re: What is your definition of socialism? And why or why not is it an effective system?

quote:

---

What I’m saying is I don’t think the top 5% should even have to pay 60% of the bill. If the bottom 90 percent of families hold less than one-quarter of all wealth, its no wonder tax rates are so progressive.

---

I don’t know what you are trying to say here.

Wealth and taxes are two different things. It sounds like you are more of a proponent of redistributing wealth which is money that has been accumulated AFTER someone pays their share of taxes. If you make taxes so progressive that no one can accumulate wealth then there is no incentive to innovate or produce. The more you make the more they take to the point that you can never accumulate anything.

quote:

---

That said, I think the glaring wealth inequality is the much larger issue and progressive taxes is like putting a lousy bandaid on it.

---

You’ve been conditioned to think that wealth inequality is bad. Every system with a hierarchy will produce extremes at the tail ends.

Look at sports for example. I would bet that less than 1% of all professional golfers that ever existed hold 99% of all the major titles. That’s pure individual competition and it produces massive disparity at the tail ends.

Another problem you have is perspective. A 30k dollar salary is top 1% on a global scale. So should we go a step further and redistribute that wealth to the rest of the world? Or is it ok to have disparities with Mexico right next door? If it’s ok, why?