Does National Socialism have any truth or relevance to it?

[The Ozzman]

It also discourages people from actually gaining wealth, which is something you want when you go to get loans or whatever.

 

[waif]

Higher taxes for the rich definitely seem fair to me. A flat tax seems stupid, honestly. Some people can afford to pay way more taxes...

 

[The Ozzman]

Well, we wouldn't need a marginal tax rate if government spending wasn't out of control

 

[waif]

And government spending could be cut back by which of the following?
A: Taking money away from schools
B: Not invading fucking Iraq

 

[The Ozzman]

Choice B, but also cutting down pork barrel spending, stupid government funded programs that lose money, etc

 

[waif]

that too.
There's a lot of waste.
Question 2:
What's the best way to prevent a spiraling deficit?
A: Take medicine away from old people
B: Don't cut taxes

 

[Cythraul]

Nazism is way more interesting than this stuff, imo.

 

[skeptik]

Even if we take that utilitarian approach, the money taken from the rich has less nonbeneficial value than does the money given to the poor have beneficial value. I'm not saying that redistribution is the way to go, I'm just saying it's dumb to say that nobody benefits from it.

 

[~Derek~]

Yes, but forcing someone to give other people money is not beneficial, which is the basic premise behind wealth distribution (at least in communist and socialist theory)



First off, there's no such thing as 'enough money' or 'enough wealth'. The term 'enough' is completely subjective in this case. Who are you to say that 20 million dollars is enough money? I mean, if you're comfortable living off 40,000 dollars or whatever, fine, but just because you don't think someone doesn't 'need' 20 million dollars doesn't mean that they automatically don't deserve 20 million dollars. I'll agree that corporate welfare is bullshit and should be abolished and that CEO compensation needs to be massively reformed, but if a CEO did something beneficial while working for the company, then I don't see why paying the CEO 20 million dollars is a big deal anyway. I think if you're going to overhaul the corporate structure, it should be the boards of directors since they hire the top executives in the first place. There's a lot of nepotism that goes on within the boards (ie: I hire a friend to be on my board while he puts me on his board, etc) and I think that's the main problem (nepotism).

I agree with you, I'd rather not have the government intervening in the distribution/limits/redistribution of wealth.

 

[The Ozzman]

Choice C: Cut spending and leave taxes as they are (probably the only time I'd say it)

 

[waif]

We're gonna have to raise taxes in the near future anyways...

 

[Zephyrus]

I want you all to realize that by investing in education, especially towards urban and impoverished school districts, we can save a fuck ton of money in the long run. By allowing the lower class a better education, we can (1) save on welfare because these educated poor can get better-paying jobs, (2) cut back on the taxes going towards socialized healthcare because the educated poor, with the better paying jobs, can afford privatized healthcare, and (3) we'll reduce the prison population because a better education will keep the impoverished out of jail. Currently, the government is spending more on building new prisons than new schools. It's a travesty.

So to restate, if you invest in education, you eliminate the need to pay for other services like welfare, healthcare and the correctional system. It's so fucking simple and nobody, especially the presidential candidates, are devoting an iota of attention to it.

 

[skeptik]

I think that's a pretty obvious argument to anyone who has any knowledge of urban society.

 

[Zephyrus]

So why isn't shit being done about it? It pisses me off.

 

[waif]

I want you all to realize that by investing in education, especially towards urban and impoverished school districts, we can save a fuck ton of money in the long run. By allowing the lower class a better education, we can (1) save on welfare because these educated poor can get better-paying jobs, (2) cut back on the taxes going towards socialized healthcare because the educated poor, with the better paying jobs, can afford privatized healthcare, and (3) we'll reduce the prison population because a better education will keep the impoverished out of jail. Currently, the government is spending more on building new prisons than new schools. It's a travesty.

So to restate, if you invest in education, you eliminate the need to pay for other services like welfare, healthcare and the correctional system. It's so fucking simple and nobody, especially the presidential candidates, are devoting an iota of attention to it.

This is all true. But you keep saying this. Everyone agrees...
Pisses me off too, frankly.

 

[skeptik]

Because most people 1)don't actually know shit about the experience of growing up poor and/or 2) don't care about the experience of growing up poor.

 

[Zephyrus]

That's pretty much it.

I emphasize my point about education because it can solve a great deal of the other issues regarding our struggle and compromise between capitalistic and socialistic ideologies.

 

[waif]

Because most people 1)don't actually know shit about the experience of growing up poor and/or 2) don't care about the experience of growing up poor.

Nothing is going to directly change that. Better education for poor kids will eventually lead to higher incomes, lifting them out of poverty so their kids don't grow up poor. But that's it.

 

[skeptik]

You don't think reducing poverty will have other effects?

 

[waif]

No, I mean, no one is going to directly reduce poverty. Better education will have innumerable positive effects.