4 ms·

Huh... that's actually a pretty awesome capitalist solution. I just really hate how the poor are treated today... the level of desperation you see in a majorit

Huh... that's actually a pretty awesome capitalist solution. I just really hate how the poor are treated today... the level of desperation you see in a majority of America is incredibly depressing and seems like it could so easily be rectified by such a small tax increase.

netcan 14y ago
What's capitalist about it?
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  It's voluntary.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    How is a tax voluntary?
    - InclinedPlane 14y ago
      Sorry, I thought you were talking about the giving in the article.
- Ankaios 14y ago
  Allowing the recipients to allocate the resources in the manner which they believe best benefits them.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Pretty sure the people who paid the tax could already do that.
  - netcan 14y ago
    "Market Oriented" is part of capitalism but I don't think that qualifies this as capitalist, at least not under a definition that works within the capitalist-socialist paradigm. European socialist politicians could get behind this as readily as capitalist ones. This is really a 'welfare state' solution. Welfare state being the capitalist-socialist compromise that most wealthy countries currently have. IE: (a) Grant citizens rights. (b) Do redistribution while trying to keep the free market as intact as possible. (c) Provide some services directly. (education, health) (d) Support the poorest segments directly. I agree that a negative tax system would be cleaner (especially on paper) and probably have fewer side effects. But, it's not outside the paradigm of or current system. If you seriously proposed you wouldn't find that socialists object and capitalists support it. You'll find that capitalists and socialists will object or support it based on how progressive it is. IE how much redistribution it does. If it increases redistribution, the right in most countries would object. Actually, any such radical change would piss off a huge matrix of embedded interests so all politicians would either object or try to manipulate it to suit their (friends') agendas... but that's a function of politics rather than ideology.
- cmsmith 14y ago
  It does as little as possible to distort the free market. In contrast, something like giving free food to developing countries is pretty damaging to the free market, because it will suppress local prices and drive local farmers out of business.
jl6 14y ago
I tend to think that capitalism is what helps prevent people from getting into desperate situations in the first place (e.g. by letting a family accumulate wealth so that the children start with a buffer). But it has no direct answer for people already in desperate situations, hence the necessity of charity.
- lilsunnybee 14y ago
  Hopefully you're lucky enough to be born into a family that's already well-off.

netcan 14y ago

What's capitalist about it?

InclinedPlane 14y ago
It's voluntary.
- icebraining 14y ago
  How is a tax voluntary?
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    Sorry, I thought you were talking about the giving in the article.
Ankaios 14y ago
Allowing the recipients to allocate the resources in the manner which they believe best benefits them.
- icebraining 14y ago
  Pretty sure the people who paid the tax could already do that.
- netcan 14y ago
  "Market Oriented" is part of capitalism but I don't think that qualifies this as capitalist, at least not under a definition that works within the capitalist-socialist paradigm. European socialist politicians could get behind this as readily as capitalist ones. This is really a 'welfare state' solution. Welfare state being the capitalist-socialist compromise that most wealthy countries currently have. IE: (a) Grant citizens rights. (b) Do redistribution while trying to keep the free market as intact as possible. (c) Provide some services directly. (education, health) (d) Support the poorest segments directly. I agree that a negative tax system would be cleaner (especially on paper) and probably have fewer side effects. But, it's not outside the paradigm of or current system. If you seriously proposed you wouldn't find that socialists object and capitalists support it. You'll find that capitalists and socialists will object or support it based on how progressive it is. IE how much redistribution it does. If it increases redistribution, the right in most countries would object. Actually, any such radical change would piss off a huge matrix of embedded interests so all politicians would either object or try to manipulate it to suit their (friends') agendas... but that's a function of politics rather than ideology.
cmsmith 14y ago
It does as little as possible to distort the free market. In contrast, something like giving free food to developing countries is pretty damaging to the free market, because it will suppress local prices and drive local farmers out of business.

jl6 14y ago

I tend to think that capitalism is what helps prevent people from getting into desperate situations in the first place (e.g. by letting a family accumulate wealth so that the children start with a buffer). But it has no direct answer for people already in desperate situations, hence the necessity of charity.

lilsunnybee 14y ago
Hopefully you're lucky enough to be born into a family that's already well-off.