As it says in #2, small business pay taxes at the household level. That means you S-corps, farms etc. get taxed on the $250,000, leaving money to replace inventory, business expansion and last but very least, family income. This is from Market Watch, which is a liberal source leading one to believe there must be some truth to it, not to mention the accountants and financial analysts they have on staff or have access to.
But the real issue here isn’t what Joe the Plumber said, it’s what Obama said about spreading the wealth; not to mention his arrogant snipe asking how many plumbers do you know that make $250,000? Not many, except the ones that own their business, and after he’s President, there’ll be fewer of those.
You do realize the American economy (unlike the European economy) is based on consumption (75% vs. 55%). What more elegant expression of the mass line could you ask for? Rightists write their own demise into their policies.
What Rightists? We haven’t had any capitalists in power in this country since FDR suckered us into the New Deal (although to be fair, a Republican Congress over a Truman veto, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush have gotten tax cuts passed, even though they all grew government).
Again, I would suggest you get your political compass re-checked. America is famous for its heavily right-shifted politics. So much so that the party that is supposedly on the left in this country would be slightly to the right of many of the European conservative parties!
I wasn’t thinking of that, actually. I was thinking along the lines of things like healthcare, taxation, infrastructure support, welfare, and all that jazz.
I’m sure your “conservative parties” are also leftist. But yes, compared to all the fascist, ultra-socialist and communist countries there over the last half century, we are to the right of them, but we’re just less left, but left nonetheless–and catching up fast. Hell China’s moving to the right, albeit at a snail’s pace. And the fact that you want me to use my political compass underlines your bias towards socialism which combines politics and economics. Capitalism goes hand in hand with, but is much more independent from its political partner, laissez-faire libertarianism.
Now you aren’t even making sense. First off, fascism is right-wing by any reasonable definition in political science. Next, decrying every other system that has existed as somehow hopelessly left-wing seems, well, rather out of touch. Doesn’t it make more sense to judge and define from the positions on the ground?
The small business owner’s income comes from his company. His household tax is the money his company pays him. If that is over 250,000 then he is taxed at a higher rate.
It’s amazing how they’re still indoctrinating students with this propaganda in our hallowed halls of academia. Hitler’s national socialism (NAZI) party and fascism are equivalent since they both exercise the “socioeconomic controls” of business form of socialism, just not outright ownership. ANY form of government that exercises such control/ownership, from dictator to communist, is a socialistic form of government.
Fascism and Nazism (German national socialists) are somehow called politically right wing, but in fact, because of their socioeconomic control of business (just not outright ownership), are socialist governments. Any government, from dictatorships to communists, that exercises such control, are socialists.
Whitehead said that there were four axes that any definition exists on. One of them is ‘broadness’. When a definition goes too far down the ‘broad’ axis, it ceases to mean anything because it can be applied to any situation. I would argue that you have just done that with socialism.
Yeah, from our perspective today where everything is socialism, it would seem that way. Thus the need for a review of the definition of what socialism is. The fact that we are teaching that fascism and Nazism aren’t socialism screams that out in spades.
I’d have to ask where you are getting your definitions from. After all, Fascism and Nazism are distinct from Socialism in terms of their intellectual development. But I’m a practical philosopher willing to reconsider things outside of their historical circumstances. Though I’d have to see a reasonably sound justification to actually go that route. After all, what do words mean detached from their contexts?
Na·zi n., pl. Na·zis. 1. A member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, founded in Germany in 1919 and brought to power in 1933 under Adolf Hitler.
They called themselves socialists. In any case is there that much difference between a government that owns businesses and one that controls them?
So the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea must be about the most ruled-by-the-people places on Earth. I mean, it is not only Democratic, it is also Republican, and it belongs to the people!
Totalitarian is, I think, what you mean. A system can be both fascist and totalitarian (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan), a system can be both socialist and totalitarian (USSR, Maoist China, Cuba), and a system can be both capitalist and totalitarian (plenty of states in S. America that were propped up by the US during the Cold War).
Now, it follows that stark ideologies lead to stark situations, so the clearest examples we have of each are indeed totalitarian. But when they start blending it becomes more interesting, and when the totalitarian nature fads away since they are less ideologically driven. Generally when comparing economic policies, ‘capitalist’ and ‘socialist’ are relative terms, meaning where on the mix they stand.
