They seem to think it's more important that someone with lots of resources has those resources allocated to those without resources, since that's the moral thing to do.
So, why are tattoos, new phones, Netflix subscriptions, etc, more important to them than homeless people, or people who struggle to have 3 meals a day?
If they truly think resources should be distributed evenly, why do they buy these luxuries while other people need that money more? Why is it something they only (supposedly) want to do if the government forces them to do it?
Do they really believe in it if they say "well, I'll only do it if the government makes me do it. Otherwise, I'll engage in capitalism."
After a billion dollars income what else is their to buy other then an extended stay on epstein island? It's morality good to rob them with taxes so they don't get board and rape children.
As 99.9999% of the population that will never be a millionaire why give a fuck about them. I defend my own kind. Why get cucked by people you'll never be?
We are a mixed economy. I'm leaning as hard socialist as i can get away with. That's basically every socialist that lives by their means and would accept being taxed more.
Of course, just like nearly every economy on earth, but our economy is predominantly capitalistic. Like I'd imagine the only thing socialistic about you is you support security blankets like welfare and support being taxed to support it. But that is an incredibly small part of our economy. What else about you is socialistic? Like, what percentage of your income do you think should be distributed to others less fortunate than you?
My biggest concern is universal health care. I'd pay the government equally whatever for what private business Healthcare insurance companies get paid.
These private business only get paid from people dying not getting insurance compared to government paying for people to get better and getting back to work paying taxes.
I already get universal healthcare from a for profit Alaskan native corporation. This is a no question the greatest investment can give to the population for economic growth.
Well, I agree with the first part. Not sure I view it as an economically beneficial endeavor. I'd imagine it actually might (I'm not stating that definitively) be an economic liability. Though, you're welcome to plead your case.
In the future we will have to deal with automation. My socialist suggestion would be we as the people own a stock of automation profits. This would turn into a universal basic income or UBI.
Alaska where I'm from has a PFD. Basically all Alaskan citizens have rights on the natural resources alaska has. Very socialist of alaska but we call it a dividend like a stock dividends so equally capitalist. Why not the whole of the greater United States of America?
Automation would be equally taxable equally to a person's income. And all the Automation taxable income would be distributed to the people as dividend.
10.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Because they are better informed than dullards like you. Socialism is worker production, not worker consumption. It's no wonder people laugh at you when you start talking.
They believe that the burdens of moral superiority entitle them to a certain amount of relief in their mission. Hey Rolex or a Mercedes-Benz will do. Thank you very much.
