Barack Obama and Socialism
- Thread starter Mistah Kurtz
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Rich people who got there the easy way (inheritance, luck) will notice the taxes, sure, but the hard working rich man that everyone keeps talking about will not, in the way people are suggesting.
I say this because, as has been mentioned earlier in the thread, rich and hard working people are still hard working because A) they enjoy their work, B) they enjoy the respect that comes with their profession, C) They would be bored without their work, D) they have unquenching ambition to create something, or leave a legacy, or be the best at what they do.
It's because of reasons like this that incredibly wealthy CEO's continue to work year after year even with their tens of millions in salary or bonuses, far beyond what they spend. Read almost any financial magazine and read interviews done with top (hard working rich men) businessmen (and women). Most suggest directly or indirectly that money is no longer the reason they keep doing their job, it is more of an added bonus. I can't talk for all or quote a source, but over the years of reading and talking to people in those positions, it seems to be a majority.
To say that it takes the incentive out of succeeding, or working hard, is ludacris. These people are still going to gain greater wealth as they work harder, only at a rate of what? 1-3% less? HUGE difference, surely wages growth won't swallow that up over the next year.... oh wait.
The fact is, its only taking a few percent extra from people who already have more than enough to cover neccessities and luxuries.
I come from a fairly wealthy family, albeit in australia, but our top bracket here is about 10% higher than in the US and starts at $180,000, and I still see no problem with it. Christ, give a bit you greedy fools.
I say this because, as has been mentioned earlier in the thread, rich and hard working people are still hard working because A) they enjoy their work, B) they enjoy the respect that comes with their profession, C) They would be bored without their work, D) they have unquenching ambition to create something, or leave a legacy, or be the best at what they do.
It's because of reasons like this that incredibly wealthy CEO's continue to work year after year even with their tens of millions in salary or bonuses, far beyond what they spend. Read almost any financial magazine and read interviews done with top (hard working rich men) businessmen (and women). Most suggest directly or indirectly that money is no longer the reason they keep doing their job, it is more of an added bonus. I can't talk for all or quote a source, but over the years of reading and talking to people in those positions, it seems to be a majority.
To say that it takes the incentive out of succeeding, or working hard, is ludacris. These people are still going to gain greater wealth as they work harder, only at a rate of what? 1-3% less? HUGE difference, surely wages growth won't swallow that up over the next year.... oh wait.
The fact is, its only taking a few percent extra from people who already have more than enough to cover neccessities and luxuries.
I come from a fairly wealthy family, albeit in australia, but our top bracket here is about 10% higher than in the US and starts at $180,000, and I still see no problem with it. Christ, give a bit you greedy fools.
I think you made a bloody good effort at ignoring my whole post. You said that economic freedom correlates with lower infant rate etc etc. I told you that US has higher infant mortality, lower literacy, lower life expectancy, worse poorest 10%, way worse immunization etc etc than wellfare countries. Socialistic policies might move your economic freedom down but it also increases life expectancy and such as proven by every wellfare nation being ranked better on these than US. Therefore you cant say that socialistic policies make matters only worse, it makes matters better on statistics.Archon said:I'm not an economist. I went to law school, which is a sorry substitute for a real degree.Dele post=18.74687.867202 said:Okay Mr economist. Explain why US is worse ranked on all of these values than wellfare countries. Also add practically no immunizations and more spending per capita on health care than such countries
In any event, the US is ranked 8th on the Economic Freedom Rankings, ahead of every country in Europe except our mother country, Great Britain.
And the United States is ranked 6th for Per Capita Income, ahead of every country in Europe except Norway. ALL of the countries ahead of us all have populations smaller than New York City, and three of them show high PCI because of oil revenue. Coincidentally those countries show low Economic Freedom, suggesting they got up there just because of oil.
This isn't to say the US is perfect. It's a bloody mess with a good likelihood of losing its seat as hyperpower. It's just that the mess isn't the fault of laissez-faire capitalism. Laissez-faire capitalism is one of our virtues.
I love how the idea of Free Health Care is a bad thing to some people because they attach the word socialism to it. Just because a Car's Red doesn't make it a Tomato. Free healthcare is like a fucking necessity in a civilised country.
Hey, listen, 'Merica will never be a Socialist/Communist Country on the whim of a single president. That's what your Senates and Corporations are good at deflecting so, take a chill pill guys, jeez.
Hey, listen, 'Merica will never be a Socialist/Communist Country on the whim of a single president. That's what your Senates and Corporations are good at deflecting so, take a chill pill guys, jeez.
Free health care is bad, why? A lot of people pay taxes, certainly enough people to fund a country wide free health care system.
If people are going to get taxed, use that fucking money properly!
If people are going to get taxed, use that fucking money properly!
The idea of Washington being solely to blame is actually misguided. Many, if not most states within the US run at an in-state deficit, and are subsidised with federal funding to make the books balance. If the central government required a balanced budget from the individual states by refusing to subsidise spending, then the national deficit would be considerably lower.Bronzebow said:
I'm not saying they're blameless, just that there needs to be a touch less fingerpointing in that specific direction.
Free Health care is bad because our Government at current is incompetent. They can do a few things right, but expecting our Government to oversee the entire health care system is unfeasible. Not to mention everyone with Health care means everyone will go to the Doctor/Specialist way more often. The cost of the government insurance would be astronomical, which means they would have to cut back on the service. When that happens we'll have lines outside of hospitals and plenty of people going back to private health care.Booze Zombie said:
Not to mention that with taxpayers footing the bill, there would be less impact on the whole for frivolous health care problems. A small minority of people will rack up immense bills.
And then how far does Government health care go? Will it cover High Cost treatments like Chemotherapy or AIDS Therapy? I doubt it. But will it even cover most surgery costs? How much will we be paying for this health care?
