My idea for reducing income inequality.

[The Islands of Versilia]

The first step is stopping people move money out of the country. The next step is to tax the rich of their money already in the country. The inheritance laws also need to be changed, as to put a cap on how much money can go to whom.

Caps on company wages aren't really a good idea, but taxes on the rich are.

[Soviet Socialist and Peoples Republics]

I've got a better idea: socialism.

[Sanctissima]

I've got a better idea: socialism.

Y'know, considering how that's been tried several dozen times now, all of which have ended in complete failure, I'm beginning to wonder if Einstein's theory regarding insanity also holds true in a political context.

[Alvecia]

What a bizarre attitude.

Its bizarre to want to make money?

It is kind of weird to put no effort into a job that's paying you because there's no chance of a pay rise. Gotta earn your pay or they might as well dock it.

[Oneracon]

Half solution to what democratic control of industry can solve.

Publicly traded companies are Democratically controlled.

Several problems with that statement:

• Most shareholders of publicly traded companies are outside investors, not the workers themselves
• Quite a few companies only trade non-voting shares publicly
• Not everyone has the spare cash laying around to be investing in the stock market

[Soviet Socialist and Peoples Republics]

I've got a better idea: socialism.

Y'know, considering how that's been tried several dozen times now, all of which have ended in complete failure, I'm beginning to wonder if Einstein's theory regarding insanity also holds true in a political context.

That's funny, because capitalism has been tried many more times and for a longer period of time, and all you've had is extreme poverty, one financial crisis after another, social stratification of people other than white males, famines and legal slavery, ffs. Most countries with capitalism have absolute shit economies and social conditions, so right back at ya tenfold, Einstein. Socialism performed remarkably well with Soviet Russia and later Soviet Union having to survive the aftermath of the first world war, the whole of second world war after destroying 75% of nazi infantry and the cold war. It's like sabotaging someone's scientific experiment with a "See? See?? It doesn't work and never will!"

[Armed American States]

How about we just declare an authoritarian state and have everyone work for the state to exchange for goods

[Cedoria]

How about we just declare an authoritarian state and have everyone work for the state to exchange for goods

How about we don't do that? That's a better idea.

[Imperializt Russia]

Care to explain?

Why would I want to work for someplace that caps what I can earn? I'm not going to do shit or work hard at all because why bother.

I don't think you understand how it works.

[Imperializt Russia]

I've got a better idea: socialism.

Y'know, considering how that's been tried several dozen times now, all of which have ended in complete failure, I'm beginning to wonder if Einstein's theory regarding insanity also holds true in a political context.

There is no one "socialism". There are many different interpretations of socialist literature, many different flavours of socialism - some statist, some anarchist, some barely socialist at all.

Clearly, they've not been tried.
Frankly, the only socialism with any degree of "success" in longevity was Marxist-Leninism. And it didn't achieve a state of socialism.

Which, as the name probably gives away, is a specific interpretation of Marxism that I regard as flawed. This interpretation was exported, and from there further interpreted upon and iterated.
And, personally, becoming further flawed.

Juche, while clearly not socialism, clearly evolved out of Marxist-Leninist, and predominantly Stalinist, ideals.

[Soviet Socialist and Peoples Republics]

Y'know, considering how that's been tried several dozen times now, all of which have ended in complete failure, I'm beginning to wonder if Einstein's theory regarding insanity also holds true in a political context.

There is no one "socialism". There are many different interpretations of socialist literature, many different flavours of socialism - some statist, some anarchist, some barely socialist at all.

Clearly, they've not been tried.
Frankly, the only socialism with any degree of "success" in longevity was Marxist-Leninism. And it didn't achieve a state of socialism.

Which, as the name probably gives away, is a specific interpretation of Marxism that I regard as flawed. This interpretation was exported, and from there further interpreted upon and iterated.
And, personally, becoming further flawed.

Juche, while clearly not socialism, clearly evolved out of Marxist-Leninist, and predominantly Stalinist, ideals.

Regardless of how you may view it, Juche, while not being Marxism-Leninism, is certainly socialism. Collective farms and industry are owned and controlled by those working there.

As to there being many socialisms out there which haven't been tried, remember that success in longevity compared to other forms of socialism isn't its only success. Capitalists were legitimately afraid of Marxism-Leninism due to its prevalence, so it is the most accused, blamed, criticized and lied about form of socialism there is. You won't encounter the same treatment towards forms of libertarian socialism, which in practice had been short-lived and thus effectively harmless to capitalists.

You may not like any of it, but don't be duped into anti-communist bullshit in the process like contemporary leftists and anarchists too often are. The successes of Soviet Union, China and others are something for a communist to be proud about and no amount of spooked dupes being scared shitless changes that.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'd debate to what extent they are "owned" by those who work there, since the Party upper echelons seem to be perfectly happy sticking their noses right into the company on occasion. They seem to exercise ownership rights, even though such things may not officially exist.

One example would be the story from a year or so ago, where the senior manager of a terrapin farm was executed for failing to meet the desired production targets.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that Juche was a rationalisation of Kim Jong-il, when North Korea really began to slide into economic ruin. One could argue it was being used as an effort to repackage the economic policy to distract from failures.
For a time under Kim il-Sung's leadership, the North had a greater GDP than the then-impoverished South as it languished under neoliberal military dictatorship until the 1980s. Of course with the explosion of semiconductor computing, the South was able to roar ahead of the North economically.

I imagine Kim Senior's management policy was closer to Marxist-Leninism than Juche was, at a time of much less fraught international relations, with much more positive input from then-Soviet Russia and China when it was still evidently striving for some form of socialist state, and not the peculiar beast of markets and repression it is today.

[Outer Sparta]

What about getting rid of or reducing tax expenditures for the wealthy? Or if major corporations want to move out of the country, they have to surrender some of their profits. This gives them a choice but both choices benefit the government unless they find a third option out of it.

[Soviet Socialist and Peoples Republics]

I'd debate to what extent they are "owned" by those who work there, since the Party upper echelons seem to be perfectly happy sticking their noses right into the company on occasion. They seem to exercise ownership rights, even though such things may not officially exist.

One example would be the story from a year or so ago, where the senior manager of a terrapin farm was executed for failing to meet the desired production targets.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that Juche was a rationalisation of Kim Jong-il, when North Korea really began to slide into economic ruin. One could argue it was being used as an effort to repackage the economic policy to distract from failures.
For a time under Kim il-Sung's leadership, the North had a greater GDP than the then-impoverished South as it languished under neoliberal military dictatorship until the 1980s. Of course with the explosion of semiconductor computing, the South was able to roar ahead of the North economically.

I imagine Kim Senior's management policy was closer to Marxist-Leninism than Juche was, at a time of much less fraught international relations, with much more positive input from then-Soviet Russia and China when it was still evidently striving for some form of socialist state, and not the peculiar beast of markets and repression it is today.

State ownership doesn't preclude worker control, if said state is a workers' state (which it was, workers' soviets from local, national to union level being the legislatures of the nation, see soviet democracy). Remember that.

What about getting rid of or reducing tax expenditures for the wealthy? Or if major corporations want to move out of the country, they have to surrender some of their profits. This gives them a choice but both choices benefit the government unless they find a third option out of it.

Leave the capitalists shall... but their property stays.

[Industrialaska]

Capping maximum incomes will create a artificially low supply of people to do jobs in high demand.
In New York City, taxi medallions are carefully regulated, controlled, and distributed by the city (at the cost of 1.5 million per car) leading to huge demand for a service in very limited supply.
Also in New York City, rent control artificially depresses the price of housing, so that landlords can't make money off some of their properties. And that's why there are 4 times as many abandoned homes as there are homeless people.

Interference in the economy by setting maximum prices completely destroys the institution of supply and demand in that market.
Also, income inequality is not really a bad thing. Firstly, most people in low income brackets move out of those brackets by at least their early 30s. Secondly, find a person who was in cradle to grave poverty after the Great Society that wasn't heavily subsidized by the government. Thirdly, standard of living is a much bigger concern. To be in the top 10% of income earners, you need only make $380,000 a year. The very, very wealthy people make most of their money on investments, which are essential to the existence and functioning of a market economy. If people couldn't invest, new companies couldn't grow. People wouldn't buy government bonds.

It would essentially create a society where people are never allowed to be successful or wealthy. Except for the politicians, of course.

[Industrialaska]

Y'know, considering how that's been tried several dozen times now, all of which have ended in complete failure, I'm beginning to wonder if Einstein's theory regarding insanity also holds true in a political context.

Most countries with capitalism have absolute shit economies and social conditions, so right back at ya tenfold, Einstein. Socialism performed remarkably well

What? Are you kidding?

Let me just say: The average age of industrial equipment in the USSR was 47 years, to America's 16. You think that's efficient, using old equipment? That wouldn't cut it in a market economy.

The Soviet Union liked to brag about how their boxcars hauled more freight that American ones. Because people stood by trackside waiting to unload them - In America, worker's time was more valued, so the boxcars would be dropped off for unloading during the next workday.

The measures of the Soviet economy's success are based on interesting factoids that exist only because of the gross inefficiency and waste of a state planned economy.

And I can tell you a story about how brand names were eliminated, so consumers started reading barcodes to figure out of their food came from reliable factories, if you would like for me to illustrate the point that it is the natural tendency of consumers to prefer a market economy, therefore making state planning a complete failure.

[Imperializt Russia]

Capping maximum incomes will create a artificially low supply of people to do jobs in high demand.
In New York City, taxi medallions are carefully regulated, controlled, and distributed by the city (at the cost of 1.5 million per car) leading to huge demand for a service in very limited supply.
Also in New York City, rent control artificially depresses the price of housing, so that landlords can't make money off some of their properties. And that's why there are 4 times as many abandoned homes as there are homeless people.

Interference in the economy by setting maximum prices completely destroys the institution of supply and demand in that market.
Also, income inequality is not really a bad thing. Firstly, most people in low income brackets move out of those brackets by at least their early 30s. Secondly, find a person who was in cradle to grave poverty after the Great Society that wasn't heavily subsidized by the government. Thirdly, standard of living is a much bigger concern. To be in the top 10% of income earners, you need only make $380,000 a year. The very, very wealthy people make most of their money on investments, which are essential to the existence and functioning of a market economy. If people couldn't invest, new companies couldn't grow. People wouldn't buy government bonds.

It would essentially create a society where people are never allowed to be successful or wealthy. Except for the politicians, of course.

Income equality is arguably "not a bad thing", no.

If I earn the lowest regular wage in a society, but that wage allows me to buy all the resources I need to live a comfortable life with disposable income, then it arguably doesn't matter how much more anyone can make than me.
The problem is, the lowest regular wage in a society is usually abject poverty, making the extent of the income equality gap unacceptable.

There are still ethical questions, of why a person should have an income so drastically in excess of another person's. Especially when it comes to the conservation of resources we will need to prepare for in the near future.
Also, your figure is incorrect. An income of $380,000 in the US is the top 1% of earners, not 10%.

[Macronmania]

Best way to equalize wealth is through a land value tax. It is good policy regardless of its effects on inequality, but it also would significantly reduce concentration of wealth.


[url=https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/deciphering-the-fall-and-rise-in-the-net-capital-share/
]An analysis of Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century[/url] shows that most of the increase in wealth inequality comes from the increasing value of land. When you tax land, economic output is not affected, but the price of land falls, since the supply of land is fixed. Thus, instituting a land value tax and reducing other taxes/increasing government spending on public goods would both increase economic growth and decrease economic inequality.

[Phoenicaea]

past French president Hollande tried to install a 50% tax on this wage (one of reasons of annoyance against him from paper and tv, I guess).
Meanwhile, approve financial transition tax instead

*edit: approve the land tax concept, it should be studied how, nevertheless it seems a good piece

[Sanctissima]

Y'know, considering how that's been tried several dozen times now, all of which have ended in complete failure, I'm beginning to wonder if Einstein's theory regarding insanity also holds true in a political context.

That's funny, because capitalism has been tried many more times and for a longer period of time, and all you've had is extreme poverty, one financial crisis after another, social stratification of people other than white males, famines and legal slavery, ffs. Most countries with capitalism have absolute shit economies and social conditions, so right back at ya tenfold, Einstein. Socialism performed remarkably well with Soviet Russia and later Soviet Union having to survive the aftermath of the first world war, the whole of second world war after destroying 75% of nazi infantry and the cold war. It's like sabotaging someone's scientific experiment with a "See? See?? It doesn't work and never will!"

What on earth are you talking about?

Capitalism, while not an ideal system, has nonetheless solved the problem of mass famine and food shortages in most countries where it has been introduced through innovations like GMO's, industrial farming and globalized markets. In fact, I invite you to name a single instance of a mass famine in any country with a Capitalist economic system. Socialism, on the other hand, has consistently brought about famines in almost every country it has been introduced. How on earth you think the USSR is a good example, I don't know, considering how it suffered some of the worst famines in recorded history due to sheer incompetence on the part of its Socialist leaders.

In terms of legal slavery, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about, but as for extreme poverty, financial crises and social stratification, they're all considerably less pronounced than you seem apt to think. Admittedly the capitalist economic system is prone to regular financial crises, but it is very rare that one lasts longer than several years, and even then, it has a much better track record at maintaining a healthy economy than Socialism. Social stratification admittedly does occur, but it's not like this is the Middle Ages where social classes are an actual legally enshrined stratification or some such nonsense. One can generally live a pretty decent life if you're willing to work hard and invest your money wisely, unlike in a Socialist system where there's a nasty habit of wealth being concentrated in the hands of party members, while the rest of the country suffers; and in terms of extreme poverty, it's practically non-existent outside of third-world countries, where such problems existed long before a Capitalist economic system was ever introduced.

Y'know, considering how that's been tried several dozen times now, all of which have ended in complete failure, I'm beginning to wonder if Einstein's theory regarding insanity also holds true in a political context.

There is no one "socialism". There are many different interpretations of socialist literature, many different flavours of socialism - some statist, some anarchist, some barely socialist at all.

Clearly, they've not been tried.
Frankly, the only socialism with any degree of "success" in longevity was Marxist-Leninism. And it didn't achieve a state of socialism.

Which, as the name probably gives away, is a specific interpretation of Marxism that I regard as flawed. This interpretation was exported, and from there further interpreted upon and iterated.
And, personally, becoming further flawed.

Juche, while clearly not socialism, clearly evolved out of Marxist-Leninist, and predominantly Stalinist, ideals.

It's a fairly refined category for a larger sub-set of similar ideologies. Whether you interpret it in the Marxist sense of a transitional state pending the achievement of full Communism, or the more general "it's an economic system where the means of production are owned by the workers and blah, blah, blah" way of viewing things, it has been implemented several dozen times in recorded history, all of which have failed quite miserably. It doesn't just suddenly stop being Socialism the moment a dictator takes power and you don't want your ideology to be associated with a failed state anymore.

[Imperializt Russia]

It stops being socialism as soon as it has no socialist principles behind it.
Do we not get to deride allusions to "National Socialism" because "well, it's still socialism" despite not being god damn socialism?

The only form of socialism that has been tried on a truly national scale has been Marxist-Leninism, the Russian interpretation of Marxism that, when you think about it, had very little socialism going on in the first place.
This was exported and further iterated upon, from Mao to Stalin to Hoxha.

Libertarian socialism was attempted in revolutionary Spain, and eventually crushed by the Nazi-backed fascists.

[Sanctissima]

It stops being socialism as soon as it has no socialist principles behind it.
Do we not get to deride allusions to "National Socialism" because "well, it's still socialism" despite not being god damn socialism?

The only form of socialism that has been tried on a truly national scale has been Marxist-Leninism, the Russian interpretation of Marxism that, when you think about it, had very little socialism going on in the first place.
This was exported and further iterated upon, from Mao to Stalin to Hoxha.

Libertarian socialism was attempted in revolutionary Spain, and eventually crushed by the Nazi-backed fascists.

Then to be quite frank, if all other attempts to implement some other variant have either failed or never gotten off the drawing board, then these variants must be either ineffective or so ridiculously unappealing that few people want to make a concerted effort to achieve them.

As for Marxist-Leninism and Maoism, it's real Socialism, deal with it. They always, without fail, collectivized the hell out of everything and went full planned economy. And every single time, it failed miserably.

[Soviet Socialist and Peoples Republics]

That's funny, because capitalism has been tried many more times and for a longer period of time, and all you've had is extreme poverty, one financial crisis after another, social stratification of people other than white males, famines and legal slavery, ffs. Most countries with capitalism have absolute shit economies and social conditions, so right back at ya tenfold, Einstein. Socialism performed remarkably well with Soviet Russia and later Soviet Union having to survive the aftermath of the first world war, the whole of second world war after destroying 75% of nazi infantry and the cold war. It's like sabotaging someone's scientific experiment with a "See? See?? It doesn't work and never will!"

What on earth are you talking about?

Capitalism, while not an ideal system, has nonetheless solved the problem of mass famine and food shortages in most countries where it has been introduced through innovations like GMO's, industrial farming and globalized markets.

And still we have enough food to feed the entire population of the world, but we don't, because there is no profit made from feeding the world population. There is only profit when the food is sold, but the poor people of the world can afford little if any of it. There is waste in the developed countries while there is still starvation in developing countries. Doesn't sound very innovative or efficient.

In fact, I invite you to name a single instance of a mass famine in any country with a Capitalist economic system.

Here you go, famines under capitalism and socialism.

Socialism, on the other hand, has consistently brought about famines in almost every country it has been introduced. How on earth you think the USSR is a good example, I don't know, considering how it suffered some of the worst famines in recorded history due to sheer incompetence on the part of its Socialist leaders.

Irrelevant. The famines either caused or contributed to by the agricultural collectivization weren't necessary to build socialism but to build the military-industrial complex of the Soviet Union to protect itself and socialism, as it was the only socialist state until World War II. That is what 'socialism in one country' means, because at the time there was socialism literally in just one country and Stalin wasn't too optimistic on how the Soviets would fare against not only the Axis but also the capitalistic Allies. North Korea is under the same pressure and has virtually the same policy of songun in action for the same reasons. If it wouldn't, it would be run over by the United States and united to South Korea.

In terms of legal slavery, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about, but as for extreme poverty, financial crises and social stratification, they're all considerably less pronounced than you seem apt to think. Admittedly the capitalist economic system is prone to regular financial crises, but it is very rare that one lasts longer than several years, and even then, it has a much better track record at maintaining a healthy economy than Socialism.

It's not just that it happens for just a few years but that a new crisis occurs in every five to ten years. There's crisis on top of a crisis constantly. As for legal slavery, it's a thing capitalists have had, not socialists. Black slaves in America and colonized Africa ring a bell?

Social stratification admittedly does occur, but it's not like this is the Middle Ages where social classes are an actual legally enshrined stratification or some such nonsense.

Don't forget apartheid, Nazism and lack of women's rights from the law. Those were legal forms of stratification and segregation under capitalism.

One can generally live a pretty decent life if you're willing to work hard and invest your money wisely,

You skip an important aspect of work: getting it in the first place. In socialist countries a job was guaranteed due to their policies of full employment. Not so in capitalist countries.

unlike in a Socialist system where there's a nasty habit of wealth being concentrated in the hands of party members, while the rest of the country suffers;

It's not like anyone could become a member of the party and take part in Soviet Union's politics. It's not like there were legislative organs on local, national and union level known as soviets which every workplace sent its recallable delegate to. The wages in relation to prices were more than fair. Everyone had a home and a job they wanted to do and goods were cheap so no, the rest of the country wasn't 'suffering while the party took all the wealth'.

and in terms of extreme poverty, it's practically non-existent outside of third-world countries, where such problems existed long before a Capitalist economic system was ever introduced.

Capitalism makes the first world richer in expense of the third world. It's not a fantasy world where the west tries hard and the third world doesn't. Africa is like a sick person trying to survive a bad case of parasitic worms eating it from the inside. The rich developed countries of the west are a minority of capitalist countries while the developing countries are the majority. The only reason you feel capitalism's success is because you live in the rich west. Castro got it right.

[Imperializt Russia]

It stops being socialism as soon as it has no socialist principles behind it.
Do we not get to deride allusions to "National Socialism" because "well, it's still socialism" despite not being god damn socialism?

The only form of socialism that has been tried on a truly national scale has been Marxist-Leninism, the Russian interpretation of Marxism that, when you think about it, had very little socialism going on in the first place.
This was exported and further iterated upon, from Mao to Stalin to Hoxha.

Libertarian socialism was attempted in revolutionary Spain, and eventually crushed by the Nazi-backed fascists.

Then to be quite frank, if all other attempts to implement some other variant have either failed or never gotten off the drawing board, then these variants must be either ineffective or so ridiculously unappealing that few people want to make a concerted effort to achieve them.

As for Marxist-Leninism and Maoism, it's real Socialism, deal with it. They always, without fail, collectivized the hell out of everything and went full planned economy. And every single time, it failed miserably.

Planned economies aren't worker control over the means of production.
Inherently.

It's in the god damn name.

This is why the derisory term "state capitalist" is sometimes used to describe Marxist-Leninist states.

[The Portland Territory]

No.

There will always be people on the top, and people below. Inequality is a permanent fixture in life. Trying to regulate this in any other way besides progressive tax brackets is punishing people for succeeding in life.

As for those who inherited all their wealth or use corrupted measures to gain it, well, fuck them. Doesnt mean we should put a cap on their income though, country or company or anything