Would you rather live in a socialist country that takes 30% of what you earn, or a capitalist one that takes 70%?

[Anonymous]

Assuming both countries allow the same level of employee/employer autonomy, but in the socialist country, the State owns the business and takes 30% of the business income and worker's income, while the business/workers keep the rest. Social programs are minimal, but private ownership is banned.

And in the capitalist country, the private individuals own the business, but the State takes 70% of the business income and worker's income, to fund robust social programs. Which one would you prefer?

Capitalist

Socialist

[thearchjoker]

Socialism means i own nothing they could take anything they wanted even if it wasn't "taxation" thus capitalist is still better as at least i own what i own

[KostasKouvalis]

That's a no brainer. Obviously the socialist one that takes less

[Asker]

Do you have any concerns about having weaker social programs in that system, or is the preference for more money in your pocket a higher driver for your perspective? Or something else?

[KostasKouvalis]

More money in my pocket is always good

[Asker]

No judgements there 😁

[normalice]

If 70% is taken but then used on what I would spend 100% on in a capitalist country, made cheaper by removing gatekeepers, id prefer that.

It is a bias to say what is taken by the government without also saying what is taken by the billionaire price gougers, in both scenarios. In general I prefer the one where I keep more of what i work for. And that is a far more complicated question than you have presented here.

[exitseven]

I would keep the capitalist system and vote out all the democrats who want to implement a 70% corporste income tax.

[Asker]

Lmfao cheater

[exitseven]

it would get the job done.

[Billlewis]

Now this is what I call a dumbass question... lol

[Asker]

Why?

[noohair]

This question is a canard. A socialist system could not offer all the services by taking only 30%.

[Asker]

That was clarified in the text. They would offer poor quality service, compared to higher quality service in the capitalist system.

Quality and completeness of social programs don't dictate whether it's socialism or capitalism. Only who is allowed to own the means of production.

[Anonymous]

Sounds like both are socialist countries

[Asker]

Sounds like you're the smartest person replying to the post. Not sarcasm by the way. Here's the point I am trying to make, and work through myself: what's the difference between the two, when the government calls all the shots and takes as much as they want? Who owns the means of production, is the identifying factor between capitalism and socialism, but isn't the definition of ownership critical here too? When the government says "you own it, but here's what you can do with it, and here's how much you keep" then I think the two systems boil down to nomenclature, or really, just semantics.

And the other point here, is that capitalists and socialists might sometimes be swayed by semantics alone. In the end, I don't personally care which system we have, or claim to have, I care about the outcomes and I care about the other values of the society much more.

[Opinion Owner]

You are correct in that a Government at that level of taxation and regulation is effectively socialist. it really doesn't matter what they claim to be.

But this is also the nature of goverment because politicians are always drawn to power and thus over time always expand said power until the point of collapsible. Max thought this meant socialism is inevitable because it is in line with corruption of politicians.

But the cost of politician's control and invariable bad judgement brings down the same system eventually first collapsing democracy then over a long period collapsing the state. There is no utopia just the misery that defines most of humanity during the long process of dysfunction and decline.

[Asker]

Well fucking put bro 🤝

[DrPepper12]

This is a dichotomy where one cannot be created.

[Asker]

How do you mean?