The FTC and the FDA primarily protect the wealth and welfare of the populace. The SEC increases invester confidence and makes a robust stock market possible. Obviously, everyone receives benefit from these agencies; the wealthy just more so. There are all things that people can't accomplish on our own; we have to pool our resources for the common good.
I believe that govt. services should be color blind in all senses. Roads don't care if it is a rich person or poor person driving on them. The FTC and FDA protect nobody.
I was forced to read Marx's critique of capitalism in an economics class (and he came up frequently in discussions in a couple more) and the fundamental reason pure Marxism (Socialism) fails in my opinion is that its underpinnings are based on a faulty and rather naive belief that people in society share a goal of the "common good."
I believe tht it is more apt to say that socialism isn't appropriate for the way people behave in society TODAY. Marx never advocated starting a socialist society in the present; it was picked up by others. It may be appropriate 100 years from now. It may be appropriate 1000 years from now. It may never be appropriate. We just don't know. I feel bad for Marx. He was just a philosopher, you know? He wasn't a radical or a leader. I've visited his grave on Highgate Hill (hopping the fence, because the cemetary was closed on Sundays). It's just a small marker with his bust on top, if I remember correctly.
Health care is affordable. No hospital can refuse to treat you. If you have insurance, the overwhelming number of cases are payed for without a hassle. If you are too stupid to purchase even catastrophic insurance and you have to sell your house to save your life, it's a small price to pay. I wonder why you believe why heathcare in this country is "shitty right now"? It's pretty obvious to me you've never been treated abroad if that's your conclusion.
For you and I, maybe, but for someone flipping burgers, it's not so affordable. That hasn't been my experience. I have only limited experience, but it hasn't been positive as far as hassle-free goes. barfo
Just because other countries have more shitty health care (which I can neither confirm or deny), that makes it alright for our country to have shitty health care?
No so. In theory, Socialism fails. Lack of accurate pricing information is a key driver to the failure of a Socialist economy. Ironically, the existence well developed, mature and large capitalist economies, which provided pricing information for their use, allowed the existence of large Socialist economies that would have otherwise collapsed much sooner than they did.
Whether or not it is fair or unfair, it is inefficient and reduces the overall size of the economic pie. Socialists care more about how the pie is divided while capitalists care more about the size of the pie. Let's assume the above statement to be true (which it is not). That "wealth" is not held in the hands of one person; it is reinvested and redistributed by creating more jobs and more investment. Having the market allocate the wealth created is simply more efficient than having a bureaucrat do it. And society's progress is enabled by the individual. You could have a society without entrepreneurs and that society would die off waiting for the next handout. The society benefits by the increased investment created by profit. The individual should be rewarded for the risks they take. The additional opportunities created by the sweat of the risk-taker is how it is repaid. If you wish to discourage investment, tax it to death. That's why the capital gains tax is the worst idea around. If I make a profit by taking a risk, the government holds out its hand for it's "fair" share. However, if I lose money, where is my partner? Can I recoup my "fair" share of the loss?
I'll ask the question again: Why is our country's health care "shitty"? And yes, relativism is important in this case. If you want an illustrative example of what US socialized healthcare would look like, go visit a VA hospital.
I disagree. They may have to live without a television, VCR, car or new clothes, but it's an issue of priorities. Well, I'm sure if you put the same folks that designed Medicare in charge, it will make it all better.
I believe you can carry your losses forward for seven years. You may actually be able to deduct it against normal earned income, but you can do the research. I seem to recall recently selling some mutual fund shares for a loss, and being able to deduct it against something, even though I haven't sold anything for a gain.
Which is why every democacy has settled on mixing the two. Growing the pie and dividing it more equitably. No one opts for pure capitalism or pure socialism. Again, this is why the two are mixed. Everyone is encouraged to be an entrepreneur, not everyone has the opportunity to do so. Those who are able to do so reap plenty of rewards. Rail against taxes all you want, but the idea that millionaires and billionaires aren't better off than people below the poverty line because those below the poverty line get those "sweet hand-outs" is clearly ridiculous. Success isn't de-incentivized. No one would trade greater success for lesser success because of taxation. Agreed. Since no one is advocating taxing it to death, this isn't relevant. No one is arguing for communism, or a cap on what people can earn. The wealthy are still far better off than the poor. The middle class are still much better off than the poor. "Wealth redistribution" is limited to providing the essentials for everyone; nobody's getting rich off "hand-outs" and the wealthy aren't being robbed of their ability to live high on the hog. So, incentives to succeed and invest exist plenty strongly.
Again, if I make $100K on an investment and wish to use that money to purchase goods and services for my family, I first write a check to the Federal Government for $28K. If I lose $100K on the same stock, I can't ring up Washington, DC and ask for a $28K check to soften the blow.
I'm sorry, but you continue to create these false strawmen as a debating tactic and it's flat out silly. No one is talking about pure socialism or pure capitalism. To imply that's my point of view is ridiculous.
I believe the rate is 15% and, as I explained, you can deduct the losses in future years, up to some limit.
There are different levels for different incomes and investment classes. I'm aware you can deduct losses at some future point if you have a future gain, but that's not symmetrical to the event in a gain.
