thegreekdog wrote:
In any event, socialism is not about helping the disadvantaged or less fortunate. It's about taking the control over capital from a few wealthy persons and giving it to those who work. So, a person who doesn't work is not entitled to receive income based on socialism (at least on the theory of socialism).
In the extreme, in some of its original arguments, yes. I don't think anyone here or anyone of real intelligence wants that, though.
What I want, and actually think you do, too (though we may disagree on the limits and how to get there), is to set basic floors. I set them this way. (vey roughly)
The lowest floor is for those who really cannot work for whatever reason. They should get their minimum needs met. We pretty much have this already, probably even go a bit too far here. (in some cases and in others, don't go far enough). This should include work requirements for those who are able, at least to some extent for many reasons. For example, highly developmentally disabled individuals will never really "produce" what others would, but having them contribute some helps society and helps them much more than locking them away in "hospitals".. similarly, disabled individuals wind up healthier, etc if they can do some things. The just plain lazy need to have a "fire" lit under them, as much to keep them out of trouble as anything else.
The next category is for working people. Anyone who works fulltime at any job deserves to be able to have a decent place to live, decent food, medical care and even a few luxuries like frugal vacations and college education for their kids. This is partly where you and I seem to disagree. I believe that if you need to hire someone, then you need to pay them a "living wage" (though my definition is NOT necessarily what many liberal sources put forward -- I mean what I said in the first sentence).
Beyond that is a flexible ceiling or sieve. You can make what you want, but there are laws that will ensure you are paying most of your own way before you take a true profit. At the very top, it should move to you have to pay ALL your way or a bit beyond (because you can afford it and because, in truth it is almost impossible for peopel to really and truly "pay back" all the advantages they recieve from society).
The problem so many of us have is that the wealthy talk about "paying their own way", etc., but really do not. Now, I am fully aware of how much various wealthy folks contribute to their communities. I have many to thank (and have). That said, adding to the college funds of a few local kids, contributing to a parks' fund or even serious research institutions is just not the same as supporting the basic, necessary, but not-so-glamorous things governments have to do. A wealthy person may complain about paying more for local schools, but they also benefit more by having a ready supply of educated employees. They may not like paying into medicaid, but again, they benefit by not having to live or work in a community where diseases run rampant because people don't get them treated (note -- we are close to returning to that). Wealthy people typically sue the roads more as they transport more goods and ask for more services. Wealthy people are more likely to be able to benefit from things like national parts, low cost wood products from our forests and are more likely to be able to live in areas that are nicely scenic, largely because of legislation that protects certain areas.
Etc.
I have already gone on ad nauseum about how paying employees below a living wage causes a drain on society. Too many people like to put those blames on the people who need help and pretend that those doing the hiring, those taking stock payoffs, etc. all have no responsibility.
Taxes are not necessarily the best way to "equalize" these things, but it is one of the most available and easiest ways to do it.
