Current Events > Why Liberals are so in favor of socialism

(+) Yeah! (+)

Look guys, it's extremely simple.

I work my ass off. I'm entitled to keep as much of my earnings as possible, because I'm the one who worked for them. Socialists and communists want to take what is mine, so they can give it to other people who didn't earn it. I'm all for safety nets within reason, but let's not pretend socialists and communists want safety nets. They want control and an equal amount of distributed misery.

I will never quietly allow evil people to demand my livelihood for their own purposes. Not when it represents my access to freedom and my ability to help my loved ones. Sorry, not sorry.

byron posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

byron posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

byron posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

byron posted...

Conservatives act like liberals want Venezuela-type socialism. No, they want European-type socialist programs. We have socialist programs here in America already.

Europe is drowning in debt. So are we

Okay. The difference is we have a lower quality of life. Lmao

Its amazing how eager leftists are to call for economic sacrifices when it comes to the supposed dangers of climate change, but they dont bat an eye at perpetually debt financed social programs. Its like they only care about long term consequences if it fits a narrative that grows government.

Where did anyone say anything about climate change? What even was that little rant. It's so funny seeing conservatrolls not know how to react to shit that goes against their narrative.

"Europe is in debt"

"so is the US and they have a better quality of life"

"Supposed effects of climate change!!1!!"

So conservatives are okay with the perpetually debt financed wars?

You called for European style social programs. I pointed out how those arent sustainable because they are largely debt financed. You didnt refute that point, so I contrasted this short sightedness with fears of long term consequences of climate change. This isnt hard to understand unless youre being obtuse on purpose.

My foreign policy views align with Ron Pauls, so I share your contempt for neo cons in that regard.

You're actually just babbling bullshit. The one being obtuse is you. We have a higher debt per capita than those European countries with a worse quality of life. You just brought up climate change out of nowhere because that's a part of your conservatroll talking points.

Whether youre missing the point on purpose or by accident, youre not worth talking to.
---

We actually have a higher quality of life than European countries.

Liberals are actually more or less okay with the status quo. They'd prefer more free trade, a few more regulations on certain things, and more open immigration. Maybe a tweak here and there to our social safety net.
Socialists like myself; however, think our current level of wealth inequality is not only grossly unfair, but fundamentally unsustainable. Serious changes in policy are required to liberate the majority of Americans from economic anxieties, many of which are unique to our country(i.e. bankruptcy resulting from medical debt, student loan debt, etc.) The wealthy will remain wealthy, but it is their duty to pay a much fairer share.

@Black462 posted...

Samurontai posted...

r4X0r posted...

They're obsessed with socialism because they've been convinced that socialism means "I get free stuff."

False

I'm a shit poster and i love Trump doo doo in my mouth

If your only retort is to change my quote, then you're probably wrong
---

Because the right has defined socialism to mean helping people less fortunate.

Which is funny since right leaning states are largely bankrolled by left leaning states...
---

ElatedVenusaur posted...

The wealthy will remain wealthy, but it is their duty to pay a much fairer share.

What is a much fairer share?

The Deadpool posted...

Which is funny since right leaning states are largely bankrolled by left leaning states...

I always found this to be hilariously ironic

And when it's brought up, it's usually conveniently ignored
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

ElatedVenusaur posted...

The wealthy will remain wealthy, but it is their duty to pay a much fairer share.

What is a much fairer share?

For example, in the 50s and 60s, the top bracket was ~90%. Or more than twice what it is now. Capital gains was about the same as it was now though, so it probably didn't capture much(capital gains should be taxed as normal income anyhow).

ElatedVenusaur posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

ElatedVenusaur posted...

The wealthy will remain wealthy, but it is their duty to pay a much fairer share.

What is a much fairer share?

For example, in the 50s and 60s, the top bracket was ~90%. Or more than twice what it is now. Capital gains was about the same as it was now though, so it probably didn't capture much(capital gains should be taxed as normal income anyhow).

So you want the top bracket to go to 90%? How much more money would that bring in? Would it actually make a difference to any of the problems you mentioned?

@ElatedVenusaur

Found this after a quick Google search

https://mises.org/library/good-ol-days-when-tax-rates-were-90-percent

ElatedVenusaur posted...

For example, in the 50s and 60s, the top bracket was ~90%. Or more than twice what it is now. Capital gains was about the same as it was now though, so it probably didn't capture much(capital gains should be taxed as normal income anyhow).

No one actually paid the 90% tax rate. Almost everything was deductible.
---

bump for explanation from ElatedVenusaur

Liberals love this fantasy of the 90% tax rate, but the effective tax rate was only around 40-45% for even the richest Americans. The difference is also that this bracket was only on the super-rich -- the 1955 top bracket would be around $32 million after adjusting for inflation. Meanwhile, the top bracket now is $418,000. In other words, the top 2% are paying significantly more of the total taxes in 2017 than they were in the liberal utopia of 1955. Taxes as a % of GDP are about the same also.
---

Hold on Admiral, at least give him a chance to make himself look like an ignoramus for the 18535th time!

We don't have enough in taxes.
---

The Admiral posted...

Liberals love this fantasy of the 90% tax rate, but the effective tax rate was only around 40-45% for even the richest Americans. The difference is also that this bracket was only on the super-rich -- the 1955 top bracket would be around $32 million after adjusting for inflation. Meanwhile, the top bracket now is $418,000. In other words, the top 2% are paying significantly more of the total taxes in 2017 than they were in the liberal utopia of 1955. Taxes as a % of GDP are about the same also.

Yeah because income was spread out more evenly back then thanks to some New Deals.
---

The Admiral posted...

Liberals love this fantasy of the 90% tax rate, but the effective tax rate was only around 40-45% for even the richest Americans. The difference is also that this bracket was only on the super-rich -- the 1955 top bracket would be around $32 million after adjusting for inflation. Meanwhile, the top bracket now is $418,000. In other words, the top 2% are paying significantly more of the total taxes in 2017 than they were in the liberal utopia of 1955. Taxes as a % of GDP are about the same also.

Liberals like to live in a fantasy world. Let them pick and choose their little golden age while ignoring all the crap that happened back then.
---

pinky0926 posted...

Malcolm_McGuffi posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Basically, the rule is that if you majored in something useless (IE gender studies) and thus have no employment prospects beyond working part-time at Starbucks, you're going to shitpost about capitalism on your shiny financed $3500 Macbook Pro in-between making lattes for the people who are busting their asses.

I make 90k and I want socialism + higher taxes.

But that interrupts his enjoyable narrative would you please stop

Lol
---