socialism

[cowboydoc]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

you are again missing the point.


i am not arguing about the top 1%.

i have been and continue to discuss the top 0.1%.

NOT 99 to 99.9%. the 0.1%


discussing income tax paid also ignores the point that the vast majority of the wealth of the top 0.1% is not in the form of taxable income.

I understand you use the 0.1% because it fits your narrative better, but I think it’s important to put in perspective the value of the 0.1%s holdings compared to the US debt and deficit. You could create whatever tax structure/wealth redistribution you like, but the 0.1% could not float the bill even if you tax them into oblivion. This plan would also require significant restructuring of current spending.

 

[clubdeac]

I understand you use the 0.1% because it fits your narrative better, but I think it’s important to put in perspective the value of the 0.1%s holdings compared to the US debt and deficit. You could create whatever tax structure/wealth redistribution you like, but the 0.1% could not float the bill even if you tax them into oblivion. This plan would also require significant restructuring of current spending.

View attachment 425981

@Ducttape agree with Cowboy and I’ve posted on this numerous times. Even if you confiscated all the wealth from the top 0.1% it’d be enough to run the government for like 6 months. And in the process you destroy numerous businesses, the livelihoods of people working for those companies and their investments and retirements bc company stock would plummet. Then what?

 

[mille125]

And yet you want an even greater percentage to pay no taxes or as you would say, “their fair share” which many on the left believe should be zero

When did I ever say that?

The ultrawealthy should pay more...yes.

 

[cowboydoc]

@Ducttape agree with Cowboy and I’ve posted on this numerous times. Even if you confiscated all the wealth from the top 0.1% it’d be enough to run the government for like 6 months. And in the process you destroy numerous businesses, the livelihoods of people working for those companies and their investments and retirements bc company stock would plummet. Then what?

*3.7 years. Then "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”-credited to Margaret Thatcher

 

[hyperalgesia]

*3.7 years. Then "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”-credited to Margaret Thatcher

I'm not even sure that applies here bc the modern "socialist" isn't interested in where the money goes, only that it is taken.

 

[emergentmd]

Libs - Tax the rich more, more social programs, more safety net, more borrowing, young will pay for it in taxes..... more more more. Until Rich leaves/broken, no more money, borrowing too costly, young don't have jobs, taxes can't cover things. OPPS...... Hello France. How hard is it to learn.

Ductape - 1% isn't rich, why are you using 1%, you need to use 0.1%..... Top 1% starts at 16.5M.... Yeah they not rich. 0.1% have NW of 64M, lets go after them.

 

[SSdoc33]

eliminate the step up basis

 

[hyperalgesia]

eliminate the step up basis

Fully agree with this

 

[bedrock]

Libs - Tax the rich more, more social programs, more safety net, more borrowing, young will pay for it in taxes..... more more more. Until Rich leaves/broken, no more money, borrowing too costly, young don't have jobs, taxes can't cover things. OPPS...... Hello France. How hard is it to learn.

Ductape - 1% isn't rich, why are you using 1%, you need to use 0.1%..... Top 1% starts at 16.5M.... Yeah they not rich. 0.1% have NW of 64M, lets go after them.

Yep.

 

[Ducttape]

I understand you use the 0.1% because it fits your narrative better, but I think it’s important to put in perspective the value of the 0.1%s holdings compared to the US debt and deficit. You could create whatever tax structure/wealth redistribution you like, but the 0.1% could not float the bill even if you tax them into oblivion. This plan would also require significant restructuring of current spending.

View attachment 425981

asking the 01.% to pay their fair share will not change fiscal policy. i have mentioned multiple times - between 10 and 10000 times - that taxing the ultra-rich for their fair share is not a cure for the federal debt. it would not do anything for federal deficit, the cause of the debt. this is a strawman argument on your part.

Libs - Tax the rich more, more social programs, more safety net, more borrowing, young will pay for it in taxes..... more more more. Until Rich leaves/broken, no more money, borrowing too costly, young don't have jobs, taxes can't cover things. OPPS...... Hello France. How hard is it to learn.

Ductape - 1% isn't rich, why are you using 1%, you need to use 0.1%..... Top 1% starts at 16.5M.... Yeah they not rich. 0.1% have NW of 64M, lets go after them.

1% is wealthy, it is not the percent that is abusing the system or paying to change tax law to allow them to legally abuse the system. the 1% (besides the 0.1%) is not using tactics that hoard wealth instead of investing back into the economy because these are not generally available to the 1%.


making them pay for their fair share reduces the economic inequality. it can also refocus the social norms regarding wealth for the sake of wealth. it can also change societal impressions about economic inequality, improving feelings of social equity, decrease social instability.



i find it amazing people who defend the small group of people who are abusing the system yet disparage the vast majority of people who are just trying to make ends meet. and again, it is the 0.1%, as i have mentioned multiple times, that is the target.

 

[Ducttape]

Yep.
View attachment 425984

this is the same old logical fallacy that you guys cant seem to get out of your head that is not applicable to the US, because we dont do socialism.

i decry the term democratic socialism because the emphasis is on socialism so that the gullible can be influenced by right wing "pundits" with nefarious goals. social democracy is marginally better.

the best description is moral capitalism.

 

[hyperalgesia]

this is the same old logical fallacy that you guys cant seem to get out of your head that is not applicable to the US, because we dont do socialism.

i decry the term democratic socialism because the emphasis is on socialism so that the gullible can be influenced by right wing "pundits" with nefarious goals. social democracy is marginally better.

the best description is moral capitalism.

All of those are euphemisms that could mean anything. The only thing that matters is the actual policy you support.

Do you feel like the term "wealth redistribution" is accurate?

 

[bubaghanush]

All of those are euphemisms that could mean anything. The only thing that matters is the actual policy you support.

Do you feel like the term "wealth redistribution" is accurate?

Isn't that what all taxation is in a sense?

What tax rate do you consider 'socialism'? Is getting rid of the step-up basis socialism?

 

[hyperalgesia]

Isn't that what all taxation is in a sense?

What tax rate do you consider 'socialism'? Is getting rid of the step-up basis socialism?

I don't think so. The progressive tax bracket structure has the incidental outcome of helping lower income people to a greater extent than higher income people (relative to their income) but that's not its purpose. If we could fund the defense department without any taxes, we would gladly do it.

I consider it wealth redistribution when a policy's actual purpose is to diminish a person's wealth or income. It's a subtle distinction but this is what ducttape is advocating for - to reduce the "wealth disparity".

For the life of me I can't understand the justification for the step up basis. It seems like an unnatural exception to taxation carved out for nepo babies.

 

[mille125]

Isn't that what all taxation is in a sense?

What tax rate do you consider 'socialism'? Is getting rid of the step-up basis socialism?

of course it is.....

 

[mille125]

I don't think so. The progressive tax bracket structure has the incidental outcome of helping lower income people to a greater extent than higher income people (relative to their income) but that's not its purpose. If we could fund the defense department without any taxes, we would gladly do it.

I consider it wealth redistribution when a policy's actual purpose is to diminish a person's wealth or income. It's a subtle distinction but this is what ducttape is advocating for - to reduce the "wealth disparity".

For the life of me I can't understand the justification for the step up basis. It seems like an unnatural exception to taxation carved out for nepo babies.

Your wealth redistribution comments make no sense. I am sorry.

 

[callmeanesthesia]

I don't think so. The progressive tax bracket structure has the incidental outcome of helping lower income people to a greater extent than higher income people (relative to their income) but that's not its purpose. If we could fund the defense department without any taxes, we would gladly do it.

I consider it wealth redistribution when a policy's actual purpose is to diminish a person's wealth or income. It's a subtle distinction but this is what ducttape is advocating for - to reduce the "wealth disparity".

For the life of me I can't understand the justification for the step up basis. It seems like an unnatural exception to taxation carved out for nepo babies.

100% agree on the step up basis. I think getting rid of it would fix so much of what is wrong with our tax code.

Who the government helps really depends on your perspective. Medicare and Social security provide most of our country’s retirement program. If that didn’t exist, then private businesses would have to pay more so that their employees could save up for retirement, end of life care, and insurance against the possibility of a disabling illness. Despite the government’s inefficiencies, their economy of scale is massive and they can provide predictable coverage for hundreds of millions of lives. As much as doctors complain about Medicare cuts, the vast majority of us don’t dare drop out.

For Medicaid, housing assistance, and food stamps, those are subsidies of employers as much or more than subsidies of poor people. 70% of adult welfare beneficiaries work full time. Not only do Wal Mart employees mostly qualify for food stamps, they spend those food stamps at Wal Mart. Those subsidies allow employers to pay a non-living wage, and taxpayers pick up the tab. How to actually unwind those programs, though, is not simple.

 

[hyperalgesia]

100% agree on the step up basis. I think getting rid of it would fix so much of what is wrong with our tax code.

Who the government helps really depends on your perspective. Medicare and Social security provide most of our country’s retirement program. If that didn’t exist, then private businesses would have to pay more so that their employees could save up for retirement, end of life care, and insurance against the possibility of a disabling illness. Despite the government’s inefficiencies, their economy of scale is massive and they can provide predictable coverage for hundreds of millions of lives. As much as doctors complain about Medicare cuts, the vast majority of us don’t dare drop out.

For Medicaid, housing assistance, and food stamps, those are subsidies of employers as much or more than subsidies of poor people. 70% of adult welfare beneficiaries work full time. Not only do Wal Mart employees mostly qualify for food stamps, they spend those food stamps at Wal Mart. Those subsidies allow employers to pay a non-living wage, and taxpayers pick up the tab. How to actually unwind those programs, though, is not simple.

I've never really had a problem with safety net programs in principle. I just don't like fraud and unsustainable growth of public spending.

I hope you appreciate the distinction I'm making between the focus on a safety net and the focus on "inequality". These two approaches are completely different imo. The first is noble, the second is toxic.

 

[bubaghanush]

What do Trump fans think of his latest tweets?

This is mainstream Republican rhetoric: Religious bigotry and using an abusive mother to score political points.

 

[Agast]

You’re not supposed to take Trump at his word. That’s TDS. He’s probably accepted more money from “Muslim jihadists” than anyone else in the country.

 

[hyperalgesia]

What do Trump fans think of his latest tweets?

This is mainstream Republican rhetoric: Religious bigotry and using an abusive mother to score political points.

Is putting a recording of one's own mother in her own words worse than calling someone HITLER??

The only reason any of us heard about the ad is bc the MSM elevated it to make Vivek look like the anti-Christ.

The second tweet cracks me up. I have no idea if El Sayed wants to implement Sharia Law in America.

It's funny that the methods both Trump and Obama and everyone is using now to try to get their absolute fringe people motivated. Probably a few people will get off their couch to prevent "Sharia Law" and others to stop "authoritarianism" and "tyranny" under Trump. But I doubt any of this hyperbole will change the result.

 

[bubaghanush]

Is putting a recording of one's own mother in her own words worse than calling someone HITLER??

The only reason any of us heard about the ad is bc the MSM elevated it to make Vivek look like the anti-Christ.

The second tweet cracks me up. I have no idea if El Sayed wants to implement Sharia Law in America.

It's funny that the methods both Trump and Obama and everyone is using now to try to get their absolute fringe people motivated. Probably a few people will get off their couch to prevent "Sharia Law" and others to stop "authoritarianism" and "tyranny" under Trump. But I doubt any of this hyperbole will change the result.

Republicans agree with you and think it's no big deal.

I have not seen Obama, Amy Acton, or El Sayed use religious bigotry and give the stage to mothers who let their husbands rape their daughters as Trump and Ramasawy have

Here is AI summary of her mother:

The estrangement is rooted in severe childhood abuse. Between 1976 and 1978, Acton was sexually abused by her stepfather, Cledith Arthur. Her mother sided with the abuser and failed to protect her children. When the stepfather was indicted on rape charges, he skipped bail, and Acton's mother fled the state with him, abandoning Acton and her brother. Consequently, the mother lost custody of her children, who subsequently faced periods of homelessness, including living in a tent.

 

[mille125]

Is putting a recording of one's own mother in her own words worse than calling someone HITLER??

Well the likely Republican front runner for 2028 endorses both. He called Trump America's Hitler himself and he support Vivek.

 

[hyperalgesia]

Republicans agree with you and think it's no big deal.

I have not seen Obama, Amy Acton, or El Sayed use religious bigotry and give the stage to mothers who let their husbands rape their daughters as Trump and Ramasawy have

Here is AI summary of her mother:

The estrangement is rooted in severe childhood abuse. Between 1976 and 1978, Acton was sexually abused by her stepfather, Cledith Arthur. Her mother sided with the abuser and failed to protect her children. When the stepfather was indicted on rape charges, he skipped bail, and Acton's mother fled the state with him, abandoning Acton and her brother. Consequently, the mother lost custody of her children, who subsequently faced periods of homelessness, including living in a tent.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with being a governor but it's your vote, and presumably your state.

I liked Vivek until he suggested Americans need to reflect on how our culture is flawed, compared to India's culture of "excellence". We don't do castes here tyvm.

 

[Ducttape]

I've never really had a problem with safety net programs in principle. I just don't like fraud and unsustainable growth of public spending.

I hope you appreciate the distinction I'm making between the focus on a safety net and the focus on "inequality". These two approaches are completely different imo. The first is noble, the second is toxic.

inequality is the reason we need the safety net as much as we do.

without so much inequality, by boosting the poor, the poor would be earning a more liveable wage and have much less need of the social safety nets. yes, the largest corporations have high numbers of employees requiring these services, and not just walmart but also amazon, mcdonalds, target, burger king, fed ex, kroger, dollar general.......

obviously, one of the reason salaries are so low is to improve dividends and overall profits.


the best solution would be to change social norms to have the ultra-rich - and corporations - be more morally and socially conscious, so that they reinvest in their employees. but now its all a singularity focused on "he who dies with the most toys wins" mentality, and that has included changing the tax code to allow unlimited wealth accumulation.




the amount of fraud in the system has been overhyped by MSM - yes, you need to register that fox is mainstream media. it is the largest media presence with the greatest number of viewers and by far the most influential, at the very least by the metric of how many former fox "analysts" work in the white house.

 

[Ducttape]

Is putting a recording of one's own mother in her own words worse than calling someone HITLER??

The only reason any of us heard about the ad is bc the MSM elevated it to make Vivek look like the anti-Christ.

The second tweet cracks me up. I have no idea if El Sayed wants to implement Sharia Law in America.

It's funny that the methods both Trump and Obama and everyone is using now to try to get their absolute fringe people motivated. Probably a few people will get off their couch to prevent "Sharia Law" and others to stop "authoritarianism" and "tyranny" under Trump. But I doubt any of this hyperbole will change the result.

all of us heard about this ad because it is a heinous political ploy to denigrate a candidate by dredging up sordid details.

amy actons mom has not communicated with her daughter in 48 years. she had plenty of opportunity. she never did so.

Fox news reported on the situation and ran several segments.



i find it interesting that conservatives are using the Muslim Brotherhood as an attack ploy when
1. the muslim brotherhood was only declared a terrorist organization 1/13/2026, and el sayed has been running for various offices since feb 25, 2017.
2. noone has asked Mike rogers if he denies the KKK or Proud Boys.

 

[mille125]

all of us heard about this ad because it is a heinous political ploy to denigrate a candidate by dredging up sordid details.

amy actons mom has not communicated with her daughter in 48 years. she had plenty of opportunity. she never did so.

Fox news reported on the situation and ran several segments.



i find it interesting that conservatives are using the Muslim Brotherhood as an attack ploy when
1. the muslim brotherhood was only declared a terrorist organization 1/13/2026, and el sayed has been running for various offices since feb 25, 2017.
2. noone has asked Mike rogers if he denies the KKK or Proud Boys.

Actually Ossoff asked Mike Rogers that question. Additionally he said if John Lewis was marching from Selma to Montgomery, Mike Rogers would be holding a billyclub.. He then asked Mike Rogers to simply disavow himself from this.

Mike Rogers did not answer the question and actually changed it. That says it all.

 

[hyperalgesia]

inequality is the reason we need the safety net as much as we do.

WRONG.

This is a logical fallacy that you are apparently unable to overcome.

The only thing bad about "inequality" is that it makes you (and others) jealous. You know that jealousy is not a valid reason for policy guidance, so you rationalize your position by trying to frame inequality as the cause of poverty.

Again, wealth is not a zero-sum game where a pie gets divided up. People who have wealth didn't take it from the poor. They created it.

If the Ten Commandments had been posted in your elementary school, you would know that your envy is a vice, not a virtue.

 

[Ducttape]

WRONG.

This is a logical fallacy that you are apparently unable to overcome,

The only thing bad about "inequality" is that it makes you (and others) jealous. You know that jealousy is not a valid reason for policy guidance, so you rationalize your position by trying to frame inequality as the cause of poverty.

that is the most laughable comment. the last time i saw so much 💩💩💩 the patient flooded the toilet so much that we had to close the patient bathroom for 2 days to allow the plumbers to change the pipes to clear the obstruction.


lest you forget, i have most likely been the lowest paid person on this forum for ages.

i dont care like you do about money. i make a decent living; im not taking it with me at the end. If i were jealous, dont you think i would have left my low paying job years ago? theres something much more important to me and that is my morals.



oh and btw, your comment is a logical fallacy - an ad hominem fallacy of attacking the presenter.

in addition, what you present as a logical fallacy is not a logical fallacy.

Again, wealth is not a zero-sum game where a pie gets divided up. People who have wealth didn't take it from the poor. They created it.

so what do you think about:
predatory lending
tax breaks including ability to pay no taxes by the ultra-rich
market exploitation
corporate welfare
bailouts
subsidies to major tech, banks, oil companies, corporate farmers,
attacks against education and DEI that limit ability for poor to ascend classes through education
anti labor policies


do you honestly think that the wealthy got their wealth because a few people did some paperwork, and not the backbreaking labor of the poor, the slaves, the minority immigrants?

If the Ten Commandments had been posted in your elementary school, you would know that your envy is a vice, not a virtue.

you know what another vice is? money.

if you want to talk about the teachings of the bible, Jesus multiple times said to give to the poor, not take and not hoard.


Matthew 6:19-21
19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.


Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.


Proverbs 11:24-25
One person gives freely, yet gains even more;
another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty.
A generous person will prosper;
whoever refreshes others will be refreshed.

 

[emergentmd]

the amount of fraud in the system has been overhyped by MSM - yes, you need to register that fox is mainstream media. it is the largest media presence with the greatest number of viewers and by far the most influential, at the very least by the metric of how many former fox "analysts" work in the white house.

You have never been poor or grew up on welfare.

I grew up poor/on welfare/food stamps. The amount of fraud to keep their benefits is insane. Let me tell you about food stamps. Almost every mom/pop stores would take food stamps for 30-40 cents on the dollar, the stores would run it through dryers/put them in the sun/drag them around to appear used.

I then became lower middle class. Similar as above but then they dabbled into insurance fraud.

I then became upper middle class. Similar as above but then they dabble into "asset protection"

I am now nosebleed class. Don't even get me started on what is available.

 

[bubaghanush]

You have never been poor or grew up on welfare.

I grew up poor/on welfare/food stamps. The amount of fraud to keep their benefits is insane. Let me tell you about food stamps. Almost every mom/pop stores would take food stamps for 30-40 cents on the dollar, the stores would run it through dryers/put them in the sun/drag them around to appear used.

I then became lower middle class. Similar as above but then they dabbled into insurance fraud.

I then became upper middle class. Similar as above but then they dabble into "asset protection"

I am now nosebleed class. Don't even get me started on what is available.

Do you think there's more money wasted on welfare fraud and abuse or white collar crime and tax evasion?