speaking of crack whores & taxes - that extra five percent for state tax your mom charges me is going right into her pocket? I knew I should have gotten a receipt!
I reply on a level appropriate to the source. And wasn't it just yesterday I complimented Paladin on the fact that he suffers fools gladly? So, basically, we agree fruitloop!
1. None of the countries ranking below it are socialist either. There's really no such thing in reality, much as there is no such thing as a capitalist country. There are only policies which reflect the values of each. Where we draw the line on what we call a socialist country is ambiguous at best, imaginary at worst. Nonetheless all of the countries above the US lean more towards socialism than it does itself. 2. How small is small? How homogenous is homogenous? The EU is vastly larger than the US in terms of total population, what makes that any more valid than comparing against, say, Germany? 3. Yet there are many quality of life indices out there, this is just one example of a common trend and one where the US actually does comparatively well 4 + 5. See above
Words have meaning. Socialism means the social ownership or control of the means of production. I'd argue that several countries in the world fulfill this definition to very great degree, though none of them are in Europe. (Norway comes the closest because of a large public sector.) The argument that something not 100% X must be 100% not X is specious. North Korea, Cuba, the Soviet Union, The People's Republic of China, etc. are/were all undeniably socialist. As its economy is subject to state control ostensibly in the name of the people and socialism, Venezuela definitely qualifies. If the state controls economic activity truly or ostensibly in the name of the people collectively, it reflects the value of socialism. That's the only "value" of socialism. If goods are produced by entrepreneurs seeking profit, distributed on a free market, allocated by price, it reflects the values of capitalism. No, it's pretty clear cut. If the state exercises control about what is produced, in what quantity, for whom, at what price, etc. it's socialism. Not really. In fact, several if those countries rank higher on the economic freedom index than the U.S. They may have larger welfare states, but that isn't socialism. The U.S. is a very diverse, multi-racial, multi-ethnic country that spans an entire continent and has a population of over 300 million. I'd argue that comparing it to a fairly homogeneous country with a population less than that of Los Angeles County is not an apt comparison. The EU as a whole is more comparable in terms of diversity, geographic size, economic power, influence, etc. And even so, I don't see much value in it. Yes, the countries near the top of the list are much more desirable places (IMHO) to live than those near the bottom, but can you REALLY say that life in, say, country #14 is really all that much better than country #22?
Which state taxes? Been very explicit about what number I've been discussing ("effective fed inc." tax rate). Each word has a particular meaning. In Texas, it's zero state income tax. In NY (where most of my family still resides) state income tax rate is above zero once you earn above a certain amt.
groovy... but why does everywhere i search tell me differently? for instance, this seems to be about the average chart... what am i missing/misreading? Table 1. Tax Brackets and Rates, 2018 RateFor Unmarried Individuals, Taxable Income Over|For Married Individuals Filing Joint Returns | Taxable Income OverFor Heads of Households, Taxable Income Over 10%$0$0$0 12%$9,525$19,050$13,600 22%$38,700$77,400$51,800 24%$82,500$165,000$82,500 32%$157,500$315,000$157,500 35%$200,000$400,000$200,000 37%$500,000$600,000$500,000 the Forbes link was pretty much the same... so how'd you manage to shave off 10%?
Spaceturkey explicitly included both federal and provincial tax rates. You comparing to that by just talking about federal taxes didn't seem like a fair comparison. Based on a quick search, it seemed to suggest that NY (where the person you used as an example resides) would be taking another 6% or so, so it would need to be included. That's why I asked though, because I wasn't sure how those taxes are taken into account or if they are included in that horrifyingly confusing tax form.
Since I started a response before you deleted that post @Tuttle I'll just say that's a lot of words to try and explain why you thought it was worthwhile to compare apples and oranges.
I'm wary of going down this rabbit hole again, as political terminology is little more than a propaganda weapon. Language is rarely simple, but okay. Okay. The operative word is "social" - referring to society at large. Totalitarian control exercised by an unaccountable central committee or maximal leader, excluding the vast majority of society from any role in decision making is the very opposite of "social" control. That they might claim that what they do is in the name of the people is utterly irrelevant.
It doesn't matter if their brand of socialism doesn't measure up to your standards . They are all recognized as socialist. Its understandable that you would want to distance the term from those countries failures, but no country is 100 percent capitalist or socialist. No country of millions is ever going to have a system where the people make every single decision. Its practically impossible.
It was @Paladin's standard. If you want to base it on what they are "recognised" as, then that's a different question and we can forget about the meaning of the word. That's cool, because neither I nor anyone else I'm aware of want any country run in such a way.
Bailey, wrong info is wrong info. Seeing wrong info presented as facts here is only slightly better than watching CNN. You are the only one talking about state/provincial income tax rates. Go back and read my first reply to 'turk on this [that's post 6 in case you're still confused or playing politican-liar] because you're simply off point or wrong.
Not me, most taxpayers. Two things: Marginal rates vs. effective rates. I quoted "effective" tax rate. You are quoting marginal rate, which is a different thing. Deductions and exemptions. Still makes a difference, we haven't achieved a 'flat' system yet.
Spaceturkey in post 5 referred to income tax, and then when he provided more specifics clarified he was referring to both federal and provincial taxes. Given that different countries have different political structures it's entirely meaningless to just focus on federal rates.
Words have meaning, but they need not be binary. The nature of political systems is absolutely an instance where this disclaimer not only applies but should be seen as paramount. Many nations in Europe could qualify as socialist, or at the very least strongly left leaning hybrids (as in fact all nations are in reality hybrids). From the Oxford dictionary (emphasis mine): So no, socialism need not be a binary state which a country either is or is not an example of, nor does it require public ownership or control of manufacture. On the contrary any situation whereby a private sector activity is subject to regulation is an example of a socialist policy in practise. That could well include town planning, road building, power generation, public healthcare (or private healthcare subject to a public governing body), taxation of businesses, emergency services where the service is viewed as a product, likewise defence, regulation of airspace, law enforcement, the list basically extends to any and every instance where an activity is overseen or regulated in some manner by the state. I think you should look more closely at the nature of some of those economies. To call Chinas' economy, for instance, "undeniably socialist" is frankly pretty far off the mark. State capitalism might be closer, but again, no one system in the modern world is truly a discrete textbook instance of any system. Um, no, not really. Which happens in every single one of the examples you gave of "socialist countries". Again, I think you need to go away and do a little homework here, sorry bud. Which doesn't actually mean what you seem to think it means. The EFI is an aggregate of many measures collated to score nations on a scale from "free" to "opporessed", not "capitalist" to "socialist". Quite a few of the indices of freedom arguably favour a socialist bias in economic policy making, meaning it's not the simplistic measure of left/right you seem to be suggesting. Well, fairly diverse might be a better way of putting it. There are numerous countries in the EU which are individually more diverse on several measures. Please don't try to tell me Germany, the UK and France are small countries, smaller than the US certainly but vastly beyond any reasonable threshold for meaningful comparison I've only lived in a few of them personally, but yes that is the point of these lists. If a country has lower crime than another then all other things being equal it's a better place to live. If it has better healthcare likewise. You can't account for personal taste over the weather and food but you can measure a considerable number of variables as objective measures.
Oh shit - you mentioned CNN so I just have to post this tidbit: https://babylonbee.com/news/stopped-clock-named-cnns-most-accurate-reporter "Not everyone was happy that the clock received this recognition. Some reporters, who wish to remain anonymous, say the clock sets an unrealistic standard for news accuracy."
None of them are socialist as their economies are based on private ownership and production for profit. You're stretching the word "regulation." None of the states in Europe specify what will be produced, in what quantities, to whom, at what price, etc. Yes, it does indeed need be. That's literally the definition of socialism. Again, you're stretching the word "regulation." Socialism is not a law that states "a business shall not dump arsenic into a river." Socialism is a law that directs the business to produce particular goods, for particular end users, etc. It's all about political economy. It answers the question "Who gets what?" Again, all not socialism. China does indeed have some institutions consistent with capitalism, but power can be expressed arbitrarily by the authorities. There is no rule of law, and there are, truly, no property rights Yeah, really. Which happens in every single one of the examples you gave of "socialist countries".[/quote] To some degree or another, there's usually a private economy because socialist economies simply don't work. I think I understand the economic angle here perfectly well. Your definitions are so broad, you can't even really say I'm wrong. The Soviet Union is a fine example of capitalism and Hong Kong is rigid socialism by your standard. I started to quote from the Wikipedia article on the IoEF, but it's just too much. You're just wrong here. Socialism is the antithesis of economic freedom. To the extent the state calls the shots, freedom doesn't exist. I'm literally said the opposite of that. Those are the biggest countries in Europe and so are the most apt comparisons with the United States (although, again, I maintain the entire EU is a more meaningful comparison). And we rank higher on the happiness scale than 4 out of 5 major countries (Germany, France, UK, Spain, Italy). Which is why happiness is a lousy measure (even though the U.S. performs pretty well on that scale), because it depends on a great many subjective factors.
Keep it simple for me then... complex math isn't really my thing. But I'm wondering what the average sod in say, Chicago, who makes my blue collar wages (ballpark about 50K) is gonna pay? Of course, then there's what he's gonna get back. I mean, UHC is obvious... public transit? public anything? How're the roads there? See, even if somehow it did turn out that some version of me in a major US city was paying less, I can't help but balance that against what he'd pay more for.
Yeah, agreed, every system becomes extremely complex viewed as a whole. Never prepared taxes for someone in Illinois, don't know the ins and outs - but Ill has a 5% tax on all income, so that's an extra 2500 tax paid to state for Chicago residents (not paid in TX or FL for example). Vast majority of US employed have health coverage through their job. You would if you lived here, they'd give it to you just to shut you up. I don't know about their roads or public transit. My current city, San Antonio, (and former city through most of my life, NYC, albeit with potholes and some high tolls), have excellent roads and adequate transport (buses in SA). But to live in Chicago you *would* need a private security force at 10k per year so your income is not enough to safely live in Chicago (security surcharge may apply if you are black gay actor). I think they call it the Run-By-Democrats Tax. I'll check on fed inc tax, can't imagine it turns out to more than 5k fed inc tax TOTAL TAXES DUE.
Ok, I'm not going to break this down point by point right now, but let's just be clear. I gave you the definition of socialism. It doesn't require control of the economy, it requires regulation. Regulation, not control. Here it is again in case you missed it: You might not like that, it may not fit your preconceptions, but it is the definition. You don't get to change it to suit your belief system and there's nothing in there which precludes profit driven economic growth, not because "socialism doesn't work" but because the word doesn't mean what you are using it to mean. You're referring to something closer to communism, if anything other than just some notion you've dreamed up. Ergo all economies have some measure of socialist policy making, precisely because all economies are hybrids. Period. All of them, every last one, everywhere in the world. You will not find one which is entirely, 100% capitalist, you will not find one which is entirely, 100% socialist, or communist, anarchist, authoritarian, elitist, feudal, or anything else you come up with precisely because no such government exists or ever has. I'd be willing to wager never will because every shred of evidence, every shred in recorded history tells us they can't work. They are archetypes, nothing more, not real observable, operational systems which people actually live in or operate. Real economies succeed or fail for all manner of reasons, be they their position in global markets, the available resources, warfare, corruption, whatever. You can throw Venezuala around like a talisman all day and I'll throw examples back at you of economies which were much more market based but are doing substantially worse - there are lots of them out there. What matters though is not that one economic model is inherently superior or inferior, but that the particular mix of policies defining that economy at that time is a bad fit for the circumstances in which it is operating.
Let's take as an example a company that has a factory that makes widgets. The company chose where to locate their factory. The company chooses what capital to acquire and decides when to expand its plant. The company chooses to make widgets because the widget market is profitable. The company is owned by one entrepreneur, and he pockets or re-invests as he chooses the profits his company makes selling widgets. The company employs 100 people doing this, and is free to hire or fire them as they are needed. The company hires people at a mutually agreed salary. If the company decides to stop making widgets, it is free to do so. If it decides to double production to meet rising demand, it is free to do so. The company is free to advertise, market, and sell its widgets. The company decides for what price it will sell widgets. The company can enter into contracts with raw material suppliers and distributors. A government regulator comes along and says the company may only work its employees eight hours a day unless it pays them overtime. Now, I dispute this is socialism (for reasons which will become clear), but let me indulge you and say for the sake of argument that it is. On that basis, what percentage of activity, cost, value, etc. of the whole widget-making enterprise is altered by this regulation? How much control does this give the state over all those things the company does? I'd argue none. All of the freedoms the business owner had before he still has. He isn't even put at a disadvantage due to higher costs so long as his competitors are operating under the same rule. ALL of the decision-making about what to make, for whom, at what price is still done by the owner. But I'll say it's 1% for the sake of argument. Okay, so the operation is 99% capitalism and 1% socialism. Is something that's 99% X and 1% Y really best described as a X or a Y? I'd argue it's an X. Your definition doesn't mean ANY regulation. It means regulation that controls the productive forces of the economy, that directs the economy towards state goals and not towards the goals of the business owners. Look up capitalism in the same source. Does it say "hypothetical system because can't exist if there's regulation?" Of course not. If you think the defining feature of socialism is common regulation, then there's never been a non-socialist economy since humans were hunter-gatherers. Absurd. In socialism, all those decisions that are up to the owners in capitalism, are taken by the state. Where owners still have the power of decision-making, it's capitalism, not socialism.
If a widget factory is 99% capitalist and 1% socialist then it is best described as a widget factory. You've just made the very point I'm trying to explain, you've just failed to follow it through to it's logical conclusion. Political and economic models don't exist in reality, they are archetypes, templates if you will. How closely any given actual system matches to one or the other is a matter of degree not absolutes. It doesn't need to be described as either. Attempting to shoehorn everything into these neat categories is an oversimplification, an artificial, arbitrary and misleading artifact of the human need to categorise the world. A thing may be an apple or an elephant. They are clear, distinct categories which do not intersect. However we have no comparable analogy here, we are talking about variations in type within the umbrella category of "economic system". There's no a priori reason to impose a binary distinction and where that fails to reflect reality it's not only unhelpful but actively harmful.
so I'm just gonna say that if we take, for the sake of discussion, that paladin's definition of socialism is spot on - then Trump and the entire GOP is full of shit and conservatives have been full of shit since 1932 since what he describes doesn't resemble even what Bernie Sanders advocates, let alone the Democrats.
I read what @Paladin seems to be saying and it is really an attempt to wrongly define things so that he can make a point. Intellectual dishonesty is key in fear mongering and stupefying people. Imagine if he argued honestly about regulations and government run institutions.
