What's wrong with Socialism?

You will not see me label myself as affiliated to any political party. Republicans talk the talk, but generally are just politicians who don’t do much different than Democrats. Both are more interested in being elected than their political values, so they try to tow the middle as much as possible. One thing I do know. I am not a Democrat. Why? Because Democrats have adopted the socialistic ideas that are poisonous to America and everything that made this country the richest, most powerful nation in the world in roughly 150 years. A very short time, historically speaking.
What is socialism? According to Merriam-Webster dictionary:

socialism- (n.) any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

And this is exactly what liberals want to do. The government collects, in the form of taxes, and distributes as they see fit.

U.S. TAX SYSTEM

So what is the history of the tax system in the United States? Most know that one of the main reasons we fought for our independence from Great Britain was the feeling that the colonists were being unfairly taxed. During the early years of our country, there were times when the government tried to tax Americans, like in 1791 when Congress passed a tax on American-made whiskey. This was Alexander Hamilton’s plan to raise money to pay back the federal debt. This angered many and by 1794 fighting had broken out in what was called the Whiskey Rebellion. Many refused to pay the tax, and even tarred and feathered some of the tax collectors. Though the rebellion went away fairly quietly, it was clear that the people did not believe taxes were fair. It wasn’t until the late 1790s, with America close to war with France, that the government passed the first direct taxes on the owners of houses, land, slaves, and estates. These direct taxes were abolished shortly after when Thomas Jefferson was elected President.
Taxes were needed again when the Civil War broke out. In 1862, a two-tiered tax structure was put in place. Those with income up to $10,000 were taxed at 3 percent, and those with higher incomes were taxed at a 5 percent rate. The need for Federal revenue declined sharply after the war and most taxes were repealed. By 1868, the main source of Government revenue derived from liquor and tobacco taxes. The income tax was abolished in 1872.
The 16th Amendment was passed by Congress July 2, 1909. By 1913, 36 states had ratified the 16th Amendment and in October, Congress passed a new income tax law. According to the U.S. Department of Treasury, the rates began at 1 percent, rising to 7 percent for those with incomes of over $500,000.
So where are we today? After Reagan lowered taxes, Clinton raised them again. First in 1990, setting the highest tax bracket at 31 percent and then again in 1993, raising the top tax bracket to 36 percent with a 10 percent surcharge, which effectively put that top bracket at 39.6 percent. Bush passed through the Economic Growth and Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2001 which brought the top bracket back down to 33 percent. While tax breaks like this are looked at by many as “tax cuts for the rich” and “Republicans looking out for corporations and not the common man,” let’s look at who it is who pays these taxes according to 2006 tax records provided by the IRS:



Percentiles Ranked by
Adjusted Gross Income Adjusted Gross Income
Threshold on Percentiles Percentage of Federal
Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%.....$388,806.....39.89%
Top 5%.....$153,542.....60.14%
Top 10%....$108,904.....70.79%
Top 25%....$64,702......86.27%
Top 50%....$31,987......97.01%
Bottom 50% Less than $31,987...2.99%

So when the top 1 percent of the country pays 40 percent of the taxes, and the top 50 percent pay 97 percent of the taxes, who else would get the tax breaks? Many people look at the recession in the late 80s and during Bush’s Presidency and believe that shows you that tax cuts don’t work. Well the mistake these Presidents made was that they did not reduce spending enough. Government spends too much of our money on social programs that don’t work, like welfare. The key is cutting the wasteful spending by our government, therefore lessening the need to tax so heavily.

WHY NOT SOCIALISM?
It’s a fair question. The richest in our country live extremely well. Why shouldn’t they pay taxes to the country which allows them to acquire that much wealth? There are many reasons that as a country we should’ve learned by now, which teach us that this system, while sounding virtuous, doesn’t work.
First, our current system rewards idleness and punishes the hard working. What if I told my oldest son that if he graduated college and got a good, high paying job, that I would take 40% of his check to give to his sister? But if he wasn’t making much money, I wouldn’t take much at all from him, because he would need it. Sound like a way to encourage my son to work hard to become successful and achieve his goals? Of course not. Yet this is the message our government sends.
Second, this policy of taxing the rich (by both Democrats and Republicans) is counter-productive. Other than government jobs, the rich in the country are the ones who create jobs for the rest of us. Why would we create a hostile environment for job growth by taxing the rich heavily? To see an example of a country that figured it out, look to Ireland. As recent as the early 1990s, the Republic of Ireland was one of the poorer nations in Europe, plagued by poverty and emigration. The Irish government implemented several policies, including reducing government spending and reducing taxes. What happened after, sometimes referred to “Celtic Tiger,” is that businesses came flocking to Ireland, and the economy boomed. Currently, Ireland has the second highest per capita income of any country in the European Union, and fourth highest in the world based on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita.
Thirdly, look at some of the problems Americans complain about. Companies “outsourcing” (moving jobs out of our country) and/or illegal immigrants coming over the border and working. What I’ll tell you is that we would have neither problem if it were not for government involvement and high tax rates. Why? Because people in Asia are doing the jobs that people in the U.S. refuse to do. And illegals from Mexico are coming over and doing jobs that people in the U.S. refuse to do. Instead of putting people to work, we let the wealthy take care of our poor, which has sapped the work ethic out of an entire percentage of our population.
Many people look at companies that move their jobs overseas as greedy and evil. And they do that not because people won’t work, but because they can get people in other countries to do the work for much less. Well once again, you can thank your liberal government for coming up with an idea that sounded good for the people, but has been devastating to our nation.
Minimum wage laws were first introduced in the U.S. nationally in 1938. The law prohibits employers from paying employees below a certain rate, which is set by the government and adjusted occasionally for inflation. The problem—it’s done more harm than good.
Almost universally, economists will tell you that minimum wage laws are bad for an economy. Jobs are based on supply and demand. If an employer were offering fifteen cents an hour to work, likely no one would apply. So he must set it at a rate in which people are willing to the job. And there are many jobs that aren’t worth companies paying minimum wage to get done. So what do they do? Ship their jobs overseas, where the job can get done at a rate that doesn’t hurt the company.
People need to work. Not only for monetary reasons. Working for something gives you a sense of pride. A sense of self-worth. Even if it’s sewing clothing or picking fruit, there’s something rewarding about working hard all week and collecting your paycheck at the end of the week. But that something is quickly going away here.


THE NEW DEAL

So what started the United States’ fascination with socialism? In our history books we have learned about the New Deal and how Franklin Roosevelt used government spending to create jobs, create a welfare system, and get the country out of the Great Depression. Sounded like a great plan. And truthfully I’m not sure anyone could’ve known what the long-term results would be. Welfare clearly hasn’t worked, but at least he was able to kick start the economy, right? Not so fast. There are economists who have done research and say that not only did the plan not work as intended, but it likely prolonged the Depression.
Harold L. Cole, a professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania, and Lee E. Ohanian, a professor of economics and director of the Ettinger Family Program in Macroeconomic Research at UCLA, wrote an article in the February 9, 2009 edition of the Wall Street Journal and point out the “facts do not support the perception that FDR’s policies shortened the Depression.” When they researched actual employment (total hours worked) from before FDR took office and comparing it with the end of the 1930s (near the end of the New Deal), total hours worked was still about 21 percent below their 1929 level.
In the U.S. there have always been economic recessions, always followed by economic booms. Why wasn’t the Depression followed by vigorous recovery? Cole and Ohanian calculated that “on the basis of just productivity growth that employment and investment should have been back to normal levels by 1936.” They’re not the only ones. Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas and Leonard Rapping calculated “on the basis of just expansionary Federal Reserve policy that the economy should have been back to normal by 1935.”
So what stopped the usual recovery from ever starting? FDR’s New Deal policies. Many of the policies were anti-market policies which “violated the most basic economic principles by suppressing competition, and setting prices and wages in many sectors way above their normal levels.”

But my point to liberals would be this. If you believe in government taxes to “share the wealth” by taxing the rich the highest because they have the most to help out those who don’t, than let’s do it. But don’t pretend to be righteous when you’re really being hypocritical. I mean let’s not just be snobby Americans. People are born all around the world in way worse situations than even the worst off in America. They don’t choose where they’re born. And Americans have luxuries that others will never have. So let’s share the wealth. All of us should get taxed somewhere between 90-95 percent of our income, with that tax money getting shipped to those who really need it. Third-world countries in Asia and Africa, where even a couple hundred dollars would equal years of salary. Because for those who want to tax the rich….it’s all relative. To much of the rest of the world, we’re all rich. So unless you believe Americans have more value than the lives of others, you’ll be on board.