Today, I’m going to be responding to this – interesting and poetic – conservative blogger. The post in question is So long, Socon!
I am not going to be addressing the main theme, per say, but rather particular salient points that I believe need demythologisation. This blogger has quite interesting and witty prose, which makes him a bigger threat than merely a bland bullshitter, so I shall wield my sword of fingers-to-keyboard-to-internet to combat this threat.
This post is strung with attacks on socialism, and social liberalism.
Socialism is great, when someone else is paying for it. The same goes social liberalism.
Okay. Care to clarify?
Take 50% of $250,000 and that still leaves you a pretty comfortable income stream. Take 25% of $50,000 and that leaves you far less room to maneuver. High taxes mean little if you’ve got enough money and a good accountant.
I find it bizarre that this paragraph was written by someone who detests socialism; think about it, this is something that a reliable socialist (or social democratic) would decry. This particular taxation hypothetical (not too disconnected from reality) is blatantly unfair against the average person, with the average wage. As I said, a reliable socialist would protest this, and demand that the one percenter pay more, perhaps 60%, or 70%, so that the $50,000 wage may remain more sustainable and less taxable.
This hypothetical does point a significant problem in even the current means of taxation. The average person pays a large chunk in taxes, even if you only make the average Canadian wage. You have your federal income tax, provincial income tax, payroll taxes, GST, property tax and various other smaller taxes to continuously feed the coffers. I, as somebody who believes in an active – and strong – government, thinks this tax burden on the majority needs to addressed, decreased, and indeed, simplified.
And a proper social democratic should agree. I think the consensus among us is that those with the most, should pay considerably more. Granting your average person a more liveable wage.
High taxes mean little if you’ve got enough money and a good accountant.
Well said, comrade.
Nothing in this entire post really draws any sort of meaningful criticism to the idea of a “socialist” government, just that there can be mismanagement among taxation. The post makes various assumptions about various things; assumptions based upon mistruths and right-wing fiction.
***
Next point in the post, about African-American family breakdown:
The social consequences of [black] family breakdown are obvious. That breakdown has been feed by a popular and high culture that loathes the traditional family, attacking it as a bourgeois institution, and supports the welfare state. The ideas that permeate the culture also run the welfare system which practically encourages single motherhood. For rich white liberals, who grew up in reasonably stable families headed by responsible adults, it is almost impossible to imagine an alternative as alien as that which exists in some of the worst neighborhoods in the country.
I’m sure you have tons of studies and evidence to back these assertions up. Oh, you don’t? Then let me retort.
Here, part of the summary from the National Poverty Centre, for America:
In the Great Society period (1964-1968), policy elites largely diagnosed the root causes of poverty as “community breakdown:” poor health, lack of education and job skills, discrimination, urban slums, and inadequate health care. In this conception, poor people themselves were largely held to be blameless victims “trapped” in poor neighborhoods. Public policy stressing income supports, job training and incentives for working were implemented. By the early 1980s, however, the diagnosis of policy elites had shifted and family breakdown (teen pregnancy, drug abuse, lack of mainstream values) as well as dependence on public support systems constituted the diagnostic frame. This led to more restrictive welfare policies culminating in the 1996 welfare reform legislation, which emphasized work requirements and self-sufficiency. Guetzkow concludes that the policy frames of these different sets of policy elites contributed to the shift in policy toward a more punitive and less generous stance toward the poor.
Nothing here about welfare and social programs leading to more poverty and family breakdown. But, of course not, because the original assertions from Sir. have no factual basis – it’s right-wing mythology. The issues seem far more complicated; perhaps it has something do with centuries of discrimination, segregation and poverty?
Social democracy isn’t the problem, Sir. Social democracy/socialism can be the solution.
***
For further information, guess what party has been raising taxes on your average worker? The Conservative party! They continue to increase payroll taxes – EI, Canadian pension plan – and pretend to be about low taxation!
Well, your taxes would be lower if you were a corporation. But, none of us reading this are corporations, right?
