Why doesn't socialism work?

socialism is caring about your fellow citizens and the actual good health of the whole economy not just the economy for the rich. Think of Canada- that is socialism. Wake up sleeping beauty. Actually you become selfish like you. And GOP voters the poor misinformed things.

 

More explanation required.

The negative income tax can include a guaranteed income an graduated tax brackets.

 

And you're wrong.

 

Of course ownership can't work. That is communism and communism doesn't work end of story. Oh and GOP misinformation it's an English-speaking thing I tell you. And Napoleon was taller than average and never said England was a nation of shopkeepers, he said monopolists...

 

The negative income tax was constructed around integrating tax and benefit systems, such that it eliminates perceived work disincentives. It is crap, with right wingers soon ignoring Friedman's approach. It either needs progressive tax (which creates work disincentive effects, at least according to the right wingers) or it must start with the most vulnerable living in even more extreme poverty.

As you shift away from that, including the realisation that progressive taxation is a basic requirement, it isnt negative income tax analysis. It becomes minimum income analysis, with the focus on maximising the wellbeing of the lowest income households by ensuring high redistribution. The negative income tax approach was never about that.

 

There are high taxes on upper-income groups, too.

Changed your mind?

 

Your link has nothing to do with your idea which is wrong. They may have had more immigration lately because they actually took refugees from GOP mistakes overseas. Mideast blow up, sub-Saharan financial disaster and global warming.... And of course we're fighting immigration from Central America which is also GOP garbage, global warming AND war on drugs. Great job! Always a disaster View attachment 107624

They control it because they regulate it in all societies. Good regulation Fair regulation is socialism. You could also call it control. But when you talk ownership that means communism. U2 are clueless.

 

Romney was forced into healthcare by democrats. Republicans are owned by doctor's hospital's insurors big pharma and big health.

 

Before Obamacare you had to be unemployed to qualify for Medicaid. Now you can earn up to 130% of the poverty line. Of course as a republican I know you don't know what you're talkin about.

 

Not as high as the US. The top 10% in the US pays 45% of income taxes. In Sweden they pay 27%.

When did I claim that Denmark controls production ???

 

That’s complete BS.

 

More BS. Do your homework.

 

Which would only describe the severe inequalities in the US...

Right wing logic could do with a boost

 

Why do you think they hate big health being regulated? Republicans are totally bought by lobbyists and corporations. Duh. And the military industrial complex. Their pundits are twerps.

Do you ever have any real arguments or just bologna? As I said you appear to know nothing when you get into the facts. Medicaid is for those who earn less than 130% of poverty. It used to be you had to go on welfare to earn so little as to qualify. What country do you live in? Do you ever read anyting or follow real news?

 

Of course influence costs are also encouraged in your fake socialist utopia, given private and public sectors are naturally intertwined. Galbraith will help you with that.

 

The rich pay the taxes in the US. In Sweden the rich leave the country.

 

try looking into it instead of enjoying your misinformation so much....
Wikipedia:
In Fall 2005, the House and Senate each passed health care insurance reform bills. The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers.

On April 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed the health legislation.[21] He vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[22] He vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[23] The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.[24]

 

I know that what you claimed about Romney’s program to use Medicaid money to implement RomneyCare and Medicaid being only available to the unemployed are both not true.

 

I'm really not interested in cretinous soundbite. The point was simple: You should never crow about the rich paying tax in a country with Dickensian inequalities.

 

You just confirmed my point. This was RomneyCare was Romney’s idea hence the name.

You clearly don’t know what you are talking about. I’m done with correcting you. Good bye.

 

The fact is simple. In the US the rich pay a much higher percentage of total taxes than in Scandinavia.

 

You'd expect that as Scandinavia doesn't have Dickensian levels of inequality. Catch up now, its not difficult.

 

THE GAME OF LIVING

Socialism EXISTS NOWHERE IN THE WORLD! Whyzzat? Because one of the primary requisites of Socialism is that all the components of production should belong to the state!

You're employing it because you "grew up" within a common notion that "Socialism Is Bad". It's freebees to everyone who doesn't need them"!

The dominant political-philosophy today is Social Democracy, meaning this:

And you have no notion what is meant by "social justice". So, here's that definition as well:

The meaning of the "communal equivalence of opportunity" is that all participants in an economy have the chance to succeed. They are given the means to access their full potential. And crucial to those means are the state-provision of National Healthcare Systems and Post-secondary Education - both at acceptable costs to the individuals.

There is no guarantee of personal success in a Social Democracy, but there is an attempt to keep a level playing-field in the Game-of-Living ...

 

Socialism has a completely compulsory nature. Everything, absolutely everything, done by socialism is done by force of law

I do not doubt the benevolence of your intentions, I just think that the legal right to impose your best intentions on others by force should be reserved to the parents of small children.

 

Lie after lie! Socialism can only exist with democracy. It is ultimately about protecting property rights and ensuring genuine economic choice.