Comment on In the Middle of America
gee g- you don't do bad when you debate yourself. 
i don't know why the idea of blending capitalism with the better parts of different ideologies.
"is a socialistic structure required to sustain a capitalistic society?"
NO!
And how would redistribution of wealth by taxing estates help to foster an ownership society?
If government takes 40% of an estate, it's just going to drop that down the black hole of waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement that typifies government spending.
A $1,000,000 dollar estate (the current amount above which an estate is taxed) is not a heck of lot of money these days. And certainly if a family business like a farm is involved, the current tax would destroy it.
So again, to preserve the ownership society, you would NOT have an estate tax.
Oh, and of course I didn't even mention the fairness of taxing income on which taxes had already been paid.
Mike:
I fully understand the unfairness of the idea. That has always been my biggest gripe with the Eastate tax.
I earn money that is taxed as income tax. I buy stuff and pay a sales tax. Then when I die, my kids pay a tax to inherit it???
That will never be fair, but agian, if "Wealth" is a limited resource, and to elevate your quality of life you have to aquire it... what happens if those with the advantage of wealth, use that advantage to out-aquire the rest of society in the wealth race?
How does a non-socialistic structure (e.g. strictly capitalistic) keep from a return to the days of royalty/peasant relationship between those of wealth, and those with no chance at wealth?
Remember, the history of our nation has led to a middle class because of the great exapanse, exploited via Manifest Destiny, of unclaimed land (aka; wealth) that the common man, willing to hustle, could claim for him/herself and create a foundation for wealth accumulation. Today is not the same.
We don't need a socialistic society. How about eliminating the excessive greed and monopolies the capitalistic system has degraded to.
The gas companies are listing the highest profits ever, while we are at war. Why should they make 150% more today than they did 5 years ago.
At the same time they have cut wages and benefits for their employees.
This is happening in all our companies.
Unions no longer exsist, and the last of them are being put out of business (Northwest airlines-one example/automobile industry-second example). Those groups gave us the worklife and benefits we have enjoyed for a century.
World trade only decreases our wages, yet prices continue to go up - must make more profit for the company.
If the Chinese can prosper on $2.00 an hour, fine. We cannot.
Jobs that are paying $9.00-$11.00 an hour now, those same jobs were paying $10.00-$12.00 almost 25 years ago!
Example: A bartender today makes minium wage $5.25 an hour plus tips and those tips are taxed. In 1974 that same job paid $10.00 an hour plus tips and tips back then were not taxed.
I would much rather pay more for goods made in America, and give Americans jobs; than pay less for those same goods made overseas.
If we are to have a GOOD economy, and pay the criminal debt the government has built, we must have GOOD PAYING jobs into the future.
How about paying everyone over the federal poverty level and get everyone off social programs and stop that massive expense?
Why allow companies to underfund their pension plans, and then make the taxpayer cover their greed and mismanagement?
How much is a CEO worth? 100 million, 300 million, 500 million? If that doesn't show excessive profits, I don't know what does. That kind of money could pay for the employees health insurance the company claims it can't afford.
Some problems are so large that a social type program can be more cost effective, like social security. But look what the politicians do with that money, they spend it on everything but the program it was meant for and now the program cannot pay the benefits it was mandated to.
We don't need a new system, we need to clamp down on the greed, mismanagement, theft, and monopolies we have allowed to bankrupt the middle class.
But Time... clamping down on business is socialism... governmental controls over the economy are socialistic by the very definition of the word.
that was a pretty good post. balance is good.
Time is right as well. The regulations and laws that existed to protect the balance were lifted. This applies to more than financial sectors. It is across the board. Wide ranging changes that are still happening today.
Some fear it is too late.
-Hype
'So again, to preserve the ownership society'
does anybody else have reservations about the phrase 'ownership society'?
because it seems like we are all owned.
what kind of freedom is that? we are all free to own each other. either through direct methods or by proxy. or am i off base on that one?
-Hype
Sorry, I see a big difference between a socialist system and a system of regulations to prevent abuses of a free market or capitalistic system. If you claim that regulations alone define a socialistic system, I disagree.
i was tired and distracted when i wrote my last comment. what i meant to say was- why can't we keep capitalism but blend it with the best or better parts of different 'isms.' why can't we have- for examples sake only please don't rip me a new one- a health care system based on some of the tenets of socialism. why can't we make our own capitalist society and why are people so afraid of blending 'isms?' we seem to be having no difficulty blending democracy with fascism.
Commenting by HaloScan
