[TETENAL]

Most talk about reducing taxes as a mean to push the economy. Now, while I haven't completely thought through this yet, what about instead radically increasing taxes? Let's say income tax is increased to 80-90%. In exchange every citizen is then given goods according to his needs for free. Everybody is given food – a steel worker is given more meat than a programmer for example, health-care, housing etc. all for free. The programmer gets a Mac for free, a painter the colours etc. You get the idea.

The advantage of the full tax system would be that resources could be distributed in a much more efficient way and nothing is wasted. A small amount (10 to 20 % of the money) would have to remain as an incentive to work at all, but the non-working population (pensioners and those who unfortunately became unemployed) would still be able to live a full quality life. It might also solve the adipositas problem, because nobody is getting more chocolate than is good for the human body.

This sounds like a great and fair idea to me. What do you think?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Most talk about reducing taxes as a mean to push the economy. Now, while I haven't completely thought through this yet, what about instead radically increasing taxes? Let's say income tax is increased to 80-90%. In exchange every citizen is then given goods according to his needs for free. Everybody is given food – a steel worker is given more meat than a programmer for example, health-care, housing etc. all for free. The programmer gets a Mac for free, a painter the colours etc. You get the idea.

Yes, we get the idea. It's called Communism. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

It's been tried, and hasn't worked anywhere.

[budster101]

If anyone wishes to donate more money to the government, I'm sure they'll accept it.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, we get the idea. It's called Communism. […] It's been tried, and hasn't worked anywhere.

As I said I haven't completely thought through this yet, but I'm sure if thought through well, this could be very beneficial. There is so much excessive luxury that if used according to need instead, would push society as whole much more forward.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
As I said I haven't completely thought through this yet, but I'm sure if thought through well, this could be very beneficial. There is so much excessive luxury that if used according to need instead, would push society as whole much more forward.

You presume an ideal on the part of a majority of the population: namely that they want to see everyone around as well off as they are themselves. But from a social standpoint people WANT class hierarchy--why that is is a discussion for another thread--and would actively oppose any government programs that would reduce class distinctions. In addition, very few people are that completely altruistic. Many people would agree with your idea if it didn't effect them directly. And therein lies a problem, too.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
As I said I haven't completely thought through this yet, but I'm sure if thought through well, this could be very beneficial.

You let us know when you have it figured out.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
You presume an ideal on the part of a majority of the population: namely that they want to see everyone around as well off as they are themselves. But from a social standpoint people WANT class hierarchy.

An inherent feature of class hierarchy is the pyramid shape. That means that there are much more lower-class people than there are upper-class people. Therefore I conclude that most people do not want class-hierarchy. Most people want society and mankind to advance and prosper – above their personal weal.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
This sounds like a great and fair idea to me. What do you think?

i have thought about this too, and it sounds like a good idea to me.

and no, it's not like communism at all, because you wouldn't have a communist party or any coerced political affiliation.

unfortunately, most of the world is moving in exactly the opposite direction.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
... But from a social standpoint weak people WANT class hierarchy...

fixed.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
An inherent feature of class hierarchy is the pyramid shape. That means that there are much more lower-class people than there are upper-class people. Therefore I conclude that most people do not want class-hierarchy. Most people want society and mankind to advance and prosper – above their personal weal.

I like class hierarchy, and it's not a bad thing. Without a pinnacle to look to, no one will strive to achieve that pinnacle.

For example, my wife and I have a firm goal we plan to accomplish: we will have a minimum of 2.5 million dollars in our retirement accounts by the time I'm 60. That's it. We have it planned, we have it mapped, we know what we have to do now to get there then. We're working to get where we want to be, and we're reaping the benefits of the work we do -- I don't want any of my hard work helping ANYONE out unless I'm writing the check myself.

Are we in the minority? Why yes, we're in the upper 5% of most Americans because we choose to do what we have to do to get there.

The flipside is that we get to take those "lower-class" people and show them how to move "up" to get to a better place. The majority don't, because they don't have what it takes to get there. However, some do -- and after the years of hard work it takes to get "to the top," you understand that you don't want the Govt or anyone else telling you where your money ought to go.

Maury

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
and no, it's not like communism at all, because you wouldn't have a communist party or any coerced political affiliation.

Other than your supposed name change, and naive assumption that you can take away private property and hand it to the state without coersion, what is the difference between what he proposes and Communism?

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
unfortunately, most of the world is moving in exactly the opposite direction.

Thankfully. Communism = opression. After a century of bloody experiments trying to implement it, that should be obvious even to the most utopian.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Other than your supposed name change, and naive assumption that you can take away private property and hand it to the state without coersion, what is the difference between what he proposes and Communism?

a) what "name change"?

b) "taking away private property" wasn't part of his proposition.

c) communism presupposes that there is a general conflict of ideals between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and that this eventually will result in the "workers" organizing into a "great communist party" and appropriating the means of production for themselves.

that is quite different from what the author of this thread proposed.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Communism = opression.

well, so is capitalism.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
For example, my wife and I have a firm goal we plan to accomplish: we will have a minimum of 2.5 million dollars in our retirement accounts by the time I'm 60.

That's admirable, but I doubt you will manage that while raising children. If you do, you are very privileged. I doubt that 5% of the families could manage that. However, families who raise children do as much or more than you do to advance mankind. Therefore they need to be equally rewarded.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
i have thought about this too, and it sounds like a good idea to me.

and no, it's not like communism at all, because you wouldn't have a communist party or any coerced political affiliation.

Funny, because I have actually thought about founding a "Party of Reason" to further such ideas. Unfortunately most people I know who are reasonable (aka my friends) are marginally interested in politics at best. And most people I know who are interested in politics, are not reasonable in one way or the other. It's obvious that unguided elbow-capitalism is getting us nowhere.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
That's admirable, but I doubt you will manage that while raising children. If you do, you are very privileged. I doubt that 5% of the families could manage that. However, families who raise children do as much or more than you do to advance mankind. Therefore they need to be equally rewarded.

You are totally misinformed and incorrect. Rearing children (you raise animals) doesn't have a whole lot to do with it, but one could also decide to hit 60 or 70 with say, $600,000 in retirement savings.

What would that cost? One hundred dollars a month for 40 years (making it $630,000) -- and that's only with 10% return (which is below the market average for the past 75 years).

What's $100 a month? That's LESS than phone and cable combined in most places, and most people spend more than that on booze and cigarettes while they have several children in their care every month.

Point being, is *is* possible -- there's NO REASON for people to remain poor and broke in today's world. I refuse to assist those that don't even do the basics for themselves.

Maury

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
But from a social standpoint weak people WANT class hierarchy

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
fixed.

Yes, you added "weak" to my phrase. Very good. . . but totally pointless.

In fact, it is the strong who WANT class hierarchy more than others. Because the strong generally want to maintain whatever position of advantage they have in society (usually due to wealth). I am not arguing the merits of whether or not class distinctions are a good thing but simply pointing out the flaw in your logic.

People have to be fundamentally free to choose how their society is structured. And for the majority of the American people, extreme disparities in wealth are acceptable, perhaps even valorized. I am not saying whether this is "right" or "wrong" but simply acknowledging a pattern that I see.

If the American people want every child to have health insurance and get three square meals a day, they can, and will, do so. But until a majority of our citizens are petitioning Congress to do something about this nothing will happen. (Of course, this pre-supposes the people WANT the government to do something about it instead of leaving it up to individuals.)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
a) what "name change"?

b) "taking away private property" wasn't part of his proposition.

c) communism presupposes that there is a general conflict of ideals between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and that this eventually will result in the "workers" organizing into a "great communist party" and appropriating the means of production for themselves.

that is quite different from what the author of this thread proposed.

You think it isn't Communism because you call it something other than Communism. It is what it is. It doesn't matter what you call the party that implements it (at the barrel of a gun, which is what such "utopian" dreams have always needed).

Taking away private property is central to his proposition.

Originally posted by TETENAL:
what about instead radically increasing taxes? Let's say income tax is increased to 80-90%. In exchange every citizen is then given goods according to his needs for free.

= Communism.

The funniest thing is he thinks that such a system would still produce Apple computers.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Because the strong generally want to maintain whatever position of advantage they have in society (usually due to wealth).

which is exactly what makes them "weak". believe me, i've been over this many times before and i know damn well what makes a "strong person".

most of them are not concerned with class hierarchy or preserving social disparity.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You think it isn't Communism because you call it something other than Communism.

no. i already stated how it is different.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Taking away private property is central to his proposition.

no, it's not. his proposition doesn't preculde people from paying these "taxes" at their own free will.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The funniest thing is he thinks that such a system would still produce Apple computers.

yes, as a matter of fact i'm sure it would.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
which is exactly what makes them "weak". believe me, i've been over this many times before and i know damn well what makes a "strong person".

most of them are not concerned with class hierarchy or preserving social disparity.

Wanting to maintain an upper class makes one weak? Spare me.

The reason these ideas are crap is because, rather than attempt to raise the lower class to the upper class level, these ideas want to lower the upper class to the level of the middle while barely raising the lower -- hoping to make them meet in the middle.

How stupid can someone be to want that? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Wanting an upper class = being weak puzzles me. I *hope* I misread you, but if not, I'm DYING for you to enlighten me on this belief.

Maury

[chabig]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
no, it's not. his proposition doesn't preculde people from paying these "taxes" at their own free will.

So you propose that people just "voluntarily" give away 90% of their income? This is already possible today.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
communism presupposes that there is a general conflict of ideals between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and that this eventually will result in the "workers" organizing into a "great communist party" and appropriating the means of production for themselves.

that is quite different from what the author of this thread proposed.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but while I didn't talk about this in my initial post, this is exactly the opinion I hold. The creation of the production means is a community effort – an effort of the capitalist, the workers and the community (families, cities around). Therefore the capitalist carries a responsibility towards the community that helped to create the capital. The production means are the capitalist's as much as they are the community's.

[Millennium]

The major problems with this:

• How does one determine need in a fair and equitable way?
• How does one prevent abuses of the system, such as claiming needs which do not in fact exist?
• Suppose that at the end of all the redistribution, there is a surplus. What happens to it? Conversely, suppose there are not enough resources to cover everyone; how does one decide whose needs go unfulfilled?
• In a system where needs are taken care of, how does one drive achievement and prevent leeches?
• Suppose that vital but unattractive areas of an economy (sanitation is a popular example) turn out to not be covered adequately? How does one address this problem?

This is not communism specifically. However, it is the logical conclusion of basic socialism. The result resembles communism closely because communism is a kind of socialism, and could theoretically be used to implement this kind of system. That said, it has been tried in the past, but no implementation has ever managed to solve these problems without degenerating into totalitarianism, at which point it ceases to be communist or socialist.

[BRussell]

OK, I'm ready, let's design our utopia. Here's how I would distribute all those revenues:

45%: free abortions
30%: gay marriages (and receptions)
25%: dismantling of religious symbols (changing the money, pulling down displays of 10 commandments, etc.)
<1%: health care, pensions, all that other stuff that I guess the government has to do

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
You are totally misinformed and incorrect. Rearing children (you raise animals) doesn't have a whole lot to do with it, but one could also decide to hit 60 or 70 with say, $600,000 in retirement savings.

So, as I assumed, you are in fact not "rearing" children. You could happily – as you acknowledge yourself – do with $600.00 as retirement saving, which means you could support 4 other families who are actually are rearing children. Sounds like a fair deal to me.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Communism.

It seems you have difficulties hiding your Anti-Germanism in this thread.

The funniest thing is he thinks that such a system would still produce Apple computers.

It would, if I were in charge.

What has capitalism produced? The dominance of crappy Windows computers. Not a highlight if you ask me.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Wanting an upper class = being weak puzzles me. I *hope* I misread you, but if not, I'm DYING for you to enlighten me on this belief.

fwiw, this

...want to maintain whatever position of advantage they have in society (usually due to wealth).

is what i was responding to, which is really only marginally related to preserving the "upper class" in general.

yes, it takes strength to step "into the ring" every day, and playing at level field. most "strong" (actually, it's just "being financially well off" by most folk's definition these days) hide behind the status quo and use their acquired wealth to shield themselves against the "harshness of life" (pain). that's why you have so many completely neurotic rich people.

yes, it's "having to maintain that advantage" (btw, it's not just "rich" people that do this) in order to get ahead is what makes a weak person to me. you might disagree with this, but it makes no difference to me.

this doesn't mean that "wealthy people" are necessarily weak, it just turns out that way a lot of times. just something i have observed.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
So, as I assumed, you are in fact not "rearing" children. You could happily – as you acknowledge yourself – do with $600.00 as retirement saving, which means you could support 4 other families who are actually are rearing children. Sounds like a fair deal to me.

Why would I support 4 other families with my own money? Why would I not use that money for ESAs for my family/future family? Oh! I WOULD use it for that -- and I am!

That said, will you PayPal me $30? I'm short on my lunch budget due to some unexpected prescription refills and I could really use the help. You can PayPal me at maury[at]railheaddesign.com. I'm being serious, too -- I had to buy about $190 in prescriptions this month, and it blew our allotted medicine budget numbers out of the water.

What? You don't want to? Why not? Please enlighten me why…

Maury

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Millennium:
[This is not communism specifically. However, it is the logical conclusion of basic socialism. [/B]

He goes far beyond basic Socialism. When you get down to the point where the government controls how much food a person is allowed to consume (read his initial post) and controls all means of production (read his later post) then, yes, it is Communism. Actually, he is approaching Cultural Revolution levels of extremism.

And as you correctly point out, it would require a totalitarian state to carry it out -- as it always has in the past.

However, I guess I should be encouraged that people who espouse Communism feel the need to deny it. It has obviously sunk in to some extent what a terrible idea it is.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by BRussell:
OK, I'm ready, let's design our utopia. Here's how I would distribute all those revenues:

45%: free abortions
30%: gay marriages (and receptions)
25%: dismantling of religious symbols (changing the money, pulling down displays of 10 commandments, etc.)
<1%: health care, pensions, all that other stuff that I guess the government has to do

errrrr...you forgot free "pot" and other recreational drugs.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
this doesn't mean that "wealthy people" are necessarily weak, it just turns out that way a lot of times. just something i have observed.

Man, you observe some lame "wealthy" people. Who are they? Do you know them personally? I recommend you read The Millionaire Next Door.

Maury

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
That said, will you PayPal me $30? I'm short on my lunch budget due to some unexpected prescription refills...

would you "paypal" him $30 if he needed a new t-shirt or pair of pants? no? why not?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
would you "paypal" him $30 if he needed a new t-shirt or pair of pants? no? why not?

No, because I don't subscribe to his belief. Simple. Try again.

Maury

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Millennium:
[*]How does one determine need in a fair and equitable way?

do you think some people need more oxygen to breathe than others? do you think some peolple need to eat 5 happy meals a day?

Originally posted by Millennium:
[*]How does one prevent abuses of the system, such as claiming needs which do not in fact exist?

why is the fear of abuse, greater than the actual will to perfect a political system?

Originally posted by Millennium:
[*] Conversely, suppose there are not enough resources to cover everyone; how does one decide whose needs go unfulfilled?

why should there be a "general" shortage of resources? temporary situations could be dealt with on an individual basis.

Originally posted by Millennium:
[*]Suppose that vital but unattractive areas of an economy (sanitation is a popular example) turn out to not be covered adequately? How does one address this problem?

why would they not be covered?

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The major problems with this:

Not completely thought through, but initial ideas:

• How does one determine need in a fair and equitable way?

A committee determines the needs for each professional group.

• How does one prevent abuses of the system, such as claiming needs which do not in fact exist?

Since the commitee determined the needs for each group there is no "claim" and therefore no abuse of claim.

• pose that at the end of all the redistribution, there is a surplus. What happens to it?

Either pay back per person or per work performance. Considering the next point paying back per work performance might probably be the better choice.

• In a system where needs are taken care of, how does one drive achievement and prevent leeches?

That's why I said tax 80-90% only. The working force has still 20% available purely for luxury goods like excessive food, sweets, drugs, travel, prostitution etc. pp. That is still much more than I currently spend on luxury in the current capitalistic system. It is probably an improvement of life-quality for the majority of people.

• Conversely, suppose there are not enough resources to cover everyone; how does one decide whose needs go unfulfilled?

Mankind currently seems to be able to supersupport itself. The problem is the fair distribution of resources.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
No, because I don't subscribe to his belief.

and you consider yourself "strong"?

q.e.d.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
The problem is the fair distribution of resources.

But you STILL haven't been able to explain the "fairness" of taking part of my high income and giving it to someone with a low income. How is that "fair" and equitable?

Maury

[BRussell]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
A committee determines the needs for each professional group.
Since the commitee determined the needs for each group there is no "claim" and therefore no abuse of claim.

Can I be a member of the committee?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Can I be a member of the committee?

Ooo Ooo Ooo!!!! Me too!!!! Me TOO!!!!

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
But you STILL haven't been able to explain the "fairness" of taking part of my high income and giving it to someone with a low income. How is that "fair" and equitable?

I have. If everybody did as you do, we would have a lot of millionaires in 30 yeas, but mankind would be extinct in 60. Other families raise 3 children what does as much for mankind as what you do. However under the current system this does not make them any money. Such families deserve the same resources as you do when they do the same for society.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
I have. If everybody did as you do, we would have a lot of millionaires in 30 yeas, but mankind would be extinct in 60. Other families raise 3 children what does as much for mankind as what you do. However under the current system this does not make them any money. Such families deserve the same resources as you do when they do the same for society.

Then LET mankind become extinct. I am the ultimate believer in free will. If people choose not do to something good for themselves and for their fellow citizens let them make that choice. Let them also live with the repercussions of that choice, if there be any.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Ooo Ooo Ooo!!!! Me too!!!! Me TOO!!!!

Me too! Over here!! Who do I have to bride/hurt/kill to get on it?

[mitchell_pgh]

There is no incentive to such a program.

People want compensated for hard work. If EVERYONE is compensated, nobody will work hard (unless forced)

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
I have. If everybody did as you do, we would have a lot of millionaires in 30 yeas, but mankind would be extinct in 60. Other families raise 3 children what does as much for mankind as what you do. However under the current system this does not make them any money. Such families deserve the same resources as you do when they do the same for society.

WRONG grasshopper. Why do you keep trying to pull the kid card? All it does is show you have done NO research on what you're trying to discuss. Sigh. That's why even used the $100 per month example. I can GUARANTEE that a family that WANTS to save $100 each month, CAN. How can I guarantee it? Show me their budget. Show me their bills.

But wait -- what will I do with those numbers? TELL THEM WHERE TO QUIT SPENDING! Keeeeeeee-RIPES! How dare I?!?! Am I so pompous as to state that people should -- dare I say it? -- sacrifice something to better themselves in the future? Yes, I said it. Kill me now.

This "middle-class" you speak of -- and the "lower-class" as well -- thinks they have to drive a shiny new car every four years. They think they have to have wide screen TVs. They have to have all the bells and whistles because, dadgummit, they deserve it. They use credit cards to get what they want now, and spend the next decade (or more) paying it off at 18% to 20% interest. Stupid. Period. All the money those people crap away every month could be going to savings, retirement, and to the benefit of their children.

Remember: good things come to those who wait. The problem? People in this day and age don't believe in waiting -- and that's why only 5% of us are debt free, using our income to make more money, and -- in my family's case -- living on only 70% and giving away the rest.

Maury

[Millennium]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
do you think some people need more oxygen to breathe than others?

Actually, some do. The differences are seldom much, but even among people of identical body mass there are subtle differences.

do you think some peolple need to eat 5 happy meals a day?

No, but why should they be forbidden from it?

why is the fear of abuse, greater than the actual will to perfect a political system?

Because the more power a system has -and this system would require truly staggering amounts of power- the more horrific the abuses are when they come, and they always come sooner or later.

why should there be a "general" shortage of resources?

Why shouldn't there be one? The foolishness of acting as resources are infinite has been borne out time after time in society. It tends to happen just before those resources run out.

temporary situations could be dealt with on an individual basis.

Name some examples, please.

why would they not be covered?

Because there are many vital job functions which are just plain not attractive to most people, and in many cases they're not attractive to enough people that the need for those functions can be filled.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Not completely thought through, but initial ideas:

A committee determines the needs for each professional group.

That's an awful lot of power that you would intend to give to a committee. How would its members be selected? How would you prevent politics between the committees from causing misallocation?

Furthermore, your committee idea does not appear to account for individual differences. How will you do this?

Since the commitee determined the needs for each group there is no "claim" and therefore no abuse of claim.

In other words, you intend to completely ignore individual differences. I consider your proposal dehumanizing, on that basis.

Either pay back per person or per work performance.

With almost all of that money simply being taken away, what is the point? Astronomical gross increases would be needed for any meaningful net increase to result.

Mankind currently seems to be able to supersupport itself. The problem is the fair distribution of resources.

What is 'fair'? I argue that there is no fair way for any person or body to determine the needs of any individual, save possibly themselves. From this, it follows that the closest to fair that one can get is for each individual to determine how resources will be allocated to himself, with that person's actions and contributions being the determining factor.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Actually, some do. The differences are seldom much, but even among people of identical body mass there are subtle differences.

...which doesn't even come close to justifying a disparity of resources.

Originally posted by Millennium:
No, but why should they be forbidden from it?

the question of course is, - "why do they want to in the first place?"

Originally posted by Millennium:
Because the more power a system has -and this system would require truly staggering amounts of power-...

or a truly staggering amount of insight on the part of the people that make up such a system. i'll concede that point. it probably wouldn't work with self-centered and weak people.

Originally posted by Millennium:
The foolishness of acting as resources are infinite has been borne out time after time in society. It tends to happen just before those resources run out.

the irony of course being, that more and more resources have to be "made" artificially "scarce" (monsanto, killer-gene food etc.) to establish ownership. again,- EXACTLY the wrong thing to do.

at the level of technology we have now, we really wouldn't have to worry about limited resources, if things were done right and completely rationally.

but then of course, there are always those that want to keep up the disparity (mostly those who'd have a lot to "lose")

Originally posted by Millennium:
Because there are many vital job functions which are just plain not attractive to most people...

good, - then let machines do them.

[Athens]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
As I said I haven't completely thought through this yet, but I'm sure if thought through well, this could be very beneficial. There is so much excessive luxury that if used according to need instead, would push society as whole much more forward.

This is the best quote I ever herd relating to communism which is pretty true and its biggest fualt.

"They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work"

With communism people have less reason to work hard because they get everything.

Originally posted by RAILhead:
WRONG grasshopper. Why do you keep trying to pull the kid card? All it does is show you have done NO research on what you're trying to discuss. Sigh. That's why even used the $100 per month example. I can GUARANTEE that a family that WANTS to save $100 each month, CAN. How can I guarantee it? Show me their budget. Show me their bills.

But wait -- what will I do with those numbers? TELL THEM WHERE TO QUIT SPENDING! Keeeeeeee-RIPES! How dare I?!?! Am I so pompous as to state that people should -- dare I say it? -- sacrifice something to better themselves in the future? Yes, I said it. Kill me now.

What is really needed is money education which starts in Middle School. Schools should teach kids what credit is, how credit works, interest, how to save money, how to budget, how to manage which are important skills not just for personal use but in a work enviroment too. If all kids got tought how to save a pennie, how not to get trapped in interest there wouldn't be only 5% who are not in debt.


And another thing you don't have to have communism for a command based economy, and you a Communist Government can run with a open free market. What we are mostly talking about here is a Command economy where the Government tells you to work and distributes the wealth.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Athens:
What is really needed is money education which starts in Middle School. Schools should teach kids what credit is, how credit works, interest, how to save money, how to budget, how to manage which are important skills not just for personal use but in a work enviroment too. If all kids got tought how to save a pennie, how not to get trapped in interest there wouldn't be only 5% who are not in debt.

That's EXACTLY it -- people are uneducated on money matters. They fall for the gimmicks, pitches, and advice of their broke friends and family. I don't have the stats with me, but something like well over half of graduating seniors can't balance a freaking checkbook. 7 out of 10 already have credit cards with a revolving balance. Further, most college graduates leave school with over $8000 in CC debt -- not including student loans, etc.

Sad -- but not my fault. I've been there, and I clawed my way out of $38,200 in debt in 12 months. I didn't ask for help, I worked my arse off. I didn't seek "assistance" because I got myself in that hole -- and I got myself out.

My sister's in debt, too, and I won't give her a dime to help -- but I'll walk with her and teach her how to get out of the situation when it begins to hurt enough for her to want to change.

Maury