Why do people even vote Democrats/Socialists?

[s_bushido]

Maybe he's paid in European women and refers to them as euros.

In that case, 180 for each child? Talk about wasteful government spending!

[LurkerOnly]

See, the point of the extra taxes is simple, really.

Poor person A): Makes, let's just say, 25k US dollars per year. May in fact have to spend 100% of his income to get by, regardless of taxes. In fact, because this person is likely to put every dime back in the economy, they may not even be eligible for taxation. They'll contribute to the market and government by buying basic necessities and housing.

Poor person B) Makes, let's just say, 15k US dollars per year, but works full-time. May not even have enough to pay their bills despite a full work-week. Works a necessary job like public school teacher. State employee, not eligible to be taxed. Puts all 15K back into the economy every year, because she can't help it.

Middle-class person A) Makes, oh, $70k per year. Spends 12 or so on housing, 5 or so on a car, 6 or so on water/electric/phone. Spends 5k or more a year on insurance. Puts 5-10k in retirement. Pays off approximately 6-10k per year on credit cards, and then re-uses the cards. 25k or more (depending on marital/parental status) Discretionary money spent on food/entertainment. Comfortable life, but doesn't get an excess. Approximately 50k, maybe 60k goes back into the economy, half or so of which is taxes.

Middle-class person B) Makes about $150k per year. 40-50k (more or less, depending on exemptions and whatnot) in taxes. Living expenses similar to MCA above. More goes into retirement. Discretionary spending slightly more than MCA above. approximately 70-80k back into the economy, a large portion of which is taxes.

Upper-middle-class person A) Makes about $250k per year. Taxes grow, but living expenses don't by much. Discretionary spending will be more than MCB above, but starts running into "What more can I do with this money?" and begins to invest it. Tax breaks for investing. Investment income taxed, but probably only the interest because they'll retain their wealth on paper for the purposes of gaining credit, and will only liquidate investments as necessary. Small amounts of money locked up in interest-gaining. Slightly more money goes directly into the market compared to MCB above, but more money gets locked into investment scheming, probably in large sure-thing investments which then re-invest the money back into their own shares, locking more money into the investment cycle, in which companies trade stocks in the millions on quarter-cent gains and losses to marginalize profit.

Upper-middle-class person B) $600k per year. Living and discretionary expenses similar to UMCA above. Retirement larger. Investment larger. Liquid spending grows slowly, market-locked money grows rapidly while market contribution stays similar to UMCA above. Tax contribution starts being similar to UMCA above.

Wealthy person A) $4 million per year. Living and discretionary expenses grow, but disproportionately compared to spending. Taxes start not being an issue due to investment schemes. Large amounts of money locked into Goldman-Sachs style investment schemes which take chances with social security, insurance, banking, and real estate (see last 5 years of bailouts and crashes). Market contribution grows somewhat (4k res tv's and $200k supercars say hello, big mansion why not) but disproportionately. Tax contribution disproportionately small. Money locked in stocks and businesses which aren't taxed as heavily so as theoretically not to hurt the market.

Wealthy person B) $8 billion per year. Barely taxed. Living and discretionary expenses identical to WA above (what more to buy unless I get excited?) Money locked in non-taxable trust funds for descendants, tax schemes, stock market schemes. Tax contribution identical to WA above in many cases. Market contribution essentially identical. Both combined are a negligible portion of income.


So, you see, those with _larger incomes_ (not to be confused with the independently wealthy, meaning "wealthy without a fixed source of income", who of course don't continue to be taxed just for _having_ money, that would be ridiculous) are making a proportionately smaller contribution to the economy from which they pulled their income (so easy to forget that money comes from somewhere as opposed to just appearing in thin air because you have a job, someone paid you that money, and they got it from someone else that paid them, etc, without those market contributions where does that money come from?). Taxes are raised in larger brackets as an attempt to smooth out that inconsistency in proportion as the states and fed can hire people (putting some of that money back in the market), subsidize failed banks (to put the money back in the market, theoretically), pay for schools and roads (to keep the flow of the market open, with goods and workers able to get where they need to be in the condition they need to be in), and, in some cases, do things people aren't as sure about. I.E. defense spending (often bloated but not necessarily wasted), gun control enforcement, massive amounts spent trying and incarcerating people for possessing illicit drugs, etc.

The intention is to help the richer put money back into the economy that made them richer, because it's been shown that their proportionate contributions stop rising because one person can only spend so much. It's not socialism, it's capitalism, in that the government is trying to make sure that people that are making so much money that they can't even spend any more of it than they already have, can continue to participate in capitalism, because capitalism isn't only about selling things to people so you can get money, it's about spending that money on things so that other people can sell things so that they can get money.

See, it's pretty straight-forward, at least in my opinion.

[belfpala]

So, there are zero redeeming qualities to elect ANY conservative to government. And the question is, with the conservatives track record why would any American vote for them?

If you read above, I don't even care about economic ideas. I cannot vote for any Republican so long as the party is based on dividing people.

Fix it, Repubs, and you might get my vote next time.

[Deleted]

I personally believe in minarchism.

As far as I'm concerned the government should exist for the upkeep of law, defense and the regulation of business to promote competition and prevent any monopoly's.

You could stretch government involvement to few other services such as Fire and Health but that's it.

Everything else should be privatized and the people set free. No benefits and no security, people are responsible for their own futures and well being. Your kids, your problem. Your retirement, your problem. Your health, your problem. Etc...

[belfpala]

Everything else should be privatized and the people set free. No benefits and no security, people are responsible for their own futures and well being. Your kids, your problem. Your retirement, your problem. Your health, your problem. Etc...

No.

There are things more important than profits. Those things should never be privatized.

[Kaleredar]

I personally believe in minarchism.

As far as I'm concerned the government should exist for the upkeep of law, defense and the regulation of business to promote competition and prevent any monopoly's.

You could stretch government involvement to few other services such as Fire and Health but that's it.

Everything else should be privatized and the people set free. No benefits and no security, people are responsible for their own futures and well being. Your kids, your problem. Your retirement, your problem. Your health, your problem. Etc...

Yes but you see, people don't just go into corners and die when they're in peril. Desperate times make desperate people, and desperate people aren't always running out and starting escrow agencies or muffin shops to get back on their feet.

Desperate people around you more often than not MAKE themselves your problem.

[Deleted]

I don't get people attacking others with better work and more pay. Nor do I understand by what logic someone who earns more should pay a higher percentage of his wages as taxes. If both the person making 50,000 a year and the person making 1 million pay a 25% income tax, the person that earns a million still pays 20 times more taxes. What kind of warped logic is it when the person that earns the million is forced to pay 40%?

It's not warped logic, and it's not an attack on the rich. Taxes are the cost of a society. Living in society allows us all to advance much more easily than if we lived in our own independent estates, and we all profit from this arrangement. But some profit much more from living in society than others: the person who works for someone else only relies on the existence of a person (the employer) with enough foresight and purchasing power to hire him. But the owner of a company or a higher executive, for example, relies on the existence of a large society who has enough people with enough purchasing power to create a market for their product.

On the other hand, people with large amounts of wealth and properties bring the attention of more criminals seeking to steal them, which forces the state to employ more resources to uphold their right to property (a right completely created and funded by the society).

Additionally, the state gets more revenue by increasing 1% the tax on the rich than on the poor. Not only that: by increasing 1% tax on the poor, you are taking that 1% out of their purchasing power, hindering their contribution as consumers, which hinders the economic activity overall. For the rich, that tax raise is a much smaller effort and has a much smaller impact, as the money is taken out of their saving power rather than their purchasing power.

I also do not get social programs that countries cannot afford anymore. I mean... States are now staring at the abyss because they refuse to cut back programs they can no longer pay for. My wife and I receive 180 euros per child (we have two). But why? If you cannot pay for your children, why should others do it for you? Why should others be taxed so that you can make children? Never mind that some categories of people (the poorest and least educated) see those 180 euros as a significant sum and will therefore reproduce in order to get the money. Is that really desirable?

Society has agreed that we don't have enough children to keep our population over time, and it has also agreed that a slightly increasing population is desiderable to keep the economic growth.

[...]
But that's it. All other programs are superfluous. Long term unemployment benefits are poison. Look at Belgium and its unemployment rate. You should have six months of unemployment benefits. And that's it. After you either start digging in your savings or pick another job. And believe me, working in the industry I work in, we have a LOT of free positions. But people would rather not work and get a bit less instead of working, paying taxes, and doing their part. And they can do that because our states are stupid enough to hand them money. It's not that there are no jobs available - there are tons of crappy jobs out there ripe for the taking. Just the people turn up their nose at them.

Seeing how you later say that you live in a federal republic, i deduce you are German. Which is a country whose unemployment is going down. You literally have no idea how bad unemployment is, as to the point that there are no openings even in fast food "industry". I'm a Spaniard, Physics PhD. I'm in China because there are NO jobs in Spain. And don't think i came here making a lot of money, as many expats. I'm working for the Chinese govt. for around 1500€ per month.
The fact that you take Germany as your "data" to say that getting a job is easy dismisses your entire argument.


On the other hand, Sweden has a virtually unlimited time period of unemployment benefits, as long as you can verify that you have no job offers and you keep attending the formation courses they provide. It's not going so bad for them.

[Sagittaria]

Why do people even vote Democrats/Socialists?

Because I possess an average human capacity for empathy and compassion, which allows me to not hate women, gays, racial minorities, and poor people.

Now don't get me wrong - I don't make a ton of money, own stock options or any kind of property.

Irrelevant. Except perhaps to show just how successful propaganda is.

I have never been bitter towards people richer or more successful than I.

Also irrelevant. Except to show how much your whole outlook of the world is filled with straws.

I don't get people attacking others with better work and more pay.

Asking people to pay tax is not "attacking".

Nor do I understand by what logic someone who earns more should pay a higher percentage of his wages as taxes.

You can start by trying to understand that in this country, people who truly earn more, are actually a lower percentage of their income.

What kind of warped logic is it when the person that earns the million is forced to pay 40%?

What kind of warped reading skills is it when one sees (for example) 14%¹ but reads it as 40%?

¹http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/09/21/mitt_romney_s_effective_tax_rate_is_very_low_most_economists_think_it_should_be_.html

Look at facts and reality rather than straws. Everybody needs a certain basic level of income to survive. Rich people can afford to lose a higher percentage of their income without hurting on necessities. And yet they pay a LOWER percent.

I also do not get social programs that countries cannot afford anymore.

I also do not get military programs that countries have no need for in the first place.

My wife and I receive 180 euros per child (we have two). But why? If you cannot pay for your children, why should others do it for you?

Because we would like those children to grow up to be educated, productive, healthy members of society in spite of their parents.

Why should others be taxed so that you can make children?

Those tax money are for the children, not you. Stop spending it on yourself please. We aren't paying taxes for your sake.

Never mind that some categories of people (the poorest and least educated) see those 180 euros as a significant sum and will therefore reproduce in order to get the money.

Nevermind that it is category that exists in your delusions.

My logic here is that small villages that lose their train station and post office/bank simply die out.

If you cannot pay for your train station and post office/bank, why should others do it for you? Why should others be taxed so that you can have your a small village? Is that really desirable?

We should rail against this Communist entitlement, comrade!

But that's it. All other programs are superfluous.

Clean air that doesn't kill you for breathing it is soooooooo superfluous.

Thoughts?

You seriously lack it.

[Deleted]

Socialism is glorious on paper, notoriously tricky to work on a macro scale, i.e., a nation.

Capitalism is also pretty good on paper, but again, messy in real life.

Benefits and drawbacks to any system have to be weighed against the needs of the times.

More on-topic: I do tend to vote for the left, even though I don't fully agree with some of their fiscal policy. However, I agree with them more than the "slash everything but the military, let's ratchet that sucker up bigger!" Republicans. Even the military knows it's fucking stupid how much we spend on them.

I also agree much more with the typical Democratic social policy rather than the Republican one.

The big mistake you make here is to compare capitalism and socialism to each other. But there is a major difference between the two, one is the system of our money and the other is a measure taken against the drawbacks of the system we use for our money.
So socialism is more a part of capitalism, just like cooperatism is part of the capitalisc ways.
You could argu that communism is the counterpart of capitalism and that communism doesnt work as well. The only thing wrong with this assumption is that there has never been a true communism on this planet. All communism we have ever had was in a world dominated by capitalist system and can therefor never work.

[Deleted]

market-locked money

And this is probably the biggest problem of our economy. The financial market has become an economic attractor where money gets locked away: the net flux of money into the attractor is always positive. This means that wealth instead of circulate as the free-market presuposes, gets slowly depleted by the financial market. If the economic growth is solid, no problem, as the amount of wealth outside the financial market keeps increasing, too. With a weak growth or a shrinkage, it's a huge problem: the "financial market" keeps sucking wealth off the "free market" until the relative sizes reach a point where the net flux is zero, and a new equilibrium is reached.

The apparition of this attractor, btw, it's not because of greed or any kind of evil men. It's a natural consequence of the rules of economy (largely independent of human input) and the boundary conditions of the problem (set by human regulations).
It's a natural consequence, but it's a bad one, and understanding how it works is key to be able to untangle it.

[Sagittaria]

The big mistake you make here is to compare capitalism and socialism to each other. But there is a major difference between the two, one is the system of our money and the other is a measure taken against the drawbacks of the system we use for our money.
So socialism is more a part of capitalism, just like cooperatism is part of the capitalisc ways.

You know generally people kind of take socialism/capitalism and define those terms to suit their own arguments.

IMHO it's best to just ignore those terms and the diehard philosophical purists holding some vaguely defined notion of what capitalism/socialism is up as an inerrant bible (though I mostly only see "capitalists" doing that).

[Catta]

I personally believe in minarchism.

As far as I'm concerned the government should exist for the upkeep of law, defense and the regulation of business to promote competition and prevent any monopoly's.

You could stretch government involvement to few other services such as Fire and Health but that's it.

Everything else should be privatized and the people set free. No benefits and no security, people are responsible for their own futures and well being. Your kids, your problem. Your retirement, your problem. Your health, your problem. Etc...

How long do you think that would actually last before either corruption from the top or revolution from the bottom would occur.

[Sagittaria]

So, there are zero redeeming qualities to elect ANY conservative to government.

Well no, kinda unfair on conservatives to compare them to Republicans.

[Kaleredar]

Well no, kinda unfair on conservatives to compare them to Republicans.

Well, when the entire "conservative" block is holed up in the republicans, it is a fairly fair reason as to why people don't vote for them.

[Sagittaria]

Well, when the entire "conservative" block is holed up in the republicans, it is a fairly fair reason as to why people don't vote for them.

From a Rest of the World point of view, the moderate Democrats are the conservatives in American politics

[Chrysia]

The big mistake you make here is to compare capitalism and socialism to each other. But there is a major difference between the two, one is the system of our money and the other is a measure taken against the drawbacks of the system we use for our money.
So socialism is more a part of capitalism, just like cooperatism is part of the capitalisc ways.
You could argu that communism is the counterpart of capitalism and that communism doesnt work as well. The only thing wrong with this assumption is that there has never been a true communism on this planet. All communism we have ever had was in a world dominated by capitalist system and can therefor never work.

Eh, sorry, it's late and I didn't articulate my point well.

I realize that Socialism is a means to control the distribution of wealth (for lack of a better term,) and Capitalism is a system of wealth accumulation. I wasn't trying to draw direct correlation between the two, though my post certainly did so.

Still, a "pure" Capitalism and a "pure" Socialism would be fairly non-friendly situations.

However, my main point was simply that neither "pure" Capitalism nor "pure" Socialism is truly workable in the real world, when you factor in the human component. Checks and balances have to be inserted, whereby the people can exert influence when necessary to stop imbalances.

[Deleted]

You know generally people kind of take socialism/capitalism and define those terms to suit their own arguments.

IMHO it's best to just ignore those terms and the diehard philosophical purists holding some vaguely defined notion of what capitalism/socialism is up as an inerrant bible (though I mostly only see "capitalists" doing that).

But how will you ever be able to discus something if its not clear what that something actually means? If you dont use the words, with the meaning that is given to them, there is no discussion. Then i might as well go:" House oversea going under the table on Tuesdays" And you cant prove me wrong cause i have given another meaning to the words "table, house and Tuesdays".

[Catta]

From a Rest of the World point of view, the moderate Democrats are the conservatives in American politics

Maybe with the exception of the middle east and africa.

[araine]

Easy i dont want to blame poor people for the economic disaster in the country that got created by rich people. Noone i know remember when grandma's 900 dollar social security check wrecked the economy but we sure as hell remember the wall street acting like a casino.

[Kaleredar]

But how will you ever be able to discus something if its not clear what that something actually means? If you dont use the words, with the meaning that is given to them, there is no discussion. Then i might as well go:" House oversea going under the table on Tuesdays" And you cant prove me wrong cause i have given another meaning to the words "table, house and Tuesdays".

Except words like "socialism" and "capitalism" and other various economic, political, and social models all fall under certain "degrees" in which they can still be "called" something but still differ drastically within themselves depending on what end of their spectrum they fall under.