Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
A reminder that our new forum software has 2FA! It can be accessed by clicking your username and then "Password and security" from the menu. We strongly suggest not reusing passwords for your online accounts and enabling 2FA if possible.
Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best places on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! Community members will not see the bottom screen advertisements.
I believe in a progressive income tax, which means the richer you are, the more you pay in taxes. But the current taxation system in the US results in the rich paying far more in taxes than what is actually proportional.
I believe in capitalism, but not total economic anarchy. The farming industry suffers from the Tragedy of the Commons (something socialism really struggles with), which is why the US government actually pays farmers in the US not to produce. However, this comes at a cost: food costs more.
But if you absolutely despise overproduction, you should also hate socialism. With the lack of economic calculation, whomever is in charge of a factory must overproduce to appear productive. Look no further than the USSR, which while not technically socialism, suffered from the same issues as a totally socialist society. They literally couldn't even decide how much goods should cost without looking at the capitalist countries' prices.
Capitalism hasn't worked? Are you denying the incredible technological and medical achievements? The massive increase in wealth? Real income has been rising, contrary to popular belief. And please dont list things that capitalism has done wrong that can easily be blamed on government, such as imperialism. For example, mperialism was government- it relied on taxation, which is siphoned off private industry and not an example of capitalism.
its probably because when I put it in parenthesis, it included the parenthesis as part of the link. Now it should work, and its better than wikipedia lol
Do you know how much is actually lost in these dodgy offshore shenanigans? I dont think its nearly as common as people think it is because the rich in the US still contribute a hugely disproportionate amount to government revenue despite them being a disproportionately smaller portion of the US economy.
Im not familiar with tomorrowland haha. But you dont know how productive you have actually been because time, labor, etc are not being calculated. This will lead to either overproduction, which isn't sustainable, or underproduction, which is also is not sustainable. The problem is that we live in a world with scarcity, which means different things must be prioritized. Which means there is a cost to doing things. Communism pretends scarcity doesnt exist. Because you aren't accounting for cost or profit, you cannot possible have a sustainable system.
-Their income tax rates are comparable to the US because, while most are higher than the US, the taxation rates in those countries are more flat and less progressive like the US
-Those countries have a far lower corporate tax rate.
"I'd like full automated communism in an ideal world where mankind works for mankind's interests as a whole, on bettering the lives of as many as possible. Money just wouldnt be involved in my ideal world."
How would you preform economic calculation without money, private property, or trade? How do you know the true cost, demand, productivity, etc of products and services? How do you measure the creation of collectively owned wealth, or measure the loss of collectively owned wealth without money, private property, or trade?
I know the three questions are incredibly similar, but I want to ensure I was clear. Also I'm genuinely interested because I've never actually read a response to this question in any context.
So you aren't a socialist? Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden all have economic freedom index ratings little above the US or a little below the US.
Im not familiar with Jeremy Corbyn, but from I saw on Wikipedia, he is interested in nationalizing only public utilities. I dont see how you can be a socialist, but still believe in private property for a great majority of the country's industries. Although, I suppose its fair because it isnt your ideal state.
What about your ideal form of government and economy? What kind of socialism or communism is ideal for you?
On an uniform swing, May would lose 15 seats (!) and end with a majority of two even if she won by 5 points. The SNP's incredible results mean that almost all her Scottish votes are wasted, so that's a 3% that "doesn't count". Hilariously enough, Labour's collapse in Scotland means their wasted votes are just 1.5%. So a 5% lead is "really" a 3.5 point lead. Not only that, but Labour's results in marginals are even stronger than the uniform swing would suggest, according to some constituency polling (this all can be terribly wrong but it's the best we have to work with).
Anyway, losing seats when she wanted a 100+ majority would be a massive humilliation. Losing her overall majority would probably be her end. Can the Momentum (wink) keep going on to make a Lab-SNP coalition add up? Apparently, the terrorist attack stopped the trend and made May seem "presidential". Can Corbyn get it back on track on policy and denounce her insane attempt to break encrypted services?
Welp. If your dear YouGov is right, uh... It seems many, many people underestimated Labour.
I mean, I have nothing against Corbyn, and I would gladly vote for him if I lived there. But it seems many people saw him more as his cartoon version than as a real, serious politician. And it took for May to beclown herself with her shambolic manifesto to make people break from the stupid trance they had been in for months.
So... good luck with it. For the first time in a while, I have the hope of something good actually coming from the UK.