Zone1 Let's Talk About Socialist Talking Points Against Capitalism

[Mac1958]

We've so misapplied capitalism that more people are interested in socialism.

Maybe examining that, instead of pointing the finger, would be a little smarter.

 

[LibertyKid]

Again I don't see that being the fair and honest perspective most people are looking at in regards to housing. What I see are people watching the wealthy and investment class buy up any available housing while keeping inventory of affordable working and middle classes houses low, effectively driving up home prices and turning people into permanent renters who have no hope of ever owning a home. People don't care about the size of their neighbors roofs, they care about the soaring cost of rent. They care about private investment firms buying up houses as investment vehicles while working class Americans struggle to buy their first home despite working full time jobs.

Hmmm, I don't really see that happening in my neck of the woods. Perhaps where you are, yes, but not around me do I see this happening, is this more of an inner city urban situation?
However...
Are you suggesting that an individual(s) who comprise of this equity firm, should have a limit on the number of properties they own, the amount of profit they should be able to earn from the sale of or the monthly rental income?

 

[alang1216]

Recently listened to a Bernie Sander talk at Oxford on youtube (Shared below). Bernie speaks well against Capitalism using conjecture, hyperbole, and sensationalism.
And I don't want debate point for point from his speech, but will ask a few questions.

From the socialist view point, how much money is too much money for one person to take home annually?
From the socialist view point, what is a fair "living wage"?
From the socialist view point, can you define what the lifestyle one should be able have; home, car(s), luxury items, familiy size?
From the socialist view point, for a business/corporation, what would be the determining factors for when profit is too much profit?

I consider myself a liberal but not a socialist so I can't really answer any of your questions. I actually think it is a silly question anyway since every economy I know is mixed, with elements of capitalism, socialism, and communism. Of course that includes the US.

Personally I have no problem with a Zuckerberg or a Gates becoming billionaires but I don't think those billions should go to their children. That creates a class of elites who inherit wealth but contribute nothing. If they can't make it after having the best education available they should just get out of the way.

 

[LibertyKid]

I consider myself a liberal but not a socialist so I can't really answer any of your questions. I actually think it is a silly question anyway since every economy I know is mixed, with elements of capitalism, socialism, and communism. Of course that includes the US.

Personally I have no problem with a Zuckerberg or a Gates becoming billionaires but I don't think those billions should go to their children. That creates a class of elites who inherit wealth but contribute nothing. If they can't make it after having the best education available they should just get out of the way.

So your point is the direction I'd like to go down. So who should decide what happens with those earning post death if not to the family? The gov't? Where would the money go? Who decides where the money goes? It's also an assumption those who inherit do nothing. I don't think that is a logical outcome or narrative to paint. And not every wealthy person gives their entire estate to their children either.

 

[alang1216]

So your point is the direction I'd like to go down. So who should decide what happens with those earning post death if not to the family? The gov't? Where would the money go? Who decides where the money goes?

The generation that earned should decide, just as they do now. You want to donate to a church, political party, charity? Great. The only cap I'd like to see is what goes to the second generation and I'm fine with a cap of, say, $5 million. Invested wisely that should allow them to live off the interest. Anything they earn above that is theirs to keep or spend.

 

[Curried Goats]

Hmmm, I don't really see that happening in my neck of the woods. Perhaps where you are, yes, but not around me do I see this happening, is this more of an inner city urban situation?

It's happening in cities in general, not just inner cities. We have a housing crises brewing in South Florida with a lack of available homes for working and middle class families and I'm not even entirely sure what the relevance is of where it's happening. Does it matter to you less if working class families can't afford homes in inner cities? Here's one news story that talks about 80% of seniors in South Florida being worried they're going to be evicted in the coming months. One works 40 hours a week and can't afford rent.

South Florida seniors face 'devastating' impacts of housing crisis, worry about evictions

No where in that story did I read about the crisis being one person thinking their neighbor's roof is too big. I don't know who that describes. It doesn't seem like a real issue for real people. I believe the bigger issue over all is income inequality. It's not just rising rent, but rising cost of groceries, rising cost of healthcare, child care pretty much everything except the wages of working class people.

However...
Are you suggesting that an individual(s) who comprise of this equity firm, should have a limit on the number of properties they own, the amount of profit they should be able to earn from the sale of or the monthly rental income?

We limit people from price gouging in other areas as well. We don't allow entrepreneurs to sell water and fuel after a natural disaster for a 1000% mark up because the government's role is supposed to balance the the excesses of capitalism and the availability of profit with what's in the public's best interests. There is no successful, pure free market society. All markets are regulated the question is to what extent.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Okay, that's fair.
Is it a fair to assume that from one person to another that what they feel (or the amount) will be different?

People should reap what they sow. Someone's living wage is what they've managed to do to achieve their level of wage that they receive. When their living wage is increased by a law as opposed to by their efforts, that's when some don't deserve even that level of low wage.

 

[2aguy]

Socialism is jealousy. Bernie has praised Cuba several times. He is pissed because he can't have all the money other people have.

Yeah...bernie only has 3 multi-million dollar homes as a member of the U.S. senate....he knows that pelosi and schumer have a lot more money than he has...

 

[DudleySmith]

When car companies have to offer 7 year loans and real estate has to offer 30 year mortgages, this not remotely a sign of a 'good economy' and 'large middle class', this is a sign of a dead economy.

 

[LibertyKid]

There is no successful, pure free market society. All markets are regulated the question is to what extent.

And that really is the point of the conversation. I do agree that regulation and legislation is needed. Capitalism does have its vices. The Federal Gov't of the last century has implemented many laws and regulation to protect the people.

I'd like to go back to the OP. Start with one question.
From the socialist view point, how much money is too much money for one person to take home annually? Let's start there.

 

[Curried Goats]

And that really is the point of the conversation. I do agree that regulation and legislation is needed. Capitalism does have its vices. The Federal Gov't of the last century has implemented many laws and regulation to protect the people.

I'd like to go back to the OP. Start with one question.
From the socialist view point, how much money is too much money for one person to take home annually? Let's start there.

That's not an honest question. From Bernie's point of view it is what does our tax rate need to be to meet the standard of providing for the general welfare for our citizens.

 

[sartre play]

When car companies have to offer 7 year loans and real estate has to offer 30 year mortgages, this not remotely a sign of a 'good economy' and 'large middle class', this is a sign of a dead economy.

Always been 30 year loan, So people with lower incomes could buy a house. Then came a lot of tricky stuff, so those wanting the dream but not wise enough to see the trick lost there homes. Now MT of difficult paper work seems to be the norm. Good or bad ?

 

[Hector12]

Recently listened to a Bernie Sander talk at Oxford on youtube (Shared below). Bernie speaks well against Capitalism using conjecture, hyperbole, and sensationalism.
And I don't want debate point for point from his speech, but will ask a few questions.

From the socialist view point, how much money is too much money for one person to take home annually?
From the socialist view point, what is a fair "living wage"?
From the socialist view point, can you define what the lifestyle one should be able have; home, car(s), luxury items, familiy size?
From the socialist view point, for a business/corporation, what would be the determining factors for when profit is too much profit?

Your questions require normative answers. One either feels that something is fair or one does not. I prefer to deal with empirical matters.

Beginning with the Reagan administration the rich have gotten quite a bit richer, while real after tax income for most Americans has stagnated or declined.

That does not seem to bother you, but it does bother most Americans. Consequently, for years opinion surveys have indicated majority support for a more progressive tax system.

poll taxes + rich - Google Search

I agree with the majority. I am also in favor of a higher minimum wage and stronger labor unions. These are winning issues for the Democrat Party if Democrat politicians learn to exploit them.

Few people in the United States want the government to own all or even most productive property. Most Americans would like for the United States to move in a socialist direction.

Bernie Sanders would market his ideas better if he said that he was in favor of social democracy, rather than democratic socialism.

 

[Hector12]

Speaking for myself I see little moral significance in the distribution of wealth and income. Hard work, honesty, decency, and self discipline will keep one off of welfare and out of prison. They will not make one rich. Many rich people have none of those characteristics.

 

[DudleySmith]

Always been 30 year loan, So people with lower incomes could buy a house. Then came a lot of tricky stuff, so those wanting the dream but not wise enough to see the trick lost there homes. Now MT of difficult paper work seems to be the norm. Good or bad ?

Wrong, not even close. My grandparents generation thought people who took out 5 and 7 year mortgages were completely nuts. They had to think about it a long time to take out an 18 month mortgage instead of buying a smaller place and adding on as they went, which was the norm before WW I. 30 year mortgages and 7 year car loans mean people can't afford them because average disposable incomes are way down and dropping faster.

 

[LibertyKid]

That's not an honest question. From Bernie's point of view it is what does our tax rate need to be to meet the standard of providing for the general welfare for our citizens.

Why isn't it an honest question, please explain why? The narrative coming from socialist pundits like Sanders continually use the 1% to proclaim that there is no need for someone to have that much income, then throwing out data on how many people live paycheck to paycheck? (See Youtube Video)

Between those two ends are a lot of context that is left out.
It is fair to ask how the rich became rich, yes.
It is fair to ask how someone living paycheck to paycheck is in that situation, yes.

As the questions above are explored, we would realize that for the "rich", many worked hard and earned the rewards of their efforts. Some we would learn they took advantage of "the system"; tax laws, loop holes, low wages, all the while reaping only for themselves the rewards. And there are those that are in the middle of even those examples.

For the those living P2P, we would learn of those that have made poor personal choices related to education, financial, and careers. These personal choices led to their current situation. Capitalism isn't to blame, the life choices is the blame.
We would also learn of those, by no fault of themselves, where the hand they were dealt is no fault of their own. Job loss, market decisions, divorce, a failed business attempt, Covid-19, etc. I believe in social safety nets to help those that deserve the help.

So as I read your response there is a limit to one's personal wealth. Beyond that you would take, through taxation, and give to others for their general welfare. So how much is too much? And define maybe paint, at a high level, what the "general welfare" for citizens look like through the means of taxation?

 

[LibertyKid]

Your questions require normative answers. One either feels that something is fair or one does not. I prefer to deal with empirical matters.

I think the questions stand firm on their general precept. They do lead to further discussion, which is the intent.
I appreciate the response. My concern with the growing number of Americans that want to tax the rich is due to the narrative that is being presented.

Rich = Bad
You're Poor because of the Rich
Taxing the rich will fix YOUR problems

The conversation is much more nuanced and complicated than what is spouted to the general public because most of the general public don't care enough to investigate. At face value what would be the likely response to this question; "Is it fair for someone to be worth 100 Billion Dollars", when asked to someone who makes 35K a year? Most of the general public would say "No". And if you asked, should the billionaire be taxed higher, most would say yes, at the face value..

 

[Hector12]

I think the questions stand firm on their general precept. They do lead to further discussion, which is the intent.
I appreciate the response. My concern with the growing number of Americans that want to tax the rich is due to the narrative that is being presented.

Rich = Bad
You're Poor because of the Rich
Taxing the rich will fix YOUR problems

The conversation is much more nuanced and complicated than what is spouted to the general public because most of the general public don't care enough to investigate. At face value what would be the likely response to this question; "Is it fair for someone to be worth 100 Billion Dollars", when asked to someone who makes 35K a year? Most of the general public would say "No". And if you asked, should the billionaire be taxed higher, most would say yes, at the face value..

The reason this is not more of a Democrat vote getter is because most whites do not trust the Democrats on the issues of race, crime, and immigration. For most people most of the time loyalties of race, nation, and ethnicity are stronger than loyalties of class.

 

[Orangecat]

WHERE ARE ALL THE SOCIALISTS RESPONSES??? I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW YOUR ANSWERS???

They don't have answers because their useful-idiot talking points are as shallow as their intellect.

 

[Orangecat]

When car companies have to offer 7 year loans and real estate has to offer 30 year mortgages, this not remotely a sign of a 'good economy' and 'large middle class', this is a sign of a dead economy.

Biden insists US economy is ‘strong as hell’ as he munches an ice cream cone