Does that relate in some way to my post, or is it simply an academic question?
Socialism is government control of the means of production.
If "spreading the wealth" via a graduated income tax is socialism, then the US has been socialistic for as long as I can remember, but no, that has nothing to do with government control of the means of production.
The feds taking over GM just might be socialist, especially if they maintain control over it.
Now, can we talk about hellish hairy sea monsters? It's so much more fun, you know.
Once again, the idea that a country can suddenly "pop" and be socialist, or "snap" become capitalist, is false.
A policy can be socialist, or capitalist, regardless of what the overall nationally dominated policy might be.
For example... In the Congo, the government has made extensive efforts to free up the national economy, giving wide freedom to build businesses, invest, and sell things on a free, and even international market. No question, this is Capitalism.
However... the Congo government has continued a policy of state owned utilities, namely the electric company. One of the biggest problems with the development of domestic industry, is the lack of a stable reliable source of power. No one will invest into power intensive industries when they can't trust the power will be on. This is obviously a socialist policy.
So is the Congo capitalist or socialist? Well state owned electric company is clearly socialist. Private business and free markets, is clearly capitalist. So it is possible for a country to have both types of policies.
In the USA, we have a state owned and operated mail service. We have a state owned mortgage company. We have a state owned health service, retirement fund, and now some banks and car companies. Yet we have some free markets, and private business.
Very few, if any, countries have a 100% complete capitalist system. Namely because people resent the systems that make them wealthy, and inherently vote to hinder themselves.
But specifically to income tax. An inherent part of capitalism, is the reward for success, whatever it might be. The right of property, whatever you own. Progressive income tax, is an affront to that end. Taking a larger and larger portion of someone elses rightful earnings, hinders the capitalist system.
It stems from the immoral belief that we should all be equal, even if we don't work the same, or do what someone really finds valuable. It stems from greed and envy of those who sacrificed to earn more, while they did not, and do not.
Economically speaking, it causes less money to be available for investment. It promotes moving wealth away from America. Some remember a tax on the yachting industry, which caused the industry to almost completely close down. The rich simply bought their yachts from other countries.
Similarly, high taxes on the rich cause the rich to move their income into other things, or other countries. Bank accounts in Luxembourg for example. Or to take stock options instead of cash. Or use other deduction. Or have free use of corporate jets. In any case, the cash disappeared instead of being invested back into the US.
It's ironic that former soviet bloc states, who lived through the poverty and economic crash of Socialism, have nearly all adopted flat taxes at very low rates, while the US who doesn't know the dangers of socialism, is adopting an every increasing progressive tax. For those who don't know, Russia has adopted a flat tax of 13% for all income levels. Rich to poor, they all pay the same % in taxes.
