Remember when socialism was a dirty word?

[Hobbes]

Yes, I remember when socialism was a dirty word.

That was before the word was used indiscriminately as a crude form of slur whether it applied or not.
Throw that word, and others, around generously enough and pretty soon it starts to go in one ear and out the other.
You see it right here on this forum every day.

After a while it loses it's shock value.
It has no meaning when it begins to mean everything.


Swearing can impart a powerful impact of one's point of view, but only if the swearing is used judiciously.
When every other word becomes a swear word most people don't even hear it anymore.

 

[Mad Professor]

If your in government employment or self employed, you don't contribute to the system.

You missed the mark there, Dennis. Federal government employees hire the last 31 years have been fully contributing to Social Security. Those hired before that have to contribute a like amount to CSRS (the old pension system for Fed employees) and Medicare. Further, those that worked in the private work place (before, during, or after fed employment) lose SSI benefits on the money they paid in unless they have worked 40 quarters. Even if they earn 40 quarters, their benefit is reduced by ~50%, yet they still pay in the same percentage for work performed in the private sector.

Self employed workers pay in 15.3% to SSI. They pay both the employee and employer share of 5.65% each.

I am a Federal Employee on the old CSRS system. I had previous, concurrent, and will have post private employment after my retirement. So because I have worked both, I'm being "taxed" 50% of my SSI benefit. Had I not worked 40 Quarters, I would have been taxed 100%.

I'm also self employed. I pay 15.3% into SSI, 28% Federal, and 5.25% in state taxes on that employment.

 

[TedKennedy]

So you're suggesting anarchy is the way to go?

Oh no! What's the definition of anarchy?

 

[Norinoo]

You missed the mark there, Dennis. Federal government employees hire the last 31 years have been fully contributing to Social Security. Those hired before that have to contribute a like amount to CSRS (the old pension system for Fed employees) and Medicare. Further, those that worked in the private work place (before, during, or after fed employment) lose SSI benefits on the money they paid in unless they have worked 40 quarters. Even if they earn 40 quarters, their benefit is reduced by ~50%, yet they still pay in the same percentage for work performed in the private sector.

Self employed workers pay in 15.3% to SSI. They pay both the employee and employer share of 5.65% each.

I am a Federal Employee on the old CSRS system. I had previous, concurrent, and will have post private employment after my retirement. So because I have worked both, I'm being "taxed" 50% of my SSI benefit. Had I not worked 40 Quarters, I would have been taxed 100%.

I'm also self employed. I pay 15.3% into SSI, 28% Federal, and 5.25% in state taxes on that employment.

Where does the money come from to pay your salary? You pay nothing. You assume that you do but your employer, the criminals in suits, simply steal more from the rest of us to cover your salary. And as a self employed business owner, it is your customer who pays the money to cover the taxes. Without tax payers and end consumers, neither the criminal gang of government nor a business will exist. At least in business the transactions are consensual and benefits both people in the deal and thus moral. Stealing, whether done by a lone individual or a gang of criminals in suits is still stealling. Seems this is lost on most folk these days.

 

[Norinoo]

Oh no! What's the definition of anarchy?

Anarchy = without rulers

Does not mean without rules. God provided all the rules necessary. Ten simple principles.

 

[Mad Professor]

And as a self employed business owner, it is your customer who pays the money to cover the taxes.

How does "self employment" change anything in your rational? The service or goods sold is generating the "income" so it is where the "tax" is "funded" regardless of self employment or not.

 

[Norinoo]

How does "self employment" change anything in your rational? The service or goods sold is generating the "income" so it is where the "tax" is "funded" regardless of self employment or not.

The price you charge your customer. If you were allowed to keep all the money you'd lower your prices to be more competitive. Look at the price of a gallon of gas as an example. Without the taxes the price would be lower.

A business owner who fails to understand this simple concept probably shouldn't be in business. The end consumer pays your salary. You do not generate money.

Same for the criminal gangs hiding in domed buildings. They do not generate a cent. They steal the money with a threat. Nothing is more evil than stealing from another even under the guise of law. Which is why I enjoy listening to so many people show their true colors of condoning theft when they rattle on about which criminal they are going to choose to be their master. I think there is a thread on sodomy somewhere on the forum. Politics is sodomy. You get screwed without the pleasure.

 

[TedKennedy]

Anarchy = without rulers

Does not mean without rules. God provided all the rules necessary. Ten simple principles.

And there you have it. Some folks don't like having no rulers...."give us a king", they said...

 

[farmerbyron]

https://newrepublic.com/article/121680/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-not-just-socialist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

As with anything it's important to investigate the differences between the two and not just rely on labels. Ignorance will always be a dirty word.

From your first link.

But the Vermont senator himself is loose with his terminology, as he has praised the “long social-democratic tradition” of Nordic countries as examples of how the United States should operate as a nation. For instance, points to Finland's universal healthcare, free childcare, parental leave benefits, free higher education, low income inequality, and overwhelming unionization of workers. And sometimes he does indeed refer to himself, simply, as "a socialist."



So he wants the US to be run like the Nordic countries of Europe whom everyone widely understands are socialist countries. You know, high taxation, heavily regulated economies. Places that places excessive taxes on private transportation to encourage use of public transportation. Sure they don't technically force people to live a certain way, just make it prohibitively expensive to deviate from the state interest. Democratic socialist or socialist, it is splitting hairs.

The definition of wholly govt controlled and owned industry is out right communism, which honestly is socialism taken to its furthest extent. So if you are using communist ideology as the definition for socialism then sure, democratic socialism is not socialism. My god, the circles of logic required to believe this **** boggle the mind.

 

[Hobbes]

Maybe Sanders wants us to be more like Israel.