Transformation of capitalism into socialism in the West

[GrLinkey]

As far as I know, over the past 100 years in Western countries there has been a continuous increase in taxes and the state’s share of GDP. For example, in Europe from 1950 to 2010, if I’m not mistaken, taxes had been increased from 33% to 55%. I'm still trying to understand the reason for this, and how it happens in democracies; As a result, I formulated two hypotheses which are completely opposite to each other:

1) The population in Western countries votes for socialists, because many people really like the power of socialists: when the state intervenes a lot in the economy, it has either economic or psychological bonuses. Swedish socialism is called an example of such a society;

2) And the second hypothesis implies that the population does not really want such a transformation, it simply does not solve anything - there is no democracy. All parties benefit from raising taxes, so they enter into an invisible conspiracy - they raise taxes, and try to expel those politicians who promise voters to lower the taxes. Here, the story of Margaret Thatcher is the exception that proves the rule.
Why do politicians benefit from raising taxes? Because politicians and officials are in charge of distributing public money, and this money goes through their pockets. I hope you have heard about the book “Parkinson’s laws”, he had described these processes.
Please write, which of these hypotheses must be correct, as you think.



I don't plagiarize

[1714617347]

1714617347

[1714617347]

1714617347

[1714617347]

1714617347

[1714617347]

1714617347

[1714617347]

1714617347

[Hispo]

But socialism is not by definion the end of the private sector, which controls the means of production, in favor of the collective ownership of those means of production? Because if we stick with those definitions we could argue neither USA,  Sweden, China or Russia are socialist countries, because you can still find private companies and entire sectors in those countries which are commanded by people who own factories, offices and hire personnel.

I would no call anything we are seeing as socialism, but rather some economical reforms implemented onto the taxpayers, so the state can further take care of the people who is not doing so well for whatever reason: lack of education, limited access to medical services, etc...
Whether we think it is a good thing or not, that is a different debate, due to a percentage of population thinking governments are not supposed to support people that much.

[franky1]

capitalism can simply be understood as:
citizens taxes go to the treasury, corporations get tax breaks and citizens taxes go back to subsidise corporations in an effort to trickle down to make things affordable for people at the bottom and keep those at the bottom employed

socialism can simply be understood as:
corporation tax goes to the treasury, citizens get tax breaks and corporations taxes go back to subsidise citizens in an effort to trickle up to make corporations sustainable and used by the people to also prevent the people at the bottom suffering/rebelling

alot of people confuse socialism with communism, where as communism is the part where majority of money lines the pockets of politicians
socialism doesnt make politicians rich. infact capitalism donations to political campaigns make politicians rich

...

alot of people think capitalism is needed because keeping businesses in profit even if it means subsidising or bailing out businesses keeps employment rolling to save the citizens from hardship. where by even if a business is a failure in self sustainability of its produce demand to the populous it, needs to be remain open and employable to keep citizens from getting free handouts

alot of people think socialism is needed because keeping citizens out of poverty even if it means subsidising or handing out citizens income keeps citizens alive and healthy which saves the government bigger prices later by avoiding healthcare cost explosions and ofcourse political protests. where by even if a citizen is poor it needs them to not be too poor where they become a problem economically, medically, politically

i personally think alot of tax money is wasted on the rich. they have enough money. i think we should treat taxes as a social insurance to pay for the things that are needed, not wanted. EG instead of town councils building houses and literally handing it over to rich estate agencies to profit from. those houses should be used as social housing for the homeless

where things like road repairs are catered for. but not for some tropical island residing CEO to manage remotely, but for the towns own local business

what needs to happen is not have stupidly high tax brackets for the rich, who then find tax avoidance loopholes to never pay that amount. but instead have a fair 10-20% everyone pays no matter their income with no loopholes. simplify the tax code

you dont need to categorise things as capitalist or socialist movements. just simplify the tax code to ensure everyone pays fair tax. then simplify the treasury expenditure to be more efficient in how each £$ is utilised to reach the populous's needs not wants

[pixie85]

^
Socialism is not only about taxes. It's also the way your private property is treated.
Socialism implies collectivism, central planning, disregarding private property. I'm not against taxing the richest corporations to help the poor, but every other part of socialist mindset makes me sick.

Every single capitalist that I knew was full of ideas and plans that can be achieved with time and a lot of hard work.
Every single socialist I knew was also full of ideas that can be realized with the help of other people's money.

Socialists are like parasites that don't look at themselves and want to take from others. They want to help the poor, they want to make other people's lives better, but it's always at the expense of others. Capitalists want to build something from nothing. Socialists want to build something from something else. They don't want to create but transform. 

[Gormicsta]

But socialism is not by definion the end of the private sector, which controls the means of production, in favor of the collective ownership of those means of production? Because if we stick with those definitions we could argue neither USA,  Sweden, China or Russia are socialist countries, because you can still find private companies and entire sectors in those countries which are commanded by people who own factories, offices and hire personnel.

I would no call anything we are seeing as socialism, but rather some economical reforms implemented onto the taxpayers, so the state can further take care of the people who is not doing so well for whatever reason: lack of education, limited access to medical services, etc...
Whether we think it is a good thing or not, that is a different debate, due to a percentage of population thinking governments are not supposed to support people that much.

One of the most fascinating aspects of this argument is that it raises fundamental concerns about the duty of government in society. Some individuals feel that the government should play a little role, while others consider that the government should be considerably more involved in citizens' lives. I believe that these differences in perspective can make it difficult to reach an agreement on particular policies, such as support from the government, but it is not always easy. A means to do this is by concentrating on the particular results we are trying to accomplish, rather than the particular initiatives we are arguing about, so that once we agree on the results that we desire, we can discuss the most effective ways to achieve those goals.