|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
 Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 9:56 pm Post subject: Socialism DOESN'T Work After All |
 |
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html
Wall Street Journal, this time.
| Quote: |
| .......New Hampshire is our favorite illustration. The Live Free or Die State has no income or sales tax, yet it has high-quality schools and excellent public services. Students in New Hampshire public schools achieve the fourth-highest test scores in the nation -- even though the state spends about $1,000 a year less per resident on state and local government than the average state and, incredibly, $5,000 less per person than New York. And on the other side of the ledger, California in 2007 had the highest-paid classroom teachers in the nation, and yet the Golden State had the second-lowest test scores. |
| Quote: |
| Here's the problem for states that want to pry more money out of the wallets of rich people. It never works because people, investment capital and businesses are mobile: They can leave tax-unfriendly states and move to tax-friendly states. |
Socialists forget that in order to tax, you need production first. If the production can up and leave, what's left to tax? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mole
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Act III
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Again, it was New Hampshire leading the way passing the resolution declaring state sovereignty.
Other states, including TEXAS, followed suit (but only TEXAS deserved its own thread about it.)
So NH and TX have some similarities, most notably attitudes opposing socialism.
I just want to hear Ya ta spout off about TEXAS' education system.
Either how much we spend or how we do on test scores.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 2:24 pm Post subject: Re: Socialism DOESN'T Work After All |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
Socialists forget that in order to tax, you need production first. If the production can up and leave, what's left to tax? |
Ah, but you see, Socialists (ahem LIBERALS) want to tax EVERYONE. Why bother with State borders when you can just tax everyone, including US citizens living/working overseas.
You see, socialists see success as evil, therefore, they must punish successful people. To them, anyone who has money got it by stealing it, so they must become "Robin Hood" and give back to the poor.
I love the definition of "Rich" too. They talk and talk about how the rich are corporate executives and big business, but on paper in the legislature, the Rich end up being the people who actually WENT to University and can afford to buy a house. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I love the definition of "Rich" too. They talk and talk about how the rich are corporate executives and big business, but on paper in the legislature, the Rich end up being the people who actually WENT to University and can afford to buy a house. |
Agreed. The image of the rich seems to be that of the "corporate fat cat" who got rich by stealing off your Grandma. This book is required reading for anyone who wants to debate class and social structure.
http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/dp/0671015206
The reality is, "the rich" are really the people who contribute the most to society, and I'm not talking about taxes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Furthermore,
| Quote: |
"WEALTHY" DEFINED
Ask the average American to define the term wealthy. Most would give the same definition found in Webster's. Wealthy to them refers to people who have an abundance of material possessions.
We define wealthy differently. We do not define wealthy, affluent, or rich in terms of material possessions. Many people who display a high-consumption lifestyle have little or no investments, appreciable assets, income-producing assets, common stocks, bonds, private businesses, oil/gas rights, or timber land. Conversely, those people whom we define as being wealthy get much more pleasure from owning substantial amounts of appreciable assets than from displaying a high-consumption lifestyle. |
A very good review.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 5:38 pm Post subject: Re: Socialism DOESN'T Work After All |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
Socialists forget that in order to tax, you need production first. If the production can up and leave, what's left to tax? |
Ah, but you see, Socialists (ahem LIBERALS)....... |
Don't blame us, liberals, for socialism. Socialism is an inherently doctrinaire and highly authoritarian system totally, wildly at odds with liberalism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| The reality is, "the rich" are really the people who contribute the most to society |
Do you mean the actual people or their money?
Uncontrolled capitalism means people/families can build up huge reserves of wealth. Without taxation (and things like the 'death tax') this wealth is never lost. In the end you create an un-moving super-wealthy upper-class.
Redistribution of wealth creates equality of opportunity. For example, if you provide each child with education, healthcare and protection, they all have the same opportunity to have a fulfilling life. And whereas you guys may argue for freedom from restraints is equality, in reality, this creates inequality and regulation/taxation creates equality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Furthermore, 'true' democracy tends towards socialism. The poor majority will always vote for a redistribution of individual wealth in their direction. The reason western countries haven't moved further towards socialism (and yes, eventually communism) is because democracy in these countries doesn't really work too well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| Redistribution of wealth creates equality of opportunity. For example, if you provide each child with education, healthcare and protection, they all have the same opportunity to have a fulfilling life. And whereas you guys may argue for freedom from restraints is equality, in reality, this creates inequality and regulation/taxation creates equality. |
Well articulated, not to mention correct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| Redistribution of wealth creates equality of opportunity. For example, if you provide each child with education, healthcare and protection, they all have the same opportunity to have a fulfilling life. And whereas you guys may argue for freedom from restraints is equality, in reality, this creates inequality and regulation/taxation creates equality. |
Well articulated, not to mention correct. |
That's fine, just stop at education, health care, and protection. Funding those things is not socialism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| Redistribution of wealth creates equality of opportunity. For example, if you provide each child with education, healthcare and protection, they all have the same opportunity to have a fulfilling life. And whereas you guys may argue for freedom from restraints is equality, in reality, this creates inequality and regulation/taxation creates equality. |
Well articulated, not to mention correct. |
That's fine, just stop at education, health care, and protection. Funding those things is not socialism. |
Kuros is right.
Fox and Rufus, you are wrong.
You both have small mind sets. You believe there is a finite amount of wealth in the universe and that we need to ration what little we have for the good of society.
The reality is, there is more than enough wealth for every person on earth to have a high standard of living.
You seem to think that your neighbor being rich some how makes you poor. Nothing could be further from the truth. Your neighbor being rich, only enriches you.
| Quote: |
| Uncontrolled capitalism means people/families can build up huge reserves of wealth. Without taxation (and things like the 'death tax') this wealth is never lost. In the end you create an un-moving super-wealthy upper-class. |
This is ignorant and wrong. Get your head in a book, then come back when you know what you are talking about.
I highly recommend you read this.
http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/dp/0671015206
Then maybe you will have some empathy for a group, that in all honesty, is discriminated against. The "Rich", are not what you think they are.
If you want a pdf of the book, PM me and I can send it to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I have a degree in Politics with Economics from a top 10 University in England. Please provide some more specific arguements against what I said. A lot of it (taxes helping social mobility) is very solid economic theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| I have a degree in Politics with Economics from a top 10 University in England. Please provide some more specific arguements against what I said. A lot of it (taxes helping social mobility) is very solid economic theory. |
I wouldn't try to defend the abolition of the public provision of education (although not it's administration), protection of the borders, and to a lesser extent health care.
But to say that rich people tie up wealth in some way is simply incorrect. Would you like to point me to some analysis of where this is the case? Here are some facts about the rich.
* Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.
* Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.
* More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.
* Fewer than 25 percent ever received "an act of kindness" of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.
* Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.
* Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.
So to say that the "super-wealthy" some how stop others from becoming wealthy, is absurd.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html
http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/dp/0671015206 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BS.Dos.
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Double.
Last edited by BS.Dos. on Wed May 20, 2009 8:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BS.Dos.
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| if you provide each child with education, healthcare and protection, they all have the same opportunity to have a fulfilling life. |
I agree, but I'd also add water and sanitation. The proportion of the global population lacking water and adaquate sanitation exceeds those lacking health or education.
| Quote: |
| Socialism DOESN'T Work After All |
I think what you really mean is socialism doesn't work for you, which is not the same as saying it doesn't work for everyone.
As part of the Policy and Development studies I'm currently engaged in, I�ve just finished reading this case study about the fiasco which followed the Bolivian government�s attempts to auction off the country's water system in 2002. There was only one bid for the contract; a consortium called Aquas del Tunari, which was owned by a British engineering firm which itself was controlled by the Brechtel Corporation of the US. As sole bidder, they were able to negotiate a contract which guaranteed them a minimum 15% annual return on their investment.
The first thing Tunari did was install water meters and began charging for water, which they were able to do on account that the Bolivian government had pushed through a new water law through the Bolivian parliament. So, not surprisingly, Bolivian waters bills doubled, which equated to around a quarter of the average national monthly income. Ordinary workers started to protest, the conflict gained momentum until eventually, the Bolivian government declared martial law and called in the National Guard to restore order.
Not surprisingly, the citizen�s anger was largely directed at Tunari, who were eventually told that the Police could no longer guarantee their safety. They pulled out and, in doing so, broke the terms of their contract. Eventually the water system was returned back as a public owned utility.
*Edit*
Didn't realise, but there's a comprehensive page on wiki about it. Interestingly, you'll notice the instrumental influence of the World Bank in the Bolivians' decision to sell off the public water system. This is typical of the way the WB manipulates developing states and illustrates the World Bank's core neo-liberal underpinning, despite it's claims of being ideologically neutral.
Last edited by BS.Dos. on Wed May 20, 2009 8:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
