Can you explain this three minute YouTube Video on socialism by Ronald Reagan (P&R)?

You don’t understand it because there’s nothing to understand. It’s a straw man that his speech writer came up with, not a real story that attempts to seriously engage with an opposing point of view. It makes people who were already with him feel good about themselves, it makes people who were already against him roll their eyes, and it makes everyone else shrug their shoulders.

It makes no sense. Guaranteeing people to have basic necessities of life like shelter, food, health care and education is not the same as giving people a yacht.

There are over 20 different types of Socialism, so at best it is a generalization.

A lot of people don’t want to be taken care of by the government. We want government to get out of our way so we can take care of ourselves, make our own decisions and dream big.

It’s really quite simple. Once you surrender your right to decide what you should have, You also surrender your right to decide what you can have.

It is pretty straight forward, Reagan spoke right from his heart: You are not entitled to food, shelter, or medical care, and should not expect the government to provide it.

Not understanding it is a sign that you’re thinking logically.

The (illogical) message is “Some societies decide that basic access to food, shelter and medical care should be guaranteed. Even if those who need it aren’t working. As soon as this decision is made, you lose the right to make your own choices. You will only receive basic comforts. You cannot choose to eat caviar on a yacht instead.”

Obviously, that’s a red herring. Societies can decide that basic care is free to those that need it, while still allowing individuals to make their fortune and use it to buy any number of yachts.

“A lot of people don’t want to be taken care of by the government. We want government to get out of our way so we can take care of ourselves, make our own decisions and dream big.”

The “dream big” part doesn’t make a whole lot of sense if that person doesn’t have basic needs. Whenever someone says the phrase “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a life time.” My reply is always “So who’s willing to provide him the fishing rod?”

@longgone “Societies can decide that basic care is free to those that need it, while still allowing individuals to make their fortune and use it to buy any number of yachts.”

By setting the floor that all people will at least have their basic needs met, you’re increasing the chances for everyone to be successful. From the perspective of a moderate like myself who believes in well-regulated capitalism with a strong social safety-net, such opportunities improve the economy. It means you replace the Olivia Jades with smarter, harder working people. From a fiscally conservative perspective, this is advantageous to companies and the economy as a whole.

Imagine for example if you have 2 nations competing. One full of Olivia Jades, and the other full of people who have worked their way to college. Which nation’s currency are you going to bet on?

(@rockfan Also, who is going to ensure there is public access to the waters, instead of letting the mega-wealthy buy all waterfront land. And who is going to protect the waters from megacorporate industry and agriculture polluting it to make the mega-wealthy more mega-wealthy?)

It is a parable claiming that a desire for food and shelter is equivalent to entitlement to a pair of yachts. It also implies as with the food and shelter that there are more than enough yachts to go around. It is the sort of logic one might expect from one who has 2 yachts and has never known hunger—“let them eat cake.” Those spinning such parables fail to mention or appreciate that those with 2 yachts may well possess their craft BECAUSE many others go hungry. In the end, the question must arise, how many yachts might one man obtain before his head is destined to decorate the end of a pike?

Reminds me a ponies for some reason.

To expand on @zenvelo ‘s crucial point, Reagan failed miserably to understand that it is in fact the GOVERNMENT which decides that several should hunger that one man might accumulate yachts!

It seems that part of the problem with understanding what Reagan was saying is that we can’t all agree on what the basic needs are or who is going to pay for them all. When you leave the job of providing to a bunch of bureaucrats, you give them the power to decide what is right. And they will tax you as much as they deem necessary to pay for what they want to give you. As they tax those that are working more, those workers get annoyed. Working hard and doing a good job pays okay, but doing nothing and screwing off pays the same.
This was another Reaganesque view of socialism.

@gorillapaws By setting the floor that all people will at least have their basic needs met, you’re increasing the chances for everyone to be successful. From the perspective of a moderate like myself who believes in well-regulated capitalism with a strong social safety-net, such opportunities improve the economy.

I agree. I often wonder where we’d be if everyone had access to an education. How many people are alive right now, smarter and kinder than average, with brilliant ideas they will never be able to refine and share? How many have been alive?

Imagine for example if you have 2 nations competing. One full of Olivia Jades, and the other full of people who have worked their way to college. Which nation’s currency are you going to bet on?

This part is a bit confusing to me. I include education in the list of basic needs, and I don’t think you need to work your way to college in order to appreciate the privilege of learning. I think that’s more of a parenting issue. Knowledge and learning can be family values, just as honesty and kindness. These values then become self-reinforcing because they create meaning. Olivia Wade didn’t learn that from her parents, and she’ll miss meaningful experiences due to that. I feel bad for her. Hopefully she’ll be able to outgrow and surpass these negative models.

@longgone ”I don’t think you need to work your way to college in order to appreciate the privilege of learning.”

I wasn’t clear. By “work” I meant school work, studying hard, community service, extra curriculars etc. IMO there should be competition to get in the best schools, but that should be entirely merit based. Perhaps all applications are stripped of identifying information and replaced with an application ID.

I mentioned Olivia Jade specifically, because (in the article I linked) there are many examples of how she was very publicly unserious about her college education. Her parents are mostly to blame, but ultimately her attitude is her own responsibility.

@gorillapaws “I mentioned Olivia Jade specifically, because (in the article I linked) there are many examples of how she was very publicly unserious about her college education. Her parents are mostly to blame, but ultimately her attitude is her own responsibility.” That pretty much sums up why I think Universal college, such as proposed by most of the Democratic Candidates, is such a horrible idea. I don’t believe everyone needs to go to college, nor is everyone really capable of completing college. And even these days when people have to pay for it, there are lots and lots of students that don’t take their education seriously, jack around, change majors several times, take 6–8 years to get a 4 year degree…basically waste a whole bunch of time as professional students. I don’t see it getting better if they didn’t have to pay for it. And when I say I don’t believe everyone needs to go to college, I see that the world will always need mechanics, electricians, welders, carpenters, stone/brick masons, etc. None of these jobs require a formal college degree and can, instead, be achieved through a technical school and an on-the-job training program. But many of the people that would probably do good in these areas will likely try going to a university for several years instead.

@seawulf575 “Universal college” sounds like someone’s confusing universal healthcare proposals with affordable or tuition-free education.

“Most of the Democratic Candidates” are not proposing making everyone attend college. Some Democrats do support affordable or tuition-free college, and/or relieving or abolishing student tuition debts.

@Zaku Tuition free is pretty much the same as universal, isn’t it? Let’s face it…if you tell everyone they don’t have to pay for college, isn’t that the same as telling them they don’t have to pay for healthcare?

No, it isn’t.

Can you not see the difference between “tuition free” and “making everyone attend college”?

Let me answer this question with another question: “Should ‘basic’ health care include ALL the treatments and drugs available to the ultra-rich?”

@crazyguy ”Should ‘basic’ health care include ALL the treatments and drugs available to the ultra-rich?”

It should include all “medically necessary” treatments that have been approved by the FDA.

@gorillapaws: FDA-approved treatments include some VERY EXPENSIVE chemotherapy drugs and others. If the government has to provide those, it will go bankrupt even faster than current projections.

@crazyguy Who do you propose to be the gatekeeper then for such treatments? Private insurance? For profit hospitals? Or just your bank account?

@crazyguy America spends more on healthcare than any other developed country as it is. You might as well get something out of that. Right now, most of it is pumped into giant companies.

@renvelo: Perhaps that is the reason we do not already have national health or Medicare for All. Whatever the decision by whichever gatekeeper we appoint will be challenged in court any time some recipient of government health care dies while a rich dude survives with the same illness. Can you imagine the CNN headline: “Poor people die while the rich flourish”. What choice will the judge have?

@longgone: Now THAT is a problem we should work on. Not just saddle the government with ever-increasing costs. Remember the government is us.

@Zaku Where did I say they were going to make everyone attend college? I never said that at all. However, if college is paid for, there will be many people attending that really have no business going in the first place. And we will all pay for them to test the waters for a few years before giving up…if they give up. Already there are “professional students” who change majors several times and spend years longer in college than they should to get a degree. Think that will get better when they don’t have to worry about paying for it?

@zenvelo No, the gatekeeper will be a bureaucratic office in charge of determining what is necessary and isn’t. That’s pretty much how all the other “civilized” nations who have single-payer or government supplied healthcare do it.

@seawulf575 ”...if college is paid for, there will be many people attending that really have no business going in the first place.”

They still have to be accepted. It’s going to be even harder for unserious applicants to attend due to the increase in competition from poor kids who have worked hard in school and are now able to afford the degree. Furthermore, tuition-free public college would apply to community college as well as public trade-schools. I do agree we need plumbers, electricians, hvac technicians, mechanics, medical assistants, paralegals, etc.

@gorillapaws You really believe that, don’t you? Okay, here’s a thought to consider. What is going to happen if a minority kid screws around K-12 and couldn’t get into a college these days to save his/her life. BUT, when everyone has to pay for college to be “free”, to deny this kid the right to go to college is blatant discrimination. Or at least that is what the law suit will say. And I call it a “right to go to college” because as soon as you make it all paid for through taxes, you have effectively turned it into a right.

@seawulf575 ”...to deny this kid the right to go to college is blatant discrimination.”

I don’t see it that way. I have no interest in my tax dollars going to fund the education of people who didn’t want to study hard. That said this would create opportunities for kids who don’t otherwise believe that college is a possibility and would turn their talents to crime in today’s system. As for the kid who didn’t take K-12 seriously, he still has a path to a four-year degree if he first proves himself in a public community college.

@seawulf575 Your straw man fails because demonstrated merit is already accepted as means for discrimination.

But someone who screws around in high school can do what my son did: Go to community college for two years, and demonstrate merit to transfer to a four year school.

@zenveto: Of course, the gatekeeper will be an appointee of the financier, which is the US Government. But, whatever decision they make on excluding certain high-cost treatments will be challenged in court. Compared to European countries, Canada and Australia, we are more litigious.So my bet is any time a national health recipient dies when a rich guy survives because he could afford the super-expensive treatment, the pressure will be on to add the treatment to national health. Soon there will be no limits.

@seawulf575 By your line of reasoning, both grade and high school are undeserving of public funding. Should we eliminate public education on the grounds that some kids won’t do well in school? Taxpayers should fund college educations for EXACTLY the same reasons we fund elementary and secondary education. And that is that a college education is increasingly the ticket to a sustainable existence. The argument for both universal healthcare and public education are exactly the same. We are ALL better off when everyone can read and all of us have access to healthcare.

@gorillapaws You may not see it that way, but the courts most likely would. But see? This is the problem with socialized stuff. The government makes everyone pay for things, so everyone should be entitled to those things. It doesn’t matter if you, the individual, has no interest in paying for someone that will abuse that thing; it’s out of your hands.

@stanleybmanly and by your line of reasoning, we ought to all be entitled to all sorts of things because, after all, we would all be better off if everyone had them. I’ll take my mansion now, please.

Mansions? How about paved streets or functioning sewers? How’s for profit medicine doing with the current pandemic? Why did I pay YOU to loaf around in that submarine?

@stanleybmanly But think how much better off everyone’s life would be if they had a mansion of their very own! Shoot, a new car every other year would be a good benefit as well. And a free gym membership since physical fitness is important!
As for loafing around in the submarine, I think it would be a great idea if everyone had to do a stint in the military. Make it a requirement before going to college for free.

But why should there be a military? You want to talk about stifling regulations, wasted money, untold suffering? Why do you believe it just that EVEYONE be required to loaf on a government yacht at my expense?

@stanleybmanly Your understanding of the military is just as concise as your understanding of anyone that isn’t a flaming lefty.

@seawulf575 ”...we ought to all be entitled to all sorts of things because, after all, we would all be better off if everyone had them. I’ll take my mansion now, please.”

It’s about equality of opportunity vs. equally of condition. I believe in the former, but I take that very seriously. Education, healthcare, basic needs like food, basic shelter, clothing, access to technology means that that person can compete to earn that mansion. What we see on the right is people rejecting equality of condition, but then not fighting to have that starting line in an equal place—if not working towards making those starting positions even further apart. That’s a rejection of the American principle of equality.

As far as the military goes, it’s simply a matter of priorities. You’re perfectly willing to support a military budget that is greater than the next 10 largest military budgets of other countries combined, and then say we can’t afford to invest in opportunities for little Billy, so he can compete on his merits in a serious way with the heiress daughter of a fortune. That’s a return to aristocracy and is entirely contradictory to the spirit our nation was founded on. It’s also stupid for the long-term growth of America’s economy.

@gorillapaws My problem with the whole equality of condition is that it starts from a nebulous place. What you see as equality may not be what I see which may not be what Stanley sees, which could all be completely different from what crazyguy or zenvelo see. What is “the basics”? And if everyone should have equality of condition, why not go to the highest common denominator instead of the lowest? When you start down this rabbit hole, you end up giving all your rights to decide away to a bunch of bureaucrats that have a proven track record of corruption and incompetence.
I have personally known several people that took the opportunities presented and turned it into a great lifestyle. My kids’ first pediatrician came over on the boat with his parents from Korea. None of them even spoke English, yet they knew the opportunities were there. He worked hard and became a well paid doctor. He didn’t have any more or any less opportunities than every other American with the possible exception of some breaks for being a foreign student when he got to College. But by that time I think they were all naturalized anyway. The key word in all this is worked. That is where many Americans fall flat. They want to go from zero to hero without actually putting forth the effort. They want equality of condition when they haven’t earned it in any way, shape, or form.

@seawulf575 ”My problem with the whole equality of condition is that it starts from a nebulous place.”

I agree. If you re-read my post you’ll see that I also reject equality of condition. You’ll be hard-pressed to find any advocacy for that (actual socialist) position. I advocate for a serious effort to achieve equality of opportunity.

”What is “the basics”?”

I listed them above. Food, basic shelter and clothing, education, access to technology, etc. essentially it’s the things required for someone who wants to study and work hard to maximize their ability to get to the very top. I want the US to be the #1 on the Social Mobility Index. We’re #27. It’s pathetic that you’re more likely to succeed in achieving the “American Dream” in 26 other countries than in America.

As for what measures you use, you could start with things like having similar life expectancy if you’re rich or poor, having similar likelihood of dying during childbirth, having similar rates of childhood literacy, having kids that are able to get the daily recommended nutrition as their better off peers, etc.

@gorillapaws My point is that when you talk about the basics, everyone has a different idea of what “basic” is. We already hear that “the rich” have more than “the poor”. They all want equality. So what is basic? Is it a home? An Apartment? A shelter available? Is it basic food…hamburger, potatoes, green beans…or is it closer to shrimp, crab, and lobster because that is what the wealthier people can afford? Everyone has their own views on what is “basic”.
As for social mobility, I have to question the basis of the ratings. Is it that the opportunities are there? Or is it that the opportunities are there and people take advantage of them? Is it based on a percentage of the population? There are a lot of variables there. When Obama was president, the middle class shrank significantly and the lower class grew enormously. That could be viewed as a negative on the social mobility index. Meanwhile, when Trump took office, the economy grew nicely with minorities especially seeing new highs and wages growing.
The fact of life is that there will always be the haves and the have-nots. If you took all the money in the world and divvied it up between all the people, over time you would still see some make that money grow and they would end up better off than others that squandered it. Until people accept that, there will always be those that scream about disparity. But the opportunities are there so that if they want to work and take the risks, anyone can excel in this country.

There is no disagreement on the fact that just as there are varying degrees of abilities among individuals, there will be variations in their success. The debate isn’t over equality of outcomes. The issue is about the extremes. The man worth billions vs. the folks living on sidewalks. The statement that “anyone can excel in this country” is true. It is exactly as as true as “anyone can win the lottery”. Those who push it are telling us that since anyone can excel in this country, those who don’t simply CHOOSE to fail. In other words, those living on the sidewalks prefer to be there. Let’s forget about socialism vs. capitalism for a second and look at the most successful and affluent nation in the history of the world. And in that nation, its richest and most affluent cities are noted for the greatest concentration of people sleeping on the sidewalks. My point is this. You cannot have a stable society where great wealth accumulates and concentrates at the top as the majority sinks further toward impoverishment. Everyone of us understands the very predictable consequences and SHOULD recognize that we are LIVING THROUGH THEM NOW. Indeed, the social unrest in this country is a direct reflection of the great transfer of wealth in which we are presently engaged. The trend toward socialism in this country is irresistible simply because as things sit, social programs are the only relief valve for the masses facing dwindling viability as their net worth is siphoned off to the top. Through sheer good luck, I was born at a time and in circumstances that allowed me to prosper and do well. But just because I’ve done alright, does not mean that I will be happy with my grandsons living it up in armed palaces surrounded by seas of beggars.

@stanleybmanly You say ” look at the most successful and affluent nation in the history of the world.” and then go on to argue that the very thing that made it so, must be changed. Socialize and make everyone dirt poor, that will solve our problems.

And if everyone is going dirt poor right in front of you, what do you suppose awaits those piling up the money? I’m telling you that once the country is defined as a place where the rich get richer while the rest shrivel, socialism must increase. There is no way for the money to pile up at the top without those deprived of it to notice one way or another. I don’t care how you might wish to explain it to them, the wealth will either be shared with them or you can bet your ass that they will take it.

People won’t play the game if there isn’t a chance to win or get ahead. Then money would quickly become useless. Those hoarding money would become bankrupt. Maybe the rich can invest in gold or silver, and ride it out, but most commodities would be worthless. Food, fuel, and bullets would be priceless.

It is a two edged sword. If the poor and the rich stopped trying then every one is back to the stone age.

@stanleybmanly The problem you have is that you can’t legislate what should be a frame of mind. Look at any socialistic or communistic country in the world. There are rich getting richer and poor getting poorer. The only place I have seen where it isn’t so is Japan. And they have a different outlook on things. A CEO of a major business doesn’t make millions and millions of dollars per year. He/she makes a good salary…up to around a million a year…but the rest goes back into the business. At least that’s how it was a few years ago. But even there they have poor and homeless. Not like it is in the rest of the world, but it is there.

Again, forget about communism or capitalism and look at REALITY here on the ground. You can decry socialism all you want, but I will tell you here and now that already for the average American, life would be unbearable without such hallmarks of socialism as medicare, social security, food stamps, etc. Trump claims these are the best times ever. Have the demands for these social services increased or declined? There is no longer any question as to whether our social safety net is adequate to the rapidly increasing demand, and Trump is without question the result of that desperation, and such blights as the homeless situation and increasing riots are merely the evidence of the systemic failures of a society whose working class falls only further behind. If poverty is on the way up in the best of economic times ever, and black folks riot while “they never had it so well”, I submit that someone’s got the story wrong.

@stanleybmanly Sooo…your answer is to give MORE power to the idiots that have driven the nation into the ground? Give up MORE rights so they can screw it up even more? Please…enlighten us. You can’t legislate attitude. So what is your grand plan?

@seawulf575 Not once have I EVER suggested that bloated bureaucracy is the solution to the increasingly dangerous fact of inequality. What I am saying is that nothing will sink this republic more assuredly than America as a place of flagrant opulence for the few and grinding poverty for the many. The reality is that the worst sort of socialism is FORCED on our politicians since the rich who own them refuse to pay their share. As the rich amass an ever growing percentage of the nation’s wealth, the losers MUST grow ever more dependent on the government tit to feed, school and house them. The shell game is achieved thus far through massive debt alone. We must rob our grandchildren and descend into crippling personal debt merely to sustain even the appearance of the prosperity achieved by our parents. There’s no complex mystery as to why tensions, mistrust and factional animosity are on the rise. You need only step back and watch where the money goes.

@seawulf575 “They all want equality.”

Equality of opportunity, not condition.

“Is it basic food…hamburger, potatoes, green beans…or is it closer to shrimp, crab, and lobster because that is what the wealthier people can afford?”

I think this is pretty disingenuous. Clearly nobody is advocating giving everyone fillet mignon, and lobster dinners every night. But there are a lot of people who go hungry in this country. A kid who isn’t getting proper nutrition doesn’t have the same opportunities to succeed in school and ultimately in life as a kid who has their basic nutritional needs met. I think an apartment is perfectly adequate shelter. If you want a nice home, you work for it. The point isn’t to disincentivize people from working hard, it’s to make sure that those who do want to work hard have the same chance to make it as everyone else.

“The fact of life is that there will always be the haves and the have-nots. If you took all the money in the world and divvied it up between all the people, over time you would still see some make that money grow and they would end up better off than others that squandered it.”

I completely agree with this. Nobody wants to divide everything equally. That’s not what a progressive taxation structure does. It’s a mechanism for INVESTING the profits of a society back into the people. On the extreme end, if you had a society that had one person with 99.9% of the wealth and everyone else destitute (e.g. “banana republic”), it’s going to be a very weak country, no matter how many trillions that one person has in the bank. The total GDP would be much higher in that country (especially over time) if that one person had progressive taxation that would distribute much of that wealth across more of the people in the form of investing in education and the basics necessary for them to succeed if they try. In other words, progressive taxation and investment in the people is better for the long term strength of a nation, and produces more wealth.

The wealth is becoming more-and-more concentrated in this country. Remember that the top marginal tax rate in the USA was 90% during the Republican Eisenhower administration. We have seen a dramatic concentration in wealth over the past few decades as the failed promise of “trickle down” economics has succeeded in destroying the opportunities for the middle class.

Do you not see any problems with so much wealth concentrated in the hands of so few people?

Are you even aware just how extreme the wealth gap has become? It turns out most Americans grossly underestimate the severity of the situation. If you look at distribution of wealth over time by the 1% vs. the bottom 90% it’s clear that the trends are heading in a very unhealthy direction for the long-term fiscal strength of the country. It’s a complete disproof of the trickle-down theory.

@gorillapaws I think you need to check your premises. Many people today are screaming for equality of condition. They want to take the money away from the wealthy and delegate it to anyone less fortunate. That is an effort to get equality of condition. I know…you don’t want to believe it…but then…what are wealth taxes? Why are NY and CA trying to tax wealthier people on their wealth even after they leave the state? Any time you are make efforts to “tax the rich” you are basically trying to rob them with a pen. I am not a wealthy person…money has never meant that much to me. I have enough to live a modest lifestyle and am content with that. But when you punish wealthy people for the crime of being wealthy (which is what you suggest), you are taking away any effort to try to succeed. If you are a lower class person and you see the wealthy getting screwed and you are benefiting from it, why would you want to go into that class? You could work really hard and take many chances and make a ton of money…just to have to give it away because you succeeded. OR you could look and realize you don’t have to put forth any effort and reap the benefits of those that do. But in the end, what you are entirely ignoring is that the money doesn’t go from wealthy to poor. It goes from wealthy to government and then to whomever they deem is most needy. You are trying to justify a classic Marxist axiom: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”. That is a recipe for disaster.

@seawulf575 _”They want to take the money away from the wealthy and delegate it to anyone less fortunate.”

I think I’ve found the disconnect here. Equality of condition means the Government seizes 100% of everyone assets, divides it by the population and then redistributes it equally. That’s socialism. Nobody is advocating for that. We all agree that it not an effective way to run a society, it doesn’t work. A progressive tax policy doesn’t do this.

”...But when you punish wealthy people for the crime of being wealthy (which is what you suggest), you are taking away any effort to try to succeed.”

Not true at all. If I’m taxed 30% on my first $100k, and 40% on my next $900k, and 50% on my next $9m, I’m still getting much richer with every dollar I earn. If I’m guaranteed a humble apartment and basic nutrition, but I want to live in a mansion with a pool, drive Ferraris and eat caviar, the only way to get there is by working hard, and being lucky.

@gorillapaws I understand that is socialism. And you seem to be in denial that many Democrats and those on the left ARE socialists. Bernie, AOC…both affirmed socialists. All the Dem candidates for POTUS this year affirmed support for Socialistic plans. As I mentioned, NY and CA have passed laws that if you leave their state, they can tax your wealth. Taxing wealth is nothing more than Socialism. You taxed the money when it was made and then you want to tax it again because….they make too much?!? I am a huge believer in a flat tax. Tax everyone from top to bottom at 10%. All income regardless of business or private, earned or dividend…it’s all taxed the same. If you make $10,000/yr, you pay $1000 in taxes. If you make $1M/yr, you pay $100,000. The rich definitely pay more than the poor and they tend to use less of the public services. So they are not tapping back out of the money they pay as much. Do away with loopholes, do away with deductions. Turn the tax code into about 10 pages. My personal feeling is that the only thing that shouldn’t be taxed is tips and donations to charity if the money is going largely to the needy. Stop taxing tips at all. As for donations, if someone is making a salary from the charity (such as working for United Way)_then you tax their income.

@seawulf575 ”many Democrats and those on the left ARE socialists. Bernie, AOC…both affirmed socialists.”

Bernie, AOC, etc. are affirmed Democratic Socialists. BIG difference—like Sweden and Maoist China different. They aren’t proposing 100% wealth taxes as you suggest. Bernie’s proposal is:

”It would start with a 1 percent tax on net worth above $32 million for a married couple. That means a married couple with $32.5 million would pay a wealth tax of just $5,000.”

”The tax rate would increase to 2 percent on net worth from $50 to $250 million, 3 percent from $250 to $500 million, 4 percent from $500 million to $1 billion, 5 percent from $1 to $2.5 billion, 6 percent from $2.5 to $5 billion, 7 percent from $5 to $10 billion, and 8 percent on wealth over $10 billion. These brackets are halved for singles.”

Is this shocking news to you? Or are you deliberately being disingenuous about their actual positions?

@gorillapaws Yes, that’s what Bernie proposal is. But in the Dem Debates, he even admitted that wouldn’t be enough and that he would have to raise taxes on all Americans to pay for all his plans. He tried saying that the increase for universal healthcare would be offset by the savings they would realize from not having to pay for private healthcare. That may be true but is a side step answer. Because he has more plans than just universal healthcare. He, along with most of the Dem candidates fully embraced the New Green Deal which basically gives the federal government control over every aspect of our lives including where we live, what we eat, what jobs we can have, etc, etc, etc. Sorry…that isn’t Democratic Socialism. Stop trying to push false narratives.

@seawulf575 ”...he even admitted that wouldn’t be enough and that he would have to raise taxes on all Americans to pay for all his plans.”

His proposed top marginal income tax rate was basically identical to Reagan’s AFTER his first round of tax cuts. So according to your logic, Reagan was a Socialist too?

”[The Green New Deal] which basically gives the federal government control over every aspect of our lives including where we live, what we eat, what jobs we can have, etc, etc, etc. Sorry…that isn’t Democratic Socialism.”

So you’re making the argument that the Green New Deal is Socialism? It’s a bill designed to capture 100% of everyone’s wealth and redistribute it equally to everyone? That’s news to me. It is my understanding that it’s a bill designed to transition America into the world’s leader in sustainable energy technology and production. It’s mirroring FDR’s New Deal. You know, the guy that put in place the structure that lead to the USA becoming a global superpower. Do you believe FDR was a Socialist?

Democratic Socialism is a movement to return the country to the pre-Reagan economic model, and expand on the investments it makes in the people.

Furthermore with your proposed 10% flat tax we wouldn’t even have the revenue to cover the budget’s non-discretionary spending, so what are you going to cut? Do veterans still deserve their benefits? Am I not going to receive the social security and Medicare I’ve been paying into? Should poor kids still get school lunches for free?

And what about discretionary spending? Do we need a military? Should we maintain the Federal highways, bridges etc? Do we want Federal prisons? An FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA? What about agencies like the SEC, EPA, FDA, FAA, National Weather Service?

It sounds like you see no problem at all with the erosion of the wealth of the middle class that’s happened since Reagan? It sounds like you don’t really believe in equality of opportunity.

@seawulf575 Just keep in mind that accumulated wealth is the sum of savings AFTER TAXES. Taxing the same money again would set a dangerous precedent. Also, have you evr seen a tax rate that did not rise? Until it dropped under its own weight.

@seawulf575 This post is a response to your latest post, the one in which you address the flat tax.

In 2016, taxpayers paid a total federal income tax of $1.4 trillion on a total AGI of $10.2 trillion. This is from

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/

@seawulf575 My last response was incomplete because my trigger finger was too quick!

Anyway, to finish my thought: The AGI total shown above does not included people who make too little to even file a tax return.

Let’s say you exclude them The percentage tax required on the remainder is just 14%. Would that satisfy you?

@gorillapaws “His proposed top marginal income tax rate was basically identical to Reagan’s AFTER his first round of tax cuts.” What you are trying desperately to avoid is that what Bernie proposed with all his socialist dreams would cost more than the wealthy make. So he would end up taxing the crap out of everyone to pay for them.
As for the Green New Deal…yes…it IS Socialism. Or possibly Fascism. Which way would you like to go? Let’s review some of the highlights in it. The definition of Socialism is “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.” So what does the Green New Deal offer? Well, let’s dig in. No more fossil fuels…only renewables in the form of wind and solar. See how that is working for California? But that is an effectiveness and not economic. But with that move, they take over the entire petroleum industry. They shut it down which shows they would control it. They want to do away with privately owned vehicles unless they are 100% electric. So they will basically do away with the automotive industry since most people won’t be able to afford to go buy a new car on their whim. They want to build a high speed rail system (electric) to replace the aviation industry. So they are taking over that. They want to dictate what farmers can grow and what ranchers can raise and sell. So they are taking over all the agriculture in the country. They want to replace or upgrade ALL existing buildings in the US so they meet specific, Democrat decided criteria. So they are doing away with private ownership and the construction industry will tail away.
Then we get into some of the other oddities listed in there. “to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);” So, that means they will decide which groups they want to reward (if any) and who they want to punish. And as their past has shown, they will play on these people to hold as much control over them as possible. And that sounds amazingly like wealth redistribution which falls directly in line with what you say they are not supporting and which the GND doesn’t do. In other words, even after I gave you the link to the House Resolution they all support, you still don’t want to admit how bad they are.
And you keep going off on “Democratic Socialism” like it is somehow different. Okay, let’s take your prime example…Sweden. You do understand how Sweden is functioning, right? Let me point out a few things you probably don’t know. They started down the same path Bernie is trying to march us down. They built a huge bloated centralized government that controlled everything. They put the unions in charge of the businesses and basically charged the owners for all the costs they ran up. They cost of living went skyrocketing, businesses were getting taxed out of operation and they were fleeing the country. People were miserable. Then they had an epiphany…the government was the problem. They started making the hard decisions. They shrank the size and control of the federal government. It became more of an oversight role instead of hands on. Today, most of the control sits in the hands of the various states/district governments. If they want to do something, they come up with ideas and if they need money, they tell the feds, submit the plans, and work out a deal. Sooo…let’s do something like that! Oh yeah…that’s how our country was set up and is supposed to operate…with the states being autonomous and the federal government being more of the glue to hold things together instead of the dominating body the politicians make it.

@crazyguy I understand the itchy trigger finger on the keyboard. Been there and done that! As for the percentage, I’m pretty flexible. But I truly believe we need to tax everyone. All gross income is taxed with no deductions and no loopholes. It would make accounting very easy. Audits would be a breeze. And I think we need to tax everybody because it is some of the people at the bottom that take advantage of most of the “freebies” of the country. I’m all for charity. I’m not for supplying a way of life. Give a hand up and not a hand out…that sort of thing. And if you take it off the gross income without deductions or other loopholes, the taxes being raised would far exceed what we are currently getting. And many people would see a lot more money in their pockets on payday since they aren’t getting taxed out the wazoo only to file in April to get some back. I know I lose about 35% of my pay to state and federal taxes. By the time I file my returns, I end up getting some back and really only pay something like 14%. That extra 20% would be great each payday.

@seawulf575 ”...So [Bernie] would end up taxing the crap out of everyone to pay for them.”

There would be an increase in taxes for healthcare for everyone, but health insurance and healthcare costs would be eliminated. There is a net savings overall. Health insurance amounts to the equivalent of a private tax. Medical expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US. It is estimated that about 45,000 Americans die each year from lack of health insurance; to put things in perspective, that’s equivalent to about 15 September 11th attacks every year (the cost of the subsequent wars are estimated at over 6 Trillion dollars). Medicare for all would do away with that and be much cheaper overall.

“They shut [entire petroleum industry] down which shows they would control it.”

When the US shut down the slave trade industry, was that socialism? When they shut down the alcohol industry during prohibition, was that socialism? When the government shut down the asbestos industry was that socialism? Governments banning certain industries is not equivalent to socialism. Socialism means they take over all industries and everyone becomes an employee of the state. That’s not what the Green New Deal does. Furthermore it calls for a “Net zero” emissions, so it doesn’t completely shut down the industry. Production can be offset by carbon capture methods.

@seawulf575 “They want to dictate what farmers can grow and what ranchers can raise and sell. So they are taking over all the agriculture in the country.”

Wrong again. From the bill:

“working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including— (i) by supporting family farming; (ii) by investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health; and (iii) by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food.”

That isn’t socialism. The government can and does regulate agriculture already (try going a field of Papaver somniferum, or starting a ranch for people to hunt endangered species) and it’s not socialism. Furthermore the GND doesn’t advocate for Government ownership of all agriculture (actual socialism).

@seawulf575 “They want to build a high speed rail system (electric) to replace the aviation industry.”

This is also not accurate. They do want to expand high speed rail. That is accurate, but they don’t want to ban air travel. Expanding infrastructure isn’t socialism.

@seawulf575 “They want to replace or upgrade ALL existing buildings in the US so they meet specific, Democrat decided criteria. So they are doing away with private ownership and the construction industry will tail away. ”

Upgrading buildings doesn’t remove private ownership. and contrary to your claim of crushing the construction industry, it would generate incredible demand for (privately-owned) construction work. A socialist plan would seize all private assets. The GND doen’t do this.

@seawulf575 _“So, that means they will decide which groups they want to reward (if any) and who they want to punish.”

There’s nothing in that statement about punishing people.

@seawulf575 __”...And that sounds amazingly like wealth redistribution which falls directly in line with what you say they are not supporting and which the GND doesn’t do.“_

Wealth redistribution isn’t socialism, unless it’s 100% wealth redistribution. We’ve been “redistributing wealth” in this country since it was founded (e.g. taxing people and using it to pay soldiers for example). Believe it or not, we live in a mixed economy. Democratic Socialists are advocating for a mixed economy. Since Reagan, we’ve actually been on a path that has moved towards a new kind of economic model: corporate socialism, whereby corporations keep the profits and externalize the losses onto the taxpayer. We just financed nearly 6 trillion dollars from the taxpayer to corporations in March. How’s that for wealth redistribution?

It seems you have been seriously misinformed about the Green New Deal. Here’s an article that may help correct some of the falsehoods you believe: Fact Check on the GND.

@seawulf575 “And you keep going off on “Democratic Socialism” like it is somehow different.”

That’s because it IS different. There is a massive OBJECTIVE difference between the “nordic model” and Cultural Revolution China. Are you seriously denying that? It also provides many objective benefits (e.g. life expectancy, happiness, homeless-per-capita, infant mortality, PTO, family leave, etc.) for it’s people than post-Reagan capitalism while providing similar or better median wealth per person.

@gorillapaws Your first response is a reiteration of what Bernie said and totally ignores what I just stated before (to which you were, ha-ha, responding). Yep, he claims the increase in taxes would be offset by the savings from current healthcare. But that isn’t his only socialist proposal..a fact you completely tried to side-step. Additionally, you cited his plan which was extra taxes on the wealthy which was supposed to cover the costs. Yet when pressed about it (because the math doesn’t add up) he admitted it was far more than that. So please, don’t quote me out of context and then act like you are making sense. You are dodging.
As for the rest, you are a lost cause. You refuse to admit what is right there in front of you.

@seawulf575 That’s a pretty vapid rebuttal. None of your examples demonstrate that Bernie, AOC, etc. are actual socialists. Furthermore you refuse to address the point that Trickle-Down Economics has objectively failed to trickle-down, that it has lead to the gradual reduction in the percentage of wealth in the bottom 90% and an increase for the top 1%. We’re facing wealth inequality at levels higher than the crash that kicked off the Great Depression. Why hasn’t it trickled down? Just admit it was a lie.

@gorillapaws You call it vapid, but your lengthy response ignored key points that you won’t admit. You just dodge them. That tells me that continuing in a long response is pretty much a waste of time. I have stated before that it doesn’t matter what sort of government you have, there will always be income inequality. If you reset the world today and gave everyone the exact same amount of money, there would still be those that turned it into fortunes and those that didn’t. Probably within just a few years. You don’t want to acknowledge that. We have leaders that have proven themselves to be corrupt, and/or incompetent and yet you are eager to give them more power and more control over you. Face it, you are a Socialist bordering on a Communist and would like nothing more than to see America fail.

@seawulf575 “If you reset the world today and gave everyone the exact same amount of money, there would still be those that turned it into fortunes and those that didn’t. Probably within just a few years. You don’t want to acknowledge that.”

I LITERALLY agreed with that point 6 posts up:

“I completely agree with this. Nobody wants to divide everything equally. That’s not what a progressive taxation structure does.”

You still haven’t accounted for how Reaganomics has failed. Everyone agrees that Maoism is a system that can’t work in practice. Reaganomics has also proven to be a failure. Before Reagan, the bottom 90% had almost as much wealth as a percentage as the top 1% a little over 30% each. Since Reagan, the 1% now owns about 40% and the bottom 90% owns just 20% of the nations wealth, and it’s continuing to collapse. Not only did Reaganomics fail to trickle down, it resulted in the bottom 90% of Americans having about a third of their wealth redistributed to the 1% over the next 4 decades. If you want to cannibalize your middle class, either go Maoism or Reaganomics. The moderate (even “conservative”—in the traditional sense of the word) lane is returning to a healthy mix of government regulations to curb the failures of unchecked capitalism, progressive taxation and investment in the citizens so they can maximize their chances of success without destroying the incentives to work.

“Face it, you are a Socialist bordering on a Communist and would like nothing more than to see America fail.”

I literally don’t have a fucking clue what you’re talking about. Either your understanding of what “Socialist bordering on Communist” actually means is so pathetically wrong, or you’re just completely full of shit. Your refusal to acknowledge that there’s a difference between Norway and Cultural Revolutionary China, that America in the Eisenhower administration had a top marginal tax rate of 90% (during the height of the cold war no-less) and not only did the country not completely crumble, it experienced a massive expansion, is just sad. Your ability to ignore how Reaganomics has lead to a situation that is mirroring the prelude to the Great Depression, or ignore how other models are kicking our asses in all kinds of metrics is shocking.

@gorillapaws

You make some good points.

1. Reaganomics: I am not certain Reaganomics has been given an adequate trial. Reagan was President from 1980 to 1988. During those eight years, wealth held by the top 1% rose from about 23% to about 27%. Note the historical minimum percentage of wealth controlled by the top 1% was hit in the 70s just before Reagan’s massive wins. Wealth concentration kept rising after Reagan with a slight dip right around the year 2000, because of the dot.com bust. By 2012, concentration of wealth in the top 1% hit its highest level since the early 1940s.

2. Eisenhower administration: You make a good point about tax rates and economic growth during the Eisenhower administration. However, please keep in mind that the 70s saw the greatest stagflation in our history. That coincided with the lowest share of national wealth controlled by the top 1%. I am not implying any connection, just stating a fact. As you noted, concentration of wealth is trending towards levels experienced just before the Great Depression. In 1931, the concentration level (defined as the percentage of national wealth controlled by the top 1%) was 52%!

I do not pretend to know what the optimum levels are. I oppose any taxation of wealth on the grounds that the funds have been taxed once already. And any growth in wealth is targeted already by capital gains and dividend taxes. We have a sort of wealth tax already – property tax. In European countries that still have the wealth tax, the highest contribution of wealth taxes to the total collected is in Switzerland (about 3%). In Spain and Norway, the percentage contributed by wealth taxes is close to 1%.

I’m hesitant to jump into this discussion but there are several statistics that you all seem to be ignoring. Yes, the marginal rate was 90% under Eisenhower but nobody paid that rate. There were far too many loopholes to shelter their income. Also the war had decimated the world and it had to ne rebuilt. The US was the only country left unscathed with the capacity to it. During the 50s the US accounted for fully half of the entire world’s GDP. Women Began to work in en-mass which began the proliferation of the two income family. There was virtually no state income tax. Also there were fewer safety nets and a stigma against those not working. All these things contributed to lower income families growth in wealth.

What you seem to be advocating is a return to those days without any of the tools to make it work. You can’t have a society where only those that want to work actually work and expect it to thrive. Call it socialism, communism, modified capitalism, democratic socialism, doesn’t matter. It won’t work. Robinhood was a story not an economic system.

Giving people the bare necessities of life does not discourage people from working. It works in Scandinavian countries. It could work here as well.

@LostInParadise You bring up Scandinavian countries and @gorillapaws brought up Sweden. I suggest you both watch this documentary about Sweden. What you will find is that they went the way Bernie and AOC and all the rest of that brood want to go. And they almost destroyed their country. Today they are far closer to capitalism than socialism. So while you two slather on about this, you might want to be pushing for what is actually working and not for what failed miserably.

What actually IS working?

Scandinavian countries in general have a much more progressive tax structure and less income disparity. They also have higher per capita income than the U.S.. They manage to do this with universal health care and free education. Not a bad model. Link

@Jaxk

Thanks for jumping in. You made some excellent points. The effective tax rate for the top 10% has indeed dropped since the Eisenhower era. See https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/effective-income-tax-rates-have-fallen-top-one-percent-world-war-ii

Other than the 1965–1975 decade, effective tax rates dropped in EVERY decade, including the ones in which Democrats controlled the trifecta (White House and BOTH houses). Unfortunately, the data goes only through 2015.

A second source – see https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/ provides data through 2016 and reaches the same conclusion that the effective tax rate has not dropped much for he top 1% since the Eisenhower days.

I LOVE your line: “Robinhood was a story not an economic system.” I wish more people would see the wisdom of that line.

@LostInParadise

Perhaps you know a different class of low-income people than I do. Since most low-paid employees work for the bare necessities of life, if you give them those for staying at home, I very much doubt they will work.

@stanleybmanly Did you watch the documentary I cited? There are a lot of things there that are working well. And most of them sound more like Republican ideas than Democrat ideas. They reduced the size and impact of their centralized government for one. Think Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer could get behind that idea? They encourage entrepreneurship and use the ideas that come out of that to provide benefits such as education and healthcare. The government gets out of the way. Think Nancy or Chuck would get behind that? Think Bernie or AOC would?

I’ve seen your “documentary” more than once, and I agree wholeheartedly that whatever policies the Swedes have in place to produce their results, we should duplicate. So you tell me, should the Swedes follow our example, or should we follow theirs?

@stanleybmanly In response to

I’ve seen your “documentary” more than once, and I agree wholeheartedly that whatever policies the Swedes have in place to produce their results, we should duplicate. So you tell me, should the Swedes follow our example, or should we follow theirs?

I do not think you can craft policies based on something that works in one place in another place. Keep in mind that Sweden has a much more homogeneous population than we do. In fact, other than France, Germany and England, most European countries have relatively small numbers of “people of color”.

That last remark sounds a bit racist. Would you care to elaborate?

@stanleybmanly You realize that many of the things that Sweden does are the exact things Trump is trying to do, that your precious Democrats are fighting tooth and nail?

You persistently insist on sticking me with the Democrats. It amounts to a belief that I am in love with skunks because they are hostile to rattlesnakes. I would not hesitate to seize the skunk as a weapon to beat the snake to death if that is all that is available. So should we follow the Swedish example?

@crazyguy If you think our problems boil down to diversity and “people of color”, think again. Our racial problems, like Trump himself are the direct result of our apparently irresistible ignorance. Have you paid any attention to what the Swedes have done regarding immigration in the last 2 decades. We should hand the statue of liberty over to them in shame.

@LostInParadise It is a statement of fact. Sometimes facts can sound one way or the other; but thay cannot be changed to suit you or anybody else.

@stanleybmanly I have no idea what you are talking about. See https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/sweden-turns-welcoming-and-restrictive-its-immigration-policy

Sweden, like most European countries, has recently tightened up its immigration policies, in response to a surge of refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and other countries.

@crazyguy yes, recently the Swedes have been overwhelmed by immigrants, and their citizens are in revolt over the issue. Their restrictions however are not about caging kids nor labeling refugees rapists, or murderers.

@crazyguy , What is a statement of fact? The U.S. has more racial and ethnic diversity than most other countries. That is a fact. But so what? Why should that make a difference?

@stanleybmanly Caging kids was ok under Obama but not under Trump? Let me define the rock and hard place for you.

The rock is that a federal judge will not allow children to be held prisoners longer than 20 days. The hard place is that if you release the parents with the kids, they will disappear in society. You choose.

@LostInParadise The comment that I made, which gave you some heartache was:

“I do not think you can craft policies based on something that works in one place in another place. Keep in mind that Sweden has a much more homogeneous population than we do. In fact, other than France, Germany and England, most European countries have relatively small numbers of “people of color”.

As you can see from the full comment, the point I am making is not that diversity is a problem, but that it makes importing solutions and procedures hard.

Why? All these people are Americans, the vast majority born in the U.S.. Importing a solution should be equally as easy for all of them. Surely you can see the implied racism in your statement.

Lost: I am sorry. I am not a racist in any definition of the word. If my statement upset you, I apologize. However, I am convinced upon rereading the statement that it is correct. Just because something works in a faraway land, there is no guarantee it will work here.

Reagan is right on !! He should have mentioned the Roman bread and circuses. It helped destroy Rome. Same thing

The idea that people can be pacified by food and entertainment when they should be rallying to their prescribed civic duties isn’t a new one. In fact, the concept was first described in ancient times by the satirical Roman poet Juvenal, who penned the Latin term panem et circenses, which means “bread and circuses.”

You miss the point that bread and circuses worked for close to 500 hundred years. The REAL lesson from that period is THIS: if you deprive people of an actual opportunity for decent employment in an environment of obscene wealth and inequality, you damned sure had better feed and entertain them. If you don’t, they will as sure as shit cut your throat and deprive you of it all.

@LogicHead The only real threat capitalism faces is the glaring wealth inequality in the US. It is relatively straightforward to fix income inequality, at least in the short term. Addressing wealth inequality is very difficult in a reasonable manner. And addressing wealth inequality sustainably is impossible.

But that terse analysis ignores the truth as it exists. The current situation proves precisely the impossibility of any system allowing everyone the vote while the rich prosper inordinately at the expense of the rest. Anyone can look at this country and see that socialism has taken a huge gallop in this country since the great depression. Why? To put it plainly, voters will not tolerate a declining standard of living in a land distinguished for its wealth regardless of whatever excuse is proffered. If an ever growing percentage of the nation’s wealth flows to the top, the pressure to make up the difference is politically irresistible. The losers grow ever more dependent on the government simply because it is the only way politicians can keep their jobs and avoid open rebellion. Trump as a phenomenon is an open symptom of EXACTLY this effect. The shortfall for the society at large generated by the transfer of its wealth to the top is being filled by the state, and it is achieved solely through DEBT. The state BORROWS the money from the rich, the very money the rich SHOULD pay in taxes and erects the necessary safety net. And instead of paying their share, the rich collect interest on the money they should owe the state. Socialism is our present and FUTURE—like it or not. The setup is of course unsustainable, but those of you wishing otherwise should pray to whatever god you believe in that it remains.

@stanleybmanly I am going to choose to respond to your latest post because it is logical. And a pet idea of mine.

I have become convinced that wealth inequality beyond a certain point is a recipe for revolution. Therefore, a democratic society must do all that is necessary to avoid that situation. The problem of course is that greed knows no bounds. So those who can keep taking from the well until the well breaks. Once that happens, what you get is a one-term fix to wealth inequality until the next crisis is brought on by the leaders of the previous crisis. You can see that is what happened in Russia, which has glaring inequality now, worse than the US. France, which also went through a bloody revolution, has fared somewhat better. Their wealth inequality as measured by the GINI Coefficient, is significantly lower than the US. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_equality

I am not certain that generations of wealth accumulation can be undone by something as simple as tax code modification. The simple reasons are:

1. There are basic differences in people’s abilities, and some people will always float to the top.
2. All the tax code does is make it a little harder for wealth inequality to emerge.
3. We live in a democracy and there are still concepts of fairness and possible paths up for the under-privileged that have to be respected.

In brief, I would be happy to have an in-depth look at the problem and possible solutions. But only if you can think in terms of sustainable solutions, not buzzwords. In your previous post, I had a huge problem with:
“The state BORROWS the money from the rich, the very money the rich SHOULD pay in taxes and erects the necessary safety net.”