Seeking Freedom from the Right, my Peace of Mind…
What we say:
We need to create new regulatory environments wherein the market is nudged to invest in critical infrastructure. We may need to raise taxes to create some of this rich infrastructure, but it will give to everyone– rich and the poor alike– a better country. This is in no way Socialism*
What they hear:
We need to raise taxes on the rich to give to the poor. This is Socialism.
This is why conversations between parties are so frustrating; we’re speaking entirely different languages. Democrats want a functional State that takes care of the needs of the people. Republicans want a minimal State that doesn’t have the power to hurt the people.
The irony**, from where I sit is that a weak Federal Government tends not to be able to protect its citizens against depredation. The Conservative, laissez faire, ideology really has allowed for workers to be paid virtually nothing. State protected collective bargaining organizations are the only thing which allows for power between bargainers to be balanced. And so forth.
They see Socialism, we see citizens acting in their best interests for the common good. And so, on it goes…
*While I was in Ohio, many of the Brits were deeply amused by how much “socialism” was a dirty word in this country…
**I’ll give the benefit of the doubt that this irony is unintentional.
Related posts:
The reason we hear “We need to raise taxes on the rich to give to the poor. This is Socialism.” is because you say things like this:
http://www.indignantdesertbirds.com/?p=101
Where you explicitly cheer on a tax plan that looks to me like middle-class subsidies administered through the tax code in the form of refundable tax credits and paid for by higher taxes on the rich.
Why yes. We _are_ wiling to tax the rich, to grow the economy for everyone. Which was the point of that post…
But the way in which you intend to grow the economy for everyone is an explicitly redistributionist change to the tax code. You’re arguing that socialism is good for the economy (a premise I strongly disagree with), not offering an non-socialistic policy proposal.
Yes and no.
I’m not sure what definition you’re using for “Socialism”, but I expressly do _not_ advocate State ownership of the means of production.
I do think that there are certain key infrastructure improvements that need to be made, and that they can only be made by the government, and the money for that can be found by moving the top marginal tax rate up a couple percent.
Progressive taxation does not, it seems to me, count as a “socialist” idea.
I define socialism as a market-based system with heavy government interventions intended to reduce inequality of outcome (described by supporters as “social justice”) and reduce inefficiencies on the grounds that the political policymakers allegedly know better than private owners. The continued (albeit nerfed) existance of a market and limited private ownership is what distinguishes socialism from communism. The strong government interference in the market is what distinguishes socialism from lassie-faire capitalism. And the goal of “social justice” is one of several factors which distinguish socialism from fascism. The US today has elements of both socialism and capitalism, and Obama’s stated platform would move us moderately but significantly towards socialism.
A progressive income tax may be socialistic or not, depending on the justification. If it’s proposed as the most practical way to raise revenue for what even lassie-faire capitalists agree are core government functions (courts, police, national defense, etc), it’s not socialistic. But if it’s proposed for the explicit purpose of income redistribution, it is socialistic.