(01-11-2016 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-11-2016 10:12 AM)Max Power Wrote:  In Europe, socialist parties are softer and governments simply have very strong redistributive systems to cover everyone for health care, education, old age pensions etc, but they don't necessarily own the hospitals, colleges, factories etc. That's what you find in Scandinavia and what Bernie is proposing.

No. Not true. That's one huge misconception.

Europe does have large and comprehensive social welfare programs. But, and this is a huge but, the emphasis is on providing a safety net, and not redistribution on a massive scale. The taxation systems to support this social spending are very regressive compared to US systems. Corporations are taxed at substantially lower rates, and the "rich" are generally taxed at roughly the same or lower rates. Tax rates for the middle class are substantially higher, plus every European social democracy gets something approaching 30% of its total tax revenues from highly regressive (by our standards) consumption taxes. And, on the other side, the social benefits are available to everyone, not just the poor. They are not "means tested" (the republican contribution to the "welfare trap"). What those governments do is to provide a bundle of basic services to every citizen, and every citizen pays for it. They are basically taxing the middle class more in exchange for providing more benefits to the middle class, and because the middle class is so large, that combination enables them to offer better deals to both "rich" and "poor" that we do. It's quite amazing that Europe simultaneously offers both a better deal to the poor and a better deal to "rich" investors than we do.

OK, I know, I know, you're going to respond by saying that the "rich" and corporations pay effective tax rates that are lower than our statutory rates. Of course they do. They didn't get rich by being stupid. They choose to earn more of their income overseas, and have it taxed in those European tax systems, rather than have it taxed here. That's why there is such a huge issue with US companies stashing cash overseas.

There's a big difference between social democracies and socialism, and the major issue is redistribution. In that regard, Bernie and Obama and Hillary (and you) are all clearly on the side of socialism.

I'm actually fine with a lot of social democrat ideas. I'm not fine with socialist redistribution. I would favor

1) Placing a floor under incomes in the form of a negative income tax or Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund plus French Bismarck health care, which would mean that no individual is more than a minimum wage job (at the current minimum wage) away from being above the poverty line,
2) Spreading wealth in the form of a privatized component of social security that would invest in things like infrastructure improvement and green energy, and
3) Paying for it all with some combination of flat taxes, consumption taxes, and Pigovian taxes.

That approach makes the truly poor better off, eliminates the "welfare trap" that shackles the poor who seek upward mobility, removes a huge barrier to investment and growth, and greatly reduces income and wealth inequality, all in one fell swoop.

I'm angry at democrats for lying and perpetuating this misconception. I'm even more angry at republicans for not pointing out the misconception, not setting the record straight, and not making this an issue.