Recently, one presidential candidate accused another of being a socialist. To most people, socialism has a bad connation, related to our enemies during World War II. In reality, much of the American economy is socialistic. In socialism, money is collected from all but parceled to select groups. America has embraced socialism in many forms. Our progressive income tax system is one form. The wealthier members of our society pay income tax at a higher rate and rightfully so. Many of the higher economic class enjoy the benefits of the work their employees perform for them. Yes, the employees make money for themselves but the employers make even more from the sweat of their workers. So, the wealthy should pay more in taxes.
Medicare and Medicaid are two other instances of pure socialism. In each case, the recipient is the beneficiary of a group contribution. If you enjoy life-long good health, you will never fully benefit from the money you have contributed. If you are a student at a public school or public university, you are a recipient of government money, collected from all despite the fact that all contributors may not be benefited by their largesse. If you are a farmer and are paid NOT to farm (as a farm subsidy), you have enjoyed the benefits of socialism.
The money which runs the local, state and federal government is neither collected nor distributed equally. At the local level, those who do not own properties do not contribute to local school and real estate taxes yet enjoy the benefits of sending their children to school as well as protection by the fire and police departments, not to mention the repair of the local infrastructure. States contribute to the federal bank account yet enjoy an unequal return on their investment. Many states pay far less tax to the Feds than they receive in federal funds. Other wealthy states pay far more than they receive.
One facet of our lives which is not socialistic is medical care for those not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare. We pay for our medical care either as part of our contract (for those who are covered by their employer) or out-of-pocket (for those unfortunates who are not covered). The 40% who are uninsured are simply gambling that they will not get sick or suffer a catastrophic medical situation. The Hippocratic Oath prevents doctors from refusing care, so those in critical situations are usually treated. However the cost of the uninsured fall upon all of the insured workers, raising the cost to their employers or those who have individual policies.
Socialized medicine is common throughout the world. The cost of medical care throughout the world is far less than here in the US. Yes, we have some of the most expert physicians treating the most exotic of diseases. However, too many Americans are going without care, suffering the consequences of manageable, chronic diseases such as treatable cancers, heart disease and diabetes. The cost of drugs often forces us to make a decision between drugs, food and heat.
A socialized program which seems to have worked quite well is Social Security. When Franklin D. Roosevelt came up with the plan in the 1930s, it was seen as a method to close down the county poor houses. In the program, employee contributions do not pay for a future retirement but instead simply pass that money to the already retired. At the time of Roosevelt, 15 people contributed to the welfare of one retiree. As the population has aged, particularly the “baby boomers”, we have now reached a point when 1.5 people pay for that single retiree. As a consequence, Congress has had to pass bills which have periodically raised the ceiling to which workers have had to pay into social security with the ceiling currently at $102,000.
Our government has led you to believe Social Security is in trouble. President Bush encouraged Congress to pass a program allowing people to invest a portion of their social security contributions into the stock market. We now realize what a disastrous idea that was. If you examine the premise of social security, you should realize that it is not in the dour condition you have been led to believe. All the pundits agree that if SS proceeds at the current rate, the system will implode in 2042. I have a simple explanation of why that won’t occur and a simple remedy. In 2042, nearly all the “baby boomers” WILL BE DEAD. A demographic shift will already have occurred, slowly returning the current 1.5 contributor:1 recipient ratio back toward the original 15:1 ratio at the time of Roosevelt’s program inception.
An interesting aside related to Social Security relates to the age 65. Why 65? It appears that during the reign of Otto von Bismarck of World War I-era Germany, aides decided (perhaps arbitrarily) that 65 would be a good age to provide life-long security to Germany’s aged. When FDR came up with his plan for our current Social Security, he asked his staff statisticians to determine an age at which the Social Security retirement date should “kick in”. His statisticians similarly determined that 65 would be a good age to begin paying retirement benefits. The problem with that plan was that the actuarial tables which helped the government statisticians to arrive at 65 as the “magic age” was based on tables skewed by increased death rates in World War I and the Spanish Flu of 1919 which killed more than 40 million people world wide. Today’s life expectancy of about 78 for a male and more than 80 for a female far out-distances the life expectancy at the incipience of Social Security.
In the meantime, the simple solution would to be to increase the ceiling at which SS taxes are collected. The ceiling is slightly above $100,000. I would increase the ceiling but not beginning at $102,000 but at $250,000. Why should the federal income tax be progressive but not social security? If the wealthy are enjoying increased incomes on the backs of their workers and paying federal income tax accordingly, then why should tax on social security be any different?
Filed under: actuarial table, chronic disease, politics | Tagged: Add new tag, Bismarck, medicaid, medicare, Roosevelt, social security, socialism, Spanish Flu
Bravo! Well said. And that’s an interesting bit of history about the age-65 choice!
Hi Ruth, Actually, I have to attribute the 65 history to my buddy who is a doc and prepared a brief speech when he addressed the press relative to health care (before the election).
Your explanation of why you feel the wealthy should “rightfully” pay more in taxes through higher tax rates because of their workers “sweat,” is very telling concerning your political view.
I have a great idea for you Buckalew, move to Cuba or Venezuela!
What is the purpose of a higher tax rate for the wealthy?
If a business owner is forced to step up to a higher rate at a given income, then what is the motivation to reach that level of income? None! It serves to punish success. At that higher rate level, the owner takes a cut in income or has layoffs. I believe you have some sort of business. Are you willing to take a cut in your income?
Health care -you say, “However, too many Americans are going without care, suffering the consequences of manageable, chronic diseases such as treatable cancers, heart disease and diabetes. The cost of drugs often forces us to make a decision between drugs, food and heat.”
Back up what you say with a few facts. I do not know of anyone going without care unless they choose to. Who do you know that is choosing between drugs, food and heat, unless that drug is crack? I don’t believe you know anyone in that position.
Read ‘Code Blue’ written by Canadian David Gratzer, B.Sc.,M.D, who quotes Brian Day, President, Canadian Medical Association, who has become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public health care, having opened his own private surgery center as a remedy for long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him down. “This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week,” he fumed to the New York Times, “and in which humans can wait two to three years.”
Our government is a republic, sometimes redundantly called a representative republic. We elect those that represent us to protect us from the majority. Socialism, which Karl Marx said “represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism,” is a ruse in which the majority thinks that they rule.
Think about this. Those who oppose the prejudices of the greatest number are never told that their opinions are false simply because the majority thinks otherwise.
In our capitalist system, anyone -you, me, a self-stated underprivileged young black kid like Obama, can get off their butts and succeed in their professional or financial desires. Under a fully socialistic regime, that can not be the case unless, of course, you are a leader of that regime.
You write, ” Why should the federal income tax be progressive but not social security? If the wealthy are enjoying increased incomes on the backs of their workers and paying federal income tax accordingly, then why should tax on social security be any different?
I write, “I hereby elect you as the leader of the American Socialist Party!”
You also write, “America has embraced socialism in many forms.” So true! I pray that has reached a plateau.
I agree with the sentiment, but I do take exception to the choice of language.
The word “socialism” is a loaded term, and yes, using it in a positive manner can help to desensitize us to it, but in the meantime it is a brick wall conversation-ender, and cedes way too much grounds to the economic Darwinists. As you point out, it is used as an epithet, and for certain the term “socialized medicine” will be used as the bogey-man by those on the right who don’t acknowledge that 50 million people without any health care whatsoever is far worse than rationing.
I’d rather use the analogy of an insurance policy. We all pay our car insurance and the same time try our darndest to not ever have a claim. And we wouldn’t dream of marching down to their agent and demanding to see a statement on “our money,” or pressing as to when we’ll be getting all that money back.
Psychologically, we are quite accustomed to doing business this way. We would never call the auto insurance business an income redistribution business. But that’s exactly what it is: people who don’t have a claim go to their grave having paid in a great deal with no remuneration.
Social Security was never to be a savings account; it is by every definition an insurance policy. The fact that it redistributes income is wholly beside the point — that happens every time we buy insurance. The only difference is that in this case the insurance is compulsory (as auto insurance is in most states, by the way, so even that difference isn’t universal).
Point being, when we allow the opponents of these programs to frame the arguments in terms that are despised, we lose the argument before we even start among those who are too busy working their uniquely American three jobs in order to put food on their family.
When I began this blog, I did so to entertain intelligent discourse between dissenting factions of our society. I realized occasional venom might be spewed but not to the personal level of your response. One should be readily able to opine on the opposite side of an argument without vituperations.
I have only stated what is obvious. Our country is largely run on the basis of socialism…with each bailout further proving my point.
You claim that there is no evidence of people having to choose between food, medicine or heat. Just google those three choices and you’ll find 9,520,000 sites.
Your comments…“We elect those who represent us to protect us against the majority” and “Those who oppose the prejudices of the greatest number are never told that their opinions are false simply because the majority thinks otherwise”. This is just Orwellian doublespeak. The dripping sarcasm in which you describe Obama as a “self-stated underprivileged young black man” suggests you may be part of the right wing segment of society that has its share of the pie but doesn’t want to see others gain as well.
The Reagan tax cuts simply began the re-distribution of the wealth. George Herbert Walker Bush ridiculed Reagan’s supply-side economics aka trickle down economics during the Republican primary of 1980 but then adopted Reaganomics during his bid for the presidency in 1988. Supply-siders are at odds with Keynesian economists with supply siders believing that providing supplies will create demand. Keynesians believe that demand increases supplies. Supply side economics is nothing new. In the late 19th century, it was called horse and sparrow economics. If you give a horse plenty to eat, some will eventually be available for the sparrows. The horse and sparrow model has been deemed the cause of the 1896 collapse.
Historically, top marginal tax rates have ranged from a low of 7% in 1913-1915 to a high of 94% in 1944-45. In 1951-1963, the top marginal tax rates remained at 91%.The were reduced to 70% during 1964-1980 when Reagan reduced the highest marginal tax rate to 50%. Reagan continued to reduce the top rate to 28% when he left office with his successor, George H. W. Bush slightly increasing the rate to 31%. Clinton increased the top marginal rate to 39.6% and George W. Bush has reduced the rate to 35% where it is today.
I am not suggesting that we return to the oppressive rates of post World War II but a return to the Clinton year numbers of 39.6% might help to begin to solve the inequitable distribution of wealth.
While I would be the first to claim no expertise in economics, in 2003, 10 Nobel Laureates came out against George W. Bush’s supply side tax policies. His policies have contributed to a re-re-distribution of wealth that Clinton’s modest upper income tax increases partly reversed over Reagan/Bush I. Those short of the rich just want their share. Even if you buy into supply side economics, the Bush II tax cuts have created the super-rich. In a poker game when one player has won all the pots…the game is over.
Just return the marginal tax rates back to the Clinton years. We enjoyed prosperity. We can do so again. Have a nice day!
Hi Duane, No…I’m in America. I can’t account for the time difference but yeah…I’m here. And by the way…Amen. Tom
Tom, I assume you directed you comment about “spewing personal venom” toward me. I only bring this up out of curiosity.
I do not think that my comments constituted harshly abusive language or vituperation. Perhaps the insensitivity you perceive is due to my lack of worldly social skills. After all, my only real guilt is that of being under-educated in social diplomacy. I’m glad that this discourse came about and I have the time to address my deficiencies before I am eaten alive.
John
John Levy said ” I do not know of anyone going without care unless they choose to. Who do you know that is choosing between drugs, food and heat, unless that drug is crack?
Response – Are you serious? There are many people in this country who have illnesses that are not covered by their insurance because of pre-existing condition or who do not have insurance at all. These same people work hard, own their home and earn enough money to keep them off of welfare but cannot afford to pay for their medical care or medications. Have you seen what some medications cost today? Why do you generalize these people the same as crack addicts? You are obviously out of touch with some of the middle class of today.
John Levy challenged Tom Buckelew’s blog on Socialism. He asked many questions i.e. higher tax rate for the wealthy, health care, etc.
I’m curious as to what generation Mr. Levy belongs. I’m not going to quote others, but I will answer as a 73 year old white female who has worked since I was 14. I spent 35 years at a very prestigious pharmaceutical firm, and was very active in union work. I have skills as a Medical Librarian, member of an Engineering Team, and served as a township supervisor for 13 years. I have also been part of the middle class most of my life.
So you want examples of individuals who would substitute pharmaceutical drugs for food and heat. My husband and I are two of those people. While we had medical insurance from our workplace, we are now on Medicare. Since Medicare payments are taken off our monthly Social Security wage, we cannot afford to upgrade the medical coverage. My husband had a quadruple bypass, cancerous kidney removed, and a bout wih bladder cancer. His various doctors have him on a multitude of drugs. I recently had a total knee replacement. These are the things we all have to look forward to, even you Mr. Levy.
So what happens to the elderly? Doctors indiscriminaty prescribe without any care of the patients’ situation. At least four of the prescriptions came under ethical drug name. I researched them and found them to be over the counter vitamins, which I now buy instead of the high priced stuff. If we need a doctor for ordinary things, colds, flu, etc., we put off making appointments because we can’t afford it.
Medicare sends accounts of the bills we acquire, sometimes as late as a year past the date of treatment. There is no way to keep track, yet on all the statements they say “your physician has agreed to accept the lower amount shown”, which may be $50 to $100 less, yet when you call the physician they tell you that is error, you owe the higher amount. You end up being obligated for the larger debt.
While working as a union rep, we were vilified by the high priced salaried professionals, yet when contract time rolled around, they were avid to know what increases we were going for. Why – they knew the company would match and better their raises. For a brief period we were the good guys. Meanwhile, the top echelon continued to get good bonuses, year after year. You can say it’s because of their management skills, or you can say it’s because of the team workers who carried them on their backs.
Socialism? You bet, and we all depend on it. We paid into the system for 59+ years, granted, not voluntarily, but we’re certainly glad we have it.
In order to make ends meet we both had part time jobs. Because of economics we were both recently laid off. I have now had to apply for unemployment, a fact I find somewhat distressing, since this is the first time I had to resort to this in my entire life. That too will only last a short time. We are actively seeking other employment, but there is none. Unemployment – another Socialistic program. Again, thank God.
You ask what the purpose of a higher tax rate for the wealthy is. Look around you. The wealthy have reached a level where reality no longer exists. Does someone really earn millions and millions of dollars for sitting on the Board of a banking institution or auto company that needs a bail-out – from who – us? The tax status of these individuals is ludicrous considering what they pocket and the luxurious life they lead.
I will grant you that early in our middle-class existence we spent some monies that were in excess, but now even our savings have been drastically hurt by the mismanagement of these super brains. We have a roof over our heads, and are just trying with desperation to keep it. And again, I’m speaking from the middle-class of America.
Those who do not have what we have lead a life that is unimaginable. A hospital will not accept their ill child unless proof of insurance is first provided. Likewise, private physicians will not treat them. If they are lucky, they have a free clinic available to them. If not, tough.
In a major US city, 12 people died so far this year. Why? They froze to death in their own residences. In several cases the electric or gas companies had turned off the heat due to non payment. Gee, perhaps another Socialistic program could have helped them.
Don’t you think it’s a sad commentary that in a country like ours, children are denied life saving surgeries, old people are allowed to freeze to death, people subsist on the minimal amount of food they can afford.
If you think that’s ok, I feel sorry for you. I also feel sorry for the future that awaits you.
Joy, good luck to you and may God bless you.
I believe you are relying on very distorted facts when you say that “children are denied life saving surgeries, old people are allowed to freeze to death, people subsist on the minimal amount of food they can afford.” About the 12 people you say who froze to death; you know very well that there is more to the story. Under law, the utilities are prevented from shutting off services for many reasons. These poor souls slipped through the cracks. But I wonder also; where were their neighbors, family, friends and churches? That is the form of socialism that I believe in and I am sorry to say that the false belief in government socialism has taken it’s toll on the traditional community’s role.
The problem of governmental socialism is at the very bottom of the situation in which you are involved. You say you “paid into the system for 59+ years, granted, not voluntarily, but we’re certainly glad we have it.” And at the same time you state your dissatisfaction with the system. That is the problem with socialism in a nutshell. It doesn’t deliver on it’s promises. You are an example of that. In the case of the 12 people who froze to death, perhaps they too believed in that same false hope. Perhaps they would still be alive if their neighbors, family, friends and churches were not of the mind that they would be taken care of by big brother government. We used to take care of our elderly neighbors just as though they were family. Now we don’t even take care of our own family. To a large degree, I blame a lot of that on our society’s false belief in a benevolent socialistic government.
Joy, if you asked me for money, I would gladly give whatever I could. But if you try to steal it from me, you’ll have a fight on your hands. That’s the way I look at governmental socialism. Pure and simple thievery!
As far as someone achieving economic success, why should they be penalized for doing so with a higher tax rate. That is the surest way to end the desire for individuals to be successful. What incentive would there be to reach a certain level, when you reach that level, you make less than you did at the lower level?
There is a problem with some of the monstrous salaries of some execs. I don’t get it but who am I to decide what someone’s salary is. If they are breaking any laws they should be prosecuted but if not, and their companies are going down the tubes then why would you want to use the socialist idea of bailing them out? Let them falter due to their own mismanagement.
You say you were very active in union work. It’s sad that the very union that you did so much work for has failed you. I’ll bet that the union heads aren’t in the same boat that you are in. Another form of failed socialism! It’s not a long term solution to anything. Socialism has been tried time and time again. It has never worked and never will. It is thievery of self-reliance, incentive and success. Dr. Buckelew writes of the success of socialized medicine in other countries. I know the man is smart so I just can’t figure out how he can be so completely fooled. All you have to do is read something other than what is in the mainstream media to see the truth.
Meanwhile, I stand by my offer.
To John Levy:
You forgot the reason for my answer to you. You asked Tom Buckelew to show evidence of his statements, I was trying to offer that. I was most certainly not begging for charity. I still give to those less fortunate than us. Your tongue-in-cheek offer of money to me was an attempt to negate my remarks, and was something I would not accept.
You have an advantage over me, you know some of my history. I’ll add a bit. My hubby and I are “post” depression kids. Our folks eked out a living to clothe and feed us. Potato soup was standard fare for our complete main meal. They were proud that we had made a better, easier life for ourselves. My mother lived to be almost 98, and had it not been for social programs and our assistance, she would not have made it. This background is helping us now.
Since I don’t know your background I can’t make an informed decision on you, but lets say you did have a family that paid your way thru life and left you a financial foundation. It would certainly explain the difference in attitude.
Time to make comparisons, vis-a-vis apples and oranges. You can be an ostrich or an owl. The ostrich wants to disbelieve things that are unpleasant or do not fit his view of the world, so he hides his head in the sand. He’s afraid to accept some truths. If he doesn’t read it, see it or hear it, then of course it isn’t real and it’s not his problem.
The owl on the other hand, knows what the facts are that he has experienced, but is also wise enough to understand he must continue to search out info and is willing to bend when his beliefs are challenged.
Picture this! You are elderly, living alone, no relative to watch over you. You’re showing signs of senility and those overdue bills are piling up, partly because you don’t have the money, partly because you no longer understand the delinquency threats. Then one day it starts to get cold in your residence and you no longer recognize your situation. Someone finally finds you frozen to death. (See http://www.wsws.org/Articles/2003/feb2003/cold=105.shtml
or go to Deaths – Freezing – Philadelphia Inquirer, Art. Homeless, poor freeze in US Cold Wave). Do you honestly believe this doesn’t happen?
You state “it’s sad my union failed me”. I say this indicates some anti-union bias. My union didn’t fail me because I never expected them to support me in my retirement. They did however help me to obtain a good wage w/excellent working cnditions. Sorry to say, but you’re wrong, my union leaders are in the same boat. When we retire we no longer pay dues – why would we expect the union to chip in? You also seem to not understand the concept of union vs. management. Management runs the companies, unions protect workers rights. Unions don’t dicate how the company is managed. If high wages are negotiated it was an agreement management was happy to make in order to have skilled workers produce their product. Ask yourself, who gets laid off first? Not management. In fact, since the bank failures, one CEO who was called to straighten out one of the banks, worked only 3 months and left w/ a $4 million compensation. The bank still failed. How does it feel to know you’re paying his $4 million?
The misguidance of yur ideas is in your line “if you achieve success, why should you be penalized”? Did you achieve your success on your own? No dedicated employees, no assistants, no one who helped you along the way? If you can say you truly did it all on your own, then I might have to rethink. When you get right down to it, a well run company is the perfect example of socialism. Each person contributes his own labor and skills for the better good. How’s that sound? Again, apples and oranges. Warren Buffett vs. Bernie Madoff? Millionaire stars like Robert Redford and Paul Newman who recognized they needed to give something back? Wow, what a concept.
One final thought. You say the problem with socialism is it doesn’t deliver on its promise. Perhaps it’s because of weak links who don’t want to carry their share. One theme that is undeniable is that we are all in this together. Did you get that? ALL – EQUAL! United we stand, divided we fall.