I am one of the younger ones speaking their minds. However I was born in a socialist heavy nation (Canada) Despised how hard they made it to excel, or even crawl out of poverty and moved to America for the dream. I did everything legally, worked my ass off and am succeeding more now then I ever did back in that country thats considered "fair". I plan to be part of the 1% everyone hates in this country and so dont like anything presented by communism or socialism I feel even in its purist form it lacks the ability to dream.
Really? The US has many of the same poverty traps and they're sponsored by the Republicans as much as the Democrats here. It feels very much intentional.
Hell the entire 'Fairtax' proposal is yet another poverty trap.
At least you're open about your reasons for disliking socialist ideology.
Just don't pretend that a free, unregulated capitalist system is in any way "fair". It simply isn't true that, through hard work, anyone can be wealthy and successful. Even a cursory glance at lists of rich people will reveal that not a single one of them got to that position through hard work - that is to say through labor - and they're only wealthy because there's an underclass for them to exploit. To say that a system like this is "fair" is simple, and simplistic, and it ignores the unfairness that's built into the system. It seems fair on the surface, because everyone theoretically has the same opportunities, but it doesn't account for the reality, which is that people are not on equal footing and are not rewarded equally for equal work.
Is it "fair" to tax the rich more heavily in order that the poor may have a higher standard of living, and don't have to worry about what will happen if they suddenly have to go to hospital? I certainly think there's a stronger case for that being fairer than the alternative. There are far more poor people, for one thing.
Well rentier income isn't income worked for, by definition. So stopping rent-seeking practices where feasible, taxing it heavier where it should be allowed, etc. is certainly fair. History provides many examples of what happens when you don't curtail this behavior. People set up their own self-sufficient little fiefdoms and start tearing their nation apart from the inside. The wars that ensued pretty much define Japanese, Chinese, Indian, and European history. Large plantation owners sure did help their cause when they refused to help supply the Rebel army during the Civil War. "It's MY money." But only if you have 20 or more slaves...
For earned income, though, it's tied to the savings rate. Poor people have their money move through the economy faster, so taxing them places a heavier burden on the economy than taxing those who would otherwise stick it in a bank. When the banks stop lending (as they have), that creates a liquidity crisis. Austrians claim that the ultimate cause is in fact a currency crisis, but for the purposes of monetary flow here, we want to get money moving faster in either case. If the banks are that horrifically bankrupt, the solution is not to encourage stuffing more money into failed banks!
Ultimately, 5% of the population is earning 25% of the income and contributing 20% to the economy. That extra 5% just accumulates, and is reflected in things such as the insanely low interest rate on treasury yields.
Eventually, though, the bottom 90% of the population is going to run out of wealth to contribute to the top 5%, and, one way or another, it will stop.