Eventually we will run out of other peoples money. Socialism only has the slimmest chance of success when there is a system flush with cash. It rings the economy dry. You can talk about programs all you like and say we are doing it now, anyway, but that is exactly the problem and those chickens are going to come home to roost. Marty linked up that Snopes article which illustrates that very point; the Republicans supported different things back in the '50's precisely because we were flush with cash and could afford to do it. We can't anymore but continue to borrow money from China and to print money to fund these programs which have long since passed from safety net to hammock. A day of reckoning is coming. Oh, and you complain about the system benefiting corporations over "people" but fail to realize that at least corporations are producing things and providing services, and the people are the ones who pay for those goods and services. If you cut corporate tax rates you help the people who buy their goods and services. If you raise them you raise taxes on the public. You may not like that because some get rich from corporations (although more probably get rich from government service as they go in with modest incomes and come out millionaires) but at least the rising tide helps both the corporation AND the general public. Welfare does little but discourage work and diligence.

Socialism as a form of government is not a good thing. Scott's statement there is no room for capitalism in a socialistic government is a true statement. I would say there is room for socialistic programs in a capitalistic economic system. As we and all countries that have capitalism as their economic system have had for a very long time. Ed  I am not sure why having public education for K through 12 grade is not socialism but providing collage level education is, I think it really is what you believe to be important for the advancement of society and weather people buy into it or not. To me healthcare is important. Somehow 30 of the most advanced countries in the world provide some form of healthcare for all of their citizens. I believe this is a realistic goal for our nation to achieve. Education is important to me. I believe ignorance breads poverty and poverty breads ignorance. It is a vicious cycle. Somehow we as a nation need to do better. Timothy Birdnow as far as the system being flush with cash in the 50's that is when we had the highest tax rates in our countries history and as a whole our nation did quite well. I do believe that the wealthiest people should pay more in taxes and those with little should pay less. I am one of few people who believes he receives quite a bit for what I pay in taxes. If I had to build a road from my house to where I work everyday instead of the government providing it I would not come out ahead. Is there waste in our government of course there is, as there is in any large organization, corporation or government. Can we do better? I most certainly hope so.

Marty you say "as far as the system being flush with cash in the 50's that is when we had the highest tax rates in our countries history" but that's not true. In 1918 tax rates topped at 77 percent. At it's peak the fifties tax rate hit 55%. The high tax rates after the First World War led to a depression deeper than the Great Depression in 1921, but the Harding Administration and his successor Calvin Coolige cut the tax rates by an average of 13 percent. These tax cuts ignited economic growth, ended the depression, and started the Roaring Twenties boom (which ended thanks to the Federal Reserve contracting the money supply at the same time the idiot Republican Congerss raised taxes.) During the fifties the tax rates were high as a way to pay off the war debt, but the American economy was booming and it could take higher taxes for a time. But in the end John F. Kennedy himself promoted tax cuts because the tax rates were strangling economic growth by the early sixties. BTW Franklyn Roosevelt had a top tax rate of 88 percent (and this triggered what was known as the Depression within a Depression.) While the wealthy absolutely should pay their fair share, it must be kept in mind that they can find ways to shelter their money and that in the end you wind up taxing the Middle Class and not the rich guys. And you cannot tax businesses at all; the consumers pay it. BTW the poor pay NO taxes except sales taxes.

Timothy Birdnow actually in 1944 &45 "the most progressive tax years in U.S. history" the 94% rate applied to any income above $200,000 (2.4 million in 2009 dollars given inflation) The WW two tax law revision increased the number of "those paying some income taxes" from 7% (1940) to 64% by 1944. As far as not being able to tax corporations, the consumer pays it that is only true if the people and government allows it. The tax code after WW two was very high but gave incentives to reinvest in themselves. When CEO's make 200 two 300 times what their employees make to me is morally wrong!

Marty, you say you make a good point but in the end it is still true that corporations don't pay taxes. If you "don't let them" they shelter their money. I agree it is morally wrong for CEO's to make the kind of loot those guys make. On the other hand, it has been tried by a number of Progressives to have the CEO make normal wages and failed - Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream is an example of that. They wound up hiring a CEO and customary (ridiculously high) wages in the end. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but until someone finds a way to disincentivize the practice it will continue. A big part of it is the international nature of corporations these days. BTW, I would ask the question of anyone; why do people - especially a lot of union people - hate corporations more than they do the government? Government is the BIGGEST corporation in the country and you cannot boycott it or choose not to do business with it. I've never had a private company take my money against my will, but I HAVE had government do that to me. And if I don't pay up they will send men with guns to arresst me, and if I refuse to go quitly they will kill me. Burger King never did that to me. (They might kill me in the end but at least I made my bed.) But a lot of people are eager to empower government over private business. (What we really need is what G.K. Chesterton referred to as "Distributism" which is small private businesses, not these huge megacorporations and not socialist government run economies.)

Oh, by the way Marty you say; " from 7% (1940) to 64% by 1944" the Victory Tax was passed during the war years (which is always an outlier) and in fact it rather proves my point insofar as it was actually repealed in 1944, https://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/hist/victorytax.htm In other words, there was a tax cut. It must be remembered that the U.S. economic boom of the fifties was largely a function of America being the only undamaged industrial nation on Earth at the time and so we had a captive market for a long time as Europe and Japan rebuilt. Also, massive deficit spending helped the economy boom during the fifties.We were able to keep taxes relatively high to help pay for the War, which was good for American business, and at the same time not have a post-war depression (which is something that usually happens, or used to at any rate.) Had there been a tax cut the American economy would have been surreal. (It should also be pointed out that we never went off a war footing in that the Cold War followed on the heels of WWII almost immediately, and this kept a large swath of the military employed.) Also, women left the workforce when their GI husbands returned, and thus they were not unemployed as such and immigration was WAY down so we had little competition for jobs after the end of the War. Oh, going back to the Victory Tax, it was on everybody, including the poor. Prior to that the poor didn't pay taxes (as now). But how much do you get out of taxing the poor? Overall the number of tax PAYERS rose but the overall revenue did not. People find ways around paying taxes.

This is it for now. If the conversation continues (and I suspect it will, old Marty seems inclined to not let this go) I'll post it.

Hide Comments | Add Comment