Have people that support socialism ever paid taxes?

I don't understand how anyone can support a policy where the government steals most of your money.

 

You're making a very similar fallacy to the saying "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer."

 

I don't get it

- - - Updated - - -

I don't get it

 

Giving a majority of your money to the government supposedly allows that government to offer you more services and safety nets. It is the lazy man's way of avoiding personal responsibility by having the government do everything for you.

That being said, it is a legitimate form of government if done in moderation. Personally I would rather have the freedom to be responsible for my own welfare since I know my abilities but others do not believe they can act for themselves. They need to have someone babysit them.

 

Exactly I would much rather just pay for myself and carry my own weight so I know what is happening to my money. I can then only buy the things and services I really need. I am in favor of paying taxes for the police, military, national parks etc... but as minimal as possible. On a macro view that gives me more money in my pocket to spend at stores thus increasing the income of corporations. They would then want to increase their income even more and expand their company, thus creating more jobs.

 

You're making the same assumption about wealth. For example, the rich can only get rich by stealing from the poor. It's not a true statement no more than the government can only provide social services by stealing from tax payers.

 

How does a business make money? They get people to buy stuff which in turn they use to make a profit. Same basic idea with Socialism. Give the government some money, and they'll drive down costs to the point where a profit can be made.

 

No I am not. Under capitilism everything is done by free will and free choice as long as the law is not broken. The "poor" buy products and services from the "rich" because they want to. Under Socialism, the government forces you to pay taxes to pay for services you may not even need or want. Plus your acting like the "rich" are some demonic race or something. I don't know where you get that from.

 

But what if the government creates a new service i don't even want and raises taxes because of it. Now I'm being forced to buy something. No business has ever forced me to buy something. Under capitalism, everyone can just do what they want. Plus under socialism, many people send their bills for services to others under the justification that "they are better off" which is so stupid.

 

Amen. very true

 

No, but what if a business makes an advertisement you don't like? What if this company makes a product that you will buy and another you won't. You buy the first product but not the second. But within that cost of buying the first product, the second product's costs are subsidized as well, vice versa as well. The costs for advertisement, making and shipping a product are all included in that cost. In the end, whether you realize it or not, you did buy the second one, you just didn't get anything out of it other then an overall subsidized cost.

 

No not true. If I go to Wal-mart and just buy want to buy a loaf of bread i choose the one i want give the cashier a few dollars say "you too" when the cashier says "have a nice day" then walk out and go home. What ever Wal-Mart wants to do with that money I gave them is between the company executives and the share holders and its their company so they can do whatever they want with it, I don't care. If I see an ad on tv I don't like I can just change the channel. I was never FORCED to do any of those things. If the president goes on TV tomorrow and says that Obamacare was now transformed into a single payer universal healthcare system and income taxes will be raised 5% for those who make $80,000 or more to pay for it, what can I do? I can't just say no thanks I just have to accept it and have less money in my pocket when the next pay check comes. If I walk into a mall and am bombarded with everyone saying buy this, buy this, try this, you will look great in this, I can either buy it or say no thanks and walk away.

 

It doesn't mean you don't benefit from it. A lot of social programs, for example, have very high multipliers. In other words, every dollar the government spends on such services the GDP raises more than a dollar. Take food stamps for example. People buy food with it which requires someone to produce it, process it, and ship it. Any of those people buy something from your company, you have just benefited from the program.

 

If product x and product y are going to the same store, then they're going to be coming in the same truck. The costs for them are going to be determined because the factors of production. But a company can subsidize the costs of one product through another. So instead of you paying simply .50 cents for each product x, you will pay a quarter for each because the costs can be spread around. You save more money when they do that.

You're just forced to watch whatever is on that channel.

Actually you would save more money. You're also paying for everyone who would go to the emergency room without insurance. Heart surgery is a lot more expensive then some pills. So give everyone insurance and you drive down the costs, not increase them. Nor is it universal healthcare. Millions of Americans still don't have health insurance, nor will they for a long time.

But you still need clothing. In the end, you might choice what you buy, but you have to buy stuff.

 

That is not entirely accurate since the payback is not reciprocal. If I give a dollar to entitlement spending I may see a return of .05% of what that dollar was worth originally. That dollar I gave is split between myself and everyone that produced that product the person bought for that dollar.

Now, if I were to give a dollar for entitlement spending and saw my grocery bill drop by a dollar that would be a good thing but it does not work that way.

 

You really can't be serious.

Give us an example of where this lunacy has ever worked.

 

Of Socialism working? Police. Fire Fighters. Street Lights. Public Education. The water you drink.

 

The American right wing seems to consider anything to the left of Ayn Rand as 'socialism'. It is a very skewed and hugely expansive usage that pretty much gathers in every country except the USA. Very much degrades the meaning to uselessness. Canada, Japan, UK, France, Kiwi, Oz have all, at some point and to some degree, been called 'socialist' here. Matter of fact, every country - as far as I can recall - that has made those Top Ten Places To Live lists has been described as 'socialist'. A clarification of the term might help. Paying taxes does not equal 'socialism'.

 

Socialism has never worked as a stand-alone policy let alone actually been able to exist as a stand-alone policy. Socialism requires other forms of political ideology to be intertwined with it to work and if you do not then a socialistic society will inevitably turn into something else, usually an oligarchy.

 

Name one ideology that in practice today doesn't use elements of another ideology.

 

Okay your want to go to a system like the Constitution started with assuming your fit you get to buy a gun, ammo and basic kit and train in the State Militia, when the government needs forces to deploy in the Middle East you can be called up and mobilized placed under Federal Authority and sent to fight and paid what they consider fair. And returned when your tour is over. Well that is the ORIGINAL army the Navy and Marines would be the only standing force and that is not enough for serious deployment. So when are you going to start.

Seriously, its odd Socialism works in many EU nations even Britain which is fairly moderate pushed after WW2 and they had nothing the NHS which people complain about and it needs work but no one seems to want to toss out and Norway is Socialist and has the HIGHEST standard of living on the planet. Germany has socialist aspects like national health care and has a low rate of unemployment so low for low skilled workers they have to import them and they are economically very strong.

We can do better here there is no reason you can't have wealthy people and that the vast wealth gained cannot be used to expand social programs and go to workers, its all in ones mindset and public policy. But wide gaps in wealth never ended well in history reminding people of the Chinese. French and Russian Revolutions. It could happen here the way things are going in some form.

 

I can't and that was kind of my point. There are many societies that are more heavily influenced by one ideology over another but not since Prussia have we seen a society strictly ruled by one political mind. USSR came close but not quite.

 

And what Country would that be in?

 

So then let's be honest with ourselves, we're not the first ones to have realized that. The people that came up with coming up with political terms realized this as well. So when we say that a society is using Socialism, they're using the major elements of it, with another ideology to supplement it. That's how we can say one country is Socialist and another isn't.

- - - Updated - - -

The water in the US is subsidized and controlled by the government.