The wealthy and corporations will pay their "fair share", if Biden is elected

1 and b are both incorrect. Socialism is an economic model, not a political model. Some Govts may attempt to introduce a facsimile of socialism as law, but that's just a flavour of tyranny. A device for control, if you will. Nothing to do with actual socialism.

2a, "No private property", is the closest to correct but doesn't go far enough, and is therefore misleading. What it should say is that property is shared. IOW, every participating member of the collective has lifetime rights to use of the property. Private property is actually essential to socialism. It cannot work in a rent scenario, or in any situation where the collective doesn't have full autonomy.

 

1 and b are correct, sorry.

 

They're a political perspective only. Socialism is collectivism, and collectivism is an economic model.

 

It is OK if it is Capitalism. All people should have a right to

-- food
-- shelter
-- medical care

 

Sadly implementing a working Welfare State is very difficult. It took years of work by hundreds of experts to build a Welfare State in Scandinavia.

 

In Judaism, every Jew is obligated to donate 10% to 20% of income to Jewish charities.

 

Sure. Families must providing the food and shelter, and Govt must provide the medical care and education.

 

Which explains why the quality of life has declined over my lifetime even though government has grown. Amazing how some people with connect unconnected things in order to justify a political position.

So now you are a mind reader. Your words, not mine.

 

Not sure what "fair share" means. A rich man generally does not have to pay extra for anything. If he goes into a store, he pays the same price for an article as anyone else. If he goes to a movie, he pays the same price as anyone else.

How is it then, when it comes to taxes where he is getting the same government services as anyone else, he has to pay more just because he can?

In short the only reasonable definition of "fair share" is the same as whatever one else is paying. Meaning, the government should divide the cost of operating for a year among all the tax payers and they all pay an equal amount.

 

Which makes B correct.

 

<sigh> Your claim in post #220 in this thread was that others, not the government, should be able to take everything you earn in excess of what they have:

Remember? If you now wish to disavow that claim, I don't blame you. But it is there in plain English for anyone to read.

 

That appears to be an understatement....

Because the benefit he gets thereby is the same as what anyone else gets, and what he deprives others of is the same as what anyone else deprives others of.

That is of course false. The rich man almost always owns far more privileges that government creates for him and whose value government also creates for him at others' expense. Your claim appears to be that when a government service has the effect of taking money from earners and giving that money to owners, everyone is getting the same government service. That claim is false, absurd, and disingenuous.

Because he both benefits more from those services and is (almost always) depriving others of more than others do.

The two most fundamental and widely accepted principles of taxation policy are "ability to pay" and "beneficiary pay." They are identified in every economics textbook that discusses taxation policy. As ability to pay is equal to assets or net worth, the rich should pay in proportion to their assets or net worth. They currently pay far less than that. As the benefit one obtains from government is measured by the publicly created value of the privileges one owns, privilege owners should pay in proportion to the value of the privileges they own. They currently pay far less than that, and the difference is exactly measured by the value of their privileges

Refuted above. At a minimum, people should pay in proportion to what they are taking from the community, which is measured by the value of their privileges and is almost always far more for the rich.

Absurd and disingenuous nonsense refuted above.

 

I don't know what your lifetime includes, but I'd like to see some evidence for that claim.

They are not unconnected. You just don't understand the connection.

It's self-evident.

 

ISTR there is a similar obligation in Islam ("zakat"?) But charity isn't socialism.

 

How does he deprive. Income is not a zero sum game.

He drives on the same roads we do. He gets the same garbage collection. The same police force. He certainly does not get anything in proportion to the taxes he pays. Especially considering that nearly half the population pays no taxes.

You did not refute anything.

What is your definition of "fair share" and how did you come up with it?

 

There is no such thing as evidence here. It is a difference of opinion on what constitutes quality of life.

Governments do not improve quality of life. Wealth improves what is your definition of quality of life. What your non statistic says is that wealthier nations can afford more government so they have it. They have it because government naturally expands up to the point that it can no longer be afforded. We have passed that point in the U.S. and that is why we print money like they were magazines and borrow to an unsustainable level. It will only get worse.

No it is evident to you. The opposite is evident to me.[/quote]

 

Nope, sorry.

 

From you, that is. Here's mine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...as_percentage_of_GDP#List_of_countries_(2018)

Notice that once you get past a few tiny island nations whose governments rely on foreign aid, all the top countries in government spending are advanced democracies with high quality of life. The only three advanced countries with high quality of life but small government expenditure fractions are Hong Kong and Singapore, which don't count their publicly owned land used for public housing, etc. as expenditures, and Taiwan, which is an outlier for obvious reasons.

No it isn't. You simply have no evidence for your claim, just your puerile, "Meeza hatesa gubmint!" feelings.

All of history proves you wrong. A government has to be very bad indeed to be worse than no government.

And what leads to wealth? Anarchy?

That is a blatant non sequitur. How did those nations become wealthy?

Evidence for that claim? Of course not. The reference above shows that there are countries that have more government than they can afford, others that have less.

So you don't understand the modern debt-based monetary system, either. OK.

Readers can see that you just do not want to pay for the benefits you receive from government.

 

By owning privileges that abrogate others' rights such as land titles, IP monopolies, bank licenses, etc. (and of course also indirectly, by owning shares in the companies that own such privileges).

Privilege is.

But he gets to charge us full market value just for his permission to drive on them.

Which we have to pay him full market value for.

Which protects his property against those who have less, or none.

He gets far more than in proportion to the taxes he pays, as I already proved.

That is absurd garbage with no basis in fact:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/

See above. You are destroyed. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.

Commensurate with benefits obtained from and costs imposed on the community.

By being honest, intelligent, thoughtful, honest, informed, diligent and honest.

 

Give me a number. What I hear is that no amount is large enough.

You have not refuted anything.

Your link violates forum rules. It is unavailable unless I pay for it.

 

I explained that to you (to no avail, obviously.)

Stop being puerile

I agree. I didn't say anything about no government.

Business profits.

Mostly by providing an environment of freedom.

I agree. I said so. I put the U.S. in the more than they can afford category.

I understand it. I just don't support it.

They can read minds as well as you can?

 

You denied it.

Uh, yeah, actually, you did:

Remember?

I see. So, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your, "mind," places like Nigeria and Pakistan, where business profits are a large fraction of GDP, are wealthier than places like Germany and Japan, where business profits are a low fraction of GDP.

I guess that explains China's spectacular economic performance over the last 40 years...

Sorry, no. Wealth comes from people having not only the liberty to produce it, but ready access to the opportunity to produce it, and an accurate incentive to produce it.

You said the opposite.

Absurdly.

It's not mind reading, just experience.

 

100% of what they are taking from the community in excess of what they contribute. Same as the number that would be fair for your grocery bill: it depends on what you are taking from the store.

No, repayment of what they are taking is large enough.

Readers are aware that that claim is false.

I didn't have to pay for it. Maybe you are in a different jurisdiction.

 

You have provided no link whatsoever that prove that any of your claims of refuting are true.

And how do you actually arrive at some kind of number?
If you are in favor of a use tax. Sounds good to me as long as everyone else also pays a use tax.

 

Good lord. See you around.