In the historically meaning of the word yes. I ain't no socialist, no liberal would be IMO. https://www.economist.com/books-and...he-most-successful-idea-of-the-past-400-years
That is what millennial (I know you are not one) think being a liberal means. and I know that you are one, you are not really a liberal, you are a socialist. Liberals understand that capitalism is the best economic system we have, it is not perfect, but it is the best.
1) She is a good candidate because she is a very smart, capable, experienced and tough. She is a former US Attorney, City official, big law litigation partner, and head of Chicago Police Board & Police Accountability Task Force. The fact that she is an aging black lesbian just adds to that. 2) Her being a lesbian brings a perspective to government and a perspective to human rights that we have almost never experienced. We have never had an openly gay head of government in Illinois. Although Illinois has a relatively good equality record (especially Cook County Clerk David Orr's efforts in the 00's), there is still much to be done. 3) Being an aging black woman, it breaks the almost 200 years of old, rich white men in charge of Chicago (save for Byrne, Washington and, for a cup of coffee, Eugene Sawyer, all in the 1980's). 4) Her very existence would drive the Fox News types another knuckle-draggers crazy. Okay.
Nobody believes that. Capitalism is NOT the best economic system we have. It is not, has never been and never will be the BEST economic system we have. It is the system we have, though.
I am in favor of the bag tax, as a method of behavior modification. However, I I was in favor of the sugar tax in theory, but it was not in favor of it in practice. The problem with both (especially the latter) is that they are regressive taxes that disproportionately harm people of lesser means. Totally agree about direct regressive tax. Sales taxes are regressive. The State of Illinois flat income tax is, essentially, a regressive tax. I really like your idea to "tax" the manufactures of junk food at the manufacturing level (which is how the soda tax should have been instituted). Property tax: I have been discussing this with my current Aldermanic candidates in my neighborhood (they keep coming to my door). One kept saying that his top item was "lowering" real property taxes. When I asked him why, he could not really come up with a reason [I think it just sounds good to most people]. I have stated several times here that I am in favor of Property taxes, as a funding mechanism for City services. I am not in favor of as the basis for school funding, as it is incredibly unfair. As for being "based" upon income, I sort of disagree and sort of agree. Property taxes in Chicago are not too high, they are much lower than in many of the surrounding towns. The question is do we receive "value" for our money? What I would propose (and this is where I partially agree with you), property taxes should be higher and based upon the the property values. However, the exemptions should be increased and based upon income, and ability to pay. My office runs a real estate tax clinic for seniors and we routinely help seniors lower and almost eliminate their tax obligations. If someone owns a house and is low-to-moderate income, they should be able to avail themselves of similar benefits as seniors, including the ability to freeze their taxes based upon their ability to pay. However, the taxes themselves should NOT be based on income, that would be quite difficult to do. Also, commercial real estate taxes are too low and there are too many loopholes. The TIFF program (which is state-wide) needs to be completely redone. It is a f*cking mess.
First off, you need to define “socialist” before labeling me with that. Second, ******** off (I still love you). I’m antifascist and will fight fascists like you until the day I die.
Partially disagree. The best economic system is a balance of socialism and capitalism. Make sure everyone's basic needs are taken care of and reward those who go beyond and work harder or are more talented. (See Scandinavia)
Unfortunately for you and other fascist capitalists, a basic need is to not be killed by others be it by a gun or a slow process like environmentally caused cancer. This is the truth that unravels your lies. Make as much money as you want but if you have to harm another person to do it you should die first.
I agree with the idea that everyone's basic needs should be taken care of first. However, capitalism absolutely does NOT "reward those who go beyond and work harder or are more talented." Capitalism rewards self-interest and values money over everything else. It does not reward talent or hard work. Talent and hard work are only rewarded if they result in an increase of capital or result in profit. If your assertion was true, Donald Trump would be a pauper (he has never worked hard and has only one talent-to "sell," through grift and lies) Capitalism, almost by definition, equates money and property (i.e., "Capital") with success, not talent or hard work.
As you say the sugar and plastic bag taxes are to change behavior. If you tax manufactures (I am ok with pollution taxes and carbon taxes on them), then they pass on the cost to consumer, the cost gets divided by the production units and it becomes small and invisible. By also taxing the consumer side, you make it visible and start to change the behavior of people. Multiple studies have shown that sin taxes can work. https://globalnews.ca/news/4123758/...-disproportionately-harm-the-poor-study-says/ https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/08/10/do-sin-taxes-work http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/do-sin-taxes-really-change-consumer-behavior/ You are not that difference from George Bush with his "either you are with us or against us". No other way.
You know how republicans refuse to believe scientist regarding global warming? Capitalism is just private ownership of the means of production to acquire profits. It does not have to be free market capitalism, you can take those 2 separate, but combined they can work very well. Now Capitalism left on its own can be very destructive as it rewards winners and does not provide for the losers, that is why we need governments. Governments that follow capitalist economic systems with social programs to help and take care of the ones that are left behind are the countries that are ranked as the best in the world. Maybe to paraphrase what Winston Churchill said about Democracy, "[Capitalism] is the worst [economic] system, except for all other forms that we have tried from time to time"
There are two components here: 1) Why the tax exists (revenue generating or behavior modification)? 2) Based on 1), how should it be implemented? Toni Prekwinkle clearly stated the sugar tax was a revenue generator. "I make no apologies for this. I think it's an effective way to raise revenues, and it has real good health consequences." -- Preckwinkle speaking at an annual City Club appearance to discuss her budget plan. "Raising revenue was never my first choice. This measure provides important revenue, not only to avoid damaging cuts for public health and public safety systems, but also to expand our community-based interventions in both arenas. It also puts us on a stable financial footing for the next three fiscal years, during which we will not have to approve any additional tax increases." -- Preckwinkle personally ensured her penny-an-ounce pop tax passed by breaking a rare tie vote among commissioners. The measure was expected to generate $224 million a year, believed to be enough to balance the budget for the next few years. It was scheduled to take effect July 1, 2017. Asked after the vote why the county could not make further spending cuts, Preckwinkle defended her six-year record, saying she had reduced the workforce by 10 percent and overall debt by a slightly greater percentage. She also pointed to 300 layoffs included in the next year's $4.9 billion budget proposal. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-preckwinkle-on-soda-tax-htmlstory.html As such, this tax was not primarily intended to modify behavior. Also, you are grossly overestimating the value of the sugar tax in modifying behavior. I will, for the sake of discussion, presume that you do not spend much time in "bad neighborhoods" on the south and west side of Chicago (and if you do, I apologize). I do for work and frequently, go to the the stores in those areas, what stores there are. There are few alternatives to sugary drinks. You are not going to find much in the way of actual juices, fresh drinks or, sometimes, even water available. It is a combination of named brand soda, off-brand soda, and "juice-substitutes," all subject to the tax. The choice, then, becomes, buy the crap and pay the tax or buy nothing. The options would have to change in order for the tax to be effective. This is beginning to change a bit, but is far for equitable. Second, for the sugar tax to be effective, it has to be wide spread. There was a spike in people going to DuPage County and other "collar counties" to stock up on soda and avoid the tax (similar what smokers do with cigarettes). As such, the only people actually paying the tax were people who could not avoid the tax...again, lower income individuals. As for the studies you cited, I agree with them in the long term. Everybody should drink less soda, eat less red meat, drink less alcohol (at least, those who drink too much) and smoke less. Nobody is arguing with that. However, none of the studies look at the inherent inequities of the tax in the immediate stage. The first study merely makes a blanket statement. It does raise a primarily flaw in these taxes: "But if there is a problem with sin taxes, it is not that they are ineffective. Rather, it is that they are inefficient. Sin taxes are blunt policy instruments. People who only have the occasional drink are not taking on any great health risks, yet they are taxed no differently than serious alcoholics. A similar logic applies for sugar taxes." The second is Canadian and looks at it from a government health spending perspective. The third actually cites Chicago as an example and, as we all know, the sugar tax in Chicago was quickly repealed.
1. We have had this conversation on other boards. There is no reason to have it here, as well. 2. I am well aware of your definition of capitalism and we disagree on what should and what should not be for profit. 3. It does NOT reward "winners," unless by "winners" you only mean companies that are profitable. We have a fundamental disagreement on what "winning" means, I guess. 4. Capitalism "left on its own" is the Republican ideal. Those governments that "follow capitalist economic systems with social programs to help and take care of the ones that are left behind" understand that there things that should be for profit and those that should not. Too bad, you have demonstrated for months on various threads that you do not understand that. 5. The paraphrase of Churchill is just stupid and irrelevant. I am not going to respond to any more of your comments about Capitalism on this thread. I will discuss the Mayor's race here, but I am done with other discussions.
“We agree with candidates Lori Lightfoot, Toni Preckwinkle and Amara Enyia, who support the elimination of all exceptions to the welcoming ordinance, to stop police from doing the work of federal agents, and to protect individuals’ rights to due process. We can make Chicago a true sanctuary for immigrants. Reyna Wences Immigration Working Group” https://chicago.suntimes.com/opinio...ms-enforcement/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
The tax revenue from sin taxes should be spent on health services or prevention services. If we make drugs (weed soon hopefully) the revenues raised by taxing it (at least the bulk of it) should go to health services or rehabilitation services fro drug addicts, but the state (and local governments) will probably use it cover other budget holes. It does not mean they are a bad idea, it is just that they are misappropriated. Why we have food deserts. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/takes-grocery-store-eliminate-food-desert It takes time to change behavior, and also the farm lobby is a big enemy of healthy food. When a bottle of pop is cheaper than a bottle of water it is a problem. An argument would be for the government to subsidize healthy food. Another answer would be to make unhealthy food more expensive, by ending subsidies to producers (hard to do since it is federal, but we should still try) and also creating taxes to make those products more expensive. Alcoholics will still drink, addicted smokers will still smoke, and I will continue to poison my body with Soda, but people do respond to price, in the long run the behavior does change. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/its-not-the-food-deserts-its-the-inequality/550793/ Maybe taking the sugar tax (and perhaps a salt tax and fat tax) and plugging it to schools to expand classes on nutrition and physical education could do wonders to close the diet gap between the rich and the poor. Now using those taxes to plug pot holes, may not be a good idea.
If you live your life as a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I think Sun Tzu said that, at least that is what Ivanka Trump told me.
I think you should probably consider your views through that lens. You might be surprised at what you see.
No need to respond, but this is the problem that you have, what should be for profit and what should not be is not a factual answer it is a policy debatable answer. Different countries have different answers, the ideal answer that most developed countries are figuring out is non for profit basic care, with for profit extra care (not all, England runs all 3 layers of the system with limited for profit services). What can be basic care can also be debatable, if a country (or some voters) disagree with you they are not evil, they just disagreed.
Oh I do, that is why I do not argue or debate like I know the gospel and the word of god is on my side, I do make mistakes and I do change my opinions if enough evidence is pounded to my head. I can be stubborn, but not inflexible.
Neither of you are incorrect when discussing our current "capitalist" system. Our system is moving much more toward some kind of oligarchic pseudocapitalism. The previous evil of capitalism was it's extreme laissez-faire nature (think Upton Sinclair). The current evil is that the extensive rules of our system don't protect the vulnerable, they protect the undeserving wealthy. I will disagree about the "success" metric being money. In a true socially-conscious, capitalist system, the individual would choose their measure of success. Also, I don't like the binary thinking of socialist or fascist. Almost nobody truly fits either of those definitions. Steady change through measured action is so alien in this factional environment that moderate progressives are considered extreme and the majority of the population feels disenchanted.
Horseshit. You won’t even admit that killing other people is wrong if it’s making someone enough money.