Have people that support socialism ever paid taxes?

None of has anything to with the government driving prices down

where a profit can be made.

All you got is Mumbo Jumbo.

 

But if I only want product X then I will only buy product x and not everything else on the truck

NO. There is no one holding a gun to my head saying watch this or else. If football game a is on channel a but i want to watch football game b then i just change the channel to the one broadcasting football game b.

So paying more in taxes saves me money? Plus I am very healthy and almost never go to a doctor or hospital so I don't really need health insurance I just have it for in case. And for those that don't have insurance: this will sound very harsh but I don't care leave me alone. I don't want to be responsible for your healthcare bill. Get a job. Like I don't know what to say life sucks. Don't make my life suck by making me responsible for your problems.

Yes I do need clothing. So I'll buy the clothing I want not what the government wants me to buy

 

Because this wasn't about driving down costs or profits. This was about the basic idea of how governments can be classified. Two very seperate topics.

 

Ah I see. This isn't really about political ideology. This is just about the idea of free will. To that end, I have a scenario. You're carving a piece of wood into a figure. Are you carving it, or is the wood letting you carve it?

Also since you live in a society, your actions affect others as well and ultimately their reactions affect you as well. You can't say no to the people, because you need them, and they need you as well. If you reject the societal contract, then you're on your own.

 

I have paid between 15 to 24% of my income every year since 1966 in taxes to the various governments whose jurisdictions I have lived in. It's the price of living in a civilized society. Get over it.

 

I don't believe I ever said anything to the contrary. My point was, and this may be where the confusion lies, is that many reformations of government, new governments, or takeovers have begun with the idealistic vision of a purely socialist society yet they very quickly realize how unattainable this is and either must fail, succumb to a revolution of some sort, or switch their ideological practice to incorporate other ideologies, usually some form of capitalism.

Cuba is an extremely good example of this.

 

I'm not saying no taxes. I don't mind that much paying between 15-24% for taxes. I will mind when I have to start paying 30, 40, in some cases even 50 percent of my income to government. That's where socialism starts.

 

Actually, paying high taxes does not mean its the start of socialism, its what happens with that money that defines whether or not your nation is going socialistic. A dictator could raise your taxes and never institute a socialist policy. The US has had extremely high tax rates before and they were not socialist.

Times of war may see taxes skyrocket but that does not equate to socialism.

 

Obviously the wood is not letting me carve it but it is also not not letting me carve it. Wood comes from a dead tree. It has no soul. It has no intelligence. It is dead organic matter.

The whole idea of free-will is a political ideology on its self. Most political ideologies pretty much just describe how powerful government should be and how much control it should have over us ie authoritarians favor a strong government that has a lot of influence whereas liberitritarians are the complete opposite. Also, how is paying a random guys healthcare bill in the opposite corner of the country going to benefit me in society? What good has he ever done to me? If my best friend comes to me and drastically needs $500 to buy a plane ticket to see his mom who is in critical condition in the hospital for example, then I'll give it to him without hesitation and may not even ask for him to pay me back. But I don't care for people who I have no emotional attachment to.

 

I like paying for roads. Roads are great for my business.

 

One has to be pretty stupid if one gives them 'most' of their money.

 

The multiplier works out to be greater than 1. This fact is also why cutting spending can be tricky for governments. They can dig themselves deeper in debt by cutting spending on the wrong things. Some European countries did that after the recession and made themselves a fine mess, and the IMF started releasing reports on the dangers of multipliers.

At any rate, what a lot of people don't realize is that we are in a consumer based economy. There is this silly notion in politics that the super rich are job creators; however, it's the every day person who creates jobs via their consumption. No matter how rich you are, you're only going to buy so many broomsticks. It takes the masses to keep up the broomstick industry. Hence, I'm all for social spending to keep the consumer healthy. At the end of the day, it's good for the economy and even politics.

 

The more serious person is very concerned about the high inequality. Historically, really high inequality leads to the creation of police states or revolutions. Economically, it makes it hard to do business because you don't have enough demand from consumers. The base of people who can afford to buy goods shrinks.

 

Sorry I see your point. But I meant to say that you can't have socialism and low tax rates at the same time. And when Ronald Reagan became president and reduced those high taxes after the administration of Jimmy Carter, the economy dramatically improved.

 

I do to and I don't mind paying taxes for things like that or the military, police, education etc... But I do mind when I have to pay taxes because someone else thinks they are entitled to my tax money and receive it to pay for their expenses.

 

Cuba is an extremely good example of a large imperialist country using it's power to destroy a smaller country.

 

That's hilarious. The government doesn't drive down costs. They raise costs. Graft isn't cheap, kickbacks to unions isn't cheap, and buying votes with taxpayers money isn't cheap. My ex-wife taught me that nothing is too expensive for the person who doesn't have to pay it.

There are working people in the U.S. paying more than half their earnings to the government when you consider all levels of government, all taxes and fees, and all expenses you're forced to pay that you didn't agree to.

An amazing number of liberals don't pay.

I am curious, can someone tell me what service I potentially get from the government, other than an IRS audit, that a deadbeat who's never paid taxes doesn't get. What service am I receiving due to my status as a taxpayer instead of a tax consumer?

 

And that is what is currently causing one of the slowest recoveries from recession in modern times.

- - - Updated - - -

Roads good, wars bad!

 

The top Federal income tax rate is 39.6% for people making over $406,750 and that rate applies only to the amount over $406,750, you pay lower amounts on the money up to that some. If you are paying that kind of taxes, you should be able to find a decent accountant who knows how bring that down considerably. Even the Mittster, whose income is well above that figure stated he only pays about 13% on federal income taxes. Don't forget that once you make $117,000 you pay no Social Security taxes on the money you earn in excess of that number. For wealthy people, it's likely best for them to move to one of the states that doesn't have an income tax, for lower income people they do best in states with no sales tax. I'd be surprised if anyone in the U.S. pays anywhere near 50% of their income in taxes.

 

Who gives a majority of their money to the government?

 

Fair point. But if the roads were built and maintained privately, you'd still end up with (or more likely have to begin with) wars. Pretty much any activity that involves that much territory is something that people will kill each other over. It's not like only governments wage war, it's just that only governments claim a legal right to do so.

 

And I cannot understand how anyone can support a small group exploiting others so that the small group can hoard so much of the wealth created by others. Slavery worked on the same principle.

We know that we all arose from dawwin's jungle, but some people want to not evolve from that paradigm, when it comes to an economy, to a society. The animals are stuck in that paradigm, but humans can rise above it, by the use of the intellect.

Capitalism has never provided for an entire society, but is constructed to always have a poor class as well as a rich class. Even when we are no longer driven by scarcity, we still keep the same system that arose from there not being enough to go around.

 

How does capitalism prevent you from getting educated, getting a well paying job, and providing for yourself?

Hint: It doesn't.

- - - Updated - - -

France’s Hollande Gets Court Approval for 75% Millionaire Tax

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-29/france-s-hollande-gets-court-approval-for-75-millionaire-tax.html

 

I have paid tax at between 28% and 50% all my working life, i've been quite happy to do so knowing that no one in my country need starve or go without medical care. I started off poor and have ended up with more than enough for my needs. When I was earning over £130,000 a year I didn't (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) that anything over that was taxed at 50% I was just so glad that I had been lucky enough to make that kind of money. I am aware that I have probably subsidised some lazy person but I am also aware that I have helped out many others just as hard working as me who were not as lucky as me. The people I really cannot stomach are the ones who will do anything to avoid paying their fair share when they have more than enough, particularly when it is inherited wealth and they have never done a proper days work in their lives.

 

That term "fair share" is the most offensive thing I can think of.

Who decides what a fair share should be?

You?