Is Taxation, Socialism?

[manifold]

Soo..

I'm guessing you are saying that's socialism.

Nothing gets by you.

Your present avatar certainly doesn't..

It is pretty sweet. But I might have to change it soon. I'm starting to develop a complex about it being the only reason anyone talks to me anymore.

 

[Sallow]

Your question is too vague along with YOUR definition of socialism....apparently.

It is sort of vague, isn't it.

But even with that..some good points. Like it might be dependent on what a government uses the taxes for..

Like in a Monarchy..they take the taxes of serfs to throw the royalty, parties..and pay for castles. That probably wouldn't be socialism.

Or in a Democratic Republic..they take the taxes of citizens to build roads and bridges..that everyone can use..that probably would be socialism.

Curious..that.

 

[Sallow]

Nothing gets by you.

Your present avatar certainly doesn't..

It is pretty sweet. But I might have to change it soon. I'm starting to develop a complex about it being the only reason anyone talks to me anymore.

(no one say anything..)

 

[Sallow]

No, taxation is not socialism. taxaction itself does not define socialism.

So..um..taxation isn't socialist..hmm..

So raising taxes? Socialism?

Or no taxes? Socialism?

 

[CountofTuscany]

No, taxation is not socialism. taxaction itself does not define socialism.

So..um..taxation isn't socialist..hmm..

So raising taxes? Socialism?

Or no taxes? Socialism?

You are not making a valid argument. Taxation itself is not soicalism. How those taxes are utilized begin to follow socialistic patterns. Rasing taxes in itself is not socialism. Rasing taxes to redistribute the weath is.

If you are trying to make a point stop trying to make it with a limited statement you can spin as you please. You're just wasting everyone time here.

 

[Two Thumbs]

So taxes used to promote a military isn't socialism?

Militias are a tried and tested failure.

guys with guns are no match for trained soldiers.

So Socialism works?

Well at least when it comes to the military?

No.
and
see below

Lets be a little clear. By military, do you mean defense spending or the military itself?

Welfare, "The War on Poverty"; when this started we had about 12% of Americans in poverty. 80 years later about 12% of Americans live in poverty. Mostly blacks that live generation to genration on welfare. Many are afraid to lose thier benefits if they get a job that pays to much. And trust me, bridging that gap is not easy.

Welfare keeps minorities poor.

So that's a failure of socialism.

Education grants and loans. Remember when people used to say; "I worked my way through college" or "I put myself through college."? You can't do that anymore. Why? B/c colleges know that they can charge whatever they want and the Fed will cough up 1/2 in a grant and give a loan for the other 1/2.

It keeps the poor, poor with heavy loans that have to get paid back whether they get a good job or not.

Minimum wage. Total face plant. But that's another thread.

 

[Sallow]

No, taxation is not socialism. taxaction itself does not define socialism.

So..um..taxation isn't socialist..hmm..

So raising taxes? Socialism?

Or no taxes? Socialism?

You are not making a valid argument. Taxation itself is not soicalism. How those taxes are utilized begin to follow socialistic patterns. Rasing taxes in itself is not socialism. Rasing taxes to redistribute the weath is.

If you are trying to make a point stop trying to make it with a limited statement you can spin as you please. You're just wasting everyone time here.

Then stop posting in the thread..and move on.

 

[Vanquish]

The problem with the recent re-defining of the word socialism by conservatives is that all the old connotations and emotions around the word still exist, yet the NEW definition has nothing to do with the old one.

Modern conservatives would have you believe that anything done collectively should be construed as "socialist" - which is patently false. Equality and collective don't = socialism.

The Founding Fathers didn't say No taxation!!!!...what they said was No Taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!

The myth of lazy bums living off of what's been collected for the good of all, isn't entirely untrue....but not to the megalithic proportions modern conservatives would have you think. Of course some liberals would have you think, naively, that there are no problems at all, of course.

The accurate usage of the word socialism will never be reclaimed because of Faux News' imprint into the psyche of middle-American seniors. They're scared...and the Red Menace is as good as any target.

 

[Two Thumbs]

So, two here think it's not socialism?

How would you explain that?

Seriously.

Because taxation being socialistic would have to benefit those actually paying the taxes. Not Haiti, Zaire, Iran, Iraq.......that list goes on and on and on........ the banks and damn sure not IsNtReal.
SO.
Take every nickel you idiots pay in and keep it all at home. EVERY NICKEL and use it only within the US.No more corporate subsidies, no more bailouts. Your money used to benefit YOU.
Socialism.
Ya know. Schools,libraries, free internet, new infrastructure, health care, small business loans. All of the things murkins hate.

Not exactly.

Socialism sorta works on the theory that many hands make light work.

Not even close.

You can't get many hands unless you force them, then you slide quickly into communism.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Taxes are a price we pay for living in a civilized society.

If living in a civilized society = socialism, then I guess taxes are socialistic.

That's simply not true.

 

[manifold]

When you get right down to it, 99.99% of people support at least some socialistic policies, regardless of whether they can mentally come to grips with it. The differences of opinion lie in prioritization, scope and efficacy.

 

[Flopper]

If your definition of socialism is a political and economic theory that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole, then I would say the answer is no. If taxation is used as a means to to gain control production and distribution then I suppose the answer is yes.

 

[Sallow]

Militias are a tried and tested failure.

guys with guns are no match for trained soldiers.

So Socialism works?

Well at least when it comes to the military?

No.
and
see below

Lets be a little clear. By military, do you mean defense spending or the military itself?

Welfare, "The War on Poverty"; when this started we had about 12% of Americans in poverty. 80 years later about 12% of Americans live in poverty. Mostly blacks that live generation to genration on welfare. Many are afraid to lose thier benefits if they get a job that pays to much. And trust me, bridging that gap is not easy.

Welfare keeps minorities poor.

So that's a failure of socialism.

Education grants and loans. Remember when people used to say; "I worked my way through college" or "I put myself through college."? You can't do that anymore. Why? B/c colleges know that they can charge whatever they want and the Fed will cough up 1/2 in a grant and give a loan for the other 1/2.

It keeps the poor, poor with heavy loans that have to get paid back whether they get a good job or not.

Minimum wage. Total face plant. But that's another thread.

To your first point..defense spending and our present military are very socialistic.

To your second point..the war on poverty has been in a very large part sucessful. What it meant to be "poor" when I was growing up in this country..is vastly different what it means to be "poor" today. More "minorities" hold more high paying positions, and positions in government then at any time in our nation's history. That's a pretty good benchmark.

To your third point, see above. There are more people with college degrees as well.

It's silly to say Socialism is a failure. It's also silly to say that a government should become totally socialistic. My general preference..and it seems that this is become the world's preference, is a blend of the two. What's the right mixture?

That's still anyone's guess.

 

[Sallow]

When you get right down to it, 99.99% of people support at least some socialistic policies, regardless of whether than can mentally come to grips with it. The differences of opinion lie in prioritization, scope and efficacy.

Exactly.

 

[kwc57]

So, two here think it's not socialism?

How would you explain that?

Seriously.

Because taxation being socialistic would have to benefit those actually paying the taxes. Not Haiti, Zaire, Iran, Iraq.......that list goes on and on and on........ the banks and damn sure not IsNtReal.
SO.
Take every nickel you idiots pay in and keep it all at home. EVERY NICKEL and use it only within the US.No more corporate subsidies, no more bailouts. Your money used to benefit YOU.
Socialism.
Ya know. Schools,libraries, free internet, new infrastructure, health care, small business loans. All of the things murkins hate.

Not exactly.

Socialism sorta works on the theory that many hands make light work.

But those hands have to contribute to carrying the load, not being the load. If I can benefit off the hard work of someone else, why should I break a sweat?

 

[Flopper]

It boils down to what government does with taxes. If government uses the money to compete with private business or exert control of business so as to control production and distribution that's pretty socialistic but if government uses taxes to improve infrastructure or any endeavor that provides a foundation for economic growth without competing with business then that's not socialistic.

 

[Two Thumbs]

So Socialism works?

Well at least when it comes to the military?

No.
and
see below

Lets be a little clear. By military, do you mean defense spending or the military itself?

Welfare, "The War on Poverty"; when this started we had about 12% of Americans in poverty. 80 years later about 12% of Americans live in poverty. Mostly blacks that live generation to genration on welfare. Many are afraid to lose thier benefits if they get a job that pays to much. And trust me, bridging that gap is not easy.

Welfare keeps minorities poor.

So that's a failure of socialism.

Education grants and loans. Remember when people used to say; "I worked my way through college" or "I put myself through college."? You can't do that anymore. Why? B/c colleges know that they can charge whatever they want and the Fed will cough up 1/2 in a grant and give a loan for the other 1/2.

It keeps the poor, poor with heavy loans that have to get paid back whether they get a good job or not.

Minimum wage. Total face plant. But that's another thread.

To your first point..defense spending and our present military are very socialistic.

To your second point..the war on poverty has been in a very large part sucessful. What it meant to be "poor" when I was growing up in this country..is vastly different what it means to be "poor" today. More "minorities" hold more high paying positions, and positions in government then at any time in our nation's history. That's a pretty good benchmark.

To your third point, see above. There are more people with college degrees as well.

It's silly to say Socialism is a failure. It's also silly to say that a government should become totally socialistic. My general preference..and it seems that this is become the world's preference, is a blend of the two. What's the right mixture?

That's still anyone's guess.

Then government as a whole is socialistic.

As far as welfare goes, the numbers are on my side on this. 2008 72% of black kids were born w/o a father around.

And you still can not work your way through college any more.

 

[kwc57]

No.
and
see below

Lets be a little clear. By military, do you mean defense spending or the military itself?

Welfare, "The War on Poverty"; when this started we had about 12% of Americans in poverty. 80 years later about 12% of Americans live in poverty. Mostly blacks that live generation to genration on welfare. Many are afraid to lose thier benefits if they get a job that pays to much. And trust me, bridging that gap is not easy.

Welfare keeps minorities poor.

So that's a failure of socialism.

Education grants and loans. Remember when people used to say; "I worked my way through college" or "I put myself through college."? You can't do that anymore. Why? B/c colleges know that they can charge whatever they want and the Fed will cough up 1/2 in a grant and give a loan for the other 1/2.

It keeps the poor, poor with heavy loans that have to get paid back whether they get a good job or not.

Minimum wage. Total face plant. But that's another thread.

To your first point..defense spending and our present military are very socialistic.

To your second point..the war on poverty has been in a very large part sucessful. What it meant to be "poor" when I was growing up in this country..is vastly different what it means to be "poor" today. More "minorities" hold more high paying positions, and positions in government then at any time in our nation's history. That's a pretty good benchmark.

To your third point, see above. There are more people with college degrees as well.

It's silly to say Socialism is a failure. It's also silly to say that a government should become totally socialistic. My general preference..and it seems that this is become the world's preference, is a blend of the two. What's the right mixture?

That's still anyone's guess.

Then government as a whole is socialistic.

As far as welfare goes, the numbers are on my side on this. 2008 72% of black kids were born w/o a father around.

And you still can not work your way through college any more.

True that! Week before last my son and I went to a two day student/parent orientation at his university for him to enroll in his freshman year. In one of the sessions put on by the finacial folks at the school, they made it clear that while a student can certainly work and help pay for their college, the days of a student being able to work part time and pay their own way thru college is gone. I printed out tuition sheets from 2004/2005 thru 2010/2011 and on average, tuition for 30 hours per year increases about $550 per year. I didn't put a pencil to room and board, but it increase each year too. A year of college at his university will run about $16 to $17,000 per year this year. If tuition increases keep pace, the year he graduates it will be $18 to $19,000 per year.

It's tough being an upper middle class white male when it comes to scholarships. My son was a 4.00 honor student and graduated 33 out of 459. The best he could get was a $1000 per semester merit scholarship, which means we are on the hook for the additional $14,000 per year. If he were a female, a minority or we made less that $50,000 per year, he could get much, much more money for school. But, we've always paid our way and don't expect someone else to do it for us. It just kind of torques me that my tax dollars are funding kids with low grades, kids whose parents pay far less than me in tax dollars and kids who are a different gender or color than paying for my own child.

 

[Ravi]

To your first point..defense spending and our present military are very socialistic.

To your second point..the war on poverty has been in a very large part sucessful. What it meant to be "poor" when I was growing up in this country..is vastly different what it means to be "poor" today. More "minorities" hold more high paying positions, and positions in government then at any time in our nation's history. That's a pretty good benchmark.

To your third point, see above. There are more people with college degrees as well.

It's silly to say Socialism is a failure. It's also silly to say that a government should become totally socialistic. My general preference..and it seems that this is become the world's preference, is a blend of the two. What's the right mixture?

That's still anyone's guess.

Then government as a whole is socialistic.

As far as welfare goes, the numbers are on my side on this. 2008 72% of black kids were born w/o a father around.

And you still can not work your way through college any more.

True that! Week before last my son and I went to a two day student/parent orientation at his university for him to enroll in his freshman year. In one of the sessions put on by the finacial folks at the school, they made it clear that while a student can certainly work and help pay for their college, the days of a student being able to work part time and pay their own way thru college is gone. I printed out tuition sheets from 2004/2005 thru 2010/2011 and on average, tuition for 30 hours per year increases about $550 per year. I didn't put a pencil to room and board, but it increase each year too. A year of college at his university will run about $16 to $17,000 per year this year. If tuition increases keep pace, the year he graduates it will be $18 to $19,000 per year.

It's tough being an upper middle class white male when it comes to scholarships. My son was a 4.00 honor student and graduated 33 out of 459. The best he could get was a $1000 per semester merit scholarship, which means we are on the hook for the additional $14,000 per year. If he were a female, a minority or we made less that $50,000 per year, he could get much, much more money for school. But, we've always paid our way and don't expect someone else to do it for us. It just kind of torques me that my tax dollars are funding kids with low grades, kids whose parents pay far less than me in tax dollars and kids who are a different gender or color than paying for my own child.

Apparently you can afford what they cannot.

Anywho, there are many local colleges where students can live at home and tuition is affordable.

 

[kwc57]

Then government as a whole is socialistic.

As far as welfare goes, the numbers are on my side on this. 2008 72% of black kids were born w/o a father around.

And you still can not work your way through college any more.

True that! Week before last my son and I went to a two day student/parent orientation at his university for him to enroll in his freshman year. In one of the sessions put on by the finacial folks at the school, they made it clear that while a student can certainly work and help pay for their college, the days of a student being able to work part time and pay their own way thru college is gone. I printed out tuition sheets from 2004/2005 thru 2010/2011 and on average, tuition for 30 hours per year increases about $550 per year. I didn't put a pencil to room and board, but it increase each year too. A year of college at his university will run about $16 to $17,000 per year this year. If tuition increases keep pace, the year he graduates it will be $18 to $19,000 per year.

It's tough being an upper middle class white male when it comes to scholarships. My son was a 4.00 honor student and graduated 33 out of 459. The best he could get was a $1000 per semester merit scholarship, which means we are on the hook for the additional $14,000 per year. If he were a female, a minority or we made less that $50,000 per year, he could get much, much more money for school. But, we've always paid our way and don't expect someone else to do it for us. It just kind of torques me that my tax dollars are funding kids with low grades, kids whose parents pay far less than me in tax dollars and kids who are a different gender or color than paying for my own child.

Apparently you can afford what they cannot.

Anywho, there are many local colleges where students can live at home and tuition is affordable.

My wife and I came from very blue collar roots and chose to get ourselves college educations and enter fields with good paying jobs. Yes, because of the decisions we made early in life, we can "better" afford to pay our son's college than others. There are people who drive Mercedes, own two homes and have a yacht. Should they share their wealth so I can have what their hard work affords them? No. I live within my means as I expect everyone to do. Your kid shouldn't be attending a university on my dime while I'm having to foot the whole bill for my own child simply because you made life decisions that limited your income. If the best you can muster is junior college, than do that.......on your own dime.