Socialism works until you run out of other people's money.[W:954]

[RabidAlpaca]

I do believe in redistributing wealth. But not a la social democracy.

I never said anything about social democracy. So my original statement stands: Seeing as how you believe in redistributing wealth, why don't you lead by example and redistribute your own wealth?

 

[instagramsci]

I never said anything about social democracy. So my original statement stands: Seeing as how you believe in redistributing wealth, why don't you lead by example and redistribute your own wealth?

I don't have wealth.

And there is no system with which to redistribute wealth in any meaningful way, so without such a system your statement is worthless.

Or question, seeing as it has a question mark at the end.

 

[shrubnose]

I Think the phrase is meant to mean that once you tax people down to the same level (other peoples money) you suddenly cannot get in as much revenue since you are making your taxpayers poorer. Therefore you can run out of other peoples money, but not the government.

That was exactly the point of my post.

 

[shrubnose]

I Think the phrase is meant to mean that once you tax people down to the same level (other peoples money) you suddenly cannot get in as much revenue since you are making your taxpayers poorer. Therefore you can run out of other peoples money, but not the government.

If you think "printing money" doesn't rob YOU,

then you fail to understand, the newly printed money acquired IT'S value by diluting the value of currency previously in circulation. It's called INFLATION.
The dollar in 2013 is worth 79 cents of a 2003 dollar.
and worth only 5 cents of a 1950 dollar.
free money?
They are robbing YOU and ME!

Did I say that I think printing lots of money doesn't increase the rate of inflation ?

No, I did not.

But it's something that lots of governments on this planet have done, and probably will do in the future.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I don't have wealth.

And there is no system with which to redistribute wealth in any meaningful way, so without such a system your statement is worthless.

Or question, seeing as it has a question mark at the end.

You have some cash in your pocket I bet. You could start with that.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

No, we're just unwilling to shoulder all the burdens and let selfish people continue to hoard everything.

In answer to the OP, that's stupid thing to say. The inherent assumption behind socialism is that everyone wants to contribute. That is, of course, the inherent assumption behind capitalism, as well. Everyone wants to better their station in life. But capitalism is rooted in doing it at the expense of others, while socialism is rooted in doing it together. It is capitalism that only works until you run out of other people's money to take. Socialism works best without money at all. The phrase was just a flawed assumption by capitalist rulers who think that they are essential for society to function.



Like this. That's not social return. That's just trying to figure out how best to steal from other people. How best to exploit the hard work of others while you don't do any in return, and then resenting that you have to share if things go your way. It's a petulant, childish viewpoint. And it misses the central ideas of socialism. Everyone benefits from everyone's success, and everyone suffers from everyone's failure. All risk and reward are dispersed so that they are not disproportionately handed out to anyone. I'm not surprised that some people only look at things in terms of their own personal gain, though. Contrary to what you might think, there is more to life than just gobbling up everything you can for yourself, and there is a reason why such people are universally described as evil in stories and in history. The philosophy of selfishness and greed is one of the greatest of human evils. It's sad that this country has tried so hard to turn avarice into a virtue.

The term hoarding is a denial of the existence of a modern economy and the multiplicative effect of assets at work. Or do you still think that all that wealth is sitting under a mattress?

 

[Guy Incognito]

"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

Is this not right?

That's giving socialism WAY too much credit. It doesn't even work while you've still got other people's money.

 

[Federalist]

In answer to the OP, that's stupid thing to say. The inherent assumption behind socialism is that everyone wants to contribute.

If people want to contribute, that's great. However, it's not right to make people "contribute" by forcing them to do so through the initiation of aggression.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

Is this not right?

Sounds right to me!

 

[Glen Contrarian]

If people want to contribute, that's great. However, it's not right to make people "contribute" by forcing them to do so through the initiation of aggression.

Problem is, the level of that 'contribution' - in the form of higher taxes - is (along with strong government and strong regulation) a crucial part of what makes the difference between a first-world nation and a third-world nation (unless one has a very low population and many billions of barrels of oil underground). It's my contention that one cannot have a first-world nation with a first-world standard of living without higher taxes...and the nature of all non-OPEC first-world nations bears out my contention.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

That's giving socialism WAY too much credit. It doesn't even work while you've still got other people's money.

So why are ALL of the non-OPEC first-world nations socialized democracies with high taxes? Y'know, it's hard to argue with success.

And why are ALL of the nations that have weak governments, low effective taxes, and little regulation third-world nations? Y'know, it's hard to argue for a system that's failed every time.

All you've got to support your side is rhetoric, but not RESULTS.

 

[yobarnacle]

Did I say that I think printing lots of money doesn't increase the rate of inflation ?

No, I did not.

But it's something that lots of governments on this planet have done, and probably will do in the future.

No, you didn't say THAT! You merely quipped that you wouldn't run out of money if you printed it. My point is YES YOU WILL run out of money printing it. Eventually it becomes WORTHLESS.
We are approaching that point NOW with dollars.
Why should I work, when my REAL salary (purchasing power) was diminished by 21% and no raises during previous 10 years because govt decided to print money to fund giveaway programs?
Hey, I just decided to retire EARLY TOO!
Give ME some!
Is that thunder? Or the sound of the USA CRASHING!

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I explained why Churchill might have described socialism as a "philosophy of failure," so your rebuttals that "everyone's doin' it!" are weightless. Whatever number of nations out there in the rest of the world you think subscribe to a certain system does not necessarily say anything the philosophical underpinnings of various political ideologies.

And Churchill was also apparently racist against Indians. Just because Churchill said something doesn't make it right...especially when he's referring NOT to the state of the governments of the British Commonwealth, but to the threat that he saw on the other side of the Iron Curtain.

And his apparent racism aside, I think he was one of the greatest leaders in modern history, just so you know.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

No, you didn't say THAT! You merely quipped that you wouldn't run out of money if you printed it. My point is YES YOU WILL run out of money printing it. Eventually it becomes WORTHLESS.
We are approaching that point NOW with dollars.
Why should I work, when my REAL salary (purchasing power) was diminished by 21% and no raises during previous 10 years because govt decided to print money to fund giveaway programs?
Hey, I just decided to retire EARLY TOO!
Give ME some!
Is that thunder? Or the sound of the USA CRASHING!

Has it ever dawned on you that we're still using low-tax Reaganomics and have been for the past thirty years?

 

[Penderyn]

"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

Is this not right?

No - that's capitalism. All the money is ours, because we do all the work.

 

[yobarnacle]

Problem is, the level of that 'contribution' - in the form of higher taxes - is (along with strong government and strong regulation) a crucial part of what makes the difference between a first-world nation and a third-world nation (unless one has a very low population and many billions of barrels of oil underground). It's my contention that one cannot have a first-world nation with a first-world standard of living without higher taxes...and the nature of all non-OPEC first-world nations bears out my contention.

The WEALTHY have tax lawyers finding loop holes.
Socialists love POOR people. They want the working middle class to be among the poor.
In a FREE society, everybody STARTS equal under the law.
In socialism, by process of law, everybody FINISHES, that is, ends up equal! Equally POOR!

 

[yobarnacle]

Has it ever dawned on you that we're still using low-tax Reaganomics and have been for the past thirty years?

Low TAX!

Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value from 1913-2013

In 1970, I made 20 thousand dollars.
As a deckhand.
and paid 10% in tax.

In 2012, I made $115 thousand.
As a captain. And paid 30% tax.

Unfortunately, $20 thousand in 1970 is equal to $120,400 in 2013.

I have LESS buying power at the TOP of my profession, and taxed at 3X the rate as I did when i was at the entry level position!

The REAL tax on americans, is the overspending, printing money, INFLATION tax.

Everybody ends up in a higher TAX bracket, but with a LOWER salary.

Only govt and govt programs benefit.
While working citizens are ROBBED!

Those running the govt LIKE inflation because the NATIONAL DEBT is devalued by inflation and it's a FAIR tax nobody had to go on record voting for!
Fair tax only because it devalues ALL the dollars, those of the rich and poor alike!

We owe LESS REAL National Debt, because the money has LESS value than when the govt borrowed it!

 

[yobarnacle]

Anybody who thinks "the workers" do ALL the work, never held a management position. They need to start their OWN business.
THEN they'll begin to appreciate WHY the bosses get a bigger salary!
And why the owners more often LOSE money.

 

[Slyfox696]

Low TAX!

Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value from 1913-2013

In 1970, I made 20 thousand dollars.
As a deckhand.
and paid 10% in tax.

In 2012, I made $115 thousand.
As a captain. And paid 30% tax.

Unfortunately, $20 thousand in 1970 is equal to $120,400 in 2013.

I have LESS buying power at the TOP of my profession, and taxed at 3X the rate as I did when i was at the entry level position!

The REAL tax on americans, is the overspending, printing money, INFLATION tax.

Everybody ends up in a higher TAX bracket, but with a LOWER salary.

Only govt and govt programs benefit.
While working citizens are ROBBED!

Those running the govt LIKE inflation because the NATIONAL DEBT is devalued by inflation and it's a FAIR tax nobody had to go on record voting for!
Fair tax only because it devalues ALL the dollars, those of the rich and poor alike!

We owe LESS REAL National Debt, because the money has LESS value than when the govt borrowed it!

That all sounds great, except for the fact it appears to be wrong.

In 1970, at $20,000 you would have paid a tax rate of either 32% (married filing jointly) or 48% (married filing separately or single). In 2012, at $115,000 you would have paid 25% (married filing jointly) or 28% (married filing separately or single).

U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets) | Tax Foundation

 

[EdwinWillers]

"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

Is this not right?

No, it's is right.

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher.

 

[Paschendale]

If people want to contribute, that's great. However, it's not right to make people "contribute" by forcing them to do so through the initiation of aggression.

The mere act of owning a resource and denying access to it to others is initiating aggression. You're just being selective about which aggression is okay and which aggression is not.

The term hoarding is a denial of the existence of a modern economy and the multiplicative effect of assets at work. Or do you still think that all that wealth is sitting under a mattress?

A whole lot of it is sitting in bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. And no, I am not denying the multiplicative effects of assets. I am pointing out that the effect of this effect is that the rich keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer. The modern economy is extremely good at raising the barrier to move up the ladder.

"What's yours is mine and what's mine is ours." Oh that's not a philosophy of selfishness at all. :roll:

Except that it's actually "what's yours is ours and what's mine is ours." Everything is everybody's. Again, don't attribute your selfishness to everyone else.

Sure I am. Socialists are all about redistributing the wealth, why don't you show a single ounce of conviction and start redistributing YOUR wealth. Lead by example, bud.

You can set an example for the rest of us by giving away all of your property and money. If we see how happy you are with it we might want to join in as well.

Because telling people to be charitable isn't the change I'm trying to make. Nor is giving up everything or even a significant part of what anyone has the change I'm trying to make. And acting on charity certainly wouldn't have the slimmest effect on proving the merits of socialism. It's just voluntarily losing the capitalist game and reinforcing capitalism AS the game. The point is to change to a better game. As usual, selfish people don't understand how this works. Most of us would lose nothing. We'd probably gain a whole lot. And we certainly would all gain in the longterm, as every member of society could become more productive, and we would stop devoting so much energy to creating wealth. We'd create products and services instead.

Capitalism is an obsolete system based entirely on the exploitation of other people's labor. The only routes to survival in it are having labor to sell or having the resources to buy labor. And it makes labor really really cheap. If you're paying the least bit of attention to why the economy has been changing the way it has in the last several decades, you see that labor will continue to become more plentiful, will be replaced with more automation, and why labor will become less necessary. What will we do in another century when even more of our production requires even less labor? That is how we'll really get a permanent underclass. And we'll have a tiny group that owns so very much and has all the power, and can coerce and be aggressive all they like. Or, we could share these benefits equally, and simply divide the labor to be done equally among everyone (subject to everyone's particular skills, of course). That is sustainable. The class divides of capitalism are not.

Isn't capitalism all about using other peoples money?

Yes, it just declares that using the poor's money is fine while using the rich's money is a terrible crime.

 

[jimbo]

Then what is the stock market about other than using other peoples money?

The stock market is about using my money to purchase a portion of someone elses ideas with tbe expectation that I will have more money in the future. On the other side of the equation, the person with the idea gets the dollars to bring his idea to fruition.

 

[Federalist]

The mere act of owning a resource and denying access to it to others is initiating aggression. You're just being selective about which aggression is okay and which aggression is not.

Yes, I am being selective about what sorts of aggression are acceptable.

You preventing people from breaking into your house? Acceptable.

You breaking into someone else's house? Not acceptable.

Now that's just me. You might have different values and think it's fine to take what is owned by others, in which case you are essentially condoning a war of all against all.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Because telling people to be charitable isn't the change I'm trying to make. Nor is giving up everything or even a significant part of what anyone has the change I'm trying to make. And acting on charity certainly wouldn't have the slimmest effect on proving the merits of socialism. It's just voluntarily losing the capitalist game and reinforcing capitalism AS the game. The point is to change to a better game. As usual, selfish people don't understand how this works. Most of us would lose nothing. We'd probably gain a whole lot. And we certainly would all gain in the longterm, as every member of society could become more productive, and we would stop devoting so much energy to creating wealth. We'd create products and services instead.

Capitalism is an obsolete system based entirely on the exploitation of other people's labor. The only routes to survival in it are having labor to sell or having the resources to buy labor. And it makes labor really really cheap. If you're paying the least bit of attention to why the economy has been changing the way it has in the last several decades, you see that labor will continue to become more plentiful, will be replaced with more automation, and why labor will become less necessary. What will we do in another century when even more of our production requires even less labor? That is how we'll really get a permanent underclass. And we'll have a tiny group that owns so very much and has all the power, and can coerce and be aggressive all they like. Or, we could share these benefits equally, and simply divide the labor to be done equally among everyone (subject to everyone's particular skills, of course). That is sustainable. The class divides of capitalism are not.

I agree with a whole lot of what you're saying, I really do. However I've never really been presented a real, clean, and concise explanation of how that would function in the real world.

Consider:
- A lazy secretary
- A hard working coal miner
- A talented brain surgeon
- An incompetent McDonald's worker

These people simply can not all earn the exact same thing. Nobody would ever go work in a coal mine if being a lazy secretary paid the exact amount. Some jobs are harder than others, and some require more talent. We can totally 100% agree that a more fair redistribution of wealth should be a goal, but by paying everybody the same amount is the exact opposite of that.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Low TAX!

Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value from 1913-2013

In 1970, I made 20 thousand dollars.
As a deckhand.
and paid 10% in tax.

In 2012, I made $115 thousand.
As a captain. And paid 30% tax.

Unfortunately, $20 thousand in 1970 is equal to $120,400 in 2013.

I have LESS buying power at the TOP of my profession, and taxed at 3X the rate as I did when i was at the entry level position!

The REAL tax on americans, is the overspending, printing money, INFLATION tax.

Everybody ends up in a higher TAX bracket, but with a LOWER salary.

Only govt and govt programs benefit.
While working citizens are ROBBED!

Those running the govt LIKE inflation because the NATIONAL DEBT is devalued by inflation and it's a FAIR tax nobody had to go on record voting for!
Fair tax only because it devalues ALL the dollars, those of the rich and poor alike!

We owe LESS REAL National Debt, because the money has LESS value than when the govt borrowed it!

Your post is very, very easy to refute. In 1970, if you'd made as much money as you made in 2012, you would have been taxed at something like 50% - the top marginal tax rate was about 70%.

If you were really paying attention, you'd know that since 2009, we're paying some of the lowest - repeat, lowest - tax rates since the early 1950's. Here, let Politifact tell you what you're not hearing from the right-wing echo chamber.

Oh, wait - I forgot - facts have a liberal bias, so never mind...ignore it anyway, it's only facts and hard, cold historical numbers....