Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Martell Spy

Workable Socialism

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I have to ask a question before I go any further, are you in favor of a 100% across the board inheritance tax for all estates regardless of size?

I will preface this by admiting that i am not an economist, but i would be in favor of that. i think it would be a different tax depending the inheritance. But i think that most people dont even have the posibility of inheritance, and when im talking about taxing inheritance im mostly refering to people with large estates, so large in fact, that i think it shouldnt even be their money anymore. the inheritance of say, bezos, its in large part, imo, not really his money, its the workers money. So tax that shit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

bezos, its in large part, imo, not really his money, its the workers money. So tax that shit. 

I think Amazons worker practices are close to modern day slavery and they tax avoidance is criminal, but this is totally wrong headed and just taking things a step too far. Get the fair amount of taxes out of him, get better worker rights, but those jobs wouldn’t exist if Bezos and co didn’t create the company and come up with the idea and work their ass off to create Amazon in the first place. 

Sometimes I think this vindictive hatred of anyone who is successful is counter productive when talking about these subjects. The politics of envy are ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well nothing would get taxed directly as i’d just spend it all and make sure the government doesn’t get a penny. I’d also become completely unproductive as a citizen, as there is zero incentive for me to bother working any harder than necessary 

(Although what really happens with inheritance taxes is that as I have experienced in real life, you find loopholes and ways to pass on money and assets to your children that means you don’t pay tax)

There isnt zero incentive, YOU  dont think there is any incentive except for money. And that is the problem with this system, its just me and my family (and even that is short sighted) and the "i dont care about anyone else"  mentality. 

That is one of the ways socialism is so much better than capitalism and neo-liberalism,. We live in a society, its not just about what i want and how to have the best life for my self. 

Like if we want to make this planet livable once more, we need to think in terms of the colective and leave this extreme individualism behind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Conflicting Thought said:

There isnt zero incentive, YOU  dont think there is any incentive except for money. And that is the problem with this system, its just me and my family (and even that is short sighted) and the "i dont care about anyone else"  mentality. 

That is one of the ways socialism is so much better than capitalism and neo-liberalism,. We live in a society, its not just about what i want and how to have the best life for my self. 

Like if we want to make this planet livable once more, we need to think in terms of the colective and leave this extreme individualism behind. 

The difference between us is I believe that it is simply human nature to value myself and my close relationships over complete strangers and I’ve seen zero evidence to counter that opinion . I think it is a miracle of the nation state that we all chip in to pay taxes, but it is enforced, if it wasn’t enforced would everyone pay? Almost certainly not.  Socialism doesn’t change human nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I think Amazons worker practices are close to modern day slavery and they tax avoidance is criminal, but this is totally wrong headed and just taking things a step too far. Get the fair amount of taxes out of him, get better worker rights, but those jobs wouldn’t exist if Bezos and co didn’t create the company and come up with the idea and work their ass off to create Amazon in the first place. 

Sometimes I think this vindictive hatred of anyone who is successful is counter productive when talking about these subjects. The politics of envy are ugly.

Now you are saying im envious of bezos?. Belive it or not, there are people (like me) who dont think money and power are the only thing that matters. 

And if you think this is about envy and hatred (i, personally do feel hatred for this people and system, i must admit) of "successful" people, then you have a very basic understanding of what we are talking about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

if Bezos and co didn’t create the company and come up with the idea and work their ass off to create Amazon in the first place.

There's no way that any amount of work Bezos has done is proportional to his wealth. There is no contribution any one human can make to justify that much wealth in one person's hands. This was previously discussed in the billionaire thread, but the only purpose to that much wealth is to amass power over other people, and frankly I don't think we should be structuring society in such a way that any one person has that level of unaccountable power. He came up with a goodf business idea and worked hard to turn it into a successful operation? Cool, good for him. I'm fine with him having enough money to live a life of ease and comfort, and satisfy any material want. I'm not cool with him basically being a feudal lord controlling the lives of employees, influencing the direction of labour laws, and having public servants kowtow to him out of desperation for whatever job crumbs he'll sling their way.

If Bezos had 99.9% of his wealth taken and redistributed, he'd still have a net worth of $100 million. One-hundred-million! He'd still be utterly stupendously rich beyond anyone's wildest dreams. In what world is it a hardship to "merely" have $100 million? There is no justification whatsoever for the existence of billionaires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The difference between us is I believe that it is simply human nature to value myself and my close relationships over complete strangers and I’ve seen zero evidence to counter that opinion . I think it is a miracle of the nation state that we all chip in to pay taxes, but it is enforced, if it wasn’t enforced would everyone pay? Almost certainly not.  Socialism doesn’t change human nature.

Dude, you are ver much oversimplifying what "human nature" is, to fit your opinion.

This "human nature" argument always comes up when discussing with neo liberals, and i think that as an argument is very thin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Liffguard said:

There's no way that any amount of work Bezos has done is proportional to his wealth. There is no contribution any one human can make to justify that much wealth in one person's hands. This was previously discussed in the billionaire thread, but the only purpose to that much wealth is to amass power over other people, and frankly I don't think we should be structuring society in such a way that any one person has that level of unaccountable power. He came up with a goodf business idea and worked hard to turn it into a successful operation? Cool, good for him. I'm fine with him having enough money to live a life of ease and comfort, and satisfy any material want. I'm not cool with him basically being a feudal lord controlling the lives of employees, influencing the direction of labour laws, and having public servants kowtow to him out of desperation for whatever job crumbs he'll sling their way.

If Bezos had 99.9% of his wealth taken and redistributed, he'd still have a net worth of $100 million. One-hundred-million! He'd still be utterly stupendously rich beyond anyone's wildest dreams. In what world is it a hardship to "merely" have $100 million? There is no justification whatsoever for the existence of billionaires.

"But I'm only one lucky break from being one."-Most Americans, who are also stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The difference between us is I believe that it is simply human nature to value myself and my close relationships over complete strangers and I’ve seen zero evidence to counter that opinion . I think it is a miracle of the nation state that we all chip in to pay taxes, but it is enforced, if it wasn’t enforced would everyone pay? Almost certainly not.  Socialism doesn’t change human nature.

You can make this facile argument about ANYTHING in society. Why would someone pay for something if they can get it for free ergo capitalism goes against human nature and does not change it.

That's the whole fucking point of laws in general. To curb the worst impulses of humanity and make life a little more bearable and safe for others in society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Durckad said:

You can make this facile argument about ANYTHING in society. Why would someone pay for something if they can get it for free ergo capitalism goes against human nature and does not change it.

That's the whole fucking point of laws in general. To curb the worst impulses of humanity and make life a little more bearable and safe for others in society.

"You only say that because you're not an Alpha like I am! Betas just want to weaken the race!"- Most American males, who believe in a made-up wolf hierarchical structure as a cornerstone of their personalities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Durckad said:

You can make this facile argument about ANYTHING in society. Why would someone pay for something if they can get it for free ergo capitalism goes against human nature and does not change it.

That's the whole fucking point of laws in general. To curb the worst impulses of humanity and make life a little more bearable and safe for others in society.

Not really. I just haven’t seen anything that suggests it’s not human nature to value your own family and yourself over complete strangers. Almost nothing in nature works that way.  I don’t think this is in anyway a controversial point to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

Not really. I just haven’t seen anything that suggests it’s not human nature to value your own family and yourself over complete strangers. Almost nothing in nature works that way.  I don’t think this is in anyway a controversial point to make.

It's controversial because it's a stupid point to make. When speaking of a society, bringing up human nature isn't really useful because the laws and norms of society are not created because they are supported by or reinforce "human nature" (whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean) but because they are generally beneficial to society and its members.

Hence laws against rape, murder, theft, etc. Human nature's views on those subjects is immaterial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

"You only say that because you're not an Alpha like I am! Betas just want to weaken the race!"- Most American males, who believe in a made-up wolf hierarchical structure as a cornerstone of their personalities.

Yep. 100% proud of my beta-cuck status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

I will preface this by admiting that i am not an economist, but i would be in favor of that. i think it would be a different tax depending the inheritance. But i think that most people dont even have the posibility of inheritance, and when im talking about taxing inheritance im mostly refering to people with large estates, so large in fact, that i think it shouldnt even be their money anymore. the inheritance of say, bezos, its in large part, imo, not really his money, its the workers money. So tax that shit. 

I’m a little confused.  Do you want the 100% tax for all or would you only have that for estates over a certain size?

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inheritance taxes are one way of redistributing wealth. Another way is to have strong unions .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Durckad said:

It's controversial because it's a stupid point to make. When speaking of a society, bringing up human nature isn't really useful because the laws and norms of society are not created because they are supported by or reinforce "human nature" (whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean) but because they are generally beneficial to society and its members.

Hence laws against rape, murder, theft, etc. Human nature's views on those subjects is immaterial.

My point was that this ‘human nature ‘ in regards to valuing family over strangers wasn’t invented by capitalism, and socialism won’t make it go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

My point was that this ‘human nature ‘ in regards to valuing family over strangers wasn’t invented by capitalism, and socialism won’t make it go away.

Your point is noted, I just don't find it compelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m a little confused.  Do you want the 100% tax for all or would you only have that for estatws over a certain size?

I would want 100% tax for estates over a certain size. But i dont know much about tax implimentation , so im open to being educated on the subject. 

If you want me to tell you at what size we decide is a100% tax, i dont know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

I would want 100% tax for estates over a certain size. But i dont know much about tax implimentation , so im open to being educated on the subject. 

If you want me to tell you at what size we decide is a100% tax, i dont know. 

Do you believe anyone would ever pay it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

My point was that this ‘human nature ‘ in regards to valuing family over strangers wasn’t invented by capitalism, and socialism won’t make it go away.

No, but why would we want to?

I live in a socialistic country, so I pay a little more in taxes than you Americans do. In exchange I get access to one of the best medical healthcare systems in the world so I don't have to worry about me or anyone in my family falling sick, even if it's a serious illness. If my spouse or I can't work we'll get unemployment benefits and regulations mean we have insurances to help us in such cases on top of that. Socialized education means that not only did I get paid to study (yeah, being a poor kid and a straight-A student I was given money to study) but I could stay in school and get a PhD without worrying about the expense. Similarly my kid(s) will have access to free education and will be able to be whatever the fuck they want to be (go to law school or med school for almost nothing for instance) as long as they have the grades and the motivation to do so. They can even be artists and struggle to make a living: they'll have a special status providing them slightly better unemployment benefits so they can at least pay rent and buy food.
And when I grow old I'll be able to retire without worrying about my pension being lost through financial dealings because my pension is a state-guaranteed right.
Oh, and let's remember public housing means I can afford to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world without ruining myself in spite of a very humble salary.

So riddle me genius, why the fucking fuck would my self-interest make me a capitalist?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×