LowriseMinis
Well-Known Member
The American Heritage dictionary defines socialism as "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."
If that's a little vague, try the flower shop analogy someone shared with me.
"Socialism is when the government controls all the means of production. That is, when all industry is state run.
In a variation of socialism, the means of production can be privately operated, but all products and profits are state controlled.
Taxation is not socialism. If you own a flower shop, and the government comes to your flower shop and picks up all of your flower arrangements and distributes them throughout society as the government sees fit, that would be socialism. If you sell those flower arrangements yourself, and the government comes around and collects the ENTIRETY of your profits and distributes them throughout society as the government sees fit, that would be socialism. If you and all your co-workers were government employees working at a state run flower shop, arranging flowers and distributing them as the government sees fit, that would be socialism.
Selling flowers and then paying proportional taxes on the profits made by selling those flowers is not socialism.
If you believe that income tax is a dangerous step towards the total appropriation of revenue by the government, then John McCain is a socialist. Reagan was a socialist. Almost every president since the civil war was a socialist. Ironically, if you equate the level of income tax with the degree of socialism, the US becomes a hole of socialism and Russia is a socialism-free paradise."
Lately people have been trying to pin Obama with a socialist label because he's discussing 'redistribution of wealth'. If Obama were planning to have your paychecks go directly to the U.S. government, mix everything together, and then cut every single working American a check for the exact same amount, then they'd be right. That would be socialist.
But that isn't Obama's plan. Obama's plan is to play around with tax numbers a bit (note that McCain intends to play around with tax numbers, too), and give people with less money a little break, and ask those who make a little more to pay a little more. This is his only plan for 'redistribution of wealth', and it involves taxes, not socialism.
Now, why in such a great society do we need to redistribute wealth? Let's look at these stats from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_...e_United_States
"In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth."
That seems a little unbalanced, doesn't it? But that is the nature of a capitalist system. Some people are going to be more successful than others. No one-not even Obama-is going to change that. But looking at the difference, that is a BIG number. 1% of Americans have 38% of the money? And the lowest 40% have only 1%? Maybe those lowest 40% are there because they've made bad decisions, they don't care to better themselves, but I refuse to believe that 40% of the nation is so unambitious.
Obama's tax plan, like some plans before his, seeks to give a little break to those with less, and ask a little more of those who have it. But regardless of who ends up in office, taxes won't go away. We'll still be asked to pay a share to support the government, infrastructure, schools, defense, and a little bit for those who need a hand up. But those who have more will still have more, and those who have less will still have less. That is still capitalism.
If that's a little vague, try the flower shop analogy someone shared with me.
"Socialism is when the government controls all the means of production. That is, when all industry is state run.
In a variation of socialism, the means of production can be privately operated, but all products and profits are state controlled.
Taxation is not socialism. If you own a flower shop, and the government comes to your flower shop and picks up all of your flower arrangements and distributes them throughout society as the government sees fit, that would be socialism. If you sell those flower arrangements yourself, and the government comes around and collects the ENTIRETY of your profits and distributes them throughout society as the government sees fit, that would be socialism. If you and all your co-workers were government employees working at a state run flower shop, arranging flowers and distributing them as the government sees fit, that would be socialism.
Selling flowers and then paying proportional taxes on the profits made by selling those flowers is not socialism.
If you believe that income tax is a dangerous step towards the total appropriation of revenue by the government, then John McCain is a socialist. Reagan was a socialist. Almost every president since the civil war was a socialist. Ironically, if you equate the level of income tax with the degree of socialism, the US becomes a hole of socialism and Russia is a socialism-free paradise."
Lately people have been trying to pin Obama with a socialist label because he's discussing 'redistribution of wealth'. If Obama were planning to have your paychecks go directly to the U.S. government, mix everything together, and then cut every single working American a check for the exact same amount, then they'd be right. That would be socialist.
But that isn't Obama's plan. Obama's plan is to play around with tax numbers a bit (note that McCain intends to play around with tax numbers, too), and give people with less money a little break, and ask those who make a little more to pay a little more. This is his only plan for 'redistribution of wealth', and it involves taxes, not socialism.
Now, why in such a great society do we need to redistribute wealth? Let's look at these stats from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_...e_United_States
"In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth."
That seems a little unbalanced, doesn't it? But that is the nature of a capitalist system. Some people are going to be more successful than others. No one-not even Obama-is going to change that. But looking at the difference, that is a BIG number. 1% of Americans have 38% of the money? And the lowest 40% have only 1%? Maybe those lowest 40% are there because they've made bad decisions, they don't care to better themselves, but I refuse to believe that 40% of the nation is so unambitious.
Obama's tax plan, like some plans before his, seeks to give a little break to those with less, and ask a little more of those who have it. But regardless of who ends up in office, taxes won't go away. We'll still be asked to pay a share to support the government, infrastructure, schools, defense, and a little bit for those who need a hand up. But those who have more will still have more, and those who have less will still have less. That is still capitalism.
