Socialist Lies (and the truths of the dangers of Socialism) - Thread

the Pentagon being the worst example

 

GREAT idea! That would mean all those Republicans in the farm belt as well as the military industrial complex would lose their votes.

Awesome!!

 

I was raised on welfare, and born on to a healthcare plan.
What don't I know?

I'm told the Nanny State knows better than me; Have my travel card (weekly zones 1 - 6 to cover Central London (Zone 1) and Croydon (Zone 5), (I live in Zone 4) for public transport in our capital where I'm from, in the slums, in the posh parts of town, I'm at home in those.
When I 'step out' but am still in London, it's in the industrial parts of town and the suburbs.

 

In the UK, when feckless Tony Blair was prime minister (Socialist Labour), a study was undertaken. It concluded that those on benefits were actually better off staying on benefits and not working.

Good old Utopian Socialism at it's best.

 

Right wingers work hard. Left wingers know the benefits/welfare system like the back of their hand.

 

hahahaha

 

Compared to what alternative?

Should they be earning minimum wage instead or turn to a life of crime?

If there are no jobs paying living wages then remaining on benefits is better than nothing at all.

 

Rightwingers get government benefits and welfare in the form of massive tax cuts and loopholes that enable them to avoid paying taxes.

 

Compared to working.

Here are two examples -

A lass in the local shop to me works X number of hours. She won't work overtime because the extra money means she loses more in terms of benefits that she receives.

A guy I know employees 3 staff. One of them won't take a pay rise, hasn't done do for the past 3 years. His wage is at maximum threshold for Child Tax Credits. If he takes a pay rise, he loses some £1,500 a month, his wife will have to seek a job and there are 5 kids to look after.

Good old socialism .

 

Still looking for mine if that's the case !!!

 

Actually you just exposed the FLAWS in capitalism instead.

The fact that NEITHER of them are being paid LIVING WAGES by their employers is the problem here, not socialism.

What is happening here is that those capitalist employers are being effectively SUBSIDIZED by BENEFITING from having employees partially on the government payroll.

Force employers to pay living wages and those socialist subsidies will disappear from your taxes.

 

What does tax avoidance have to do with politics?

Left Wingers & Right Wingers are both free to take advantage of such opportunities.

It's an equal opportunity thing.

 

I don't know what the lass earns.

The lad that doesn't want a pay rise is on a smidgen under £20,000 per year, hence why he doesn't want anymore.

So let's look at this Utopian idea you suggest. Let's say feck it, put everyone on £20ph, sounds fantastic doesn't it. So now inflation shoots up to cover the cost meaning goods and services are more expensive. Back to square one. In fact, companies will just accelerate automation even further. One of the biggest cost base to firms are wages, put them up, then expect automation, fewer but more disgruntled staff on the shopfloor and poor service, oh, that's what happening!!

 

Are you suggesting all social crutch programs should be eliminated? Then the above situations won't occur. And people will just do with less.
For if there are any programs for crutches, there is always a line in the sand that there will be a crossover point from needing it to not needing it.

But, if those employers paid enough to begin with, those employees wouldn't need those crutches to begin with.

 

So we should keep wages low to stifle automation?
Automation has been going on for 100s of years.

So to continue on with your scenario, if wages stay low to avoid automation, how does the family income improve?

 

Thank you for conceding that capitalism is a dismal failure when it comes to dealing with how to ensure that everyone has basic needs like food and shelter taken care of.

 

No, I posted two real life examples where some don't follow the intentions of the benefits. That was obvious.

On paper, welfare is fantastic, help those when they need it etc.. In reality, it doesn't work because people are not honest, hence why Socialism is Utopian. These two characters can work and take pay rises. Benefits should not be paid to them, tax burden should be less as the welfare cost is lower. It's a vicious circle.

People work round the intentions of welfare to get free money.

 

Are you Cathy Newman, you forever come up with things I've never said. Is this just to be argumentive on purpose? Some kind of fetish?

 

Capitalism is a dismal failure. Socialism is 100 times worse and Communism worse still.

I've never claimed in my life capitalism is fantastic, unless you can highlight a post where I have. If you can, I will give £1m, if you can't, I accept American Express.

What system should we have?

 

Depends on what you aiming to achieve.

If we take a look at tribal societies we see systems where poverty was virtually unknown because anyone who belonged to a tribe was assured of food and shelter for doing their part for the community.

Then along came capitalism and we see this bizarre change in society where it is acceptable for a handful to become obscenely wealthy while millions are wallowing in abject poverty.

Obviously communism was a disaster because it failed to implement the relevant checks and balances and allow for natural concepts like entrepreneurship. The Chinese are trying to avoid that pitfall.

Instead what has evolved are social democracies.

In essence they are a HYBRID of capitalism and socialism that attempts to replicate the concept of eliminating poverty from society while still allowing for capitalism to thrive.

Have we got it 100% right?

Nope, because we are human and screw things up but we are a whole lot closer.

Unfortunately here in the USA we have a legacy of screaming "COMMUNISM" any time anyone wants to move us towards the sanity of a social democracy. That appears to be on the wane amongst the Millennials who have been effectively screwed by having to take out a mortgage just to get the benefit of a college education under unfettered rampant capitalism.

Things here will change after we Americans have tried everything else first and failed, as Churchill so astutely observed.

 

Yes. And as I said, there is always the line in the sand between receiving and not receiving. Those 2 characters are working, just not earning enough to completely rid themselves of the system. Should they take a $1/hr raise and lose $2/hr of benefits? Why doesn't the employer make up the cost difference if it is such a concern?
And where ever that line is drawn, there will always be people on the fringe of receiving and not receiving. Where is becomes a personal choice to take more pay and lose more benefits.
The only way to stop that is to pay everyone enough so they don't qualify for programs. Or to eliminate them.
The small 1 or 2 people that always gets brought up as a problem, isn't really a huge problem. If affects a minority of those on the system trying to get off.

 

I asked you questions. I didn't say you said anything.
Why can't you answer the questions?

 

It's obvious that it's quite the opposite.

The lass could do overtime and/or more hours but doesn't want to or she loses benefits and has to pay for prescriptions (medication).

The guy could increase his wage for 3 years now, his boss wants to, but he doesn't.

So the level of wages are not under question, it's the employees intentions.

 

I say something and you go off at a tangent saying, "So you mean..... x, y, z". Just stop it.

 

It's obvious the Socialists want Conservatives to work 40 hours a week to pay for Socialists who work zero hours a week.