: : Using completely square figures, my points are still irrefutable - unless someone wants to try.
: All of your points are, to my knowledge, correct.
: But I feel you have missed the point of what socialists (the real ones not the fascists/"liberals" in disguise) would say.
: That Mr So and So *should* have access to everything that anyone else has access to, that all people would be working for the benefit of all the people without such prejudices as placing yourself, friends and family over a stranger - that people who create more wealth do not take more from what becomes a 'central pot' of goods, the creation of which is also not up to those who specifically create it but is up to a conglomeration of decisions by those who intend to use it.
Yeah, right. So Gort's point's are all correct, it's just that he doesn't understand the subtelties and nuances of Socialism/Communism/Greens. Takes years and years of education to be able to steal from one man in order to give the ill gotten gains to another. All in the name of fairness, to be sure. *snicker*
: : 1. A man making 6.00 an hour has his wages clipped by $18.36 per week by the U.S. government under the guise of providing him with security when he is old. Someone please refute this.
: I can refute the guise. The money taxed now is ofcourse used to pay social security now, a plethora of other projects, and also the pay some interest on the overwhelming national debt, the creation of which also produced previous payouts on social security, previous projects and previous payments of interest on the overwhelming national debt. Put simply, SS is a ponzi scheme, and not even a very clever one.
Higher and higher taxes are therefore needed to pay for an increasing number of government schemes. Must keep the oppressed bureaucrats employed you know. *snicker*snicker*
: : 8. Socialism has no hope of providing a man with a $40,000 a year income after working 30 years in a job where he never made more than $13,000 a year. Someone please refute this.
: I suppose this would be refuted by saying that socialism doesnt intend to supply any dollars at all.
Everything will be, in the immortal words of Red Deathy, "...free at the point of contact." *snicker*snicker*snicker*
: : 5. A smaller, less socialist federal government might tax this man and his employer less allowing that employer to further increase this man's wages.
: Perhaps, but not necessarily. Only where he represented a scare resource. Demand and supply and all that. Your income tax is reallyt borne by your employer in its entirety as an employee only experiences his net pay.
Uhh, yeah. Right.
: : One can suggest that past performance is no indication of future results as the fine print always says.
: Sure. I would be concerned over this too, especially in the US whose tax dollars pay for the major part of bottomless pits like the IMF and whose government creditors (which includes nearly a third abroad) may call in their credit leaving the US having to rob the US people with a mixture of raised taxes and devaluing of currency (the other way to steal) to pay it off. more the former. Its best bet is too cut down on regulations dramatically to allow for masive economic growth. Exempt investments from tax and simply tax what those investments produce via uncomplicated taxes on spending. Wont happen becuase there are so many political and 'public servant' careers riding on seeing this or that bill pass, and this or that pet project go through. It wouldnt require such a large government you see.
: : Stuart Gort
: I look forward to the other responses to this.