Is "socialism" a scare word in America?

[ananda]

Socialism doesn't necessarily address any and all possible human aspirations, but that doesn't necessarily discredit it as a political or economic ideology. Let's not make the Perfect the enemy of the Good...

What is "Good" is always questionable, from a Buddhist perspective. For us, the real question is suffering vs non-suffering.

To take a current topic: Do you believe it is Good to confiscate wealth from the mostly un-degreed Public and increase their overall sufferings, to satisfy the debts of degreed students (who are expected to make more money than the former over their lifetime)? Or, perhaps you are in favor of the opposite: increasing taxes on degreed students to ease the sufferings of the un-degreed Public?

All in all, "socalism" is imo ultimately a methodology of transferring suffering to others, which is unethical and immoral, again, from a Buddhist perspective.

 

[FireDragon76]

What is "Good" is always questionable, from a Buddhist perspective. For us, the real question is suffering vs non-suffering.

To take a current topic: Do you believe it is Good to confiscate wealth from the mostly un-degreed Public and increase their overall sufferings, to satisfy the debts of degreed students (who are expected to make more money than the former over their lifetime)? Or, perhaps you are in favor of the opposite: increasing taxes on degreed students to ease the sufferings of the un-degreed Public?

All in all, "socalism" is imo ultimately a methodology of transferring suffering to others, which is unethical and immoral, again, from a Buddhist perspective.

Taxation is not confiscation. As citizens, people have natural obligations to the community and society at large.

How exactly is this un-Buddhist? Interpendence is a fundamental doctrine of Buddhism. Libetarianism rests on wrong views of the self.

 

[pitabread]

All in all, "socalism" is imo ultimately a methodology of transferring suffering to others, which is unethical and immoral, again, from a Buddhist perspective.

Is taxation suffering though? I don't consider paying taxes to be suffering.

 

[ananda]

Taxation is not confiscation. As citizens, people have obligations to the community and society at large, because society depends on cooperation and harmony.

Does that mean you would be in support of taxing degreed students and increasing their debt burden to help the rest of the Public?

 

[ananda]

Is taxation suffering though? I don't consider paying taxes to be suffering.

Taxes are taken from income, and income is generated from the stress and effort individuals put in to reap that income, which is a degree of suffering.

 

[pitabread]

Taxes are taken from income, and income is generated from the stress and effort individuals put in to reap that income, which is a degree of suffering.

Sure, but my job isn't contingent on how much I'm taxed. If my taxes went up 10% tomorrow, my job doesn't change.

I'd still need to do my job since my residual income is needed to pay for my necessities.

And as it stands, I make more than enough money that I can afford to have it taxed to help pay for things we use collectively as a society.

 

[ananda]

Sure, but my job isn't contingent on how much I'm taxed. If my taxes went up 10% tomorrow, my job doesn't change.

I'd still need to do my job since my residual income is needed to pay for my necessities.

It's not a question of "needing to do your job", but how the degree of taxes contributes to the degree of perceived suffering.

What if your taxes went up and takes 50% of your income? 75%? Wouldn't you need to progressively work harder or longer to make up the difference in order to pay for your necessities?

 

[FireDragon76]

Does that mean you would be in support of taxing degreed students and increasing their debt burden to help the rest of the Public?

If they are pursuing degrees that would benefit the public at large, then I don't see a problem with doing so.

In many countries university education is free for those with sufficient academic merits.

 

[apogee]

All in all, "socalism" is imo ultimately a methodology of transferring suffering to others, which is unethical and immoral, again, from a Buddhist perspective.

This sounds to me less like a specifically Buddhist perspective and more like the perspective if a specific Buddhist. Surely from a Buddhist perspective, suffering arises from attachment to desires, rather than separation from money.

 

[ananda]

If they are pursuing degrees that would benefit the public at large, then I don't see a problem with doing so.

In many countries university education is free for those with sufficient academic merits.

What "Benefits the public at large" is, again, questionable.

In many respects, America has implmented many social public works. Yet, using inflation as a yardstick, today's workers in general need to work 3x harder than two or three generations ago to achieve the same level of livelihood. In practice, I don't see these public socialist works helping, but rather harming.

 

[ananda]

This sounds to me less like a specifically Buddhist perspective and more like the perspective if a specific Buddhist. Surely for a Buddhist perspective, suffering arises from attachment to desires, rather than separation from worldly possessions.

I was referring to "transferring suffering to others" as unethical and immoral, not the methodology itself.

 

[FireDragon76]

What "Benefits the public at large" is, again, questionable.

There is room for discourse and debate about what exactly is the public interest, but that doesn't justify the extreme statement that "taxation is theft", or that there are no natural obligations of citizens to the state.

 

[apogee]

I was referring to "transferring suffering to others" as unethical and immoral, not the methodology itself.

I feel no pain from paying taxes

 

[FireDragon76]

This sounds to me less like a specifically Buddhist perspective and more like the perspective if a specific Buddhist. Surely from a Buddhist perspective, suffering arises from attachment to desires, rather than separation from money.

Indeed.

Ashoka certainly did not have a problem spending "other peoples money" (note the bolded):

On the roads banyan-trees were caused to be planted by me, (in order that) they might afford shade to cattle and men, (and) mango-groves were caused to be planted. And (at intervals) of eight kos wells were caused to be dug by me, and flights of steps (for descending into the water) were caused to be built. Numerous drinking-places were caused to be established by me, here and there, for the enjoyment of cattle and men. [But] this so-called enjoyment (is) [of little consequence]. For with various comforts have the people been blessed both by former kings and by myself. But by me this has been done for the following purpose: that they might conform to that practice of morality. (Major Pillar Edict No.7)

 

[pitabread]

What if your taxes went up and takes 50% of your income? 75%? Wouldn't you need to progressively work harder or longer to make up the difference in order to pay for your necessities?

Realistically speaking, no. We have a progressive taxation system where I live. What that means is the more money one makes, the higher their marginal tax rate. In order to hit a 50% marginal income tax rate, I'd need to be making well over $200k a year.

Now if we're talking about an unrealistic scenario where the tax rates were changed such that one could no longer have enough residual income for even basic necessities, then that scenario creates a different set of problems. In which case, it's no longer an issue of how hard one works.

 

[ananda]

There is room for discourse and debate about what exactly is the public interest, but that doesn't justify the extreme statement that "taxation is theft", or that there are no natural obligations of citizens to the state.

If we take historical experience as a yardstick, I think socialism in America has been an overall failure. America has implmented many social public works over the past few decades. Yet I believe few would argue that today's workers in general need to work 3x harder than two or three generations ago to achieve the same level of livelihood, if we look at the inflationary numbers. In practice, I don't see these public socialist works helping, but rather harming.

 

[ananda]

Now if we're talking about an unrealistic scenario where the tax rates were changed such that one could no longer have enough residual income for even basic necessities, then that scenario creates a different set of problems. In which case, it's no longer an issue of how hard one works.

Yes, this is what I was referring to when I pointed out that taxes can be equated to suffering.

 

[FireDragon76]

If we take historical experience as a yardstick, I think socialism in America has been an overall failure. America has implmented many social public works over the past few decades. Yet I believe few would argue that today's workers in general need to work 3x harder than two or three generations ago to achieve the same level of livelihood, if we look at the inflationary numbers. In practice, I don't see these public socialist works helping, but rather harming.

That's due to the lack of socialism, not because of it.

 

[Albion]

And as it stands, I make more than enough money that I can afford to have it taxed to help pay for things we use collectively as a society.

Well, duh. Of course it's nothing special for some people; but it's just as clear that those others who are only 'scraping by' feel differently about it.

 

[ananda]

That's due to the lack of socialism, not because of it.

Not if the Buddha's teachings are correct, which I believe they are.