Why? We’re waiting for answer.

by taking income tax, you are doing the exact thing socialism is defined as — controlling the production.

Another definition of “socialism”?

I got some news for you. Controlling the production has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with creating an artificial scarcity / abundance of goods. It’s an old capitalist trick used to corner the market.

One group will dump a lot of product on the market driving the prices dawn. When the competition has gone out of business, the survivors raise the prices to something a lot more profitable. This tactic has killed more domestic industries over the past few years than anything else, including your taxes.

Actually, I was thinking of it at the federal level. There are federal duties that must be performed as per the Constitution. Dumping the income tax in favor of a consumption tax would be enough.

There are numerous studies out there showing the bottom line but all have been slammed by those who stand to lose too much from the current system.

but it doesn’t really have anything to do with socialism. What you are talking about is tax. Tax isn’t socialism.

You are partially correct — not all taxes are not socialism. However, by taking income tax, you are doing the exact thing socialism is defined as — controlling the production. When you can see how reducing someone’s standard of living results in changes to production, you’ll see this is what an income tax does.

We should be trying to maximize ‘happiness’

Well, that is a noble goal. But you can’t legislate happiness. If you want people to be happy, you need to let them be free to do what they want as long it doesn’t interfere with anybody else’s rights. How hard is that to understand?

Benjamin Franklin said it best — “The Constitution only guarantees your right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.”

‘Your fixated on ‘everybody paying the same’

My bad. I thought you understood the definition.’

The definition uses ‘just proportions’ – so what it mean depends on your determination of just. I assumed you meant ‘equal’ – as you hinted at previously, and when I said that was my assumption you didn’t deny it.

Soo. Now I’m understanding that what you’re effectively proposing is that there would be no tax on property, but there would be a tax on transactions. Like there already is at with state tax. And increasing that to 10% would be enough.

Who knows. It would shift around wealth. I fail to see how that’s some killer solution.

So economically it encourages people not to make transactions. A brilliant plan to counter global warming no doubt.

I didn’t bring it up before – but rich people don’t pay taxes at the same proportion as middle class or poor people. Proportionately rich people pay much less. Go look it up, its kind of embarrassing. As do multi-national companies, that can pay next to none. I think I read goldman sachs paying tax at 1%.

Anyways this is great and all – but it doesn’t really have anything to do with socialism. What you are talking about is tax. Tax isn’t socialism. It may be a method to derive funds to fund social programs but it isn’t socialism. And that you don’t think it’s socialism if money is collected via ‘apportioned tax’ makes no sense to me.

Anyways to take a different tangent. Forget all that. What are we trying to maximize here? If it’s to maximize individual ‘money’ or ‘property’ then we are fools.

We should be trying to maximize ‘happiness’ – and money and property over a fairly nominal figure, don’t make any difference. So all these methods presumably to maximize individual ‘wealth’ are all doomed to fail. It may sound hokey – but if you are around people who are generally happy its much easier for you to be happy. In fact I’d argue you can only get true happiness through other people. And as a bonus, you won’t need to be scared of people taking your stuff, so they can pay for a roll of bread for their kid.

We’re all connected folks. And on that note Merry Christmas.

The planet also does not hold on to more heat when it warms up a tad. That has been established.

Under the circumstances forget cap and trade and the dog and pony show.

No, I am not. I have already said I do not consider anything collected through apportionment to be socialist but you keep changing the wording thinking you’ll get a different answer.

Any other method is subjective no matter how you try to justify it.

modern democracies

You are correct. 51% of the population can take away the rights of the remaining 49%. That’s why this is a Republic and not a democracy.

Your fixated on ‘everybody paying the same’

My bad. I thought you understood the definition.

Another word for apportionment would be a consumption tax, like say 10% (instead of the income tax). Thus someone spending $200 a year would only pay $20 and someone spending $200,000,000 a year would pay $20,000,000.

We on the same page now?

Hmm. You’ve carefully avoided the crux of my argument.

And I don’t have to worry about ‘Red October’ etc. Because that’s how all modern democracies work to my knowledge. So it’s not some far out idea – that’s the way it is.

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”

That’s a distortion – it implies taking without limit from ‘those with ability’ (I’d not that being wealthy doesn’t require any ability, but still) and without bounds giving to an arbitrary and unbounded ‘need’.

No I’m saying for some situations taking some for the greater good is a good idea. Like roads, police, defense, education, health etc.

Your fixated on ‘everybody paying the same’. Which means someone living in a box under a bridge should pay the same as a billionaire. And we both know that is bollocks. It doesn’t take into account ability to pay, the benefit of said systems to billionaire (say not paying health insurance for workers, or roads to transit goods etc) or a more fair apportionment should be on ‘effort’ not some fixed money (which has to be ridiculously low – otherwise poor people couldn’t pay it).

And that is what the serfs said on Red October. And we see where that ended up.

Knowing you feel, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” I am not sure you’ll ever see socialism as the evil it is.

‘it isn’t socialism if it is apportioned’

What makes you say that? The definition doesn’t make such a distinction.

And by apportioned I assume you mean every ‘pays’ the identical amount in.

‘I get the feeling you feel a “just” division is an incremental scale based on income.’

Well from a practical perspective, some people may not be able to pay anything through no fault of their own. So I don’t see how ‘everybody can pay the identical amount’.

A division that bares some relationship to ability to pay makes sense to me.

‘However, it shouldn’t be forced on someone. If everybody’s share is equally apportioned, then nobody is taking advantage of anybody else’

Okay. I don’t see more wealthy people paying more as ‘being taken advantage of’. They have the concentration of wealth because of society and the infrastructure. They are therefore disproportionately using said infrastructure. So it makes sense for them to pay more. And that’s besides that they have the ability to pay more, and it is dramatically easier for them to generate wealth (so even if they do pay more – it may well be proportionately the similar effort). Ie even if they are paying more money effectively they are paying the same ‘effort’.

So it would be nice perhaps if people realizing this, they would do this. But I think we both know that’s not what would happen.

No, I am pointing out what it is, not what it is supposed to be. You will never have your dream world I mentioned above because people are not the same. There will always be someone to take advantage of the situation.

Anyway I’d disagree. How does your socialism ™, apply to libraries, schools, roads etc? It doesn’t. Everybody gives a bit and everybody gets a lot in return.

As I said, it isn’t socialism if it is apportioned. And I would argue the benefits of public schooling but that is another discussion.

Apportionment — The act of apportioning; a dividing into just proportions or shares; a division or shares; a division and assignment, to each proprietor, of his just portion of an undivided right or property.

I get the feeling you feel a “just” division is an incremental scale based on income.

a) Implies if you have more you should contribute more.

I agree. However, it shouldn’t be forced on someone. If everybody’s share is equally apportioned, then nobody is taking advantage of anybody else.

The Constitution didn’t originally have anything in it about taking people’s income tax to give to someone else.

No, and that was the problem. Income taxes were legal but could only be spent apportioned to the states in the amount they were received. Not a very satisfactory way to build capitol warships or pay off a public war debt.

The original Constitutional also didn’t have a Bill of Rights in it either. Both problems were solved with amendments. Something that is in the Constitution in order to make changes as society evolves.

Your argument started as:
I’ve found that most of the capitalists-born socialists usually only think this way when they stand to gain something from socialism without working for it.

The problem is you are so short sighted you can’t see the benefit society and the country gain from universal endeavors. Yes, roads are more efficient when they are public (not post) roads. The public also gains from universal garbage removal, water utilities, sewage disposal, etc.

That doesn’t mean we couldn’t have private water supply, but the logistics would kill the infrastructure. Every company wanting to sell water would be able to rip up the street to lay their pipes. The same if all sewage disposal was allowed. How many pipes from competing companies would we want to run under our streets?

‘Losses were socialized. Profits were privatized. That is the real-life(tm) definition of socialism.’

But in saying that you are redefining socialism. What you talking about is something else. You might even argue its the result of all socialism even so it _is still not socialism_.

Anyway I’d disagree. How does your socialism ™, apply to libraries, schools, roads etc? It doesn’t. Everybody gives a bit and everybody gets a lot in return.

That’s not to say it’s perfect. But it works and works well or at least well enough.

I’m not going to go into the whole tax thing. That’s to my mind a different question. You can have socialism with proportional, un-proportional, no tax etc. The only prerequisites are everybody gives and the purpose is for common good. That is all.

And I’m not interested in ‘sticking it to the rich’ per se.

I’d hope you would accept

a) It’s much easier to make a lot of money if you have a lot of money.
b) That what you earn should bare some relationship to what you contribute.
c) Everybody should have a fair shot at a happy and fulfilling life.

a) Implies if you have more you should contribute more.
b) Is often broken – most obviously recently with the financial melt down
c) I don’t think hardworking Americans do have a fair shot anymore. The rich are just getting richer, and everybody else poorer. Does that mean the rich are contributing more? Is everybody else contributing less?

No, the rich have been gaming the system, to their advantage, and its gone far too far. It’s no longer approximating anything close to ‘fair’ or ‘reasonable’. That is all.