New York City

#4,503
#4,503
McDad said:
It's a poorly thought-out position. Isn't it? The top .000002% don't dictate the lack of wealth for the bottom 50%. Money isn't finite. It cycles through our society infinitely. The irony of the stat is that the bottom 50% have a large influence on the wealth of the top .000002%
Click to expand...
Maybe not with respect to wealth, but if we have certain tax revenue targets and they aren't paid by the rich, they have to come from somewhere. People advocate for things like shifting away from income tax and toward flatter taxes, which is a pretty direct transfer of tax burden and money in general
 
#4,504
#4,504
NashVol11 said:
Maybe not with respect to wealth, but if we have certain tax revenue targets and they aren't paid by the rich, they have to come from somewhere. People advocate for things like shifting away from income tax and toward flatter taxes, which is a pretty direct transfer of tax burden and money in general
Click to expand...
Are you thinking of moving from New York? Do you live in city or do you commute?
 
#4,506
#4,506
McDad said:
Thank you. To put that in layman's terms (mine), it sounds like socialism by dictator, socialism by majority, and socialism-ish by balancing two dissimilar systems.

All are socialism or a degree of socialism. Personally, I think America is gradually moving to social democracy.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Civil war not too far away.
 
#4,508
#4,508
NashVol11 said:
Maybe not with respect to wealth, but if we have certain tax revenue targets and they aren't paid by the rich, they have to come from somewhere. People advocate for things like shifting away from income tax and toward flatter taxes, which is a pretty direct transfer of tax burden and money in general
Click to expand...
I'm having difficulty following the conversation. The ultra wealthy aren't responsible for the wealth inequality. But our current tax policy is? I am already inclined to support this stance if I have it accurate since I am in favor or lowered taxes for everyone.

Do I understand accurately?
If so, can you elucidate?
 
#4,510
#4,510
Persian Vol said:
Essentially, social democracy is a form of regulated capitalism that aims to reduce income inequality while avoiding authoritarianism.

America might move in that direction someday, but right now, there’s not much evidence to suggest it’s actually happening. It’s not because Americans are against social democratic ideas—polling shows strong support for things like universal healthcare, affordable college, and expanded public services. The real barrier is the political system itself.

Both major parties tend to resist these policies. That’s largely because American politics is heavily influenced by corporate money and wealthy donors. Regardless of party, many politicians end up prioritizing the interests of their donors over those of their voters.

On the right, progressive proposals are often dismissed with exaggerated comparisons, like equating free public transit to Soviet-style communism. It’s absurd, but it’s politically effective. Meanwhile, establishment Democrats are often at odds with the progressive wing of their own party, partly because embracing bold reforms would upset the very donors they rely on.
Click to expand...
Any form of socialism must need eventually take on some degree of authoritarianism, no matter how well intentioned it begins.
In any economy, there are limited amounts of resources and services. They have to be distributed using some methodology. You can either have this done via a free market or by the government. And that means that eventually someone disagrees withbthe distribution and the result can only be coercion. In a social democracy, this usually looks softer and gentler; but it is still a form of authoritarianism. You mentioned government healthcare. There are never enough resources to go around so eventually someone has to be denied coverage through what is basically rationing. Authoritarianism with a smiley face but still someone telling you what you can and cannot have.
You mention corporate lobbyists. No one really like them; but is it really any different when the public sector unions lobby for resources under socialism? Are the unions and bureaucrats any more virtuous than the business people? Greed for power and control is just as corrosive as greed for money.
The bottom line is that socialism, in any of its guises, ignores human self interest in the naive belief that man is naturally altruistic and will make rational decisions for the good of the community. Capitalism at least recognizes human self interest and tries to make use of it to improve society by providing incentives for the people who provide goods and services.
Someone is going to make decisions for you in any sociopolitical system. The only question is will it be the socialist model in which excellence is rewarded the same as incompetence or the capitalist model in which the providers have a vested interest in doing a good job?
 
#4,513
#4,513
05_never_again said:
It seems very difficult, basically impossible, to argue that the city got worse from about 1975 to 2020 though. There aren't many cities in the country that would fit that bill, actually.
Click to expand...
I can think of one that fits the bill. I'll give a hint. The PF flippantly suggests it should be given to Mississippi or Arkansas all the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sonofUT62
#4,518
#4,518
McDad said:
Comparison to other types of socialism is the wrong approach in my opinion. Socialism isn't correctly identified when compared to other versions of socialism. I think it is correctly defined the way you worded it earlier (bold by me).

Essentially, social democracy is a form of regulated capitalism that aims to reduce income inequality while avoiding authoritarianism.

The evidence i see is our very large budget devoted to welfare (in all its forms)....Housing, food, shelter, medical, money. Our capitalism is highly regulated. Your industry of Healthcare is especially regulated. The evidence we are moving toward more is both the growth of the welfare budget relative to people AND candidates running and winning with socialist proposals. Like Zorhan.
Click to expand...

Well all forms of capitalism in this world are regulated to a degree, so it is a spectrum. On one extreme is ideological libertarianism (does not exist in practice) and ideological socialism. The vast majority is the middle, in which there are conservative economics, liberalism (ie Clinton), social democracy. Our leftism peaked with the new deal, and since the rise of neoliberalism and later reagenomics we’ve shifted far more economically right as country. Especially in comparison to other westernized countries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#4,520
#4,520
NashVol11 said:
Maybe not with respect to wealth, but if we have certain tax revenue targets and they aren't paid by the rich, they have to come from somewhere. People advocate for things like shifting away from income tax and toward flatter taxes, which is a pretty direct transfer of tax burden and money in general
Click to expand...
How about we shrink government? You socialist and Marxist could not imagine the thought of trying to shrink government.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top