Yes to help keep the poulation down so hunting lands don't get overcrowded!
Yes for other reasons
No this is dumb
Additionally, progressive tax systems are neither conceptually nor intentionally redistributive in nature. Tax systems of any kind are only redistributive when income tax credits result in reverse tax payments to individuals who otherwise would not owe any tax, or result in a negation of the tax burden otherwise owed by individuals.
And the rich donate in order to get tax breaks.
China is not a fascist country. Its government has thousands of members, and its economy is essentially capitalist now.
Countries that have flat tax (and not progressive):
Just look at those economic power houses.
Countries that have no social infrastructure to help the neediest members are ones that are doomed to have spiraling social problems. If America had a moderate view of social programs, you wouldn't be suffering the polar extremes of your two party system: one party that cuts social programs left and right, and another party that causes the deficit to climb in order to infuse useless social programs with money.
Frankly, it makes no sense to have a government so large yet not providing any benefits to the public. Where is all that tax money going, in that case?
But that's not practically prudent. When you're part of a cooperative society, you can't simply leave the rules on things that affect the whole up to the individual. Who decides on the laws? No one? Who sets the standards? No one? That's insane and the death knell of the society as an ongoing concern. No society can survive like that.Originally Posted by celticlord
But unfortunately, the ones suffering the full weight of bad decisions in these cases are most often not the ones who made the bad decisions in the first place. We're talking about innocent children who suffer the stupidity of their parents and you're really left with only three options that I can think of:Remove the safety net and let people feel the full weight of their bad decisions, and let them revel in the full glory of their good decisions.
1) Control the right to breed, which we've all already acknowledged is both difficult to do and would face stiff opposition.
2) Ignore the kids entirely and let their parents do as they will. This is going to end up both with a lot of dead, damaged and psychologically harmed kids, which I think everyone can agree is a bad thing, but it's going to massively negatively impact the next generation of the society. It's commiting social suicide.
3) Take those kids out of the situations with the worst parental offenders, put them in homes where they have a chance of growing up to be educated, intelligent, healthy and functional members of society and if you hang those bad parents out to dry, that's fine with me. They did the crime, they deserve to do the time.
Indeed, in a economy so invested with pro-rich state intervention it is necessary. It would simply fall apart without redistribution, the demand would not be there for our massively demand-push, consumerist economy. In the end Marx, Keynes et al were right about corporate-capitalist crises, they are fundamentally caused by a structural imbalance at the core of the system itself, caused by the state maintained massive inequality. They simply erred, aside from their solutions, in believing that this was mostly a natural part of the "free market"(a rather meaningless term itself.) rather than seeing that capitalism and certainly corporate-capitalism has always been riddled with state intervention.I do believe that there are those on welfare who are not in genuine need, but to say that none are deserving is an extreme. Redistribution of wealth, to some degree, is important for a stable society. This is why the rich fall into a higher tax bracket than the lower classes.
Last edited by Wessexman; 04-09-09 at 08:14 PM.
"It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke
Secondly, Mao's original plan was to start China down the road to Communism, and then shift it over to Socialism (absence of government) later, but all of his projects, such as the Great Leap Forward, failed miserably and millions died. In the 80's, this resulted in Deng Xiaoping adopting the Special Economic Zones and the beginnings of modern capitalism in China.
China essentially went from Communism to Capitalism, and never fulfilled Marxist-style Socialism like Mao originally intended.
As for fascism... that is your erroneous assertion and not history's. A fascist state is one ruler with one agenda.