. It's amazing what the television pundits have done to our society. Making people believe that not having to become indebted to the government in exchange for knowledge somehow = anyone can quit working and move into a cushy beach house forever.
@TaoOfThug, you say in your post your employees can't afford to send their kids to college, yet you seem to pride yourself on paying them more than average. If you really believe in wealth distribution, why don't you pay then a living wage? As much as it takes? Set an example. You haven't proven that the system is rigged in the slightest, just you have a cushy set up. Nice, but that's not a point for anything. You seem to be going off into conspiracy theories.
@RustyFapwagon, or how about this. If companies paid a fair wage then there wouldn't be a problem. Why is it a CEO can make 1 million a year and the same working busting his ass putting in the same hours makes 25k a year? The thing is without the legs (the people who actually make the products the company sells) That company wouldn't exist.
Maybe the solution to this problem is to have pay scales. Where each person can only make so much percentage more than the person below them. Just an idea.
@VibratingButtChomper, I find it funny that the people who complain most about socialism taking away their money. Seem to not realize that they would also be supported by that same system. So what are they worried about?
Not that socialism is the answer. It's just so many people have it wrong or don't fully think it through.
You take the bits and pieces that do work and create solutions from that.
Some people have been taught or brainwashed that all ideas besides their own are wrong. So they no longer care about solving problems or taking bits of ideas that do work and fixing though problems.
@Donald Drumpf, haha holy shjt youre so upset, you criticize rusty over using anonymity to voice his opinion then you go all keyboard badass on him, youre such a pussi haha
@Seohn, the CEO makes more because its the CEO, they busted their ass to get to that point so they earn the money they get, just because some starting level has to work hard doesnt mean they have earned anything
@Oujosh29, what conspiracy theory am I going off of?? Maybe you should address the arguments I made instead of me personally. $20 an hour is not enough to support a family of 6 and college for all their children. It just isn't. I'm sorry. I could pay myself into poverty but what would that solve?? We would still be in a system that enslaves the population into debt in exchange for knowledge. One person that doesn't shower won't solve our freshwater crisis! Let's talk actual points here bro. And God forbid one of them gets sick or injured!! Meanwhile the rest of the developed world is moving towards free health and education. One generation from now we will have an entire country of "snowflakes" as you call them who are sick, uneducated, and indebted verses a healthy, educated worldwide workforce. Luckily for the rich, Elite in this country, they will all be dead and YOU will be the ones screwed. Keep on doing what you are told Oklahoma Joe.
@Seohn, no one is forcing the employees to work for less than they're worth. If your employer doesn't pay you enough, leave. Join a company that pays you enough. If that company doesn't exist, then there is a gap in the market waiting to be filled.
It's always risky imposing regulations on businesses. The rich business owners can afford to reduce investment, choosing to invest elsewhere wherein there are fewer regulations and higher profits, taking their jobs that were benefitting the country with them, and leaving the smaller businesses to suffer under the regulations.
Just look at Apple, once based in California, now based in Ireland to avoid regulations. Similar story with google and yahoo, once based in the US, now both based on Europe for similar reasons. The US has lost investment and jobs as a result, with them being created in Ireland and Europe instead.
@Donald Drumpf, I don't feel sad. Look at this massive crop of butthurt I have to farm
@RustyFapwagon, now if only your parents loved you
@Donald Drumpf, and RustyFapWagon please stop with the childish insults and goading. neither of you are accomplishing anything. Respectful debate or GTFO.
@TaoOfThug, Gotta say, I feel like I'm reading something straight out of an Alex Jones viewer.
@Oujosh29, "...still able to earn it if they tried."
Tried what? I mean, say you're 30, you've been working dead-end, barely above minimum wage jobs struggling to support a wife and kids. So what, exactly, is there to *try* to give relief to your family? If you up and leave your job, how do you guarantee you're gonna find one that'll be better? If you start going to school, what do you take away from in the budget to pay for it?
Or do you just go pop the boss and take his job? "Creating job openings!"
@Donald Drumpf, thank you for salting this butthurt for me
@Oujosh29, not everyone CAN invest in themselves. College is expensive, and there's a lot of people out there with dependants who need their support NOW, not later. Those people are forced into retail or food service jobs which don't have much in the way of advancement opportunities.
Because their expenses don't go away, and they aren't making enough money to be able to save up a proper fund, they're screwed.
This is a massive percent of the population and you shouldn't just write them off.
@CriTiKa1, what I'm trying to say is that no, not all rich people invest in the economy. Some of them hoard their money.
@MrMoustache, "if your employer doesn't pay you enough, leave".
Spoken like somebody who has never lived from paycheck to paycheck with family that depends on you.
It is rarely that simple.
@Seohn, pure socialism would work just as poorly as pure capitalism. You're so right. People think so black-and-white that they can't see the forest for the trees. Take what works, replace what doesn't.
We have to adapt our economic and political policies on an ongoing basis to be successful.
@I Are Lebo, you'd be surprised. Best not to assume like that. You'll get the shock of your life when someone within the group whom you think must all have zero diversity of opinion breaks rank.
Does it not make sense to wait until you have worked hard to the point you can afford to start a family? Or should it be everyone else's responsibility to pay for your lack of personal accountability?
@RustyFapwagon, amen to that man. People don't understand how human beings work. They think people get rich by abusing others but it never occurs to them that maybe just maybe hard work and knowledge makes you rich.
@MrMoustache, not sure what you're talking about. There are no groups that I think all think exactly the same. Not even every Nazi was evil, let alone all members of the Westborough Baptists.
All that I am saying is that in many peoples lives, no matter how hard they work they will never get any farther because a dead-end job is all they can get. This is true of a lot of lower end neighbourhoods. Why do you think so many people in those neighbourhoods join gangs? In many places it's out of necessity, not greed.
@Uranusisbig, look at how the Koch brothers got rich.
It's true, not every billionaire got there on the backs of others. Some do.
@I Are Lebo, if that's the case, then maybe it's best not to make sweeping statements such as "spoken like somebody who has never loved paycheque to paycheque"
I agree with you there. I think it's the overwhelmingly vast minority of cases though. I think someone else raised this point with you on another post that in the US, all you have to do to not be permanently poor is graduate high school, get a full time job and dont have kids out of wedlock. There's not many young Americans that don't have access to schooling, getting a full time job isn't hard if you're willing to put the time and effort in to get one, and no one is forcing you to have kids before you're ready. I'm ok with (voluntarily) helping those that literally cannot follow these basic guidelines if it is genuinely not due to their own poor decisions, but I'm sceptical that that adds up to as big of an amount as you allude to.
@I Are Lebo, You didn't read my reply, did you? Where do people put their money into when they don't want to spend it? Banks. What do banks do with money that's given to them? They invest. So, rich people who just "hoard" their money and put it into banks are still investing in the economy indirectly.
@CriTiKa1, you know there's such a thing as private vaults, right?
@I Are Lebo, You know that there are very few rich people who actually keep a crap ton of cash like that, right? It's counterproductive. That cash will lose value over time because of inflation. If they store $1 million in a lockbox, next year it'll be worth $980k. That's why the vast majority of them don't just have cash laying around, they put it into investments, or a bank, so that it'll grow in value rather than lose its value.
@I Are Lebo, okay. There are also poor people out there who are lazy and don't want to learn. Point is, we can't discriminate against the rich or poor based on a few examples.
The current American sentiment against the rich is worrisome.
@iOS10, $250k/year means different things in different places. If I'm living in Missoula MT, that's a great income and I'd be very comfortable. If I'm in San Francisco CA, that's barely enough to support a family and save anything at all.
Any national average means nothing at all when it comes to income.
And you, nor anyone else, should get to determine how comfortable I live and how much of what I earn is forcibly taken, then wasted through bureaucracy, then doled out to whom ever they deem is worthy of my earnings.
@I Are Lebo, c'mon man, I know you're smarter than "private vaults".
If the wealthy weren't incentivized to invest in job creation, our whole economy collapses.
Without the job creators there are very few jobs to be had. Only if you want the government to be the only job providers.
The reason why the middle class is shrinking and the rich have gotten so much richer, is too much regulation.
I see the Koch brothers popped up earlier. It's almost like Godwin's law. Any political debate about taxation and who gets it will ultimately invoke the Koch brothers, even through they aren't even close to the top of the list of donors (top 3 are all bigger donors to Dems btw).
The people who donate so big do so not because they want less regulation. They want more regulation. This eliminates their competition for them. They have bought and paid for the legislators, who trick you into thinking they're on "your side".
@I Are Lebo, what people like him seem to not realize is that it's not so easy as leaving and going to find another job. If you are just getting by you can't afford to miss work to go to that interview for another job. Let's say your dead end job has health insurance but you only make enough to live on. You would have to go without health insurance for a few months if you quit and took another job. Let's say your working 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet. Where do you suppose someone like that is going to find the time to look for yet another better job. Or go to school to get said better jobs. Or even pay for school to be able to get a better job. How do you suppose said person is going to get that better job if there are none when everyone else has taken them? There's not in infinite number of good paying jobs out there. You all talk like it's some simple matter to just go find a high paying job. That if you simply work hard you'll get a great job.
@I Are Lebo, I hate to burst their bubble. But no matter how hard you work. Only so many high end jobs are available. Once those are taken you are left with what's avialable.
@big freedom, wouldn't fair pay also create jobs? Since people who would otherwise be working their ass off living paycheck to paycheck could save and eventually invest in starting their own companies? Kind of like kickstarter. People who have great ideas but lack the funding to make it happen. Except they could invest themselves in it. Just a thought.
@Seohn, that isn't how it works 99.99% of the time. People that know how to invest typically do so.
If you divided up every single dollar available evenly amongst all the people, it would take less than 5 years for 50% of the wealth to move back to
@Seohn, I recently had the opportunity to meet a few billionaires and the truth is, the only way to be a billionaire while still young is to be born one.
It's a wholly different world, one that people outside of it fantasize of quite often. The wealth gap is much more extreme than people realize.
The difference between someone on unemployment insurance and a billionaire, in terms of lifestyle and capabilities, is closer to the difference between a human and a chihuahua, and that should make us all rather uncomfortable.
This world is not equal, and while that's not inherently bad, it has NOTHING to do with what we deserve or earn. The billionaire that I met, her great great grandfather brought the family company to wealth. This woman has never worked a day in her life.
Working hard, on its own, will NEVER make you rich.
@Darthdoodie, You don't know what you're talking about.
A flat tax, also called a lump-sum tax is a single fixed amount. There is no "wealthy paying the same percent" there's virtually no one paying the same percent.
A fixed-rate tax is different from a flat tax.
Further still, a regress tax is an entirely different term than what you tried to use it as. A regress tax is one where the tax rate decreases as the amount taxed increases, such that average tax rate exceeds marginal tax rate.
@MrMoustache, I didn't see if anyone had covered this already, and I apologize if someone has. With an incremental tax system, like most western countries have for income taxes, each tax bracket applies only to amounts over its minimum threshold.
So, let's use the example of a 90% tax rate at 250,000. Let's say you make $300,000 a year. Now, the top $50,000 of your income will be subject to that 90% tax rate, but, the other 250,000 will face different rates, depending on the tax rate schedule.
@I Are Lebo, your comment insinuates that an unemployed person and a (likely if they are a billionaire) ceo/head of corporation should be similar in wage.
@Caine, it would be nice if you'd read what I actually wrote. Because what I actually wrote was that a homeless person and a CEO are so different in capabilities they might as well be different species.
I then went on to say that the world is neither fair nor equal, that this isn't bad, it's just the way it is.
So no. My comment insinuated nothing of the kind.
@MrMoustache, low end black neighbourhoods are just one example of what I alluded to.
There are tens of thousands of people in the USA alone that are forced to toil away in dead end jobs, because the education system is broken and they can't do any better.
My mom's sisters family all have mental disabilities. My aunt has worked at Tim Hortons for the last 14 years, my uncle has worked as a labourer at a factory for over 30 years, and the two of them together can barely support themselves, let alone their adult son who has a disability as well and has never been able to hold down a job. He lives off of pennies on government support.
It is not as simple as don't drop out of high school or get knocked up, and there are MANY people who end up living in places, IN THE USA, that are only slightly better than slums.
@I Are Lebo, of course there are always outside cases. But MrMoustache is correct in that if you do those three things the odds are huge that you'll be comfortably middle class. That doesn't take into account mental or physical disability. And there should be help available for those cases. But you can't craft federal laws to cater to the tiniest percentage. There have always (until recently) been a lot of charities set up to help those people. But we try to make laws at the expense of everyone to cater to individuals (usually the richest of the rich) and this stifles non-government help (government programs are extremely wasteful).
@big freedom, what you and moustache are either ignoring or refusing to accept is that this is NOT a minority of cases. It is a growing percentage as the baby boomers are just now retiring, and the population is rising, and jobs are becoming increasingly automated. The job market is saturated with people who need a job.
'Comfortably middle class' is very rapidly becoming not a thing. The middle class is shrinking, and the majority of people that would have been middle class are now being stuck in lower class homes, neighbourhoods, and careers.
This is NOT 'the tiniest percentage'. Do you know how many 30 year olds today own their own house? With or without mortgage? Because it's a tiny fraction of how many did in the seventies or eighties.
There are too many of these people for charity help to work. The rich refused to help, and society doesn't work by leaving the slow members behind. That grows your homeless problem. Combined that with, as you said, legislation that serves only the
@big freedom, über rich, and you are left with a system doomed to crash.
So, would Socialism or the implementation of Socialist policies work to fix this problem? I don't know. I'm not an economics major and I'll be the first person to admit that I am not an expert on this topic.
What I do know is that our current system is a house of cards.
@I Are Lebo, the difference between someone on unemployment insurance and a billionaire in terms of lifestyle and capabilities as close to the difference between a human and a chihuahua and that should make it all rather uncomfortable.
That is exactly what you said. So yes, i did read. Thanks.
Thanks for the downvote too, moron.
@Caine, here. Have another one.
If the difference in lifestyle between someone who made all the right moves in life and someone who makes all the wrong decisions bothers you, then you need to grow up.
You're arguing both sides of the issue and that makes you either oblivious or ignorant or maybe just stupid.
Socialism is not about making everyone equal, nor is it about punishing people for being successful. It's about making sure that no one gets left behind. It's recognizing that wealth is pointless if you don't spend it, and that there are a lot of people out there that need help.
@I Are Lebo, Hey buddy do you always down for people in a butthurt rage when somebody calls you out on your own idiocy I never said the difference was a problem maybe you were too stupid to figure that one out I simply said that the fact that you think someone who does nothing should make the same as someone who does a lot is plain retarded and after seeing your comments you are plain retarded.
@I Are Lebo, your last comment is my biggest complaint about socialism. It removes voluntarism. You're deciding for everyone that they should be as generous as you.
I chose to be generous, but I'm very selective about who gets my hard earned money. I can't force the people who work for me to do the same. I introduce them to my favorite charities if I get a sense that they're that type of person. But they can chose to keep every dollar and I would honor that choice.
@Caine, you're the one who is retarded here. I never said that someone who does nothing should make the same as someone who does a lot and do not think that.
If a homeless person made as much money as a high position job, there'd be no reason for anyone to ever work and the economy would collapse.
I'm downvoting you because you're 1) an idiot, 2) making counter arguments to things I'm not saying, and 3) skimming my comments instead of actually reading them.
You're hardly calling me out on my idiocy when your comments are as idiotic as they are.
@big freedom, the unfortunate truth is that voluntarism doesn't work. Especially as the population grows and the wealth gap increases.
Something needs to be done about the wealth gap, because otherwise we are sliding back towards having a noble class and a peasant class, and I'm willing to bet almost nobody on this app, least of all those of us who get into frequent arguments or debates, would be a part of that noble class. We'll all be peasants.
@Caine, also, "the difference between someone on unemployment insurance and a billionaire in terms of lifestyle and capabilities as close to the difference between a human and a chihuahua and that should make it all rather uncomfortable."
You wrote this 19 hours ago. It's grammatically incorrect, but I assumed you meant "are as close to the difference" and "make us all rather uncomfortable".
Unless I was mistaken by your lack of proofreading before posting you DID say that the difference was a problem.
@I Are Lebo, /voluntarism doesn't work/ - said every dictator ever. Statist gonna state. Communism, an idea so good it's required to be enforced at gunpoint.
@big freedom, I really don't see why you seem to be struggling with the fact that Socialism and Communism are not two words for the same economic system.
@I Are Lebo, I'm not struggling at all. When you are required to take money from someone against their will and give it to someone else...
you're the one who wants to make it mandatory. That's communism if I ever saw it.
@big freedom, that is communism. What it is not is socialism.
@big freedom, removing personal ownership of property and redistribution of said property is not socialism.
@I Are Lebo, so then voluntarism?
@big freedom, what about it?
@I Are Lebo, it's either voluntary or its forced.
Bout to board a flight. Enjoyed the debate.
@big freedom, charity isn't charity if it isn't voluntary. Similarly, volunteering isn't volunteering if it is mandatory.
Socialism recognizes that the needs of the downtrodden are greater than the amount given freely by volunteers, so they seek to get those resources through other means. Increased taxes are the primary method, but far from the only method.
Have a safe flight.
@I Are Lebo, Back to my original statement, I said you INSINUATE, maybe if you knew what that meant you wouldnt loom like a gigantic ass right now lol
@Caine, I know what insinuate means you fückwit. I never insinuated that everyone should earn the same income. I don't think that way nor do I advocate it, because that's idiotic and would LITERALLY destroy society.
You want to make an actual argument, please do so. You want to refer to something I actually said, go right ahead. But please stop reading into things I'm not saying, because you are only embarrassing yourself.
@I Are Lebo, lol just keep goin buddy the thread speaks for itself.
@Caine, no, my COMMENTS speak for themselves, you stupid piece of shït. That's how debates and arguments work. You make a point, and then you try to counter the other person's point. You don't make shït up and pretend that's what the other person is saying.
You debate like a five year old. What's next? Are you going to stick your fingers in your ears and go "LA LA LA!"
@I Are Lebo, LOL they sure do, your comments scream "butt hurt child". Keep it up bub.
@Caine, rrrrriiiiight. Done with you now.
@I Are Lebo, lol after talk all that shït calling people names like a child? Now you gonna try and act mature? Haha youre hilarious dude. Keep em Coming.
@I Are Lebo, this should make you even more mad :)
@Lebo is my 13itch, not really, no. You never made me mad, only exasperated.
You're a pathetic troll. If you were better at it, you'd amuse me. But really, it's a little sad the amount of effort you're putting in to antagonize a complete stranger over the Internet. Good luck with that. 🙃
@I Are Lebo, lol if thats your perception of your own arrogance then more power to you bub.
Im tired of people that work harder than me and are more deserving of higher pay, recieving higher pay!
If you want to not work or contribute to society and still reap the benefits, be a socialist!
Do you hate it when someone has their own opinion? Be a socialist where people are silenced when they share their own opinions that jeprodize the ideals of the group!
@Mendicant Bias, that would be relevant if I was actually determine based on your societal worth. Teachers would be paid a lot more and should be paid a lot more, if based on society's worth. Nurses would be paid closer to what doctors make, because in a lot of cases they perform the same duties as doctors. Pay is not based on societal value or difficulty of work, it's based solely on how profitable the venture is.
@UmActually, as far as teachers are concerned, I do believe good teachers deserve to be paid more. I also believe bad teachers deserve to be fired.
@wtninja, how do you determine who is a good teacher and who is a bad teacher? With test scores? Because, as a teacher, I can tell you that teachers who kiss ass get students who are smart with good test scores, whereas teachers who don't, get bad students who have histories of poor reaction to education. And you can't trust student testimonial or even administrative analysis, because both of those are biased, students are biased towards teachers who are easy, administrators are biased to teachers who, like I said, kiss ass.
@UmActually, so, you believe good teachers and bad teachers deserve to be equal?
@wtninja, i'm saying that there is no way to gauge what a good teacher and a bad teacher is because the systems too political.
@UmActually, I know what you're saying, but I want to get on the same page first and to do that I'm starting with common ground. So, before we start talking about a metric, we have to determine some things. One of those being do you believe in equal pay for unequal quality.
@wtninja, I believe in a base pay, so in that sense, yes. Like, I don't think that a good teacher should be paid $45,000 when a bad teacher gets paid $20,000. I think all teachers should make at least a certain amount and then you can get more based on how you perform. But at the end of the day, even mediocre teachers, or teachers that just aren't amazing are a net positive for society. If a teacher is awful, and there is evidence to back that up, yes they should be fired. But I don't think that teachers that go above and beyond deserve incredible amounts of money more than mediocre or not fantastic teachers do. I think all teachers deserve much more than they currently make, and I don't say that purely as a teacher.
@UmActually, okay, yeah, that's starting to make more sense. So, let's start with the easier things that we both agree on and work up. I think we both agree that some (not all) poor quality teachers are overpaid and most, maybe all, exceptional teachers are underpaid. So, we need to incentivize teaching without further lowering quality control. The current system is very political, I certainly agree on that too. Currently, teachers, regardless of quality, so long as they know the right people, get to be placed in the better schools with better children who get higher grades, while teachers who don't have those same connections get placed in worse positions. So, to start to fix the problem, we have to change the drive. The incentive to work in poor conditions and try to improve the lives of more unfortunate children is mostly non-existent and instead the incentive is to kiss up to people and have an easier job. What if we started by increasing the pay of teachers who choose to work in
@wtninja, harder areas to encourage teaching in those places first? Also, along with knowing people, just being a teacher for a long time affords you getting easier school districts and that teaching experience would be better used in harder teaching districts. I believe that would incentivize them to move from easier places to harder places as well.
@wtninja, but it's not just school to school differences. I have worked at multiple schools, universities as well, where the best students have 5.0 GPA's, while the worst have .2. It's not just incentivizing people to work in poor conditions and lower performing schools, they're also needs to be an incentive to work in low performing classes, the problem is, what if that class could do well with a different teacher? That's the issue with knowledge, there are some kids, who just refuse to learn, meanwhile, there are kids who will do well regardless, there are also kids that need a certain type of teacher to help. There's no objective "good teacher."
@UmActually, slow down, one thing at a time. Can we agree that better incentives to work under worse conditions would encourage teachers of higher skill and experience to work under those worse conditions? Also, do we agree that overall higher incentive in a field raises the overall quality and applicants to that field?
@wtninja, They already incentivize working in low-performing schools. And it doesn't just attract good, teachers, it also attracts new teachers who, by the way, are never great teachers, who are more likely to get the job because teacher pay is determined by experience.
@UmActually, so, if pay is determined by experience, then what is the incentive for working in low-performing schools?
@wtninja, You get a check from the state (and in some cities, the city) for doing so if you hold a masters or doctorate.
@UmActually, okay, so they get a monetary incentive. So, why are the more experienced teachers passing that up?
@wtninja, they aren't. They can't get those jobs because the poor districts can't afford them.
@UmActually, so, the current system encourages both, but ultimately denies those with more experience (and most likely more skill with that experience).
@wtninja, Yep. That's why low-income schools have such a high turnover rate. New, unproven teachers come in for 2-5 years, then get a job at a suburban school.
@UmActually, okay, that makes a lot of sense and I have a clearer picture now. So, really, the question of metric doesn't even matter as of yet, because our current incentive system actually fights against itself. Raising the overall pay won't help either. Actually, it would only hurt because then the poorer areas would actually be even less capable of paying for those teachers. So, the new question we are left with is how do we change that without bankrupting the system or excessive tax raises.
@wtninja, The solution is to stop cutting funding and actually pass levys. People vote against schools because opponents say it will raise taxes, even though it won't. Ensuring that teachers don't make less than sanitization workers shouldn't raise taxes.
@UmActually, "people keep voting to stop throwing more money at a failing public school system even though that hasn't worked in the past because they think it will cost more money. It won't cost more money."
@RustyFapwagon, But it does work. Districts with more money do better.
@UmActually, everyone thinks teachers should be paid more, but frankly I disagree. It's supply and demand, there are plenty of teachers be produced for the positions so there's no pressure to increase wages. Also, they work for state/local governments, meaning they chose to work in an industry constrained by politics. They also don't get paid that poorly either for what they do.
@UmActually, We know that intelligence level is heavily dependant on genetics, we know that there is a strong link between IQ and income, districts with more income have higher earning individuals in them.
It's probably because these people are smarter and raised around people that work hard and make good choices.
@Oujosh29, I have to call $30-$50,000 a year pretty poorly paid for something that is so formative in children's lives.
@RustyFapwagon, set that's not true. Even in areas that are overall poor, if more money is pushed into the school system, test scores improved. There are two school districts where I did my student teaching at, one was in a moderately wealthy suburban area, the other was in a very solidly middle class rural area. The difference between the two was that the rural area funneled more tax dollars to the schools because they did not have as much infrastructure. The test scores at the rural area were significantly higher than the test scores in the suburban area even though the people around the suburban school or welfare. That whole "intelligence is heavily dependent on income," is a tired a diatribe that frankly has no scientific support behind it. We do see that with standardized testing, however, people in the higher income brackets are far more likely to enroll their kid in SAT or ACT preparation classes.
@UmActually, it is absolutely fact that people with high incomes have higher IQ on average. Lol that's been proven time and time again.
You also understand that the morality of those two areas you worked in was likely very different. More rural areas typically are more religious/traditional. Like it or not, morals taught in the Bible lead to success (i.e. not having a child out of a marriage, working hard to live, striving to have a strong community) were as more suburban areas typically have far looser morals. You cannot compare the two since the morals are different.
You may see a marginal increase in test scores, but it isn't worth the money. Public schools keep adding on unnecessary admin staff, programs, etc. That's where this money always goes. Things worked better when states ran their own schools. The federal government is trash at running most national programs, schools are no different.
@UmActually, 30k-50k is what should be expected when you go into an industry that so many go into. If you wanted to make money you shouldn't have taken a job that a lot of people are qualified to do because it isn't valuable.
I'm working on becoming a CISSP because on the planet there are less than 150000 people with that title and it is extremely valuable. I will make a shjt ton of money because so few people carry that qualification and it is globally recognized. This is what you should have done if you wanted to make money.
@RustyFapwagon, I like how you don't know the suburban area or the rural area yet you make assumptions about both. Nice try, the rural area I was working in was a hippie farm town in Vermont, the suburban area was in Montgomery, Alabama, the most conservative place on earth. And if your thought that biblical morality inspires success, how come ultra conservative states don't have the highest test scores? How come they have the lowest?
@RustyFapwagon, there still is a huge shortage of teachers in about 85% of America. The problem is, nobody wants to work in those areas because the pay isn't good enough, because they don't vote to pass school levies, so they don't have enough teachers, so the test scores keep dropping because kids can't succeed when they're in a class of 65 with one teacher.
@UmActually, again because the government is so shjt at running schools that all that money would go to admin staff and programs that don't work. You want a solution? Let the states run their own schools like they did before.
@RustyFapwagon, so states like Alabama and Mississippi can decide to exclude basic scientific fact and theory in favor of religious stories? No thanks. That creates Academic, and therefore economic zones. If you're born in Alabama and go to school in Alabama under a system in which they can decide whatever they want to teach, no university will except a student from Alabama into a STEM program under that system. If a university has to undo 12 years of the wrong learning, they're not going to take a chance on that child. With national standards, every student has a chance to get in to any program they want, regardless of where their parents, or their grandparents, or their great grandparents decided to set down roots. The system you're proposing would create a society in which certain groups of people come from certain states and certain communities and anybody else would be excluded from certain career opportunities and fields of study.
@UmActually, I don't espically since lots of places teachers make far more than that. In some places teachers could be paid more though. And I disagree how important they are to kids. I can't remember any teacher that was that pivotal.
@Oujosh29, they are pivotal, whether you acknowledge it or not. And average teacher salary is $57,000
@UmActually, they aren't pivotal just because you say so. The education system is necessary (even if the USs is god awful), doesn't mean every peg in the system is pivotal. A janitor is also essential to a well operating building, doesn't make them worth more. And 57,000 is a decent amount of money, doesn't include the awesome benefits or retirement plans that are better than the private sector.
@Oujosh29, are you kidding me? Receptionists make about that much money. You are seriously arguing that teachers are not pivotal in most children's development?
@UmActually, yes I am arguing that. First the 57k averages new teachers with old teachers, meaning if they stay teachers for a while they'll make a lot more than 57k. Also,the benefits and retirement teachers have are insanely better than the private sector. So no, teachers aren't that poorly paid for what they do.
@Oujosh29, they don't make a lot more than 57,000. The range is between 30,000 and about 70,000. And the ones that makes 70,000 usually have to hold administrative positions. If teachers are not so important, why are administrators paid double what they make?
@UmActually, what does the pay of administrators have to do with teachers? Administrators are in charge of entire school districts, teachers are in charge of one classroom.
@Oujosh29, yes but one actually interact with the people, the other one got a degree and new people. One works significantly harder than the other one does. Administrative secretaries make more than most teachers.
@UmActually, I highly doubt that. My dad was an administrator and his secretary made 40k while the teachers started at 55k. Administrators also have a ton more responsibility and a harder job.
@Oujosh29, that shows how little you know of teachers. Teachers starting out make about 30,000.
@Mendicant Bias, just remember that the United States is mixed market. Pure capitalism is just as bad pure socialism. They key is to find a balance between the two
In a lot of areas is still the second step that's the issue. It's easy to say "you just have to WANT IT!!!!1!!!1!1!1!!!!”
Well I *want* a threesome with Scarlett Johanson and Kate Upton. But just the odds of that are just like the number of full-time jobs (minimum wage or not) within 75 miles of where I have to live: so small as to be statistically non-existent.
I'm still trying to figure out how socialism = free handouts. Is it because that's what welfare and and all does now? Because I think those are two different things.
Everyone chipping in to a fund for education means everyone gets good jobs because every job can now hire people with good educations which means everyone affords to chip into a fund for good education🔄
Not "I work 90 hrs a week and go to school 120 hrs a week and have a $17,000,000 house and did it all on my own because hard work is all that matters and I'm not giving anyone anything"
@HiroAntagonist, the key difference is whether we are chipping in to an education fund voluntarily, or the government is threatening us with jail time if we don't.
@MrMoustache, You're chipping into a public education fund already, though. If it's an expansion of taxation, then it really isn't anything different. I understand that taxation is part of what the Founding Father's wanted to get away from and all, but it's obvious that people aren't going to give things away out of the kindness of their hearts.
The Nordic Market wouldn't work in this country for a list of reasons evident from the number of people posting in these comments ("I'm not giving money to anyone!" "Rich people are evil!" "You just gotta *TRY*") but a mixed-system is demonstrably effective, considering the prosperity, health, education level, employment rate, and self-reported happiness of those countries.
@HiroAntagonist, I tend not to have as much of a cynical view of the human condition. I feel we are all well natured and that the eradication of taxes would result in a far more efficient and moral system for everyone to spend and donate their money as they see fit.
I remember Trump cutting funding for meals on wheels. Following a private funding campaign of multiple donors, more money had been raised to fund it than a whole years worth of federal funding. It was great because liberals toted it around like it was an FU to Trump, when I was like hang on, you've just proved that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector...
@MrMoustache, Yeah, that happens a lot when there's publicity. But how much has that continued? I mean, a quick cash infusion is awesome, but sustainability is the issue. Which is also the question of the Notice Model, granted.
I work 40+ plus hours a week and would be willing to give it a go. Fvck it why not, our current system sucks anyway. I either want full democratic socialism or full on libertarian either we help each other completely or we drop the pretence and keep our paychecks.
@battlebeard, move to Canada. Just don't get hurt or need a surgury because you won't get treatment nearly as fast.
@RustyFapwagon, that's also not true. Wait times in Canada for necessary operations are the same as they are in America, the only difference is when you get significantly older, and you need unnecessary surgery, for instance a hip replacement might take a month more than it does in America, where the American wait time is usually one month, the Canadian wait time is usually two months. However, if you need surgery from a specific specialist, the government will pay to have you flown out to the city where the specialist is operating, they will give you lodging, they will feed you, and they will pay for the operation. I'd much rather wait a week to get a surgery done than not have the surgery done because of financial problems.
@UmActually, that's not true. Wait times are significantly longer in Canada.
@Oujosh29, as someone who lived in Canada for many years, that's not true.
@UmActually, I admit I haven't live there, but I know many Canadians who disagree
@Oujosh29, OK? On average, for basic care there is no wait time, for things like CAT scans, there might be a week to two week wait time. However, if your condition is serious, if you have a neurological problem, then you get moved to the front of the line, and you usually get seen within two days. My father got a knee replacement surgery at 40, and that took three days in order for them to actually perform the surgery, but then when he got it again when he was 60, they had him wait a week, because he was retired. And besides, I'd rather wait a week and actually get the care, then have to go into debt because I didn't have insurance, or not be able to go to a doctor because you can't afford i because he was retired. And besides, I'd rather wait a week and actually get the care, then have to go into debt because I didn't have insurance, or not be able to go to a doctor because I couldn't afford it.
@UmActually, I find it funny that so many people use Canadian healthcare system and complain about it as a way to block a healthcare system here in the US. The same people have no clue what they're talking about. Because it's not a government run hospital system it's a government run insurance system. The wait times wouldn't change. You already have to wait to get certain things done as it is in the US. And if it's a true emergency they see you just as quickly. That's not going to change. The only difference is if you take the profit out of Health insurance.
@UmActually, And you are right. If these people had to choose between waiting a week for a knee replacement. Compared to spending 10 years in debt to pay for it. Which do you think they would choose.
@RustyFapwagon, I see your line of reasoning now. It makes so much sense. It's more important that you are able to get in to a doctor to have an elbow surgery within a couple days while others suffer from surgeries they can't afford keeping them from being productive members of society. Than it is to wait a week or 2 longer to have.
@Seohn, I don't feel bad for people that make bad choices and don't work. Get a job or get fvcked.
@Seohn, I wish RustyFapWagon would make better arguments, or at least reword them so they're not as inflammatory and triggertastic. I agree with him in that free public healthcare isn't a good idea, but he's definitely playing up to the bad arguments which don't do the political position justice. Makes it much harder for me to argue my stance.
@MrMoustache, It doesnt matter. Nothing will get changed because of a political conversation on an app with no user base.
Also it's funny
Socialism is an answer to the systemic problem in America - stop acting like you know what's up at 18.