Poll shows BYU students would vote for socialist

[kapikui]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

 

I have two questions for both the conservatives and the "valley girl".

1. Do capitalism and democratic socialism have to be mutually exclusive? Even in a Sanders administration, I don't see the US coming close to the Scandinavian model. I think capitalism can easily survive the watered-down socialism that we would see in such a scenario. 

2. Is it possible to increase tax revenue without significantly raising taxes? If I understand Sanders' plan correctly (and it's possible that I don't, I'm not an expert in these things), his plan is more about closing loopholes in the tax code and decreasing corporate welfare than raising taxes. I understand that the result of this would result in corporations and the wealthy paying more taxes, but only because they're not cheating the system anymore.

1.  Yes, actual capitalism and "democratic" socialism are mutually exclusive. While it might look OK when they first implement it, anytime you start with socialistic actions, they spread. 

 

2.  This happens a lot.  Every single time since the income tax was instituted that the tax rate has been lowered, over all tax revenue has gone up.  The socialists talk about needing more money, but when pressed about it, it becomes more about "fair" than hey, we can do more good this way.  There is continual hand wringing over the "wage gap"  meaning that the rich are getting rich faster than the poor are getting rich.  If you don't think that the modern American poor are rich, consider that it would take several thousand servants in the middle ages to provide any semblance of the lifestyle even the poorest of Americans now enjoys, and some things would just be impossible.

Sanders' "plan" wouldn't work first even by his most liberal estimates of revenue raised by his tax increases, total tax revenue would be less than about half of his most conservative estimates of the total amount needed.  Second, the entire idea of "closing loopholes"  and "ending corporate welfare" is crap.   First off, corporations don't pay taxes.  If you think that they do, you need to take some basic business classes and learn how profit works.  To put it in a nutshell, everything that the company has to pay out for any reason (including taxes) is a cost.  Everything that they take in goes to gross profit.  If profit goes down a company WILL find a way to boost it, or it goes out of business. 

This means that if you increase their taxes, whether you frame it as "raising tax rate", "closing a tax loophole", "making them pay their fair share" or whatever else you want to say, it doesn't really matter.  The business doesn't care in the slightest how you phrase the tax increase.  If it costs them more money, if they wish to continue doing business, they will find a way to make up the loss. 

This means that they will increase prices (costing you more when you purchase their product, essentially making you pay their taxes), reduce employees of have the work done elsewhere (increasing unemployment, and in turn welfare roles making you want to raise taxes again), or they go out of business entirely. 

Now a lot with socialist tendencies will say "Well they just won't get such obscene profit margins."  Guess what they already don't. The overall margins on most industries when total cost of doing business is considered is in the single digit percentages.  A few are a little higher, but not many.  If your margin is zero, you can generally stay in business for a while, but if anything goes wrong, there's nothing to fall back on. You also can't grow your business at all.  You therefore need some margin just so you can grow.  If you grow you hire more people, and you sell to more people, and inject more money into the economy. Companies also need a fair amount of cash on hand.  This means that if a factory burns down you can rebuild the factory rather than go out of business and lay off all of your workers.

What the socialist seems to believe, perhaps not logically but certainly on a deep emotional level, is that the rich have Scrooge McDuck style money bins with all of the money they ever made and they just hoard it. They don't most of the very rich will have a nice nest egg set aside, as is only sane, but they don't like to have money sitting idle.  If they can, they turn around and invest it to make them more money.  They invest it in other businesses who take that money and grow their business, hiring more people.  Sander's plan would essentially make hiring more people something to be punished, which would almost certainly tank the economy. 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

5 hours ago, Jojo Bags said:

 

Socialism is wrong, no matter what.

 We agree on that, for sure. 

[Vort]

8 hours ago, Godless said:

What part of "Satan's plan" involves giving a little extra help to those who are doing everything they can to get by on their own?

Even though I don't have a typical Mormon view of "Satan's plan", I can't let this go by unchallenged.

Giving a little extra help to those who are doing everything they can to get by on their own is common decency.

Giving a little extra help to those who are manifestly NOT doing everything they can to get by on their own is a Christlike thing to do.

But having the government forcibly seize your property at virtual gunpoint and under threat of incarceration or worse, and then redistribute those stolen goods to others (whether or not they are "deserving" is utterly beside the point, but fwiw many of them sit on their cans all day watching Tv or participate in antisocial and even violent activities) is deeply Satanic.

So, yes, socialism is indeed "Satan's plan", if you really want to go there.

[zil]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

Even though I don't have a typical Mormon view of "Satan's plan", I can't let this go by unchallenged.

Giving a little extra help to those who are doing everything they can to get by on their own is common decency.

Giving a little extra help to those who are manifestly NOT doing everything they can to get by on their own is a Christlike thing to do.

But having the government forcibly seize your property at virtual gunpoint and under threat of incarceration or worse, and then redistribute those stolen goods to others (whether or not they are "deserving" is utterly beside the point, but fwiw many of them sit on their cans all day watching Tv or participate in antisocial and even violent activities) is deeply Satanic.

So, yes, socialism is indeed "Satan's plan", if you really want to go there.

It also discourages the best in us: hard work, generosity, selflessness, honesty, etc.  And encourages the worst: laziness, greed, selfishness, lies, corruption, etc.

That is evil.

[Guest]

23 hours ago, Godless said:

1. Do capitalism and democratic socialism have to be mutually exclusive? Even in a Sanders administration, I don't see the US coming close to the Scandinavian model. I think capitalism can easily survive the watered-down socialism that we would see in such a scenario. 

2. Is it possible to increase tax revenue without significantly raising taxes? If I understand Sanders' plan correctly (and it's possible that I don't, I'm not an expert in these things), his plan is more about closing loopholes in the tax code and decreasing corporate welfare than raising taxes. I understand that the result of this would result in corporations and the wealthy paying more taxes, but only because they're not cheating the system anymore.

1-Capitalist: In theory no, but in practice, there is a tendency for a mixed system to go toward socialism.  Once the camel's nose is in the tent, the monster keeps getting fed.  Freedom lost in one area will always trickle to other areas.  That's why European governments are becoming more and more oppresive each generation.

1-Valley Girl: Well, sure.  But like, I just don't see why we even need like capitalism.  'cause Idunno. I mean like it's just so mean and stuff.  Socialism is more, like, compassionate and it's just what, like, good people do,  ya know?

 

2 - Capitalism: Yes you can increase revenue.  If you allow business to have the freedom to grow the economy, then everyone grows with it.  Then when everyone is doing better, more dollars are paid to the government.  Loopholes or whatever is just more taxes.  There is no difference.  No, you can't grow the economy by punishing those who would grow it.

2 - Valley Girl: Yeah, loopholes are like totally bogus.  And the 1% need to like pay their fair share and stuff.  I'm not sure what revenue means.  But it sounds like we should get rid of that too.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Guest