Does Socialism align with Scripture?

[JimL]

If you believe that then you have what you want and there is no need for people like Bernie!

No, we actually need more of that because the wealth, as Judge Brandeis suggested, is more and more being accumulated by the few as republicans cut their taxes and minimum wage laws, with respect to inflation, are half of what they were in the 1960's.

Or we can have a Democratic Republic instead, that protects the minority from majority bullying.

It has nothing to do with bullying, it has to do with good governance and what is in the best interests of the people, of the country as a whole.

And that quote just goes to show that socialism is all about envy. Someone else being rich doesn't make me poor.

No it isn't about envy, the left, as you seem to believe, is not against people being wealthy. Take E. Warren's plan for pre-school child care for instance. The super wealthy would pay a 2 cent tax on every dollar above their first 50 million which would pay for child care for every pre-schooler in the country. That's not bullying, it's not envy, that's good governance, child care would be accessable, mothers would be free to work, and the 750,000 super rich in this country, those who would be taxed, would continue to be super rich.

If he is an employer, it actually helps me by giving me a job. And rich people spend money and buy things. Things that we poor people make. They don't just hoard the money like Scrooge McDuck. They spend it, invest it. Even sitting in a bank, it allows the banks to lend money to poorer people.

And none of that would change, the rich would still be rich, they would still consume and invest, and banks would still have plenty of capital, there would just be more middle class money in them.

Look at what this virus is doing right now to millions of businesses. All those "rich people" are going out of business and having to lay off the people that work for them. Making rich people poor, makes everyone poor.

All those rich people aren't going to go out of business just because they are required to pay a living wage, or pay a higher tax rate, they just won't be quite as rich.

[Watermelon]

If you believe that then you have what you want and there is no need for people like Bernie!

Or we can have a Democratic Republic instead, that protects the minority from majority bullying. And that quote just goes to show that socialism is all about envy. Someone else being rich doesn't make me poor. If he is an employer, it actually helps me by giving me a job. And rich people spend money and buy things. Things that we poor people make. They don't just hoard the money like Scrooge McDuck. They spend it, invest it. Even sitting in a bank, it allows the banks to lend money to poorer people.

Look at what this virus is doing right now to millions of businesses. All those "rich people" are going out of business and having to lay off the people that work for them. Making rich people poor, makes everyone poor.

I think the quote is a reference to power more than money.

[Sparko]

Why do things have to equal?

Because one of the talking points selling us on socialism is that there is too much disparity between the rich and the poor. That socialism will equalize everyone with income redistribution.

[Starlight]

Why do things have to equal? Average income here is around 60-70 thousand I think. People living off support get around 15-20 thousand. You get more if you work, a lot more.

It may sound crazy to you but our community prefers to pay a bit more tax to ensure everyone can at least have a roof over their heads and afford to put food on the table. No charity can guarantee that for everyone.

One of the many weirder ideas about socialism that conservative Americans in their forum seem to have is that everyone would be paid absolutely equally, regardless of merit and regardless of whether they bothered to ever work or not. I think this one comes from them misunderstanding some of the things that the USSR did.

[Sparko]

One of the many weirder ideas about socialism that conservative Americans in their forum seem to have is that everyone would be paid absolutely equally, regardless of merit and regardless of whether they bothered to ever work or not. I think this one comes from them misunderstanding some of the things that the USSR did.

So you are fine with having rich people at the top taking advantage of the poor workers? I get it, you have to have someone to rob, right? But once you start taxing the rich to give to the poor, then eventually you won't have any rich. They will either move somewhere else, or go broke from taxes, or just give up and become part of the crowd to get their own free stuff without working.

[Watermelon]

So you are fine with having rich people at the top taking advantage of the poor workers? I get it, you have to have someone to rob, right? But once you start taxing the rich to give to the poor, then eventually you won't have any rich. They will either move somewhere else, or go broke from taxes, or just give up and become part of the crowd to get their own free stuff without working.

Really? You would quit your job to live off roughly $200 per week because it’s free?

[Starlight]

So you are fine with having rich people at the top taking advantage of the poor workers?

I am fine with people's pay reflecting differences in their effort levels, skill levels, hours worked, level of education, etc. I am not at all against merit-based pay, I am for it.

Where I draw the line is at the "taking advantage" bit. If the system is set up in such a way that it lets greedy or selfish people take advantage of others, then it is set up in a bad way. In particular I would point to the way that the CEO in capitalist businesses has unilateral power over his workers without being accountable to them in the least. If the workers were able to democratically elect the CEO, it would go a long way to addressing those power imbalances and prevent those at the top "taking advantage" of those at the bottom.

One of the ways this taking advantage currently manifests is in massive and unwarrented pay imbalances between those at the very top who take the bulk of the company profits, and those at the bottom who often earn only the legal minimum wage, where CEOs earn hundreds of times what the workers do. I think in an ideal world the level of pay in a company would span a 3x range, where the highest earning full time employee (presumably the CEO), got paid no more than 3x what the lowest earning full time employee did, with the various other employees falling in between. Plus, all employees together should own at least 50% of the company shares, so that together they vote to determine major company decisions and receive company profits just like external shareholders do.

But once you start taxing the rich to give to the poor, then eventually you won't have any rich. They will either move somewhere else, or go broke from taxes, or just give up and become part of the crowd to get their own free stuff without working.

That does not happen in practice. If you have a watch of this TED talk, Where in the world is it easiest to get rich?, you'll see that currently it is easier to get rich in places with the best welfare states and highest taxes, rather than lower taxes and minimal government:

It's only 15 mins... 8 if you watch it at 2x like I prefer to. But here is the summary for those who can't watch it:

TED talk summary:

In which society is it easiest to get rich? Contrary to common belief, it is not countries like the US or the UK that create the highest number of rich people per capita, but Nordic social democracies like Norway and Sweden. Counter intuitive as it may sound, high taxes, generous welfare states and strong unions makes a better environment for the people who wants to earn huge amounts of money, than free markets, low taxes, and minimal government intervention.

Also, polling data about happiness from around the world consistently shows that not only are poorer people happier in countries with better welfare states, but rich people are too. It turns out that a good welfare state makes the country better as a whole, reducing poverty and crime, and making everyone, even the tax-paying-rich, happier as a result.

[Sparko]

I am fine with people's pay reflecting differences in their effort levels, skill levels, hours worked, level of education, etc. I am not at all against merit-based pay, I am for it.

Where I draw the line is at the "taking advantage" bit. If the system is set up in such a way that it lets greedy or selfish people take advantage of others, then it is set up in a bad way. In particular I would point to the way that the CEO in capitalist businesses has unilateral power over his workers without being accountable to them in the least. If the workers were able to democratically elect the CEO, it would go a long way to addressing those power imbalances and prevent those at the top "taking advantage" of those at the bottom.

One of the ways this taking advantage currently manifests is in massive and unwarrented pay imbalances between those at the very top who take the bulk of the company profits, and those at the bottom who often earn only the legal minimum wage, where CEOs earn hundreds of times what the workers do. I think in an ideal world the level of pay in a company would span a 3x range, where the highest earning full time employee (presumably the CEO), got paid no more than 3x what the lowest earning full time employee did, with the various other employees falling in between. Plus, all employees together should own at least 50% of the company shares, so that together they vote to determine major company decisions and receive company profits just like external shareholders do.

That does not happen in practice. If you have a watch of this TED talk, Where in the world is it easiest to get rich?, you'll see that currently it is easier to get rich in places with the best welfare states and highest taxes, rather than lower taxes and minimal government:

It's only 15 mins... 8 if you watch it at 2x like I prefer to. But here is the summary for those who can't watch it:

TED talk summary:

In which society is it easiest to get rich? Contrary to common belief, it is not countries like the US or the UK that create the highest number of rich people per capita, but Nordic social democracies like Norway and Sweden. Counter intuitive as it may sound, high taxes, generous welfare states and strong unions makes a better environment for the people who wants to earn huge amounts of money, than free markets, low taxes, and minimal government intervention.

Also, polling data about happiness from around the world consistently shows that not only are poorer people happier in countries with better welfare states, but rich people are too. It turns out that a good welfare state makes the country better as a whole, reducing poverty and crime, and making everyone, even the tax-paying-rich, happier as a result.

You live in a dream world, Star.

Let me know when you move to Norway and get rich. I will be happy for you. Maybe the government can take away all of your money.


watching the video, he claims it's easier to get rich in scandinavia because of free education and unions pushing up the wages. But he never says how anyone actually gets rich. Instead he talks about how because of the unions almost every business is automated because they can't afford to hire employees at the high wages and how the company's artificially limit the wages on things like engineers who make about half of what they do in the USA. Seems like he made a very good case for how socialism pays less at the high end and pays too much at the low end so that businesses have to automate and not hire workers. His excuse at the end was that because of social welfare the workers are taken care of. So you end up with a huge swatch of people sitting on their butts collecting welfare checks. They don't sound rich to me.

[Watermelon]

So you end up with a huge swatch of people sitting on their butts collecting welfare checks. They don't sound rich to me.

Is that what’s happening? While it’s true that some people sit on their butts in Australia, most living on unemployment payments are active job seekers, studying new skills or temporary unable to work due to health issues. People would rather work and live well than live off the bare minimum to survive.

[Sparko]

Is that what’s happening? While it’s true that some people sit on their butts in Australia, most living on unemployment payments are active job seekers, studying new skills or temporary unable to work due to health issues. People would rather work and live well than live off the bare minimum to survive.

Is Australia a socialist state?

[JimL]

Is Australia a socialist state?

Does a universal healthcare system count?

[Sparko]

Does a universal healthcare system count?

no

[JimL]

no

Austrailia is closer to socialism than they are to capitalism. Your problem is in thinking that it has to be either the one or the other.

[Sparko]

Austrailia is closer to socialism than they are to capitalism. Your problem is in thinking that it has to be either the one or the other.

You're insane.

[rogue06]

You're insane.

Likely drug addled. I wonder what little jimmy would be like if he ever sobered up, or is he just "not the brightest bulb in the socket."