Does being a social democrat preclude being wealthy?

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia
Honest question as I don't understand the thought process that gets you to this POV
I'll give a shot at a slightly tongue-in-cheek answer.   The "social democrats" tend to decry the wealthy as anti-social parasites feeding upon the output of the oppressed, and espouse a taking of that parasitic wealth to improve conditions for society at large.   Thus - a true social democrat would, instead of aspiring to wealth, aspire to a greater sharing.    

So - I think that the perspective is more a dig at those who advocate taking as a means of establishing socio-economic equality and are themselves members of the economic class that they target, rather than any real thought that the two can't coexist. 

 
A

Amati

Guest
What’s a definition of rich?

$5m net?

-no debt?  (As in procuring what you want with out credit?$)

-not going bankrupt because of illness?

-being able to take a risk in business without worrying about living on the street if you fail?

I’d venture a lot of social democracies allow more people to be wealthy by redistribution of costs- depending on the definition of wealth-

the right wing wants to have individuals carry all of their own burdens- you need more personal net worth to live like that.

of course it is a leap of faith to peanut butter support for services out, and the right are convinced they are going to be screwed and robbed blind at any moment-

the conversation could revolve around bang for the buck, but most of both sides have no idea what that might be, IMO, or how to achieve it, whether in the private or public sphere...

I like a Grange-ish model, but I was raised in the West.  Besides, notions of egalitarianism are falling by the wayside, e g Trump, but I like like Gov Inslee and Mayor Pete precisely for their egalitarianism.

maybe it just a trust issue?

 

SloopJonB

Super Anarchist
68,723
12,369
Great Wet North
I'll give a shot at a slightly tongue-in-cheek answer.   The "social democrats" tend to decry the wealthy as anti-social parasites feeding upon the output of the oppressed, and espouse a taking of that parasitic wealth to improve conditions for society at large.   Thus - a true social democrat would, instead of aspiring to wealth, aspire to a greater sharing.    

So - I think that the perspective is more a dig at those who advocate taking as a means of establishing socio-economic equality and are themselves members of the economic class that they target, rather than any real thought that the two can't coexist. 
You right wingers simply can't grasp the concept of extreme wealth disparity being a bad thing for society can you?

Is it really so hard to comprehend?

Does everything have to be binary in your narrow little world?

Are you all entirely ignorant of history and the consequences of it when it has happened in the past?

Equally, are you also ignorant of the good things that came when it was reduced?

:rolleyes:

 

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia
You right wingers simply can't grasp the concept of extreme wealth disparity being a bad thing for society can you?

Is it really so hard to comprehend?

Does everything have to be binary in your narrow little world?

Are you all entirely ignorant of history and the consequences of it when it has happened in the past?

Equally, are you also ignorant of the good things that came when it was reduced?

:rolleyes:
Of course.    Did I say anything about good/bad right/wrong, or did I merely try to answer a question?     

 

phillysailor

Super Anarchist
8,524
3,355
I think that social Democrats are acutely aware of how the uberwealthy rationalize their advantages, and how they privatize profits while making their losses public.

SD may be wealthy, or not. But if they are wealthy, they feel fortunate to be in that position, not entitled to feast off the misery of others. 

Energy and fossil fuel companies, OTOH, often don’t pay market price for the water they consume and pollute. They are given extraordinary rights and privileges to right of ways and rape our navigable waters, and they pollute the air & ground creating local healthcare costs and environmental effects for which they expect society to pay.

Banks crashed our economy, but they got stabilized by our tax $ and received bonuses. Insurance companies restrict our health care choices and options while drowning us in paperwork designed to confuse and limit their payments.

Towns and municipalities figure out how to charge fees to the underclasses and keep them forever underprivileged. 

You can easily recognize the destabilizing effect this can have on society, and how they imperil the ability of millions to pursue happiness, let alone freedom. Doesn’t matter what your home looks like or what is in you bank account, disgust for greed and hoping for better can happen to anyone.

 

AJ Oliver

Super Anarchist
12,894
1,806
Sandusky Sailing Club
It is quite possible to become wealthy by making the world a better place . . 

It's also possible to get rich by making other people poor - as in our current predatory economy. 

Social dems respect the former, but not the latter. 

 

Thistle3868

Member
331
58
That's it really.  You don't have to actually think about an argument if you know you just 'hate liberals' or 'hate religion' or whatever.

The two party system works great for binary (yes/no) kind of thinking but it does create problems when people slip in to your tent you don't like or you have a run of bad elections and suddenly 'liberal' becomes a bad word so then you become 'progressive' or whatever.  Rebranding!  Deviled Ham sounds much better than Pink Slime after all. 

Social Democrat is popular because of Bernie.  He was a way to be a Democrat without being part of the orthodoxy under Clinton.  That makes people feel cool and special without really taking any risk.  Bernie himself really does have that old-school socialist bend but he gets away with it because of the crazy uncle bit - we like him at dinner parties because he's got some interesting ideas and certainly speaks with passion but no, we're not giving him the checkbook.   Social democrats get attacked because there's enough of them to matter and the easiest trope to rope them with is as a 'rebranded' limousine liberal.

Money just amplifies personality.  If you're a good person, money allows that goodness to impact more people.  If you're an asshole, money amplifies that as well.  
Dude.  I'd love to enjoy a beer with you.

 

chinabald

Super Anarchist
15,304
709
There seems to be a trope from righties that a social democrat that is wealthy is somehow a hypocrite. 

Can someone please explain???   How these things related. Bernie Sanders does not want everyone to have the same amount of money (middle class incomes????) he wants very wealth people to pay more tax and close income disparity. 
When a candidate uses class warfare in his message, he should be clear which class he is in. Bernie is in the 1% and he thinks the 1% is the cause of the problems. As for paying more taxes as a wealthy man it would be easy for him to stroke s check and pay what he thinks a wealthy man should pay. His current behavior shows that he wants all the other wealthy to pay more. He will pay what the law says (like everyone else) and not a penny more. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Saorsa

Super Anarchist
36,796
422
When a candidate uses class warfare in his message, he should be clear which class he is in. Bernie is in the 1% and he thinks the 1% is the cause of the problems. As for paying more taxes as a wealthy man it would be easy for him to stroke s check and pay what he thinks a wealthy man should pay. His current behavior shows that he wants all the other wealthy to pay more. He will pay what the law says (like everyone else) and not a penny more. 
He also thinks college should be paid for with other peoples money to support his wife's real estate deals.

Non-profit sounds good until you realize you aren't paying any less.

 

Laker

Super Anarchist
4,202
277
PNW
I think both of the above are missing the point.  The point is inequity. A large difference between income and therefore power between members of the society.  People expect a difference in income between ditch diggers and rocket scientists within reason and so will adjust to this inequality. The difference in power is restricted to power within the higher level of expertise.  What we have is a huge difference in income and power.  Of course a person is going to react.  If a person has a multiplier of say 5 or even 10 on someone, holds high public office and does not wield power in a Trumpian fashion, I don't see an issue with the person in public office having the higher income.  What really pisses me off is the CEO that earns? in 4 hours what a line worker earns in a year.  The Bill Gates reaching down to pick up a ten dollar bill problem.  He/she is not a product of effort, more of a product of circumstance. The pivotal problem is how the power that comes with the money is used.  It it is used in the way of the Koch brothers, I have an issue.  If it is used responsibly by people such as Gates and Buffett, I have little issue.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Clove Hitch

Halyard licker
10,349
1,604
around and about
Shootist Jeff said:
 If we do whatever steps to close the gap, how do we know when enough is enough?  Or will there ever be enough?
Maybe return tax rates to what they were under somebody like President Eisenhower?  Back then grocery store and restaurant workers could afford to buy houses and our infrastructure grew with amazing speed creating more commerce and  countless other benefits.

 

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
94,272
11,793
Earth
Maybe return tax rates to what they were under somebody like President Eisenhower?  Back then grocery store and restaurant workers could afford to buy houses and our infrastructure grew with amazing speed creating more commerce and  countless other benefits.
No, silly. The only way it isn’t socialism is if we return social policy to the 50s, so the nigras and the wimminfolk know their place. Tax policy needs to be modern. 

 

BeSafe

Super Anarchist
7,987
1,292
UBI tied to a national property tax. 

Since the majority of wealth is actually tied up in real estate, this is the fastest, most direct way to redistribute wealth (not income) with minimal government expansion since property tax is already widely collected. If wealth equality is your goal, that's a very easy way to flatten the curves.  It'll be a huge driver for growth as money 'hiding under the mattress' metaphorically speaking and pumped back into consumer's pockets.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
94,272
11,793
Earth
Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
The Republican party is about class warfare, dolt.
It isn’t just the GOP. The democRATS certainly didn’t crack down on the people who were too smart to fail on Wall Street. 

Its one class that has been waging war, and using their propaganda networks to keep the masses divided and hating each other. 

 




Top