Venezuela if you study its history was one that was closest to a serious attempt at establishing a socialist/humanist system. The initial moves were very good imo, but the attempts to consolidate were crushed by outside plutocratic forces. — universeness

I disagree. Venezuela never gave a real try to implement humanism among the society. It is absurd to always find guilts outside the country. Plutocratic forces is just a random speculation to just don't assume the fatalities of the State of Venezuela. Maduro and the rest of socialist commanders of Venezuela also play the card of "we are bad because of Spanish empire stigma". Well, I completely disagree... They got their independence 200 years ago. Two centuries is a lot to get rid from Spanish yoke.
In the other hand, why some plutocracies would be interested in Venezuela? Yes they have oil but it is managed by a state owned company...

Then, the people are left with what they currently have or any other alternative on offer. That's simply the reality of how human democratic politics must function. — universeness

Agree. But, paradoxically, socialist countries tend to be the less democratic possible. That's a fact we have to accept. Just look at China, Cuba, Angola, Venezuela, Belarus, etc... They are not democratic. The citizens of those countries cannot vote if they want socialism or not. Their dictators just imposed it.

if we are ever to rid ourselves of the horrific imbalances that the majority suffer, due to living under a plutocratic system. — universeness

It is true that those systems are not perfect and there is some imbalance. But please do not forget that at least you can vote to elect the next president in UK or USA. Not like China and Russia. Plutocracy is bad but is not so dangerous as living in a military dictatorship as North Korea for example.

I'm guessing the tax was meant for the rich, but the rich were able to shove it down hill to the middle class. That's not good. — frank

The line between middle class and rich is vanishing. It is difficult to distinguish a real rich person from a middle class worker. For example: I do not consider "rich" a person who owns 200.000 € in the bank. It is an amount of money you can earn working hard along your life

I know I sound as a neo liberal or capitalist cheerleader. But I am not even close. I am just sceptical about financial regimes around the globe and I still don't see socialism as a real solution to get resource-based economy or a redistribution of wealth. Most of socialist countries end up failing. Yes, I know capitalism is not the solution neither. But at least it is a system who (more or less) works in the Western world and some Asian countries as Japan or South Korea.

It sounds like your family is pretty well off? — frank

No, we are not. I promise we are a normal middle class family. I don't even understand why the fees increased that much in contrast to their income

Now I know a lot more, I am against the existence of political parties and believe that representation should be based on individual local independent candidates and not a political party. I can't now join a political party and be true to that viewpoint. — universeness

Good point :up: It is difficult to change the political rules and system because as how it works it feeds a lot of people's interests.

Words are limited to express how much I utterly disagree with your above quote. — universeness

I respect your thoughts. Nevertheless, I don't know a financial system which actually works apart from capitalism. :chin:

Why the heavy emphasis on reducing debt? — frank

Because the European Comission is worried about the high debt of Spain. Between 2011 and 2018 a conservative government promoted spending cuts policies, reduce taxes on incomes and collecting as much as possible from indirect taxation. This policy was welcomed by European countries as Austria and other European commissioners.
But since the new government is ruling the country they are doing exactly the opposite. They have increased many points the income taxes because the president and treasury minister think that the previous measures only benefit the richest citizens. I am not agree at all. For example: My parents paid around 28 % or 30 % of their income in taxes five or six years ago. But now the percentage increased to 43 % because it is time to be solidary with the rest of the citizens. I don't consider my family as "rich"as to pay such amount of taxes. I see it unfair.

Maybe Spain is afraid that would chase off jobs producers? — frank

No at all because those taxes are paid ofently. It is worse the capital earning tax because those entrepreneurs have to pay 23 or 25 % of their revenue in taxes each year...

hitler, — Deus

Hitler was never a corrupted politician. The III Reich characterises for being a devil but clean dictatorship.

Is this driven by Brussels? — frank

No. Brussels even recommends to Spain to try to reduce the debt with "inderect" taxes such as "Value-added tax" and not by taxing income or capital earnings.

Before your generation ends, I hope your fellow humans provide you with some positive surprises as good examples of what humans can do to make improvements on how they live. — universeness

Nah, I am pretty sceptical on such scenario :mask:

is true, then that is not socialism. — universeness

Nobody even tries to put it into practice. Most of these debates end up in doctrines or theories at universities of political science. Everything we both are debating is good and worthy to our lives. But all of these mechanisms need to be practical and the authorities responsible for making this "happen" tend to not do anything to pursue it.
It is so frustrating, doesn't it? There are a lot of people trying to improve the world but the politicians do not care. This is why I don't want to be a public representative.

I am also convinced that the capitalist 'money trick' imposes great harm on our species and on our planet, and it is a clear and present danger that must be effectively dealt with for the sake of all future generations. — universeness

Believe it or not, it is the better possible system. The different generations have tried different systems of organisations along the centuries and most of them end up failing except capitalism. It is true it is a flawed system but it is not that bad because most of the people tend to win under it.

If you control the press then it’s no longer free though, right? — praxis

Exactly and both political parties are guilty.

It already serves the system willingly. — Merkwurdichliebe

:up: :sparkle:

So the press should be firmly regulated by the government? — praxis

The press should be impartial and express the news objectively.

Trump sues CNN for saying mean things about him. — praxis

Trump claims in his lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, that CNN had used its considerable influence as a leading news organization to defeat him politically.

To be honest, I am in Trump's side. Big press and social media tend to use their high influence to destroy your image or political career. This happens everywhere.

Now, instead of paper money and coin for your labour, you get numbers in your bank account. — universeness

But that's only how the transfer of money has changed in the last decades. I still see it as a "value" of my job each month whenever I accomplish it.

only the country closest to achieving a humanist/socialist political system will be the first to switch to something akin to a resource-based economy, or at least a much fairer system than we have now. — universeness

Hmmm. I don't think so. I live under a socialist country and I don't see any kind of intentions of changing all the mechanism. Rather than trying to develop a resource-based economy, they are getting rich doing literally the opposite.
To be honest, your arguments of resource-based economy could only be applied to small countries with reasonable citizens. It is impossible to implement this in big chaotic countries like India or Mexico. They depend a lot on monetary values and their governors are always obsessed with "buying" reserve currencies like American dollar or Euro. It is a very complex situation which seems to be irretrievable

Are taxes abusively high where you are? — frank

Yes. They are so abusively high. Our socialist government is destroying the middle class.

I am opposed to abusive taxation in both income and capital gains. I just want to justify that we can live formidably with less fees of taxation

The idea of 'Your office' and Your workers,' and 'You pay them,' is also not chiselled in stone. — universeness

Well, that's true the space of working completely changed since Covid pandemic but I think offices are still important and effective.

I am sure you agree that technology is changing the means of production, distribution and exchange, in many significant ways and I do not see any benefit to maintaining the status quo. — universeness

Agreed. Technology has changed all of those factors of production. Nevertheless, I still cannot see "production, distribution and exchange" as "priceless". To be honest, if we don't put some value on them, the people would waste the mechanism. Whenever I read your arguments I imagine you as a good reasonable person who acts with common sense. But, sadly, not everyone understands how complex is to redistribute all the chains of the "status quo". I see that many people would confuse resource-based economy with "free" because it doesn't have monetary value.

I agree with how vital personal freedom is and that all individuals must be as free to do what they want as is possible within the restriction of the existence of 'other people' who also want to be free to do what they want. That's the biggest issue. Your freedom cannot prevent or subjugate another's. — universeness

To be honest, seeing these difficult times (Ukraine war, inflation, covid, etc...) I prefer to choose security rather than freedom. If this act would reduce my "freedom" it is ok I will not get mad because I am scary. I am perceiving that most of the people do not respect the rules or public order. Whenever a police officer ask to "please don't disturb the people in the streets" those savages say "it is Fascism we deserve more freedom"
It is a shame. We live in an era where the youngest generation doesn't know what is the freedom and how to respect it

I told you, no more Japanese reading. Except for those cool porno comics. — T Clark

:lol: ! I promise those are the last books of Japanese literature in my room. I will read other types of literature in the coming months.

So, do you think we could get rid of all national currencies and just exchange goods and services using numbers/credits? — universeness

National currencies are also tools for pursuing safety. One nation is capable to exchange goods and services using credits because their credibility allows them to do so. For example: Japan; UK; Eurozone; USA, etc... Have the so called reserve currency. Economists debate whether a single reserve currency will always dominate the global economy. Many have recently argued that one currency will almost always dominate due to network externalities, especially in the field of invoicing trade and denominating foreign debt securities, meaning that there are strong incentives to conform to the choice that dominates the marketplace.

How far is it from there to effectively, no money. In other words, a resource-based economy. — universeness

I understand. Nevertheless, the interactions are very complex to reach a resourced-based economy. If we implement this doctrine how would you pay to your workers? (for example). Imagine you have 5 workers in your office and you pay them 1.000 € per month because you consider it sufficient in terms of hours of work, tasks, benefits, bonuses, etc... But how can you measure all of these factors with resource-based economy? You will always need a basic number or digit to do it.

and then get rid of money and switch to something like a resource-based economy — universeness

I think it could not be possible. It is interesting your point but if we get rid of money or monetary terms, the things themselves would lose their real value. For example: you pay X number of euros in a new car because the object actually deserves it.
Resource-based economy is a good intention indeed and I respect it. But it is impossible to avoid money exchange.
It is interesting to see that we always put a price on everything, right?

Successful economy? That’s capitalism.
Failed economy? Socialism. — Xtrix

The GDP of Japan and South Korea holds the 8 % GDP of the entire world. Meanwhile Cuba only 0.12 %. You will not imagine who are the capitalists in the equation.

you’re not involved — Xtrix

It is my thread not yours. @frank can argue whatever he wants. At least he sees the amazing developments of China. Something you seem not to understand what is the cause yet.

Adjusting income tax rates does not completely remediate the problem. Capital earners pay nearly half of what top income earners pay. It is these capital earners who most distort our economic and political systems. As a result of this tax schema, the share of the economic pie the wealthy command is metastasizing. We need to revisit how we tax capital, too

Your obsessed with the capital, Jesus! You are delusional if you think we solve everything taxing the damn capital. Leave the capital earners alone!

The laffer curve. Lol. Do people still take that nonsense seriously? — Xtrix

Imagine calling “nonsense” to a scientific research which takes years to develop it.

Massive state intervention on every level is…capitalism. Got it. — Xtrix

How can you prove with facts that Japan has massive state intervention? You don’t stop to replicate this argument but you are not proving it.

But you’re welcome to your fantasies. — Xtrix

Educate yourself please: What Is the Laffer Curve?

China's prosperity is a direct result of the adoption of capitalism. Again, this is not controversial. — frank

One of the main important facts of this debate indeed. But according to Xtrix China becoming the most powerful country in the world thanks to the aperture to market and capitalism is just meaningless.

Two mental giants. — Xtrix

At least we recognize Japan and South Korea as capitalist countries and we condemn communism and the Cuban dictatorship. I think we are in the right path not like you.

The United States. — Xtrix

Average argument of a socialist. The United States of America is guilty of all the disasters of this world. Keep with your brainwashed claims!

So they’re mixed economies— like the rest of the world. — Xtrix

Yes, ok. We can be agree here. They are mixed but closer to capitalism than other economical doctrine.

You can do a simple Google search to educate yourself. — Xtrix

Hey, one advice: do not believe in everything you find out in internet or Google. 90 % of data are fake news or Marxist liars who want to spread their fundamentalism.

I’ve been to Cuba. I liked it a lot, actually. I like Jamaica as well. I noticed a lot more poverty in Jamaica, but both were nice. — Xtrix

Conclusion: you enjoy poverty and you see formidable the struggle of a country which suffers from dictatorship. Cool.
At least Jamaica is a democracy and they can vote whatever they want. Or you will now that Cuba is more democratic than Jamaica? Because you seem obsessed with this country.

If I have money I can buy wool, cotton and SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM. — I like sushi

Sounds profitable for me :yum:

Somebody needs to tell Honda they're state owned — frank

:rofl: ! HAHA.

Nintendo, Toyota, Kawasaki, Mitsubishi, Mazda, Suzuki, Sony, Fujitsu, etc… all of them are controlled by the Japanese diet and the sacred figure of the Emperor :joke:

Japan and South Korea are not meaningless.
They are not capitalist. — Xtrix

According to your own economical criteria what the hell are they? Because they are so far for being communist. If you want to see a good indicator just check the differences between North and South Korea. It will terrify you...

The reason for Cuba’s poverty isn’t socialism or communism. — Xtrix

What is the main issue of Cuban poverty then? They are been living in a establishment which they cannot get rid of. It is damn dictatorship. I think it would be shameless not to point Bolivarian communism for being responsible of the main problems and calamities of Cuban people.

Because Cuba does have markets and private property. — Xtrix

No, they haven't. Go on and search some information about Cuban markets or private property. Oh you will not find it because it is an opaque dictatorship. It is impossible to find data.

Simple google search of Cuba: — Xtrix

Those are fake and have a lot of Photoshop.

Try growing up and educating yourself before embarrassing yourself online repeatedly. Deal? — Xtrix

Only if you leave of your comfort democratic capitalist zone and go to Cuba to prove how good they are living there :yum:

I see we've descended into lunacy. Well, it was a pleasant chat... — Isaac

Thank you for debating with me. Appreciated it.

And in the US... — Isaac

The US too ;) (waiting for images of Cuba like the following ones)

I’m still waiting for an example of a successful capitalist economy.

That you continue to miss the point isn’t my problem. I’ve been fairly explicit. — Xtrix

Again? I already pointed out Japan and South Korea as a good examples of developed nations but you consider them as "meaningless". I think the one who is missing the point is you because you think that a country like Cuba has markets and private property. How do you know that? Because the official website of the dictatorship say so? Come on... they don't even have medical supplies.

I haven’t once denied the development of either. Nor of China. — Xtrix

What is "meaningless" according to you then?

Yeah, Cuba is pretty bad.

Oh wait, that’s the US. — Xtrix

Yes, in USA poverty exists too. But it is not even compared to Cuba... more facts (which you would treat them as "meaningless")

40-51% of the Cuban people live in poverty.. Literally the half of the population.

In 2020 the poverty rate of USA was 11.4%.

Roughly more than a 10 % of Americans.

Yes both countries are so similar... come on man.

What about those who can't afford the fee? — Isaac

So pessimistic. I guess everyone can afford those basic fees...

What about those who can't afford the price? — Isaac

There always will be people who can afford it. You arguments are pessimistic and catastrophic. I am talking about purchasing a normal home not a yacht or helicopter...

Looks like a market and some property to me — Isaac

If you call that as "markets" this is prosperity then:

They nonetheless have such things, so a tax on those people would be just, no? — Isaac

As a punishment, yes why not. Nevertheless, I never said the CEOs should not be taxed. I just complain about how taxation works. Collecting a lot of money through taxation don't lead us to solve all the problems. That's fake.

If you can show how a low tax government can ensure adequate healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing without taxing the rich then we're good. The rich can keep their money if everyone is adequately housed, fed and cared for. — Isaac

I don't pretend to remove all taxations but reduce the fees or the payment. You are misunderstanding. I am complaining because paying around 25 % or more of your revenue in taxes is abusive. 5 % or 10 % would be OK.
But I going to use an example of how we can ensure those goods without abusive taxation.

Education = Private schools and universities are always there. You pay a fee to join such educational system.

Infrastructure = I already put the example. We can let some companies to build up the highways. They assume the management and administration. We the citizens only pay for this service whenever we use it.

Houses = it is always better to let the real state companies to do so. Public administrations only speculate with the price of houses and plots. This is a big fact indeed.

One of the better ways is to make them co-ops, like the Mondragon Corporation in your country. That’s a good example: let the workers own the company. That’s one example of an alternative. — Xtrix

One example out of 1,000 which really works. Mondragon is a tiny city in Basque Country. Yes, the use the co-ops model and it works but it is easier if you do not have a big number of employees. Imagine using this way on macro business as Zara or Microsoft with thousands and thousands of employees.

If the existence of markets and private property is the criteria for defining capitalism, then Cuba is capitalist too. (But it’s “failing,” so I guess it can’t be.) — Xtrix

The markets and property don't exist in Cuba.

any successful economy is a capitalist economy. Any failed economy is a socialist or communist economy. Heads I win, tails you lose. Brilliant — Xtrix

I still waiting for an example of a successful socialist economy. I put a lot of examples of successful economies which operate on market and capitalism but you just considered them as "meaningless"
If you consider "meaningless" the huge development of Japan and South Korea is your problem not mine.

successful economy? Capitalism! Simple principle. — Xtrix

I think you are not aware of how lucky you are of living in a developed country as the USA. If you don't like capitalism, you can try another life in Cuba, Bolivia, Angola, etc...

Which ones? And how do they work? — Isaac

Positive laws based on taxation, the role of taxpayers, limits on the fees of each payer, compensations if they have personal issues (handicapped persons for example)
It is easy how they work. It is mandatory since they are published in a public bulletin. In my humble opinion, it is easy to respect the law if we see it in a objective/positive way.

so I assume you include the majority of bankers stock traders and CEOs who use prostitutes and cocaine? Or engage in illegal trading, or tax avoidance, or insider trading, or any other illegal activity, yes? — Isaac

But why do you assume all CEOs act viciously or against the law? We can consider a "CEO" a normal person who owns a business of exporting vegetables for example. Not all CEOs are rich...

Workers would also suffer consequences if we don't. So? — Isaac

Better collecting a brief taxation than nothing...
In the other hand, why you do you assume the CEOs always "win" and the workers always "lose"?
They win or lose on what? I only see a common responsible and it is the spendthrift state.

You do know where most tax avoidance comes from don't you? — Isaac

Well it is still an enigma. I will not say the responsibility of tax avoidance is always on CEOs shoulders.

For all it's faults, we have to give this to capitalism: it works. — frank

I couldn’t have said it better :sparkle: :up:

Go on... Which laws ensure adequate healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing and how do they do so? — Isaac

Positive laws published in codes. If there are some doubts on their application we can ask to the Supreme Court to establish a basic sense of basic positive law. This is called jurisprudence and it is very effective in terms of helping the law operators and authorities to achieve those benefits and goods such as: adequate healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, etc…

So most stock exchange workers, bankers, CEOs...where gambling, illegal prostitution and cocaine use are endemic? — Isaac

No. When I said I exclude them? In the other hand… why do you think all CEOs or bankers act viciously or waste their resources on gambling, prostitution, drugs, etc…?

Why are taxes your target? — Isaac

Because at the end of the day taxes only affects middle class workers. It is unfair. At least, if we cannot get rid of taxation we have to find out a system that is not oppressive to the wealth of normal/regular workers. You say we should prosecute billionaires for tax fraud but there are a lot of workers who would suffer the consequences. Those billionaires or CEOs would put their headquarters in a tax heaven countries and we will end up in a scenario of not collecting anything…
Yet taxation affect people who only have around 150.000 or 200.000 € in your bank. That’s a regular digit that you would get along your life.

Why? — Isaac

Because they are authorities who promote the application of law. We should not disrespect them. If we start to not to value those operators we will end up in a chaotic society.
I don’t like how taxation is based so I will start to not paying it This sounds stupid right?. It is a typical argument which comes from someone who doesn’t like righteousness.

Note: as I said in a previous post to Xtrix, I am not neo liberal. I am skeptical about how the state waste all the resources while chokes the middle workers instead of promote the spending cuts

Maybe slow down the expansion, based on more stringent criteria? — Olivier5

Completely agree. Good point :up:

I asked how we ensure it actually does. — Isaac

Respecting and keeping the law. Simple.

Who would those be then? — Isaac

Convicted criminals, lazy people who spend their money in gambling and drugs, all of those who don't respect the basic laws and pillars of a democratic state.

So someone who inherited their wealth ought have it taken away, as they don't deserve it, yes? — Isaac

No. All of those who inherited their wealth are just taking advantage of all the efforts did by their parents, grandparents, etc... otherwise, it would be expropriation.

And all the white collar crime - the tax dodging, the insider trading, the backhand payments, shell companies, illegal trading.... Those people should all have their wealth taken away too, as they don't deserve it either?

....I think we might be beginning to agree — Isaac

I am agree with you in this point.

Or did you have a different authority in mind? — Isaac

Judges, Courts, police officers, prosecutors, lawyers, military officers, and all the authorities who ensure the application of law.
I mean it is so easy to find out some authorities. Just look at what political correctness is against.