If workers produce nothing, they should get nothing, correct?
Isn’t socialism basically all the world has ever known? I think that Capitalism is what caused flying leaps in innovation the last hundred years.
Well it depends on the reason they are not producing. You shouldn’t pay them while they are on strike. ( it would be hard to strike an employer who did that.;)). But, if they are Idled by a shortage of work that results in a lay-off. Then they should recieve pay. If they are injured likewise.
That does seem to be what prompts most inventors. Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov is an obvious exception. It’s important to remember as well that Capitalism while prompting innovation. Has also caused the shelving of many useful inventions. Would this happen in a true socialist economy? :shrug:
What if they’re just lazy. I’ve worked with several people like this.
I did not do this, so where are you getting it from? I know people from Germany, the UK, Spain and Greece who all came here for the lower cost of living and opportunity.
See, the cradle to grave welfare system isn’t cheap to maintain and the burden falls on the young who are taxed to a point of stagnation. Again, socialism is all about redistribution of wealth.
…and now we move on.
Would a socialist society cover burial and headstone?
Shelve useful inventions in a socialist system? What useful inventions ?
Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
Not after I had heard and read her platform! No way. Sorry. And I work for less than the $15 minimum wage that she advocates. No way. Never.
Yeah, cause then a gallon of milk will cost about $12 or $13 too… Then that’s when market regulation steps in! :eek:
Once that happens, then that’s when the government decides which products will hit the market and which ones don’t – and that’s when the government is given more authority than it can handle and it’s size will increase and break the Catholic social teaching of subsidiarity.
When modern day think tanks and their lobbyists, working with specific corporations and industries they’re invested in are allowed to influence policy -then that’s a society built not by the people but for the people… It’s not a good path to take IMHO.
That’s been happening more and more. Washington State has driven away businesses right and left because of its liberal policies.
I truly believe that if liberals could prevent businesses from moving operations out of one state and to another with a better economic climate they would. In fact, they did try with Boeing relative to Boeing’s desire to build a plant in South Carolina via the NLRB.
Freedom to move is the “tax and spend” liberal’s worst enemy.
=SeannyM;11546075]While income inequality is a great cause to tackle, and something definitely should be done about it,
Free markets and private charity
I wonder if her adoption of the socialist label serves to help her cause, or does it turn away like-minded voters who reject that label because of the stigma attached to it?
A lot of people seem to think that being socialist will get them more, not have to give up something. :shrug:
BTW, if you make over 35K a year, congrats! You’re in the global top 1%.
That’s how it works!
Just look at Rush Limbaugh. He got out of NYC and moved to Florida. Some politician in NY was rejoicing over that, but as Neil Cavuto noted “Now the state of New York will have access to Rush Limbaugh’s money to tax him”.
They didn’t go quietly though. The government evidently has a policy to tax property in NY that is even used for summer homes and the like, and Rush had to show them receipts proving he was out of state at the time to avoid the tax. :rolleyes:
They just can’t stop, can they?
Eventually, Rush was able to sell all of his property up there and get out from under that woeful situation.