Are you back to work?

Piro21 wrote: ↑ Socialism only 'destroys wealth' because of capitalist interference, destabilization of governments, and war crimes. Socialist policies like the New Deal and the 90% tax rate on the highest bracket common in the 50s and 60s in North America work extremely well. As long as economic inequality is minimized and the rich are taxed heavily on their wealth, society will prosper and first world living standards will be maintained.

I was referring to socialism - when the "people" take control of the means of production. What you are talking about are policies where you allow capitalists to create wealth and siphon off a certain fraction of it.

I have been working thru this pandemic, and to be quite honest, we have been super busy I am starting to feel burnt out. who knew covid would work us to the bones and so much over time and no time to relax and spend with our families

johnnyepy666 wrote: ↑ You do realize giving money to people who don't understand money isn't gonna help right? You think if the economy somehow got a restart the poor would somehow become rich? It would still end up being the same thing rich ppl use money ,poor people waste money. UBI is nice and all but the cost of living is either gonna go up bad for poor people. Poor people get money and waste it same result... I'm for UBI I can care less. I see morons wasting their money everyday it's just gonna drive the economy up for the rich.

You do not understand UBI then. It has nothing to do with making someone rich or making people lazy. You need to stop making assumptions.

It just doesnt help poor people. You are talking about social assistance like Ontario Works and ODSP. That is not UBI. That is why its called UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME.

There is no "wasted" money. I dont even know where you got that from. You are literally making up a problem that has nothing to do with UBI and how it helps the economy.

I suggest you do your research about it so maybe you stop assuming what it actually does.

CheapScotch wrote: ↑ I was referring to socialism - when the "people" take control of the means of production. What you are talking about are policies where you allow capitalists to create wealth and siphon off a certain fraction of it.

Another genius post by Cheapscotch.

Workers getting more value from the work they do is not socialism. It is actually capitalism. Big corporations like CN and Amex provide their workers stocks.

Socialism is when the state takes control of the production. Which is what are military does(they provide security as a service).

Are you against our military?

CheapScotch wrote: ↑ The part in bold really sounds to me like socialism, which results in the destruction of wealth for most everyone in societies where it has been tried. Do you have a way that "we can take control of our wealth" without this happening?

Things like codetermination in corporate governance would be a great start. You can take Germany as a great example of that. Unions. Better labour laws. Better tax laws. There are tons of ways we can do this while remaining within a capitalistic system. Elizabeth Warren US senator) has many great ideas about accomplishing a fairer capitalism.


Anyway, you owe a lot of thanks to socialism, social policies, and welfare: healthcare, roads, highways, sewage systems, water systems, electric grid, public schooling, 40 hour work week, weekends, workplace safety and labour laws, police, firefighters, ambulance, parks, courts, public pension, employment insurance, the list goes on and on.

kevindurant1 wrote: ↑ Another genius post by Cheapscotch.

Workers getting more value from the work they do is not socialism. It is actually capitalism. Big corporations like CN and Amex provide their workers stocks.

Socialism is when the state takes control of the production. Which is what are military does(they provide security as a service).

Are you against our military?

Wrong.

Socialism is when the means of production are socially owned. That could be the state, the employees, the citizens, whatever.

State socialism is when the state owns the means of production.


Also just to add:

Social democracy is capitalism. It's just another type of welfare state, one with more focus on social issues. It's all funded via taxation.

Democratic socialism is actual socialism. The goal is to democratically take away the means of production from the capitalists and give it to the state or to employees of each company.

You can also have socialist companies within a capitalist system (co-ops) but there aren't many on this side of the pond.

kevindurant1 wrote: ↑ You do not understand UBI then. It has nothing to do with making someone rich or making people lazy. You need to stop making assumptions.

It just doesnt help poor people. You are talking about social assistance like Ontario Works and ODSP. That is not UBI. That is why its called UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME.

There is no "wasted" money. I dont even know where you got that from. You are literally making up a problem that has nothing to do with UBI and how it helps the economy.

I suggest you do your research about it so maybe you stop assuming what it actually does.

UBI isn't hard to understand... Everyone gets money... And I agree with that. I'm taking it a step further by saying we need to educate people about money. What are you gonna do when everyone gets the same amount of money and some people are too stupid to realize maybe they should buy food with it and not waste it on a LV purse? Then what will you do? Give them more money ? How would that be fair?

johnnyepy666 wrote: ↑ UBI isn't hard to understand... Everyone gets money... And I agree with that. I'm taking it a step further by saying we need to educate people about money. What are you gonna do when everyone gets the same amount of money and some people are too stupid to realize maybe they should buy food with it and not waste it on a LV purse? Then what will you do? Give them more money ? How would that be fair?

Clearly you still do not understand it because you are so obsessed with how it is spent.

The point is it is being spent. That is how commerce works. Whether they spend it on food, gas, rent, phone, shirt, gold chain, rub and tug. Whatever. Business will thrive even more because people are consuming more.

Again its UNIVERSAL. It means it will cover people who suck with money and people who are smart with it. Lazy and hardworking people will get more money.

Doesn't really matter because that is not the purpose of it. Your personal issue with people has nothing to do with economics.

MayorOfToronto wrote: ↑ Wrong.

Socialism is when the means of production are socially owned. That could be the state, the employees, the citizens, whatever.

State socialism is when the state owns the means of production.


Also just to add:

Social democracy is capitalism. It's just another type of welfare state, one with more focus on social issues. It's all funded via taxation.

Democratic socialism is actual socialism. The goal is to democratically take away the means of production from the capitalists and give it to the state or to employees of each company.

You can also have socialist companies within a capitalist system (co-ops) but there aren't many on this side of the pond.

Under true socialism. The state is the people.

You are confusing "state socialism" with dictartorship(ie. North Korea).

Our military and police is considered "state socialism". That is the true definition of it. NK is just a dictatorship. It's an authoratarian system. It is not socialism at all because the people aren't in control. It started as one but not anymore just like China is not a socialist country.

Democratic socialism is the western and modern form of socialism operating under capitalism under a Democratic system.

kevindurant1 wrote: ↑ Clearly you still do not understand it because you are so obsessed with how it is spent.

The point is it is being spent. That is how commerce works. Whether they spend it on food, gas, rent, phone, shirt, gold chain, rub and tug. Whatever. Business will thrive even more because people are consuming more.

Again its UNIVERSAL. It means it will cover people who suck with money and people who are smart with it. Lazy and hardworking people will get more money.

Doesn't really matter because that is not the purpose of it. Your personal issue with people has nothing to do with economics.

You mean we all get Lambos and the government will pay for it? I can eat at the keg at every meal and spend 200$ a meal and it's fine? Sign me up because my basic living expenses is pretty much 5-6k a month and it's all gonna get pay for? Because it sounds great I don't need to understand anything at all. As long as I keep spending it is good right?

kevindurant1 wrote: ↑ Under true socialism. The state is the people.

You are confusing "state socialism" with dictartorship(ie. North Korea).

Our military and police is considered "state socialism". That is the true definition of it. NK is just a dictatorship. It's an authoratarian system. It is not socialism at all because the people aren't in control. It started as one but not anymore just like China is not a socialist country.

Democratic socialism is the western and modern form of socialism operating under capitalism under a Democratic system.

I don't know where you're getting North Korea from but since you brought it up, NK is a socialist state. They're a unitary one-party socialist republic. Just because they're not the type of socialism you want doesn't mean they're not socialist. They're just as much socialist as a federal multi-party socialist monarchy. Socialism is an extremely broad concept that breaks down into several sub-categories.. not just the one you want.

A lot of you people who shout for socialism don't actually want socialism. What you want is a bigger welfare state. You want higher taxes and more social services provided by a big government.

That's not socialism. That's welfare. UBI is welfare.

Socialism isn't funded via taxation. It's funded via ownership of the means of production.

MayorOfToronto wrote: ↑ I don't know where you're getting North Korea from but since you brought it up, NK is a socialist state. They're a unitary one-party socialist republic. Just because they're not the type of socialism you want doesn't mean they're not socialist. They're just as much socialist as a federal multi-party socialist monarchy. Socialism is an extremely broad concept that breaks down into several sub-categories.. not just the one you want.

A lot of you people who shout for socialism don't actually want socialism. What you want is a bigger welfare state. You want higher taxes and more social services provided by a big government.

That's not socialism. That's welfare. UBI is welfare.

Socialism isn't funded via taxation. It's funded via ownership of the means of production.

Claim down bro, you get a Lambo too. We all do, forget savings it's pointless everything is free. No point of learning inflation or any of that bs , no wonder it's not taught in school. Just remember to keep spending the rich corporations need us to keep spending.

MayorOfToronto wrote: ↑ I don't know where you're getting North Korea from but since you brought it up, NK is a socialist state. They're a unitary one-party socialist republic. Just because they're not the type of socialism you want doesn't mean they're not socialist. They're just as much socialist as a federal multi-party socialist monarchy. Socialism is an extremely broad concept that breaks down into several sub-categories.. not just the one you want.

A lot of you people who shout for socialism don't actually want socialism. What you want is a bigger welfare state. You want higher taxes and more social services provided by a big government.

That's not socialism. That's welfare. UBI is welfare.

Socialism isn't funded via taxation. It's funded via ownership of the means of production.

NK is not a socialist state. They claim to be one but they aren't.

The wealth acquired by NK doesnt go to the people. It goes to the state. The state is not controlled by the people which can't be possibly socialism because there is no common ownership.

This is explained well by Karl Marx.

NK is pretty much one big private prison using its citizens as slaves. Its actually a capitalist country.

UBI is welfare

Any support by the government can be defined as "welfare". Tax cuts, refunds, EI, Subsidies and etc.

But it is not "welfare" like a social safety net where its targeted. It's a rebate for most Canadians because it is supplemental.

kevindurant1 wrote: ↑ NK is not a socialist state. They claim to be one but they aren't.

The wealth acquired by NK doesnt go to the people. It goes to the state. The state is not controlled by the people which can't be possibly socialism because there is no common ownership.

This is explained well by Karl Marx.

NK is pretty much one big private prison using its citizens as slaves. Its actually a capitalist country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_North_Korea

The collapse of the Eastern Bloc from 1989 to 1991, particularly North Korea's principal source of support, the Soviet Union, forced the North Korean economy to realign its foreign economic relations, including increased economic exchanges with South Korea. China is North Korea's largest trading partner. North Korea's ideology of Juche has resulted in the country pursuing autarky in an environment of international sanctions. While the current North Korean economy is still dominated by state-owned industry and collective farms, foreign investment and corporate autonomy have slightly increased.

Just to be clear: what you are saying is a country where industry is mostly owned by the government is a "capitalist" country?

kevindurant1 wrote: ↑ NK is not a socialist state. They claim to be one but they aren't.

The wealth acquired by NK doesnt go to the people. It goes to the state. The state is not controlled by the people which can't be possibly socialism because there is no common ownership.

This is explained well by Karl Marx.

NK is pretty much one big private prison using its citizens as slaves. Its actually a capitalist country.



Any support by the government can be defined as "welfare". Tax cuts, refunds, EI, Subsidies and etc.

But it is not "welfare" like a social safety net where its targeted. It's a rebate for most Canadians because it is supplemental.

You should read more and type less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_state

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

Literally everything you're saying is either inaccurate or simply untrue. You're speaking based on your own misunderstanding rather than based on facts.

NDP voters tend to have little understanding of politics and economics. Compassion guides them more than knowledge.

CheapScotch wrote: ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_North_Korea



Just to be clear: what you are saying is a country where industry is mostly owned by the government is a "capitalist" country?

It is owned by a regime. That regime is considered a private entity. The citizens does not control the flow of wealth in NK. What would you call that? Exactly. CAPITALISM.

MayorOfToronto wrote: ↑ You should read more and type less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_state

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

Literally everything you're saying is either inaccurate or simply untrue. You're speaking based on your own misunderstanding rather than based on facts.

NDP voters tend to have little understanding of politics and economics. Compassion guides them more than knowledge.

I think its you who needs to read more if you are sourcing Wikipedia. Read Karl Marx so you can understand.

No wonder you are confused.

Common ownership is the key to define what real socialism really is. Without it, it is not socialism.

kevindurant1 wrote: ↑ I think its you who needs to read more if you are sourcing Wikipedia. Read Karl Marx so you can understand.

No wonder you are confused.

Common ownership is the key to define what real socialism really is. Without it, it is not socialism.

Lol. Keep voting NDP and living in your idealistic fantasy utopia with your fairy tale made up definitions of basic economic concepts while begging billionaires for handouts and leaning upon your own misunderstandings.

Leave the actual work to the big boys.

Ignorance is bliss.

This is why we will remain in a standstill. Rather than trying new things, we just say no. It will not work. UBI will never work, but let's not try it and get actual meaningful data and results. Our system isn't perfect, but it works just fine is the mindset that keeps us behind. We lag too much when we have a highly educated country and vast possibilities. When all the leaders look, think, and act the same, don't expect change anytime soon.

MyNameWasTaken wrote: ↑ This is why we will remain in a standstill. Rather than trying new things, we just say no. It will not work. UBI will never work, but let's not try it and get actual meaningful data and results. Our system isn't perfect, but it works just fine is the mindset that keeps us behind. We lag too much when we have a highly educated country and vast possibilities. When all the leaders look, think, and act the same, don't expect change anytime soon.

I think it's worth a try. But it definitely would have to replace welfare, OAS and the GIS, since all three are paid out of general revenues (CPP and EI are paid separately from employment, so there's no need to modify those yet, though perhaps the EI contributions would shrink as it would only have to "top up" the UBI to match the 55% of the income from your lost job).

Old Age Security supposedly costs $50 billion a year.
I can't find any figures on what the Guaranteed Income Supplement costs, but I imagine it's a small $b (billions).
Welfare costs the country $69 billion a year.

So we've maybe got 1/4 of the funding for a Universal Basic Income already available. Where do we find the other 300 billion dollars? I think it's worth a serious look.

If the government would stop dragging their heels on oil and gas approvals, then those tax dollars could help fund it. We lost 200 billion dollars worth of work since 2015 due to the pipeline constraints. That's quite a bit of taxes the government decided to forego for ideological purposes.

They also need to get on closing tax loopholes for the uber-rich (cough-Panama Papers-cough), and getting some of those lost taxes.