[quote=KSMountain][quote=SK in CV]
I understand that socialism is a fun word to throw around for those opposed to the current administration. But when using tax rates as evidence, it really becomes an assine assertion…
Socialism, by the way, refers to government ownership of the production and distribution of goods and services. [/quote]
Ok, maybe not tax rates per se, but consider:
We now have a “Pay Czar”. Think about how anti-competitive, anti-free enterprise that really is.
We’re going to have a new *required* health plan that people *must* participate in. There are very few precedents for things the government compels you to do. Taxes, selective service, anything else? This then adds a major new component to what it means to be a citizen. What if some folks want to do their own thing health care-wise? That’s not an option? The government is removing choice? One of the bills taxes “cadillac plans”. Why? On what basis? Why can’t a company choose to take care of its employees in the way it sees fit without arousing punishment from the government?
We’re telling companies what kind of bonuses they can give. We own AIG and GM, and half the mortgages in the country…
The senate version of the health plan taxes tanning salons 10%. What industries might be next? (actually I’d support a tax on fast food, due to societal costs, even though I admit that’s a bit anti-capitalistic of me)
The “public option” in the house bill by the way, it seems would satisfy your socialism definition of “production and distribution of goods and services”, don’t you think?[/quote]
First, I’m very unsatisfied with the Senate bill. I fail to see the logic of the mandate, it is simply a handout to the insurance industry. Combined with a readily available public plan, it may have made a bit more sense. But i would still have considered it a flaw in the bill.
As is the funding method in the Senate bill. A surtax on the highest tax bracket would have made much more sense. (And no, I don’t believe there is any empirical evidence that would stifle any economic growth, certainly not at income levels above $250,000 per year.)
And no, the public option would not satisfy my socialism definition. No goods or services would be manufactured or distributed by the government. Just as Medicare and Medicaid are not socialized medicine. See my comment above with regards to how insurance fits into the capitalist/socialist model.
(And I think the “pay czar” makes a lot sense for companies which recieved bailouts, if the position held any authority. It would have made a lot more sense to have written it into the bail out agreements 13 or 14 months ago. It wasn’t. Unfortunately, the pay czar won’t do anything)
