leejo

Neither do I! I assure you I didn't say that nor did I intend it.

I think socialized medicine would be a terrible move, but that's not why.

Razcsak

My apologies.

But taxes are drawn more from the wealthy than the poor, which means the poor get more benefit. They use the roads, infrastructure, and military at less personal cost. How is that any different from using the health care system at less personal cost?

__________________

Kerostasis

They pay less cost for those services, yes. But they also typically gain less benefit from those services. Also, the mere fact that these services are supported by "Taxes" does not automatically imply a highly progressive tax structure. If the taxes are indeed drawn almost exclusively from the rich, then we will agree with you that this shares characteristics with socialism -- and then we will proceed to tell you we want to change that so its less like socialism by making the tax structure less progressive. What we wont do is agree that this is something "good" about socialism.

__________________

Razcsak

They are not drawn exclusively from the rich. My memory has the UK mostly like the US system (before the tax cuts) with lower benchmarks per bracket and higher rates across the board. It is also slightly more progressive. I never attempted to argue that Western European countries were socialist. They exhibit both capitalist and socialist tendencies. I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here.

How is a poor man gaining less from military spending than the rich man? Or, to use a different example, any form of public infrastructure? They pay less (as a percentage of income) and use them as much, if not more. You don't typically see the men who own expensive cars taking the public transportation that their taxes help pay for.

__________________

Delta*RandyShugart*

I think its funny how no one has really mentioned welfare........i like how politicians use the term "welfare reform" yes there should be some financial aid, but.....come on, the welfare system has been abused for years, i understand not everyone makes the same amount of money in this country and people have their ups and downs but i would really like to see this addressed, its about time a candidate really gets down and dirty and plans to do something about it......and even get rid of it all together, or put all that money towards Social Security or into a nation-wide fund for books for schools etc....

__________________

Kerostasis

@Razcsak: The benefit question is secondary, I probably shouldn't even have brought it up, so lets skip that.

It was my impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that you were attempting to show that the current US tax system supporting various public works contains elements of socialism, presumably as a prelude to arguing that therefore we should not be afraid of socialism as a concept but only particular bad policies that happen to be associated with socialism.

As you pointed out in this post, socialism does not exist purely as a yes/no binary option, and a country or a policy can have both socialist and capitalist elements. I suggest that at current, the US falls somewhat closer to the capitalist end of the continuum than does Europe, which is still much more capitalist than cold-war-era Russia.

Experience suggests that Russia's model of socialism did not work. Europe's model has not yet failed in this manner, so it is still reasonable for someone to defend it as desirable. However, I personally do not take that view, and my view of the ideal position on the Capitalist/Socialist continuum is even farther towards Capitalism than the present US system. That is, I don't think we are capitalist enough. That doesn't mean I necessarily advocate the completely polar position of 100% capitalism 0% socialism.

I like numbers, so lets make a few up for the sake of example.
Cold-war Russia: 15C / 85S
Modern Europe: 45C / 55S
Modern US: 65C / 35S
My ideal: 85C / 15S

The existence of that 35% socialism in the modern US tax-system does not mean that socialism is good for us, or that more socialism would be better for us. Ideally I would like to reduce it considerably, because I think that would be better for us. You most likely disagree.

__________________

Hambergler

As the country is right now, what changes would you make to achieve 85C / 15S?

__________________

Sara

What has this thread become.,..rofl

__________________
Me - I'll Just blame bush.
Disciple - Bush? Is that some sort of slang for women? - Hahaha I love disciple.

btw Bush = worst president ever.

Razcsak

Quite. There is a seemingly irrational fear of socialism in this country, seemingly born out of the Cold War. One way that candidates opposed to universal health care demonize is simply to call it "socialized medicine." I find the knee-jerk opposition to socialism ignorant and close-minded, especially considering the elements our society already contains.

Fair enough. To date, there is no compelling evidence that either model is especially more effective, since we're still, in essence, testing out the European model on a societal level. Looking purely at the microcosm of health care, however, I think that the numbers do speak for themselves. While I cannot prove that the better care coupled with cheaper costs are created by socialized medicine (stereotypical American independence could mean that fewer people go to the hospital when they're sick, leading to higher costs from more catastrophic illnesses, for example), the comparison of the two systems does at least show that western Europe is doing something correct that we simply are not. Whether they'll pay for that in some unknown societal coin remains to be seen.

As an aside, I am willing to concede that the size difference between the United States and typical western European countries means that actually implementing socialized medicine could be infeasible. When your states are larger than a lot of their countries, you run into logistics problems that they simply don't have.

__________________

ScratchMonkey

The problem with both socialism and taxes is poor information flow. They distance the consumer from the producer, so that resource allocation choices are made by central planners (who are expected to know everything about a large and chaotic system). Response time of the decisions is very slow, often as slow as election cycles, and driven by those with the best connections, not the best productivity.

When we talk about taxes being theft, we really mean that the grasshoppers are rewarded for being poor while the ants are punished for being rich. But that's a natural consequence when the grasshoppers are granted the right to take what they want from the ants, by "right" of superior numbers (ie. the vote).

__________________

Steeler

Scratch, I think you're assigning arbitrary moral qualities to haves and have-nots. People lower on the econmic ladder are not necessarily grasshoppers (lazy, carefree moochers), and those higher are not necessarily ants (hard-working, serious contributors). Nor are these positions on the ladder fixed, or completely determined by the actions or qualties of the individual.

This is the folly of trying to assign moral imperatives according to an economic model.

__________________

leejo

Quick question, Steeler. If I bust my ass over the course of a lifetime and pull myself from the lower end of the economic spectrum to the high end, should I have the right to do what I please with my money or should the government relieve me of that burden? Insofar as my decisions don't involve illegal activities. If I'd like to give my money to a charity, that's fine right? If I'd like to give it to a poor person, that's fine too, right?

Razcsak

Of course that's a problem that just happens to be exacerbated by the size of the United States. Its also a price I am more than willing to pay for a safety net both for myself and others. As for it being driven by those with the best connections, well, those would be the rich, so their increased input into the system is (marginally) balanced out by their increased effect on it, on an individual level.

You'd have a much greater leg to stand on if wealth didn't have a tendency to stay at set levels. Your analogy, unwitting or no, only encourages the idea that the rich and poor should be separate. Flipping it around and taking it in a broader scale, removing taxes would punish the poor for having poor parents and reward the kid who's parents just happened to do all their work for them.

I await the myriad anecdotes about people who came from nothing and how now they're highly successful individuals. "If the poor would just work hard, they could be rich too! Its the American Dream! (tm)" Unfortunately, not everyone can be rich, by definition. Hell, not everyone can be comfortably well off, and certainly not in a low-tax, highly capitalist society. We saw that quite clearly in the industrialization period.

__________________

ScratchMonkey

I've seen studies in print in the past showing how, in a free economy, people tend to rise and fall a lot independent of accident of birth. But I can't come up with a google term to find one at the moment. "Economic migration" seems to pick up stuff about people changing location, not income level.

Income is really about demand: Are you doing something that other people want and are willing to pay for? It's why actors and athletes command high prices while teachers don't.

Socialism is about taking something from a producer that you want but aren't willing to pay him for, possibly to get something else you want, but aren't willing to pay for. Often, it's for something you think someone else should have (like better education), so it's like a mugger who steals your wallet and then drops it off at the local charity.

The ultra-rich can largely escape all this and maintain their lifestyle, playing the government system to keep anyone else from rising. Their biggest threat is not the poor but the innovative middle class, so it's in their interest to create high taxes (which they're immune from) to keep that competition from rising too high.

__________________

AMosely

Back on topic, how about John Edwards throwing his hat (and pledged delegates) into Obama's camp? Running mate move?