Firstly, 95% of what has been said in the last two posts is ridiculously irrelevant. Seriously, quit the pseudo-trolling. It's not fun. It only requires one mature individual to ignore an irrelevant remark to nip it in the bud.
Not true. Private businesses would not produce streetlights and other services because of the 'free rider' principle. One can't distinguish who needs to pay for the use of such services, so they are provided from our tax money - something the government alone (not private businesses or individuals) has a mandate to do. Roads may be made toll roads, but this is an exception.Originally Posted by Sasquatch
It's a comparison, but it is not an accurate or appropriate one. A thief takes their money for their own purposes. Do you have evidence to suggest that thieves give back to the people from whom they steal? Yes, both thieves and the government may take our money, but from a functionalist perspective it is not taken under the same principle. Look at the result, not the intermediary. Government provides an unbelievably large range of neccessary services, whereas thieves do not. Thus, how can you say it is the same thing? It's like saying sport is a religion (I just wrote an essay on this); they look the same, with rituals, icons, rules, etc., but they have profoundly different purposes. One spiritual, the other earthly. Just as much energy is invested into each, but sport will never become an actual religion. Just as taxation will never constitute stealing, no matter how much you frame it as such.Just because it seems implausible doesn't mean it's not an applicable comparison. I mean really, I'd like an answer -- if somebody forces you to give them money, then does good things with it -- things you may actually want them to do -- did they steal your money, or did they not?
Mob rule? It's called a democracy. If the majority decides to do one thing, but one person says no, then the majority gets precedence. If the majority calls for lower taxes across the board, then a candidate with that agenda will come into power. If the majority call for higher marginal tax rates on the rich, and tax relief for the poor, then, again, this will be reflected in democratic institutions.Since when does mob rule apply? When does the will of the majority get to trample individual rights?
Oh, so healthcare is neccessary and you acknowledge it requires money? Looks like us "liberals" are getting somewhere. The government takes money in a different manner from robbers, and it is certainly neccessary (provision of services amidst the free rider principle). The US government does not tax people who earn less that $21,000 p.a., correct? And taxes more (proportionately, and thus literally) on wealthy people, as they can afford to pay more. Are robbers this discriminating, or do they just take the least secured money they can find? They do not steal from those who are 'more able' to be stolen from.How do you know? Maybe he's completely broke and he's using the money to buy food for his family. Maybe he's a drug addict, and without a score, he'll go into shock from withdrawals and die.
Of course bad things can happen, but much worse things would happen if everyone had a legal mandate to use force. It's called the police. They use force when neccessary (in theory). If we policed ourselves, violence would be much more out of control. As a side note, who or what funds the police?States have a legal monopoly on power -- and we know that nothing bad has ever happened as a result of the government having unrestricted power, right?
Personally, I equate selfishness to evilness. Among other things. It's evil to buy a Mercedes-Benz and drive it past a starving person, yes, absolutely, at least as far as I'm concerned. Your views differ, but c'est la vie.It's evil to NOT give your money away? I can see selfish, maybe, but evil? It's evil for somebody to spend their own money as they see fit?
I understand it is not a Constitutional right. Heck, it's not a constitutional right in New Zealand (our sorry excuse for a "constitution" consists of one document in two languages with a very poor translation between them, and a mix of random laws and precedents spread over a wide variety of issues - the right to healthcare, to my knowledge, is not one of them). Thing is, we still have public healthcare provision, along with (almost?) all of the non-US, industrialised world.Health insurance is not a right. It's certainly not a Constitutional right. Even if you consider healthcare to be a right, this "right" is not restricted by not having health insurance.
If one does not have health insurance in the USA, they must eventually front up with money, correct? Yes, you provided details about how they can apparently pay very little, and how you will not be refused treatment, but there's still a cost involved somewhere, correct? In addition, it's apparent that it can impact your credit rating. Ouch. That surely means that access to healthcare in the United States is at least somewhat limited to the poor.
Now, acknowledging, but disregarding the fact that it is not 'enshrined' in your precious Constitution, can you please justify, on moral grounds, the omission of healthcare as a 'right' of every citizen of your fair land?
I will attempt here my own explanation for why it should be considered a right, even if it is not expressly included in official documents, such as the NZ or US "Constitutions".
Goods such as flash cars, mansions, and PS3s are luxury items. Expensive, unnecessary, and limited to thoseluckywealthy enough to have (monetary) access to them. They are not for everyone, and thus there is no "PS3 Stamps" programme of which I am aware. However, goods and services such as basic shelter, food, clothing,and basic education are neccessary, or at least deemed neccessary enough, in our society. If these things, then why not healthcare for people without insurance? I say again: It is a right, as it is neccessary. I agree that people have to work to earn privileges: the Mercedes-Benz to drive past poor people, the PS3, etc. But why should people be forced to work (and this doesn't just mean a job, I use it in the same way you would use "responsibility" or "choices") in order to receive heath care, when it is just as neccessary as shelter, food, clothing, and education? In fact, it is probably more important than education. Restricting access to it (through price; i.e. private businesses/profit seeking) impacts on people's right to a quality of life befitting their place in First World society.
People can earn the privilege of living in a mansion, but living in a box (or lacking food, shelter, sanitation, healthcare) is so inhumane, that it can never be justified. Are poor people animals to you? Maybe they were lazy. Maybe they didn't work hard. Maybe they were just victims of circumstance. But if that means they are suddenly forced to live in a box on the side of the road, I ask what kind of society do you seek? Certainly not a compassionate one.Most people deserve to live exactly how they live, be they rich or poor. I don't deserve to live in a mansion because I didn't earn it, and I don't expect to. On the other hand, I don't deserve to live in a box, because I earned much more than that. If I made bad decisions, squandered my money, screwed myself over to get fired from my job, etc., etc., then I would deserve a much lower quality of life than I enjoy now.
free health care should be provided to those in the U.S. that need it such as lower and some middle class citizens. Yes free health care would mean higher taxes at the end of the year but is it not worth to ensure that those in the U.S. that need the health care get it.
GO OBAMA
http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/b...7591355249.jpg
I'll only respond to the sections of this post that are worthy of a response, instead of the "I banged your wife" bullshit. Some of us (while apparently not all) are better than that.
Why do you think that only people who are worth a hundred million dollars get taxed extra? I showed you proof that even somebody who makes $75,000 will pay more than $17k in taxes, while somebody who makes $20k will get money from the other taxpayers.
Not in a Capitalist economy. If you'd like to live in a Socialist economy, go ahead -- I'll tell you what, even. You give me your Social Security card so I can make sure that you never have a voice in American government, and I will personally come pack all your stuff into boxes and help pay for your move. I will lovingly wrap your knick-knacks in bubble-paper. Deal?Income should be redistributed.
It is when the vast majority of those people have earned what they have, whether it be a little or a lot.It's not fair that so many people have morbidly obese amounts of income whereas so many more people live in poverty, lower, or middle-class.
What's wrong, didn't understand it? Somebody has the ability to give more, so they should be forced to give more -- that's exactly what you're advocating with over-taxation of the more successful. Why not apply that across the board? Why not have more muscular people be required to work harder for the same amount of pay, because they can? Why not have smarter people be required to take more difficult tests in school, because they can?No. Did I ever tell you your examples completely suck?
I said that the wealthy earned their money, without mentioning anybody besides the wealthy, and you automatically assume that I said something else entirely that does include other people. No, I didn't. I didn't say anything about anybody besides the wealthy. But if you'd like -- people earn the money they have. If they're wealthy, chances are high that they deserve to be wealthy. If they're poor, chances are high that they deserve to be poor.Yes, you kind of did. You said that the wealthy earned their money, while simultaneously making no mention of anybody besides the wealthy.
Now please stop attempting to fabricate opposing arguments, and argue against what I said instead of what you supposedly "understood".
Their checkbook. You know, having more money usually reflects financial success.Who says they're more successful?
The companies that were bailed out by taxpayer dollars? You blame the companies for mismanaging their money, but not the government for giving them taxpayer money to spend as they see fit?Think about Wall Street, the banks, the automobile industry.
I asked for examples -- do you have the ability to provide any examples to back up your claim, or do you not?Like things that cost extra, or things that aren't covered at all, that shouldn't cost extra or should be covered. Things like that. If you need a specific example, just look at your own health insurance.
Finally, you're correct. I give a damn about my own problems and nobody else's -- if I do choose to give a damn about somebody else's problems, it's just that -- a choice. And I have the right to be concerned about myself. Unfortunately, the federal government had decided to infringe upon individual freedom and force people to give up individual rights for "the common good".I didn't say it was your problem. Nothing is your problem, because you don't give a damn about anything.
They personally make over fifty million dollars per year? I'd like to see some evidence of that. Not that their company makes that much, but that they make that much.Way more than half a dozen. There's about two dozen people in little old Delaware who make way over fifty million dollars.
I've never seen you advocate for less government control, but I have seen you complain about the economy, even though the abundance of government control is what put the economy into the toilet.It's their job to regulate the economy, though. They've been doing a bang up job, huh?
Volunteering isn't a job. That's why it's called [i]volunteering[i]. A job -- even according to a dictionary -- is a task one does in return for compensation. If you don't get compensation, it's not a job.Actually, yes they are. I can give you plenty of examples of jobs where nobody gets paid. One is called volunteering.
I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the millions upon millions of people who have taken as many credits as they could, worked as much as they could, kept up with physical fitness, and still had time. That's called "putting yourself through college", and it sucks, but it works. You're not the only one who's ever done it, kid.I never said I work out. I said I exercise. Working out implies weight training. I hate weight training. And I'm not taking eighteen credits, I'm taking thirteen. And at the moment, I'm not working. Stop assuming that you know me.
Your grandparents having their own place of residence isn't a necessity.Things that aren't necessities? My grandparents having a roof over their heads isn't necessary?
It's still an investment. Your paying money and time in, hoping to get a good return in the future.It's not an investment if you're going to community college. It's cheaper, and I still can't afford it yet.
You would die if you drank as much water as you need to work all day in, what, ninety, hundred degree heat? That's odd -- I worked for more than two years in a climate in which temperatures climbed to over a hundred and fifty degrees, and I'm not dead. And I drank at least three or four gallons of water every day, without even noticing how much I was drinking. Hell, even Basic Training in Missouri entailed drinking a quart of water every hour we were awake, and I survived that just fine.I would, but if I drank as much as I need, my cells would drown, and I would die.
You know how I mentioned working "smarter, harder, or longer"? Doing it all day, every day would be "working longer". You could also work harder -- bust your ass -- or, even better, work smarter -- save up and buy a bigger lawnmower, start your own business, hire other people, etc. There are plenty of businesses that do nothing but lawn care and landscaping, and they started with somebody mowing lawns.I'd have to do it constantly, all day, every day, for about thirty years.
Found something interesting, as well: According to economist Walter E. Williams, 4% (1/25) Americans (11 million) are millionaires. According to the U.S. Trust survey, the wealthiest Americans worked an average of 56 hours/wk for their first 29 working years. Less than 11% of them inherited their wealth.
First, are streetlights "necessary"? Second, if people wanted them, they could easily form a small conglomerate to purchase the services and goods that they deemed necessary, without involving the citizens that don't use them. Say, if a city wanted streetlights down their main drag, they could put a toll on either end of the main drag, to only charge the people that use that road, instead of forcing the people who lived on the outskirts to pay for something that they don't use.
The government does not have a mandate to do anything but protect its citizens.One can't distinguish who needs to pay for the use of such services, so they are provided from our tax money - something the government alone (not private businesses or individuals) has a mandate to do.
Toll roads don't charge people that don't use the toll roads. Why must other government services charge people that don't use them?Roads may be made toll roads, but this is an exception.
Says who? Are you telling me that everybody who has ever stolen anything has always done it strictly for personal gain? What about the situations I posted -- somebody stealing to feed their family? Or even to purchase an addictive drug, because the withdrawal would kill them?It's a comparison, but it is not an accurate or appropriate one. A thief takes their money for their own purposes.
Other than the government, not really, but you don't have evidence otherwise, either. Not that fits every situation.Do you have evidence to suggest that thieves give back to the people from whom they steal?
According to the definition of stealing, the end doesn't matter -- stealing is a means with an irrelevant end. So you're saying that the government stealing is alright, but a citizen stealing is not?Yes, both thieves and the government may take our money, but from a functionalist perspective it is not taken under the same principle.
First, the United States isn't a democracy, it's a republic. We don't vote on our laws, we appoint people to represent us that vote on our laws. Second, the United States has always lived under the idea that mob rule doesn't apply -- that the will of the majority cannot trample the rights of the minority. Think back into history -- if the majority of the population supported racial segregation, does that mean it didn't violate any individual rights?Mob rule? It's called a democracy. If the majority decides to do one thing, but one person says no, then the majority gets precedence.
I really don't know where you got that from what you quoted. Health insurance is not a necessity, as one can receive healthcare without insurance, and without money. Obama's plan is labeled as "healthcare", but it isn't -- it's health insurance. Anybody in America -- even people who aren't Americans, for cryin' out loud -- can go to the hospital and receive care.Oh, so healthcare is neccessary and you acknowledge it requires money?
How? They take it out of your paycheck without your consent, and if you manage to have them take less then they think they should, they come to your house with guns and arrest you. First they steal through covertness, then they steal through force or threat of force.The government takes money in a different manner from robbers ...
They don't just not tax them, they redistribute other taxpayers' money to them.The US government does not tax people who earn less that $21,000 p.a., correct?
Says who? Think like a mugger for a minute. You see two people walking down the street, and you want to rob one of them. One of them is wearing sweatpants and a t-shirt. The other is wearing a three-piece suit. Which is your score? How do muggers not rob people with the "ability" to pay more?And taxes more (proportionately, and thus literally) on wealthy people, as they can afford to pay more. Are robbers this discriminating, or do they just take the least secured money they can find? They do not steal from those who are 'more able' to be stolen from.
That's opinion. Facts counter that argument -- areas with more firearms rights have less violent crime, etc.Of course bad things can happen, but much worse things would happen if everyone had a legal mandate to use force.
Like I said, the only thing that the government is mandated to do is protect its citizens. Police forces are protection.As a side note, who or what funds the police?
Just because they are asked for money for it does not at all mean that it's limited. They can limit themselves, sure, but whether somebody makes twenty million a year or twenty thousand, they have the same access to healthcare.If one does not have health insurance in the USA, they must eventually front up with money, correct? Yes, you provided details about how they can apparently pay very little, and how you will not be refused treatment, but there's still a cost involved somewhere, correct? In addition, it's apparent that it can impact your credit rating. Ouch. That surely means that access to healthcare in the United States is at least somewhat limited to the poor.
Justify? Why? I don't need to justify why something isn't a government obligation -- not in America. Here, we are supposed to have to justify why something is.Now, acknowledging, but disregarding the fact that it is not 'enshrined' in your precious Constitution, can you please justify, on moral grounds, the omission of healthcare as a 'right' of every citizen of your fair land?
But if, say, I was in a different country with a different set of rules. Why should my money be covertly or forcibly taken without consent (stolen) from me to pay for services for somebody who cannot or does not pay for their own? I have a right to keep the money I earn, not have it redistributed to those less successful.
You are considering the idea that government-forced income redistribution is the only way for poor people to get money, and completely discounting charity, especially from the United States, which has the most charitable people in the world.People can earn the privilege of living in a mansion, but living in a box (or lacking food, shelter, sanitation, healthcare) is so inhumane, that it can never be justified. Are poor people animals to you? Maybe they were lazy. Maybe they didn't work hard. Maybe they were just victims of circumstance. But if that means they are suddenly forced to live in a box on the side of the road, I ask what kind of society do you seek? Certainly not a compassionate one.
Not really -- somebody who makes $300,000 would be taxed closer to 35%, not 10%.
PR ... You live in Puerto Rico? Cool.I presume you're familiar with how things work in the IRS, so I'll save the description; I might be a bit off considering how things work there and how they work here (residents of PR don't file an IRS tax return unless they have assets in the mainland; the tax return is self-managed).
You're also referring to PR taxes, not federal taxes -- I'd imagine that PR taxes are much like state taxes, with much lower rates (and thus, many more deductibles and much higher differences in rates) than federal taxes.As usual, every single individual has to pay a specific amount of their annual income in contributions based on tables and guidelines. As usual, there are credits and exemptions that are applied to that contribution as adjustments (this includes both tax cuts for the rich, and credits and exemptions for poor people; in effect, both sides have some sort of tax cut through credits and exemptions). And as usual, these lead into a bit of a headache and either a tax refund or a tax payment.
It's different with federal taxes -- there aren't many tax credits, an only deductions for certain things. (Credit = you get money; Deduction = you don't have to pay taxes on this money)However, the extent and weight of those credits are what make things different. Some credits are general (such as the credits for dependants, or however it is called by the IRS), and some are specific (exemptions for the possession of land, for example). Very few exemptions often apply to the people within the low-middle class, usually the dependant or single person credits, as well as any relatively minor or one-time credit present. The wealthier people, capable of doing some investment, receive a larger scale credit for that, and usually are capable of claiming other credits and exemptions that people of a lower income cannot.
Except that they pay such a disproportionate amount in taxes -- so much more than their fair share -- that even if they earned enough deductions to be taxed at a reasonable rate (which would be quite a bit), they would still be pulling their own weight.Problem lies when the meaning over that credit gets lost, and effectively you're reducing their tax contribution for virtually nothing.
It'd be a deduction, as opposed to a credit, but yeah ...Say, as an example, that you as an individual are given a credit for a large-scale donation.
If you get something for it, it's an investment (and thereby taxable), not a donation.Now, let's say that donation is more of an investment, since by making that donation, you perhaps gain access to the Board of Directors of that company.
Legally, that would be considered an investment. You mention fraud a little later (I'll just address it here instead of quoting everything and making this an even longer post), and that would be exactly that -- fraud. Even if somebody got away with receiving some type of compensation for a "donation", whether it be a position, goods, services, etc., and it wasn't taxed, they would be completely screwed when they were audited. Not only would they be taxed on their "donation" like they should have been anyway, they would be forced to give up their position within the company, since they got it through illegal means (tax evasion), and have to pay fines for their crime.For legal purposes, it's a "donation" but it would really become an investment, or a bought share.
The deductions are so few and the rate so disproportionately high that this would be nearly impossible, unless a wealthy person gave up almost all of their money. Like I said, they wouldn't get credits, they'd get deductions -- if I made a million dollars a year and gave a hundred thousand to charity, I'd be taxed on $900,000. The only way to fall into a lower tax bracket would be to give away nearly all of my money.Now lets say that, by consecutively applying such credits lost in meaning, the percentage of the contribution by the wealthier individual becomes lower than that of the average income individual.
The top 1% of wage earners in America earn about 17% of the wages -- but they pay 37% of the taxes. If they paid even half of their tax burden, they'd still be paying more than their fair share.What would happen if, instead of giving a conditional tax cut, the tax cut was merely devoid of any meaning? No "get me more jobs and I give you a cut" or the like. That's what most of these people would be arguing; while most of the credits so far usually have a specific condition, those tax cuts weren't mentioned to have any other circumstance other than the apparent "they're rich, hence we cut their taxes". Which, I fear, is what you're mostly supporting; they make more money, so why bother asking them to pay for more? Eventually, without monitoring those tax cuts, the 5% of the population with nearly 80% of the country's income will pay 1% less than the 95% of the population with the 20% remaining income, just because they are successful and they deserve it.
I advocate "tax cuts for the rich" because the rich pay too much in taxes now. As I said before, I want everybody to pay their fair share -- whether they're lower class or upper class. If federal taxes were disproportionately overtaxing the lower class, I'd have the same problem.
I'm not sure I understand you here. I support a flat tax. Now, if somebody wants to give to charity so they fall into a lower tax bracket, that's no problem -- like I said, it's not like they'll have the money but not pay taxes on it. If they want to do something illegal and get compensated for their "donation", I would have a problem with that, as it would be a fraudulent transaction and tax evasion.How would that tie in? Well, considering that the idea of the credits and exemptions are to determine your exact contribution, I fail to see how they are giving me money from fellow taxpayers instead of returning the excess income they took with a flat percentage tax.
The way it is now, though, I have a big problem with -- those who make more money are having their income redistributed to those who make less. As I pointed out, somebody who makes $20k/yr will get about $3600 from their fellow taxpayers -- not contributing less because they make less, but actually creating an even bigger drain on the country.
I'm all for fairness -- those who earn more should of course contribute more, as long as it's proportionate. Somebody that earns twice as much as I do should contribute twice as much as I do, not three or four times as much. And while there are deductions that lower a person's taxable income, their taxable income is also their usable income, and if they take every deduction they can get, sure they won't be paying much, but they will have very little to live on.Reason I mention this is the inherent arrogance in the concept of "because I earn more, I should not contribute more" coupled with the concept of tax cuts without a specific meaning, existing only to "level" the contribution of the wealthier individuals without comparing the effect of existing credits that may end up setting the contribution lower than the average individual's income.
Hahahah, good luck!In either case, I do want to elaborate on something, which I'd expect the President to consider given circumstances (if he stays true to the word that he'll listen to any good idea).
I'm not familiar with "gatekeeping", care to elaborate?Mostly, on the concept of "gatekeeping", which is a practice I find a bit archaic and rather dangerous, since unless you can get the choice with a very good doctor you can earn your trust (such as your choice internist, family doctor or general practitioner), the concept fails horribly. This method of health care is one I don't agree much with, given that it's mostly a leap of faith, and given the usual results.
My main issue is this: Change is not always good. All too many people are chomping at the bit for "change", without realizing that a lot of it is change for the worse.Though...that's a good question. If not Obamacare, then what? ... But if what's already offered sucks badly, and what's currently sucks badly, then what? I've seen a lot of criticism, yet no options (or at least not a discussion where the options would be visible enough not to be driven by the conversation), and that's mostly like doing nothing.
Say, you have a car. Your car is a piece of crap. You need a new car. Are you going to go out and get another piece of crap, paying much more for it, just because it's different? Hell no, you're going to be smarter than that. You're going to realize that, even though it's not the best, your car still gets you from point A to point B. You're going to either replace a few things on your car or shop around until you find the best alternative -- without overpaying, and without jumping at the chance to get a new car just because it's different. When you have a crappy car, a lot of other cars look better -- that doesn't mean that they are better, they just look better. The person that immediately trades his car for a different one will soon realize that he didn't get a better car, just a different car, and now he's paying more for a crappy car again.
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
Yes, but still, many people who make $20k and below who receive money from other tax payers still don't have enough money to pay their own taxes. Obviously in that retrospect, the current system isn't working.
America borrowed many aspects of it's government, although a democracy, from socialism. It's already a pretty socialist system.
My point this entire time has been that the people who have been more financially successful have wealth enough to pay higher taxes. Although they pay proportionately the same amount of taxes associating with their amount of income, a temporary solution to fix some of the problems with the economy would be to tax them more, due to the fact that they can afford it. But overall, the system needs to be changed.
That's a complete lie. Nobody deserves to be dirt poor. Nobody deserves to have an overabundance of money while so many others are in poverty. Chances are, if you're born into a poor or middle-class family, you will stay in that financial class for the rest of your life. If you're born upper-class, chances are, you'll stay in that financial class for the rest of your life.
Or it reflects organized crime. A lot of those Mafia guys have some pretty nice checkbooks.
I never said I didn't blame the government for giving them that money, but I can't really put much blame in their hands. They're not the irresponsible pricks who threw away bail money on overly large bonuses.
You should choose to care about other people more often. The decision not to care is what makes the world a cold place to live in.
I used to work for the DuPont's. I was on the assembly line in one of their factories. I can tell you from experience, just from being on the assembly line, that they make a hell of a lot of money.
Then the government needs to change the way it does business. But the fact remains that society can't function without an organized government. That's why I don't advocate for less government control.
I don't know where you volunteer, but even if you're not getting paid, you're still compensated in some way. For example, in small towns, if you volunteer for a position that doesn't offer pay, you're discounted at local shops.
That's your opinion, but that's their house. We're not making them move. They're too old for that.
Community college is designed to be cheaper, and therefore, I should still have money left over after I finish paying. I don't, however.
That surprises me. Working outside for two years in one hundred and fifty degree weather is essentially asking for heat stroke.
That seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me, making you drink that much water. Looks like they treat prisoners better than they treat soldiers, which is weird, considering soldiers are supposed to get respect for what they're doing.
A landscaping business isn't for me. I only mow lawns for two reasons, the money, and the exercise.
Even less than 11% out of 11 million people is still a lot. I never said it was the majority.
I'd also like to point out, both my father and my grandfather worked over 56 hours a week for 30 years, and in the last few years of his career, my father worked an average of 82 hours a week. That makes me proud. They were harder working that most millionaires.
i live in canada, (great country) and our healthcare system is great, but i think we should share it with the americans, nomatter how much they think we live in igloos (wich we dont) and them taking our ideas is great. so more people will be abble to live better lives.
Been gone a long while but im back now and not as annoying. promise
THANKS TO ANDROMEDA
... Please explain to me how they can get money by filing tax returns -- not pay, but be paid -- and still not "have enough money to pay their own taxes". They don't have enough money to pay a negative amount in taxes? They don't have enough money to receive tax money?
Socialism is commonly thought to have originated with the French Revolution of 1789. The United States was created in 1776, and the Constitution in 1787. Democracy has existed for centuries, while socialism is a relatively new idea. America didn't "borrow" anything from socialism.America borrowed many aspects of it's government, although a democracy, from socialism.
And it's already got plenty of problems because of that. When government control causes problems, the solution to those problems isn't more government control.It's already a pretty socialist system.
And my point is that they shouldn't be punished for being successful.My point this entire time has been that the people who have been more financially successful have wealth enough to pay higher taxes.
... Now, I've told you, I've explained to you, I've showed you, I've even given you a link to the IRS tax rates. People with more money DO NOT PAY PROPORTIONATELY THE SAME AMOUNT. They pay an extreme amount more.Although they pay proportionately the same amount of taxes associating with their amount of income ...
If you made twice as much money as I did, proportionally, you should pay twice as much, correct? That would be proportion. Instead, under the system we have now, you could pay three or four times as much, easily. That's not "proportionally the same amount of taxes". Not at all.
A permanent solution would be to tax them fairly, so instead of relocating their business overseas, they stay in America, employing Americans.... a temporary solution to fix some of the problems with the economy would be to tax them more, due to the fact that they can afford it.
Ever heard of "brain drain"? It's what happens when a country moves closer to socialism. The best and brightest in each field -- electronics, medicine, etc. -- move away. If they're not going to make any more money than Joe Blow off the street who's just mediocre, why should they stay? Why should anybody work harder, longer, or smarter when they won't be paid more for it? The opposite -- "brain gain" -- is what happens when countries become more fair, letting people keep the money they earn.
Yes, it does. It needs to be fair. One flat tax rate -- nobody paying more or less than their fair share.But overall, the system needs to be changed.
If somebody drops out of high school, gets into drugs and alcohol, knocks some girl up, doesn't care to get a job or make themselves better ... yes, they deserve to be dirt poor. They sure as hell don't deserve to have the same amount of money as somebody who competed high school, stayed clean, stayed responsible, and went on to further education.That's a complete lie. Nobody deserves to be dirt poor.
They are if they make it legally.Nobody deserves to have an overabundance of money while so many others are in poverty.
Like my father and his brother and sister, who were born lower-middle-class but are now upper-middle or upper class? Or my grandfather, who was born during the Great Depression, the lowest of lower-class possible, who, with an eighth-grade education, provided for a wife and three children? Or a family friend, who worked two full-time jobs for forty years so that his wife could stay home and raise their three kids?Chances are, if you're born into a poor or middle-class family, you will stay in that financial class for the rest of your life.
Or me? My father was financially devastated immediately after his divorce, when I was four years old. I remember dancing around the table with my brother and sister singing, "we're having Buggs Bunny for dinner!" when my father had shot a rabbit and was going to clean and cook it for our meal. My father later told me that if he hadn't shot that rabbit, we wouldn't have eaten that night. I lived in ten different towns -- in four different states -- before I turned sixteen, because we couldn't afford to stay in one place, kept moving for better jobs, better pay, benefits, etc. Because of what my father taught me -- directly and indirectly -- I now have a vehicle, a place of residence, and a bank account I could live comfortably off of for a few years.
I've seen people pull themselves up, and I've seen people sink themselves down. It wasn't "circumstance", it wasn't "fortune", they weren't "victims" of any sort -- it was their own doing, good or bad.
And there's a reason for that. Like I've said many times before, the rich keep getting richer because they keep doing what made them rich -- while the poor keep getting poorer because they keep doing what made them poor.If you're born upper-class, chances are, you'll stay in that financial class for the rest of your life.
And there's absolutely nothing saying that any substantial number of wealthy Americans have any involvement in organized crime. Nice try.Or it reflects organized crime. A lot of those Mafia guys have some pretty nice checkbooks.
... They gave hundreds of billions of dollars to companies which everybody knew were fiscally irresponsible, and you "can't put much blame in their hands"? If I found a child and gave it a loaded gun, could you put much blame in my hands?I never said I didn't blame the government for giving them that money, but I can't really put much blame in their hands. They're not the irresponsible pricks who threw away bail money on overly large bonuses.
It also makes the world run. I'm perfectly happy giving to charity, and I do it quite often. I just don't like being forced to support those who don't support themselves.You should choose to care about other people more often. The decision not to care is what makes the world a cold place to live in.
They do a lot of business, yes -- which means that they pay a hell of a lot of money for labor, supplies, equipment, etc. and that they make a hell of a lot in return. Do you have anything at all (credible) that says that two dozen people in Delaware make $50,000,000+ per year?I used to work for the DuPont's. I was on the assembly line in one of their factories. I can tell you from experience, just from being on the assembly line, that they make a hell of a lot of money.
Keep in mind -- not the company. The person. The money that the company makes has to be paid out to its employees and suppliers, and the rest is usually used for R&D or expansion.
That's debatable. Still, government control is often the cause of problems, and some people instead consider it the solution. We're tried more government control, how about we try less?Then the government needs to change the way it does business. But the fact remains that society can't function without an organized government.
... yes, that's compensation. If you work with the understanding that you will receive some sort of compensation -- in the form of money, services, goods, discounts, etc. -- it's not volunteering, it's a job. You are doing something for them, and they are giving you something in return. If you volunteer with no intention of receiving any compensation, and it is given to you anyway, it is a gift -- it wasn't a deal you made, there was no agreement, you gave them your work for free and they decided to give you something.I don't know where you volunteer, but even if you're not getting paid, you're still compensated in some way. For example, in small towns, if you volunteer for a position that doesn't offer pay, you're discounted at local shops.
Oh, it sucks. As much as the sun whups your ass, being in a vehicle (especially an Olive-Drab Green vehicle) with no air conditioning is unreal. Sure, you have shade, but no breeze. Most of the water in Iraq and Kuwait comes in liter-and-a-half bottles, and it's pretty common to drink a case of twelve in a day without even noticing.That surprises me. Working outside for two years in one hundred and fifty degree weather is essentially asking for heat stroke.
Of course, there's a higher risk for hot-weather injuries, but Soldiers are usually pretty disciplined in how to take care of themselves. Must be all that brainwashing.
Army Basic Training, like Marine Corps. Boot Camp, accomplishes two things: First, it trains every Soldier in the basics -- shoot, move, communicate, maintain. Discipline is key to that. You think you could take a bunch of recent high-school graduates and get them to do the things Soldiers do, and it'd be easy? First, it takes a special breed of person, and second, it takes training and experience. To receive that training, one must be healthy -- drinking too much water can be bad for you, sure, but if you're sweating most of it out, more water is good (up to a point). The second thing Basic Training does ... you could call it hazing. Initiation. I know when I look at another Soldier, no matter what job he has or what rank he is, that he went through the toughest few months of his life to become what he is, and I automatically have respect for him. If it was easy to become a Soldier, Soldiers wouldn't deserve as much respect.That seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me, making you drink that much water. Looks like they treat prisoners better than they treat soldiers, which is weird, considering soldiers are supposed to get respect for what they're doing.
I hate to break this to you, but Canadian healthcare sucks. Thousands upon thousands of Canadians every year cross the border to get into American hospitals. About one quarter of Canadians on waiting lists for operations die before they get them.
This is a reasonable comparison to Obama's plan, since Canada's Medicare and Britain's NHS are the closest things to Obama's. Claude Castonguay, who prettymuch devised the Quebec system, which later was adopted by the rest of the nation, admits that it's a disaster, and that it's time to give more power back to private healthcare: "We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it... We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
Okay, so what I was talking about and what you're obviously talking about aren't the same things. I was talking about people who need to pay taxes, who don't have enough money to pay taxes. Not people who receive tax money from other tax payers.
Yes, America did borrow aspects from socialism. It doesn't matter how new a political movement is, the fact of the matter is, the Federalist, democratic republic that the government that the country was founded on isn't the same government that we have today. Throughout the history of the country, the style of government used has changed various times, while still maintaining some aspects of the democratic-republic society.
The only reason why government control doesn't work is because America has a week governmental system. If you fix the system, you strengthen stability.
It isn't a punishment. More of a responsibility.
I was literally going by what you said earlier. You said that increasing taxes for the rich was wrong because then the proportion between the amount of money made and the amount of taxes paid would be thrown off balance, with the poor and middle class paying proportionally less based on how much money that they made. If you made a mistake, then you can correct yourself.
And if these "fair" taxes continue, hardly anybody will have any money to spend in said businesses, hence causing them to relocate overseas anyway, due to a cutback in the amount of income earned. That's not a permanent solution. That's just doing absolutely nothing and letting things get worse and worse.
Maybe people shouldn't work as hard. If Einstein didn't work as hard, he would have never discovered nuclear fusion. Then, the atomic bomb would have never been created, World War II would have been ended on a more respectable note, the Soviet Union would never have decided to go nuclear, preventing the entire Cold War, and causing wars like Korea and Vietnam to decrease in severity. At worst, the space race would never have happened, but going into space doesn't really benefit mankind, so who the hell gives a damn?
One flat tax rate will increase the gap between rich and poor once the boys up top give another industriously large tax cut to the wealthy while seemingly increasing taxes of the working class. It'll end up becoming just another vicious circle.
No, even that person, no matter how disgraceful he may be, deserve to be dirt poor. Just because somebody makes huge mistakes in life doesn't mean that that person should be forced to live with those choices for the rest of his natural life, even though that's what society today offers to people like that. Everybody deserves a shot at redemption.
There should be a limit. People with too much money have too much power. People with too much power become too corrupted. People who are too corrupted end up making bad decisions which lead to the world being in worse shape than it already was. People need to keep their egos in check.
You're ignorant. You have no idea what goes on in the world. People who are born into poverty aren't presented with many solutions to get them out of poverty. I'm not saying that everybody born with little, little money doesn't become financially successful, but the majority of them die with only about $25,000 to their name.
You know, ignorance can get a man killed. There's a huge difference between being born rich and being born poor. If you're born poor, you aren't presented with many opportunities to get rich. If you're born rich, you're presented with plenty of opportunities to stay rich.
You said having more money reflects financial success. I was just giving an example of having financial success by illegal means. However, I wasn't aware that I had to be speaking of a substantial number of wealthy Americans to give a loan example, so pardon me.
The government shouldn't have to take responsibility for companies being irresponsible with their bailout. The companies lied to the government, which is the precise reason why they got the bailouts in the first place. Money hungry bloodsucking bastards.
Precisely what's wrong with the world.
The DuPont's take in way over $50,000,000 a year. They own at least half of the major businesses in the state of Delaware. They own the majority of the property in the entire state. Not to mention that they own other businesses in various countries all around the world. The only other business that has come relatively close to competing with them is Astrazeneca, another company that makes well over $50,000,000 a year.
Trust me, the DuPont's are loaded. Every single one of those inbred bastards is worth a fortune. You may argue your side, but until you live in Delaware, you have no idea the power that this family holds.
I honestly think that if there was less government control, crime rates would skyrocket. I don't think people can be trusted.
Alright, I agree with that.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that being brainwashed is a bad thing. It helps rid the soldier of his independence, so instead of thinking in terms of I, he thinks in term of the unit. It makes the person more compatible for war zones, which is why ordinary American citizens wouldn't last a day in Iraq. Not to mention that it makes you stronger.
That's very noble, respectful, and humble.
Fair share of taxes can be even more of a headache than a solution. While everybody would pay the same, the current amount of taxes paid by the bulk of the population would rise to such an amount that a much more sizeable amount of their income would be slashed to compensate for the rates. It would be fair if the share was limited to the least of the current taxing (10%, which is the lowest rate), but if suddenly you were forced to pay 15% more and the rich only get a moderate 10% reduction to make it an equal share, there would be several problems and a possible hit to the economy; mostly since the people that pay currently 35% may probably have a serious buffer in case things go wrong, but the bulk of the population with the lower rates would suddenly see a decrease in their income, which is pretty compromised. No amount of "you should have saved" or such counsel may reduce the impact of a reduced income for the bulk of the population; some people almost completely depend on their income, to the point that they must sacrifice at times food in order to pay their bills.
I'd consider fair share if it considered the impact on loans and mortgages, and how would that be considered. Albeit not paying to the government, it wouldn't be exactly fair to issue such a severe switch to income that will cause, say, the lower middle class to request and acquire a loan to reduce the impact on the reduced income, but eventually acquiring a larger debt because of interests. It's not a small, minimal possibility; it is a serious possibility that might shift the income condition even further.
This would apply, of course, to loans and/or mortgages used for explicit purposes of paying extraordinary bills. I won't deal with credit cards, since that's consumerism and one of the reasons several people are unnecessarily indebted; more so, by their own fault. Mortgages to pay for a new house or for a necessary article are also considerable points to handle.
Again, in the case of tax returns, I fail to see how such deductions and credits such as in the case of dependants, or mortgages, which are considered to be necessary and largely irreducible consumption of income becomes a shift in income, if the intention is to return a specific amount of contribution that is not retained, that is deducted from your retained amount of gross income through taxes.The way it is now, though, I have a big problem with -- those who make more money are having their income redistributed to those who make less. As I pointed out, somebody who makes $20k/yr will get about $3600 from their fellow taxpayers -- not contributing less because they make less, but actually creating an even bigger drain on the country.
Perhaps the way it works in the federal scale is different, perhaps not, but the idea is this: if I get the papers that identify the amount of money I earned during the year, plus the amount deducted by my paycheck for taxes (here is the W-2, I dunno if state-wise or federal-wise it's the same), and after filling the tax forms and realizing that, through deductions, I am entitled to a tax return for exactly the amount of money that was retained for taxes, I fail to see how that turns into "fellow taxpayers give me money". Perhaps it's the system?
Hey, it's not me; it's his words. What if it manages to happen? I could make him accountable for that, but sadly I don't vote for the President (it is not a right we have here, although if I were to move to the US I could). Not that I see it as truly important at the moment; I feel there's other things that must be solved first locally before considering said factor (the size of the local Senate and House of Representatives and their earnings, for example)Hahahah, good luck!
It's the usual "alternative" (although I can't deem to refer to it as an alternative) to free selection healthcare plans (aka, where you choose the doctor/s that wish to attend you). Through "gatekeeping", the healthcare plan assigns you to a specific doctor (either by forcefully assigning you to it, or by limited choice), normally a generalist, intern or family doctor. That doctor usually handles most cases, and handles referrals to medical procedures outside of its specialty (for example, lab tests or visits to a cardiologist/ophtalmologist); effectively, said doctor has to authorize the procedure in order for the healthcare insurer to pay for it.I'm not familiar with "gatekeeping", care to elaborate?
Gatekeeping turns into a serious problem at any moment. Usually, troubles with such practice lie upon: potential malpractice by either restraining an important study or operation, or by sending a referral to a doctor that may incur on malpractice or negligence itself; delayed procedures, and so on. Basically, it only works if you have a truly outstanding doctor, and even then it may not be as effective.
And even then, replacing a few things on the chipped, crappy car is still a method of change; you aren't remaining with the same parts, or using the same gas or oil, or even use it as you'd usually do. That's a change, no matter what you call it.My main issue is this: Change is not always good. All too many people are chomping at the bit for "change", without realizing that a lot of it is change for the worse.
Say, you have a car. Your car is a piece of crap. You need a new car. Are you going to go out and get another piece of crap, paying much more for it, just because it's different? Hell no, you're going to be smarter than that. You're going to realize that, even though it's not the best, your car still gets you from point A to point B. You're going to either replace a few things on your car or shop around until you find the best alternative -- without overpaying, and without jumping at the chance to get a new car just because it's different. When you have a crappy car, a lot of other cars look better -- that doesn't mean that they are better, they just look better. The person that immediately trades his car for a different one will soon realize that he didn't get a better car, just a different car, and now he's paying more for a crappy car again.
And sometimes, a change IS needed, period. Perhaps you know that "crappy" car won't last for long: at times, replacing one part causes another to screw up. Perhaps the pieces for said car won't appear anymore. Or perhaps the car you have won't work for the new kind of life you'll have. In those occasions, a change is more than needed.
What you're trying to expose is not to take the path of radical changes, and perhaps to be careful on which kind of change. That's good, when the situation isn't as dire as it seems; when the situation doesn't ask for a radical change. Perhaps that's what you feel; there is no need for a radical change because the situation isn't life-threatening, thus, we can make the right choice after a long and winded amount of time in introspection. However, for many people, that's not the situation.
Perhaps to settle on layman terms? "Don't replace your car for a Daihatsu!" Except, the car you already have is probably a Yugo; even a Daihatsu is better, and besides, you're already attempting to go for a Toyota instead. Or a Ford.
Delivering scathing wit as a Rogue using Sneak Attack.
Pester me on the Giant in the Playground Forums if you really need me.
The Final Boss Theorem:
'Tis a shame I can only place names now...:
Nomu-baka, this is FAR from over...:
If you make enough money to need to pay taxes, and you can't afford to pay those taxes, it's because you mismanaged your money. No excuse.
It has borrowed during its existence, not that it did borrow upon its founding. I thought you were referring to its founding, my mistake.Yes, America did borrow aspects from socialism.
Do you really want to bet on that? Government intervention has been a habitual sure-fire sign of failure -- not just in America, but in plenty of other situations as well. You really think that government involvement only creates problems because the government isn't strong enough? That's like saying that if spanking your kid only causes him to be more rebellious, you need to spank him harder.The only reason why government control doesn't work is because America has a week governmental system. If you fix the system, you strengthen stability.
I didn't say that -- you need to correct yourself, kid. You know what, I'll do it for you -- I never said that increasing taxes for the rich is wrong because it would throw off the proportions. The proportions are already thrown off -- way off. While it would be wrong to increase the overtaxation on the rich, it's not because then they'd be paying more than their fair share, it's because they're already paying more than their fair share.I was literally going by what you said earlier. You said that increasing taxes for the rich was wrong because then the proportion between the amount of money made and the amount of taxes paid would be thrown off balance, with the poor and middle class paying proportionally less based on how much money that they made. If you made a mistake, then you can correct yourself.
You're forgetting that employers would be able to offer wages that are about half again what they can offer now, if they didn't have the shit taxed out of them at every level of production.And if these "fair" taxes continue, hardly anybody will have any money to spend in said businesses, hence causing them to relocate overseas anyway, due to a cutback in the amount of income earned.
The government loves raising taxes on businesses because then the businesses have to raise their prices, leading the people to despise the businesses and the "eeeeevil rich" instead of the government.
How did Korea and Vietnam have anything to do with nuclear weapons?... preventing the entire Cold War, and causing wars like Korea and Vietnam to decrease in severity.
The space race brought about satellites, the first being the USSR's Sputnik. Now there are hundreds of satellites orbiting the globe, for weather, communications, tracking, etc. I think going into space benefited mankind, wouldn't you say?At worst, the space race would never have happened, but going into space doesn't really benefit mankind, so who the hell gives a damn?
Your "vicious circle" no only never existed in the first place (since, despite all the "industriously large tax cuts" that the wealthy have supposedly been given), because the wealthy still pay much, much more than their fair share. And one would assume that, if a flat tax was passed, there would be no tax rate changes at all -- no tax brackets, no different rates, nothing.One flat tax rate will increase the gap between rich and poor once the boys up top give another industriously large tax cut to the wealthy while seemingly increasing taxes of the working class. It'll end up becoming just another vicious circle.
With our current tax system, if you make ten dollars and I make a hundred, you pay ten cents, or nothing, or even get a few dollars, while I pay about fifty bucks. Under a flat tax, if you make ten dollars and I make a hundred, you would pay one dollar and I would pay ten -- this, of course, would leave me with another forty dollars to, say, pay my employees more, so you could make eleven or twelve dollars.
Everybody does have a shot at redemption. I've seen many people take that shot. People work themselves out of the gutters all the time. Those that refuse to, however, shouldn't be given the same things that everybody else works for.No, even that person, no matter how disgraceful he may be, deserve to be dirt poor. Just because somebody makes huge mistakes in life doesn't mean that that person should be forced to live with those choices for the rest of his natural life, even though that's what society today offers to people like that. Everybody deserves a shot at redemption.
If you go with the idea of "nobody deserves to be poor", where's the motivation to work? If I know that I can sit on my ass all day playing video games and drinking but still have a decent place to live, food, etc., why would I care to go get a job and actually pay for the things that everybody else is forced to pay for anyway? I could work and pay for myself, or do nothing and get my stuff paid for by people that do work, so why should I work?
... Are you trying to say that everybody with a lot of money becomes corrupt? Really?There should be a limit. People with too much money have too much power. People with too much power become too corrupted. People who are too corrupted end up making bad decisions which lead to the world being in worse shape than it already was. People need to keep their egos in check.
Of course not -- because I haven't lived in over a dozen places in four states, I haven't been to seven countries in three continents -- you know exactly what I've seen and you've seen more, huh kid?You're ignorant. You have no idea what goes on in the world.
What's their motivation to make money when they know that the government will bail them out when they fail anyway?The government shouldn't have to take responsibility for companies being irresponsible with their bailout. The companies lied to the government, which is the precise reason why they got the bailouts in the first place.
I asked about the people, not the company. Do you have any credible evidence that two dozen people in Delaware make over $50,000,000 a year, or do you not?The DuPont's take in way over $50,000,000 a year. They own at least half of the major businesses in the state of Delaware. They own the majority of the property in the entire state. Not to mention that they own other businesses in various countries all around the world. The only other business that has come relatively close to competing with them is Astrazeneca, another company that makes well over $50,000,000 a year.
Crime rates, possibly. Government intervention is easily responsible for many problems with America today -- poor education, economy, housing market slump, hell, even the wildfires out West. Crime could be argued both ways. On one hand, of course, the police and the court system (somewhat) deter crime -- they'd work a lot better if our prisons weren't friggin' vacations for some of 'em, but still. On the other, the government making more and more things illegal is what makes more people criminals. And more importantly, a decrease in the restriction of firearms rights has been proven to cause a more immediate, more profound, and more long-lasting decrease in violent crime than has an increase in law enforcement.I honestly think that if there was less government control, crime rates would skyrocket. I don't think people can be trusted.
So is that training or "brainwashing"? Contrary to popular liberal belief, Soldiers aren't trained to follow orders without question.Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that being brainwashed is a bad thing. It helps rid the soldier of his independence, so instead of thinking in terms of I, he thinks in term of the unit.
Thank you. Most civilians don't understand that the military is like a brotherhood. Do you have a brother? Those of us that do (or any sibling, most likely) can relate. I have a brother and a sister, but my sister was the one that started most of the fights. We'd argue, yell, even fight -- but I'd also beat the hell out of somebody just to protect her name. The Army and the Marine Corps. have the biggest rivalry out of the four branches of military. We all have nicknames for each other, different ways to make fun of each other, but when it comes down to it, we're brothers.That's very noble, respectful, and humble.
The thing is, when the wealthier people get to keep more of they money they earn, they are able to pay their employees more. The wealthiest 5% of Americans employ 80% of the rest of the country.
Well, of course it would be gradual and not sudden. That's too big of a change to say, "BAM, we're doin' it this way now!"It would be fair if the share was limited to the least of the current taxing (10%, which is the lowest rate), but if suddenly you were forced to pay 15% more and the rich only get a moderate 10% reduction to make it an equal share, there would be several problems and a possible hit to the economy ...
A buffer ... you mean like the banks and automobile industry had?... mostly since the people that pay currently 35% may probably have a serious buffer in case things go wrong ...
Some people, yes. I think it's safe to say that the majority of the people that fall into that group have misprioritized their finances. My sister and her former husband were those kinds of people, who had to do whatever they could for grocery money -- but you bet your ass they watched cable TV on a flatscreen every evening. Hell, my neighbor has asked me for a couple bucks to make his rent, said he was about twenty bucks short. Every time I see that guy, he's got a beer in his hand.... some people almost completely depend on their income, to the point that they must sacrifice at times food in order to pay their bills.
You've got to remember, part of this whole "mortgage crisis" thing that America's going through was caused by people trying to live beyond their means, buying houses that they couldn't afford. (Of course, that wouldn't have happened if the federal government hadn't forced banks to give out loans they knew they wouldn't get back, but that's another story.)This would apply, of course, to loans and/or mortgages used for explicit purposes of paying extraordinary bills. I won't deal with credit cards, since that's consumerism and one of the reasons several people are unnecessarily indebted; more so, by their own fault. Mortgages to pay for a new house or for a necessary article are also considerable points to handle.
... Dude, you totally lost me.Again, in the case of tax returns, I fail to see how such deductions and credits such as in the case of dependants, or mortgages, which are considered to be necessary and largely irreducible consumption of income becomes a shift in income, if the intention is to return a specific amount of contribution that is not retained, that is deducted from your retained amount of gross income through taxes.
The Federal IRS uses the W-2 form as well -- but you're talking two different issues. If you get all the money back that you paid, you're not getting anything. Sure, you're not "paying your fair share", but you're not sucking from other taxpayers, either. I don't think many states have too much for tax credits, only deductions, so the least you'd pay to state taxes would be zero, instead of getting money. I don't know, but I would imagine that PR operates like most states.Perhaps the way it works in the federal scale is different, perhaps not, but the idea is this: if I get the papers that identify the amount of money I earned during the year, plus the amount deducted by my paycheck for taxes (here is the W-2, I dunno if state-wise or federal-wise it's the same), and after filling the tax forms and realizing that, through deductions, I am entitled to a tax return for exactly the amount of money that was retained for taxes, I fail to see how that turns into "fellow taxpayers give me money". Perhaps it's the system?
The federal IRS, however, has the "Earned Income Tax Credit" (which is anything but earned, but I digress). Remember the example I posted of somebody making $20k/yr and getting another $3600? Not just paying nothing, but receiving $3600? That's because of the EITC. If you make under a certain amount of money, you can opt (all you have to do is put a checkmark in the box and write a few numbers) to receive the EITC, which is exactly fellow taxpayers giving you money.
Ah, gotcha -- kind of like what most HMOs do. Thanks for the explanation ... and yes, that would deeply suck.It's the usual "alternative" (although I can't deem to refer to it as an alternative) to free selection healthcare plans (aka, where you choose the doctor/s that wish to attend you). Through "gatekeeping", the healthcare plan assigns you to a specific doctor (either by forcefully assigning you to it, or by limited choice), normally a generalist, intern or family doctor. That doctor usually handles most cases, and handles referrals to medical procedures outside of its specialty (for example, lab tests or visits to a cardiologist/ophtalmologist); effectively, said doctor has to authorize the procedure in order for the healthcare insurer to pay for it.
Of course it's a change -- I'm saying that sometimes, there's no need to change the entire car, just put some new parts on it. With the American healthcare system -- or more accurately, the American health insurance system -- it needs to be changed, of course, but trading it for a different car would be a big mistake.And even then, replacing a few things on the chipped, crappy car is still a method of change; you aren't remaining with the same parts, or using the same gas or oil, or even use it as you'd usually do. That's a change, no matter what you call it.
Exactly.What you're trying to expose is not to take the path of radical changes, and perhaps to be careful on which kind of change. That's good, when the situation isn't as dire as it seems; when the situation doesn't ask for a radical change. Perhaps that's what you feel; there is no need for a radical change because the situation isn't life-threatening, thus, we can make the right choice after a long and winded amount of time in introspection.
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
Most times it's because of mismanagement of finances. Sometimes, though, it'd due to outside purposes, such as the economy. Somebody not always having enough money to pay taxes isn't always that person's fault. There are plenty of people in today's society currently going through that very situation.
Maybe you're right on that part, but less government control doesn't solve anything, either. If you give people too much freedom, you don't know what kind of shit they're going to get themselves into.
The thing about it is, they're the only ones who can afford to be overtaxes. If it were in proper proportion, and the middle and lower-classes were being overtaxed to a larger extent, that would essentially get rid of the middle-class entirely, hence further weakening the country's already weak economic system.
The government, by doing that, is actually hurting the economy. Businesses have to raise prices, people are already beginning to struggle for money, so consumption of any product is going to go down, and the business is eventually going to lose so much money that it'll go out of business.
Nothing, really. The Cold War had to do with nuclear weapons, and the Korean and Vietnam wars involved communism, which involved the Soviet Union, and it's opposition, the United States. So those wars didn't involve nuclear weapons directly.
To an extent, yes, but you have to take into consideration who it was sending the majority of those satellites into space. Two of the most untrustworthy countries of the 20th century; the Soviet Union and the United States. Who's to say there isn't an old Cold War-era satellite orbiting earth fully equipped with nuclear warheads?
To be honest, the flat tax rate sounds a hundred times better than the current one. It would probably work, but by doing so, the government would lose money. Everybody knows how much the government loves money.
They shouldn't have to be homeless, though. Prisoners, people who've broken the law (most people in prison, at least) have a roof over their head. Everybody on the outside should have one, too. This situation coincides with the healthcare situation. Prisoners get free medical treatment, and so should everybody else.
Obviously doing nothing isn't going to make anybody a living, unless if you're getting money through one of the government's programs, such as collecting unemployment or welfare, or if you're retired and get a pension... or if you're a priest and don't need to pay for anything. It's a vicious circle. Nobody deserves to be dirt poor, but on the other hand, nobody deserves to get their money for nothing.
Some do, yes. Not in the sense of doing anything illegal, just in their ways of thinking and moral values. Others do get into illegal activity, but that's a much lower percentage.
Their motive is to be responsible, and it's the government's motive to accept that they were irresponsible, and therefore, allow them to bail themselves out. Whether the business closes down or not depends on how successful their attempts to bail themselves out are. But I don't blame the government for bailing them out. It's not the government's fault that the businesses are run by greedy corporate hounds.
Last year, DuPont made 32 million dollars in America alone. Now that's not 50 million like I said, but that's also not including the 70+ other countries that their multiple businesses are located in. The CEO of DuPont in Delaware, a man named Charles O. Holliday, makes an average of ten million dollars a year. Keep in mind, he's not a DuPont. Evidence to back up how much the DuPont's make is hard to find. They're very secluded. Nobody even knows for sure how many there are. But by living in Delaware, I can damn well guarantee you that they make well over 50 million dollars a year. Especially considering that they own more than half of the entire state.
I agree with you there. There are some restrictions and laws in America preventing some really stupid petty shit. Every state could save a lot of money releasing petty criminals from their prisons. Did you know it costs an average of $300,000 a year to hold one prisoner? By mass releases, that's a hell of a lot of money saved. So I agree with you in that respect. I also agree that the education system in America, the economy, and most other things that the government has intervened in have worsened them, but cutting back on government control when the government isn't already working won't solve anything, because underlying everything will still be a beaten, war-torn system of government. The government desperately needs to go through mass reform.
I'm not sure if soldiers are trained to follow orders without question or not. In order to find out for myself, I'd have to join the military, but that's not for me. However, in a sense, military training is brainwashing, due to the fact that they get you to change your ways of thinking. It's actually very beneficial, especially on a battle field.
I can understand that. I have two brothers and two cousins who I see as my brother and sister who get on my damn nerves, but I would do anything for them. I'm guessing that's kind of like what relationships in the military are like.
Last edited by Clint; 09-15-2009 at 05:28 PM.
Does that apply in a corporation? Since, as far as I know, the majority of all big companies are organized as corporations, which are entities legally separate from the individual or individuals that hold shares of it, even if the majority shareholder has over 50% of the shares. If the individual is undertaxed, there's still a chance they won't raise the paycheck of their employees, since they'd need the approval of the Board of Directives for that. There's still a chance they deem even the hard working people that a raise isn't enough, and deny it.
Perhaps if the individual has it's own company under a different kind of ownership, they may be able to do so. Whether they desire to do it or not is, however, entirely dependant on said people.
I was saying 25% flat tax just as a random estimate. Who knows what tax rate will prevail (perhaps the intermediate between 10% and 35% which would be 22.5%) if said thing were to happen. It also depends on how gradual it may be: even a 5% increase would be a solid hit. An increase of 2.5% per year would be reasonable, but it would require people to be aware that their taxes will rise per year.Well, of course it would be gradual and not sudden. That's too big of a change to say, "BAM, we're doin' it this way now!"
If the banking and automotive industry didn't projected what would happen in the case of a sudden crisis, it's their fault. I mean, if you're telling, both as a private effort and as a government effort, to "save for the future", and you as an individual don't save for that future, it would technically be your fault (royal you, just in case). In fact, it is a good economical practice, be it clearly stated in a book or mostly implied.A buffer ... you mean like the banks and automobile industry had?
Well, at least it wasn't a cup of Cabernet Sauvignon... After all, beer is supposed to be the drink of the hard working class that desires to experiment it, much like ale at its time.Some people, yes. I think it's safe to say that the majority of the people that fall into that group have misprioritized their finances. My sister and her former husband were those kinds of people, who had to do whatever they could for grocery money -- but you bet your ass they watched cable TV on a flatscreen every evening. Hell, my neighbor has asked me for a couple bucks to make his rent, said he was about twenty bucks short. Every time I see that guy, he's got a beer in his hand.
And I wouldn't go with most, I'd rather go with sizeable, but I'd also consider in a wide case those who don't have money even when they buckle up their finances. The people that have very serious health issues tend to fall into that case; the cost of medicines alone cripples at times their finances, even if they are insured. A good part of these are the elderly, whose medicine cost can grow to hefty levels, to the point not only they have to almost starve, but also pay for part of their medicine and then stretch their use (likely by cutting the pill or reducing the dose by half) just to make ends meet.
I think you lost my meaning in that one. I specified that a flat tax proposal would have to consider the impact on mortgages. This doesn't have to do anything with the mortgage crisis at all; this would apply even if the mortgage and loan banking system was under no problems. I presume that, aside from spectacular circumstances such as paying for a house (where the income won't be capable of paying for a house by itself, or immediately) or paying for a car (where it is advisable because of the car insurance), a thinking person won't request a loan unless it has a sure method of payment, and even then, as a last important option. Wealthy people wouldn't have a need for a loan, or the impact of said loan wouldn't be spectacular. Those who are impoverished quite probably will feel the impact of interests, and if flat tax rates don't account for that, you may end up paying more than the wealthier person. That was what I meant. The people that asked for a mortgage most of the time attempted it to pay for a new home (with a rising cost, sometimes a ridiculously rising cost).You've got to remember, part of this whole "mortgage crisis" thing that America's going through was caused by people trying to live beyond their means, buying houses that they couldn't afford. (Of course, that wouldn't have happened if the federal government hadn't forced banks to give out loans they knew they wouldn't get back, but that's another story.)
Good that you clarified that specific point. If your problem is the EITC, then wouldn't it be more reasonable to request it's elimination, or at least question it's purpose instead of assuming everybody knows about it? Now you understand why I went with the comparison between the taxes (and if you probably guessed, PR residents are exempt from paying federal taxes to the IRS except when they do work on the US, which implies that there was a contribution to federal taxes)The Federal IRS uses the W-2 form as well -- but you're talking two different issues. If you get all the money back that you paid, you're not getting anything. Sure, you're not "paying your fair share", but you're not sucking from other taxpayers, either. I don't think many states have too much for tax credits, only deductions, so the least you'd pay to state taxes would be zero, instead of getting money. I don't know, but I would imagine that PR operates like most states.
The federal IRS, however, has the "Earned Income Tax Credit" (which is anything but earned, but I digress). Remember the example I posted of somebody making $20k/yr and getting another $3600? Not just paying nothing, but receiving $3600? That's because of the EITC. If you make under a certain amount of money, you can opt (all you have to do is put a checkmark in the box and write a few numbers) to receive the EITC, which is exactly fellow taxpayers giving you money.
And even then, the HMO system is kinda better than what's offered now, at least where I live. Perhaps it was handled in a different method, but it was a reasonable way to get at low cost (or sometimes none) important preventive medicine cares such as inoculation, or reasonable emergency treatment costs. It mostly sucks (and this is in general) at the point of gatekeeping (which, quite ironically, IIRC I saw as part of the HMO description), since it mostly relies on the doctor's goodwill and a good amount of faith of your own.Ah, gotcha -- kind of like what most HMOs do. Thanks for the explanation ... and yes, that would deeply suck.
However, the current discussion hasn't offered an alternative to the current proposal; furthermore, the current proposal is accepting alternatives, however small they are. It makes no sense to merely lobby for "not getting a new car" and not explain what alternatives to the system can exist; that would be akin to "well, there's no new parts for this car, so deal with it".Of course it's a change -- I'm saying that sometimes, there's no need to change the entire car, just put some new parts on it. With the American healthcare system -- or more accurately, the American health insurance system -- it needs to be changed, of course, but trading it for a different car would be a big mistake.
Which is why I went with asking "what alternatives there are". And then exposing that any small replacement can be considered a change. The discussion here has gone mostly into a battle, but there's no alternative, not even a small replacement, mentioned; if it was mentioned, it was probably absorbed by the discussion and probably not considered at all. But, as far as I could see, there was not even a small replacement or alternative to it.
Delivering scathing wit as a Rogue using Sneak Attack.
Pester me on the Giant in the Playground Forums if you really need me.
The Final Boss Theorem:
'Tis a shame I can only place names now...:
Nomu-baka, this is FAR from over...:
Something has to be done with healthcare even if it is making insurance companies just cover pre existing conditions and lowering their prices. I pay $250 a month for insurance and my employer covers another $150 so all in all $400 is paid a month and I can only go to the doctor once a year and it has to be for preventive care not for an illness. Everything else has to be out of pocket until I reach the $8000 deductible. I will never get to $8000 unless I get really sick or hurt. So far I have been really healthy. I'm not sure what the people who I work with do with their preexisting conditions. We have changed insurance companies every year for 6 years.
It bothers me that Blue Cross Blue Shield screws me and my employer out of $400 a month and it's the worst possible coverage. I don't know how someone could cover their whole family.
Actually, less government control solves a lot. If there was less government control over the banks and lenders, they wouldn't have been forced to make loans they knew they wouldn't get back, and the bottom wouldn't have fallen out of the mortgage market. If there was less government control over public land in California, people would be able to come in and remove some of the underbrush and dead, dry timber, which is fueling wildfires to burn bigger, hotter, and longer. Now that there is less government control over firearms rights in Washington, D.C., citizens are allowed to defend themselves, and the violent crime rate has dropped substantially.
This is America -- I'd much rather see people with "too much freedom", if there is such a thing, than not enough.If you give people too much freedom, you don't know what kind of shit they're going to get themselves into.
If the proportions were right, nobody would be overtaxed. But I see what you're saying -- you're just not taking into account the fact that, when the people who create jobs aren't taxed the crap out of (keeping in mind that the richest 5% employ 80% of the rest), they can create more jobs and pay higher wages.The thing about it is, they're the only ones who can afford to be overtaxes. If it were in proper proportion, and the middle and lower-classes were being overtaxed to a larger extent, that would essentially get rid of the middle-class entirely, hence further weakening the country's already weak economic system.
That was my point -- instead of making the populace unhappy with the government because their taxes are higher, the government simply raises taxes on the wealthy -- those who run businesses -- so that the burden is still shared by the general populace. Then they get mad at the businesses, instead of the government -- which is where you start getting accusations of "corporate greed", "big business", etc.The government, by doing that, is actually hurting the economy. Businesses have to raise prices, people are already beginning to struggle for money, so consumption of any product is going to go down, and the business is eventually going to lose so much money that it'll go out of business.
For instance -- you know all the talk about the big, greedy oil companies? How they raised gas prices just to make a profit? Their profit margin -- what they made compared to what they spent -- wasn't even 3% last year. Which means that they'd make more money if they sold everything and put it all into CDs.
... Really?To an extent, yes, but you have to take into consideration who it was sending the majority of those satellites into space. Two of the most untrustworthy countries of the 20th century; the Soviet Union and the United States. Who's to say there isn't an old Cold War-era satellite orbiting earth fully equipped with nuclear warheads?
And if they decide to do nothing, which do they deserve -- to get their money for nothing, or do be dirt poor?Obviously doing nothing isn't going to make anybody a living, unless if you're getting money through one of the government's programs, such as collecting unemployment or welfare, or if you're retired and get a pension... or if you're a priest and don't need to pay for anything. It's a vicious circle. Nobody deserves to be dirt poor, but on the other hand, nobody deserves to get their money for nothing.
Why be responsible when big daddy government is going to come bail you out when you screw up anyway? What should happen (you know, Capitalism) is, when a company fails, it goes out of business. It's not propped up by taxpayer money, it's not taken over by the government -- it fails, it's gone, kaput. Without the threat of going out of business, what's the motive to be responsible? There is none.Their motive is to be responsible, and it's the government's motive to accept that they were irresponsible, and therefore, allow them to bail themselves out.
They made 32 million -- who did? The company, the family, what? Who was that distributed between? Was that their gross or net income?Last year, DuPont made 32 million dollars in America alone. Now that's not 50 million like I said, but that's also not including the 70+ other countries that their multiple businesses are located in.
Keep in mind, DuPont has been at the forefront of some major chemical discoveries -- Kevlar, Mylar, Nomex, Nylon, Neoprene, and more. Their innovation earned then their income.
Or better yet, what I support is making prison actually tough, so it will be more of a deterrent. When the vast majority of inmates are repeat offenders -- as in, they obviously didn't learn their lesson the first time they went to prison -- it shows a problem.Every state could save a lot of money releasing petty criminals from their prisons.
That's a hazy number, there. Death Row inmates, that's about right, because of all the appeals and such. Medium- and Minimum-Security prisoners cost much less to hold, around $40,000.Did you know it costs an average of $300,000 a year to hold one prisoner?
... I just said that we're not.I'm not sure if soldiers are trained to follow orders without question or not.
In that sense, all education is "brainwashing", ain't it?However, in a sense, military training is brainwashing, due to the fact that they get you to change your ways of thinking.
And then the employees leave and find a job that pays more. With more money to create jobs and more money to pay employees, there would be plenty of new jobs and plenty of pay raises -- if one company refused to follow the crowd, they'd get left behind.
Not so much -- it's entirely dependent on their employees.Perhaps if the individual has it's own company under a different kind of ownership, they may be able to do so. Whether they desire to do it or not is, however, entirely dependant on said people.
Well, of course. I was just making the point countering your assumption that people/companies with more money are more likely to have something to fall back on.If the banking and automotive industry didn't projected what would happen in the case of a sudden crisis, it's their fault. I mean, if you're telling, both as a private effort and as a government effort, to "save for the future", and you as an individual don't save for that future, it would technically be your fault (royal you, just in case). In fact, it is a good economical practice, be it clearly stated in a book or mostly implied.
And for that group -- the minority -- there are charity organizations happy to help. Voluntary charity, that people aren't forced to pay into.And I wouldn't go with most, I'd rather go with sizeable, but I'd also consider in a wide case those who don't have money even when they buckle up their finances.
First -- what's to stop people from taking out loans they can't afford because they would get more of their tax money back? Second -- thinking people wouldn't do that. But people are stupid. You know that.I presume that, aside from spectacular circumstances such as paying for a house (where the income won't be capable of paying for a house by itself, or immediately) or paying for a car (where it is advisable because of the car insurance), a thinking person won't request a loan unless it has a sure method of payment, and even then, as a last important option.
Nonsense. Wealthy people just get bigger loans for bigger expenses.Wealthy people wouldn't have a need for a loan, or the impact of said loan wouldn't be spectacular.
It's not just the EITC, it's all tax credits (including the "cash for clunkers" program), in combination with the extremely disproportionate rating scale.Good that you clarified that specific point. If your problem is the EITC, then wouldn't it be more reasonable to request it's elimination, or at least question it's purpose instead of assuming everybody knows about it?
Offered here? They're not scouring the internet looking for alternatives mentioned on message boards. And while nobody's offered an alternative, this thread isn't to discuss alternatives, it's to discuss the current plan. I don't know much about what other options there are -- I know what'll help, sure -- like the federal government stepping out of the way and letting insurance companies be national, instead of forcing people to choose from only a few local providers -- but I don't know if it'll entirely fix the problem. Actually, I know it won't fix the problem, because the vast majority of "uninsured" people are only without health insurance because they have misprioritized their finances. I don't know enough to know what's the best alternative, but I do know enough to know what's one of the worst.Which is why I went with asking "what alternatives there are". And then exposing that any small replacement can be considered a change. The discussion here has gone mostly into a battle, but there's no alternative, not even a small replacement, mentioned; if it was mentioned, it was probably absorbed by the discussion and probably not considered at all. But, as far as I could see, there was not even a small replacement or alternative to it.
You have an eight thousand dollar deductible? Man, your insurance sucks.
Ah Big Cheap, Big Stingy. Yeah, they royally suck. My suggestion would be to drop your employee coverage entirely and take your business somewhere else.It bothers me that Blue Cross Blue Shield ...
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
Yup $8000 deductible, biggest rip off. Wish I could drop. Under the school district rules after 3 years of employment you must take the healthcare plan. If you don't choose they choose the plan for you and it is taken out of your monthly check. This would not be a problem if they allowed their teachers in a union. We might have some leverage then. Yeah our school district sucks. As soon as the other districts start hiring I will go to another district. Right now in my city they have cut over 10,000 school district jobs, mostly teacher. They hire teacher assistants to take teacher jobs. And they wonder why education is in a shit hole.
Paying for health care makes America seem like a third world country I mean damn near everywhere on earth has free health why don't we...I am going in the marines and have never been ashamed of my country but when the discussion of health care comes up I suddenly become ashamed....I mean what kind of country would watch their citizens die just to save a buck...
I know now that you don’t understand “context” and that the “context” of my statement dealt with material goods, products, services, lifestyles, etc. not before the law as you tried to make or include it. This whole debate as been about a service and if people have a right to material goods or services not about the law so when I said the above statement it was in the context of people not having the right to be equal in having services and material goods/products - that is entitlement and no one is entitled to services or material goods/products. In regards to the law, yes, every person before the law is equal though you and others think that some people are not entitled to the product of their own work (i.e. the rich) while other people are entitled to the product of their own work (i.e. poor and maybe middle-class) and the work of others – that is not equal before the law, before the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. What you believe is directly in conflict with that truth. Let us return to that document that you pulled out:Congratulations, you just failed on American History 101
In America, many who think to the left seriously misinterpret that quote; what they feel is the most important word is “equal” and that it must apply to every aspect of life – law, material wealth, lifestyle, etc. What they take from that is: no one may succeed or fail – those who succeed are brought down and those who fail are brought up. That interpretation/understanding is wrong. The most important word, the word that destroys the lefts beliefs is “created”. “Created” equal means that everyone is equal before the law, that one person from another has no special rights or privileges. All of humanity has the same rights and a person or a group does not get more or less rights because of a special factor about them. “Created” equal does not mean that people must be equal throughout life. “Throughout life” expands beyond creation, beyond the nature of what they are: humans have rights and those rights are defined and that is all they get; the poor and/or rich do not get more or less rights; certain race does not get more or less rights; male and/or females do not get more or less rights. Also the right to life does not give a person the right to live comfortably for as long as possible no matter what, the right to life is the right to take the actions necessary to survive without their rights being infringed by other people, groups, gangs, the government, and/or society.
Poorness does not take away the right to their own life, the right to speech, congregate, to their religion, to protest, or the right to pursue their own happiness. What you are upset about is that people in poverty can’t do things that other people can, but what those people do is not a right to do. There is no right to live in a “comfortable” house, to drive a functional car, or receive services that they can’t afford. Poverty is usually humiliating, with certain people it may not be so, but that is not validation or justification to enslave other people – there is no rational justification to enslave humans.Of course not; it takes them away. Poverty is humiliating.
First I’m not conservative or republican or libertarian. What annoys me the most is I further expanded what you quoted from me to answer this but it appears you don’t read whole posts so here is what I said:
Regulations set by the government constrict the market from appropriately placing the price for health care. Restricting what organs can be used, how they can be acquired, where you can get your health insurance, malpractice laws making it easier for people to suit, etc. Restrictions lower the supply – there is less of it – demand is high so, when the supply is low of a product or service and demand is high the price will be high because the product or service is very valuable, common sense there. If the supply would be able to cover more/most/all of demand prices would fall down, but with the regulations, courtesy of the government and not the private sector, prices stay high. Malpractice lawsuits take a lot out of hospitals so they must charge more for their services to cover that costs otherwise when they start losing malpractice lawsuits they (the hospital) will go bankrupt, the hospital will close and no one will receive health care. Or do you honestly think that hospitals can charge less and still survive those lawsuits? In a country where some woman has won a lawsuit against McDonalds' because their coffee was hot, people will be able to receive immense settlements or awards, hospitals have to be able to cover the cost.
I’ll continue with just the regulations being gone and it is a free health care/insurance market. A new day has dawned and there are no more regulations or restrictions on health care or health insurance and the heath care costs and health insurance costs have not gone down even though supply has risen to match demand. People are angry that prices have gone down so what can they do? In your limited mind you and others believe that they must go to government to force them to lower prices because only the government has the power to "counter" the private sector. The right option, the harder option, is for people to use the power that they have over a business – the power of the consumer. People should tell them to lower their prices are they won’t get health insurance from them or go to their hospital. If health insurance companies don’t have any customers then how are they going to stay alive? They would dry up their funds or break up the company to save what money they had, either way they would cease to exist. They would have to lower prices to meet the demands of the market. I’ll sidetrack a little bit here just to cover the previous sentence as I can see you jumping all over this and making yourself look stupid.
You may see people demanding them to lower their prices as forcing them to do something against their will – this is partially true. The difference is in the market place people trade value for value voluntarily; if a person does not want to buy “x” from company “b” then they don’t. Companies are there to sell their product and they must meet the demand of the consumer – the consumer is the boss. Companies want to make money, they want people to buy their product and if their product is too expensive and the demand is low they should logically… lower prices (that's right) to stay in business. The consumer is not forcing the companies with prison sentencing or violence to lower their prices or to improve the quality of their product. If the companies don't want to lower prices or improve quality than they don't have to, it is up to them and will succeed or fail on their own. On the other side of the aisle, government does force companies with prison sentence, fines, destruction of the company, government take-over, violence, etc if the company does not do what the government tells it to do (this going into the realm of the anti-trust laws in America). In a land where a person has the right to pursue their own happiness, a government telling a person how to run their business does not follow that philosophy - it breaks that philosophy.
A key factor also in a free health care market would be that the health care provider would also have to lower costs, not just health insurance companies because if they didn’t the health insurance companies would go bankrupt very quickly. Then people would deal directly with the hospitals and if the hospitals want to stay in business they would have to lower prices anyways. That is if people are not lazy and want to be spoon-fed their life – if they want the government to control them, have the government run their lives, have the government do the work of the consumer through illegal use of the government's power to force the healh care industry to bend to its will, because it is too hard and/or inconvienent to use the power of the consumer. They don't want the burden to fully participate in life.
Continuing with the power of the consumer. Statists either forget or want to ignore the power of the consumer and how much power it has. That power is something they don’t want people to realize they have or to use because they would lose their power and they don’t want that. They don’t want to let people live their own lives, to not be slaves, they want to be in control of people – they see people as property without the right to their own life. By statists I mean: Communist, fascist, socialist, or “welfare” type of government where the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims; where a person’s life and work belong to the state – to society, to the group, the gang, the race, or the nation. The statist government wants to keep the power it has taken from the rights of individuals, of people and never cares about the rights of individuals, of the people that "govern" them.
If I went all around the country (America) asking every person if they would like their health insurance to provide pre-emptive treatment and/or pre-existing care they would probably say yes they would like that, even if they didn’t have use for it because they may know someone or end up in a situation like that (this instance would still have the regulations and restrictions, in otherwords as is). I could bet that they would say yes that is how sure I of their answer I am. With that answer, their wants from the health insurance companies, they can go to their health insurance company and say they want those two examples are they will drop coverage and find some other company that will. If no company did cover that then they would all go bye-bye. The key for the consumer would be to stay committed to their cause and not chicken out or settle for something horrible. It should be noted here that people, I would say a lot of them, are cheap, lazy, stingy retards (for the most part). People want those two things covered by their health insurance companies however what they don’t realize is that the companies would be spending more money because people would be getting more services and those services cost a lot of money and in response the premiums would have to go up to cover the loads of the expenses. With those two examples alone people would be going more often and the revenue they are generating now would not suffice. If the premiums went down because people wanted that too then the health insurance companies would collapse almost instantly. People want everything for nothing, this simply cannot happen and people need to learn that if you want a good product then they will have to pay market value price and sometimes that may require a lot of money.
Moving on with health insurance not existing and hospitals lowering prices there would be more changes needed or required should I say. Doctors, nurses, staff members would have to be paid less money otherwise their salaries would swamp the hospital; they would complain and moan about getting not as much money but in a free market “minimum wage” is non-existent and hurts companies stay afloat, keep employees in tough times, etc. Wages change accordingly with the market you are in: if business is good, more money; business is bad, less money. Since revenue coming into the hospitals would be a lot less they would have to take less money. An argument that the left uses sometimes does fit here: doctors don't need to live in two-three story houses, drive luxury cars, etc. their income should be based on the free market value for their services which would be less. The medical equipment companies would have to lower costs or they would lose their market as the market could not afford the equipment as much or not at all and then the medical equipment companies would be in danger. By taking less money it would help bring deflation or start the deflation in a huge sector that would affect other industries more over time, especially if we went back to the gold standard so we would actually be trading value for real value and government couldn’t print money, initiate social programs both that hike prices in the market, and they would have to cut back the size of government to its proper size. If government got out of all the markets with the return of the gold standard – just to make sure the government could not PRINT PRINT PRINT— there would be deflation as there wouldn't be the vast pool of resources the government would be pumping into the market known as taxpayers. Besides gold as it could not probably fill all the “fake value” that print money created the market would have to introduce other metals, as well as: silver, copper, maybe even steel, or it could be some other form of value like the spices in the Dune universe (not really the spices from Dune but I hope you catch my drift).
Alpha what you can’t seem to grasp is the nature of a statist government. I have no problem with "person A" helping "person B" if "person A" wants to help "person B", that is not the issue or the problem. The issue/problem, and what you can’t grasp, is in a statist government "person A" cannot choose to help or not help "person B" but is forced to help "person B" regardless if they can or want to. That is a disregard for human life and rights, but you see people as property to be used by other people. This makes the individual look meaningless but who gets to decide who is to be property and who the beneficiary is? Individuals, yet individuals are not important, it is the state, society, group, etc. see the contradiction. I was under the impression that the world was anti-slavery, and I’m sure a lot of you would say you don’t support slavery however if you support a statist government then you do support slavery. There is still some truth to you not supporting slavery; you don’t support private slavery and to clarify real laissez-faire capitalism is not private slavery, every trade that is done must be through volition otherwise violators would be prosecuted, and in laissez-faire capitalism all of humanities rights are respected and upheld. What slavery you do support then? Slavery to society, to the state, or any group that demands it. A statist government is based on altruism but underlying that fact is everybody is not asked whether they would like to be a part of the social programs, if they want to contribute, if they can be used as cattle, it is forced upon them by others, that is the other side of the spectrum – the brutish, irrational selfishness that does not care about other people. All the social programs are taking money away from people, without their explicit consent, who can better their lives and I am referring to middle-class citizens. What I touched on in that last sentence a lot of people do not understand, realize, or care about: it is wrong to force people to pay for things that they don't support. Example: if a person does not approve of abortions then there tax money should not be going towards paying for abortions (abortions shouldn't be paid for in the first place other than those who receive the service). Why would someone want to support with their tax money something they don't support? If they don't support something then through reasoning anyperson could deduce that they would not pay to support, invest, or further advance whatever it was. Let it be noted: the rich in America and I mean the top 5% pay around 60% of the taxes while maybe the bottom 30% don’t pay taxes, talk about one-sided. People should be willing to pay for the proper functions of government like the police, firefighters, the military, roads can be included because everyone uses roads. Train tracks would not be included because that cost belongs to the train company or the train track company. Roads and healthcare are vastly different and a comparison cannot be made. Roads are used by everyone and daily, healthcare is not. Roads are more general than healthcare; healthcare is more private and people are not to be used to help carry the burden of others. When the government takes money from its people for use other than the proper function of government then that is stealing.Yes, because it is wrong to help someone who needs it. The government does not steal our money (bold, because this concept appears new to many), it takes it and puts it to use for the citizenry. If the government took our money solely to pay for itself, I’d be pissed. But no, it builds roads, train tracks, etc. So why should it not take care of our healthcare too?
I have the solution: for those who claim people should be helped then go right ahead and help them, you have the right to do what you want as long as you don’t violate the rights of others; but don’t force other people to help too otherwise you are nothing more than a thug. Of course as you help them out you’ll realize that you need more money or help because you can’t do it as is. So you’ll cry to subjugate other people because more people would benefit, and who cares about a few people becoming slaves to the masses, it’s not like life is important or anything and that people have actual rights. Nah, go ahead and put them in chains. All these people and some rich who clamor about the poor should be helped; I say then shut up and help them. They need better schools, then supply the money to build the schools. They need better text books then supply them with better textbooks. They need a better police force, then donate money to their police force. They need doctors, then go to school to become a doctor and help them. But don’t try to force people to not live their lives and instead force them to live their lives for others - there is no right to enslave people no matter how much you wish.
Alpha you repeatedly can’t seem to fully understand or correlate these concepts we are using. A democracy is mob rule and no one or group has the right to violate the rights of a single person even if there is only one person that’s rights would be violated.
“Democratic” in its original meaning [refers to] unlimited majority rule… a social system in which one’s works, one’s property, one’s mind, and one’s life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority at any moment for any purpose.
If we discard morality and substitute for it the Collectivist doctrine of unlimited majority rule, if we accept the idea that a majority may do anything it pleases, and that anything done by the majority is right because it’s done by a majority (this being the only standard of right and wrong) – how are people to apply this in practice to their actual lives? Who is the majority? In relation to each particular person, all other people are potential members of that majority which may destroy them at its pleasure at any moment. Then each person and all people become enemies; each has to fear and suspect all; each must try to rob and murder first, before they are robbed and murdered.
The American system is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. A democracy, if you attach meaning to terms, is a system of unlimited majority rule; the classic example is ancient Athens. And the symbol of it is the fate of Socrates, who was put to death legally, because the majority didn’t like what he was saying, although he had initiated no force and had violated no one’s rights. Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom.
I'll further elaborate what exactly supporting democracy entails. In the anime, Rurouni Kenshi, Shishio Makato believed that power/strength/might equals right, Kenshin believed that was not true and that everyone has rights. In dictatorships, totalitarian, authoritarian governments they implement might is right. If someone is stronger, had more power or might then whatever they did, whatever action they took would be right because might equals right. With democracy, it is a bit different: strenght/power/might in numbers equals right. How can that honestly be believed? That concept is not rational at all; numbers do not make something right - what is right is right. How many people are on a side or how strong that side is does not make that side right or justified in taking action that violates the rights of people. Furthermore, just because they have might or strenght in numbers does not give them the right to change the rights of people, no person, group, gang, society, state, etc. has that power to infringe, violate, ignore, or change the rights of the individual.
Some clarification – it would not be the country saving a buck it would be other people who would be saving money to further pursue their own happiness. The government is not saving any money it is spending tons and since I mentioned spending. DEFICIT SPENDING MUST STOP talk about a legal Ponzi scheme, just disgraceful. The government is not supposed to support the general welfare i.e police, military, and roads not control the everyday lives of its citizens. America was founded on and created in the belief that individuals may pursue their own happiness, have a right to their life and have the rights to live their life and pursue their own happiness. The founding fathers did not want the government turning into an authoritarian power controlling, limiting, enslaving the governed.
In final, remember the track record of the government: Amtrak-heavily subsidized and is horrible; Medicare & Medicaid-fraud and overspending making it bankrupt; United States Post Office - 6 billion dollars in debt and is heavily favored by laws to monopolize it her is a link to show how the USPS is monopolized http://www.atlassociety.com/cth--222...ce_Health.aspx ;cash for Clunkers – quick boost in sales and now is back to pre-program sales and maybe even lower; finally the treatment of Native Americans has been oh so stellar that they will attest to the greatness of government helping people out (in case you didn’t get that, it was a joke. Treatment of Native Americans is abysmal). After looking at that I would be impressed to and say Obama create that health care system that could turn out to be just like the post office except have a 6 trillion dollar debt because shuchs the government knows what it is doing - destroying the freedoms and foundation of the country.
Edit: I believe I am done revising and adding in any thoughts I had forgotten to put in initially, so this should be the finished product. 5:27 p.m 10/6/09
Last edited by Zargabaath; 10-06-2009 at 02:28 PM. Reason: Pressed enter to accidently while copying/pasting. -.- and revisions/updates
Main series FFs Beaten - FF: 4x, FFII: 3x, FFIII: 3x, FFIV: 3x, FFV: 3x, FFVI: 4x, FFVII: 5x, FFVIII: 5x, FFIX: 3x, FFX: 4x, FFXII: 3x, FFXIII: 2x, FFXV: 2x
Wow, Zargabaath, firstly, I apologise. I had no idea this was here. I'll get round to responding to your incredibly substantial post. Let me just say that, yes, I am aware of the difference between democracy and liberalism, and while I believe liberal democracy is great, I still think democracy is the greater virtue. I'd choose the French Revolution (abrogation of intermediate powers of the (popular) state) over a constitutional liberal framework (American Revolution), but in no way do I support totalitarianism or autocracy. Simply, there is a scale, and while we are in different regions, we are not at different ends.
Anyway, I came here because I just had a flash of inspiration. This may be an incorrect assumption, but would a private healthcare provider have a greater motivation to have more unhealthy people, as they could make a profit? (= bad for society, in case the math be failing.)
Is it true that a government-run healthcare system would work better if more people were healthy, as it would be using less taxpayer money, and this money has a multitude of uses; if less is spent on health, then more can be spent on moving to a low-carbon economy (if you're in Europe), or more military spending (if you're in the US). A government provider would want fewer sick people, but a private system would want more.
Yes I am aware that this thread died several weeks ago. But I've still got to respond to Zargabaath, and this flash would have been forgotten by tomorrow.
Is it a correct assumption? (I'm not sure on this one, it's just conjecture.)
::Just realised that no, in a private system, it would be price that would 'encourage' people to not be unhealthy. Sorry, long day. Though I still think the principle remains.::
Last edited by Alpha; 10-29-2009 at 02:25 AM. Reason: Additional thought.
I will get back to this, I just wanted to make sure I posted now, in case I forgot -- I plan to add more later.
In the mean time, those of you who think you find major problems with those greedy insurance providers might want to check this out: Health insurer profits not as fat as Dems claim
Profit margins are anemic compared with a variety of industries
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
I don't believe the issue was ever what they make compared to other major companies, and definitely not the ones that the article mentions.
It's the way they make their profit. Some insurance companies pay their employees more if they can find a 'pre-existing condition' or whatever reason that would be a motivation to not pay for a woman's cancer treatment (for example). I don't think that's the way to go.
But to keep it short this time: I don't think politicians are the ones you should get news or facts from, whether you agree with them or not. The facts might be correct, but there's always some story or context when they come out of the mouth of a politician (or a bad journalist).
I find it odd that the healthcare thing is such an issue for a lot of Americans. In most Western countries socialised healthcare is such an obvious thing to have... Even Cuba has an awesome health care system, but I don't think that's relevant.
Thanks for the link though. It's always great to gain perspective, whether you're a democrat, a republican, some other American or just someone who's interested in these things.
Also, I was hoping it wouldn't be an article from the Fox website. I'm glad.
Crao Porr Cock8: Getting it while the getting's good
I was reading through some of the posts on here and I am surprised by a lot of the banter. I honestly don't know why some Americans have a problem with people like me getting free health care. I was dropped from medicaid during my 7 months of pregnancy because my husband made 80 bucks above the poverty line for income, and anyone who has had a kid knows how dangerous a situation like that could be. I had to work through most of my third trimester to muster up 250 for private health care that made me pay EVEN MORE out of pocket. 250 bucks that could have went to preparing for the baby. Instead our family members had to buy everything the baby needed. However, most people don't have families like that. We would have been without a car seat, a crib.....everything had they not stepped in. So it's not just the lazy people who ask for the handouts. These are citizens that just can't get the money to afford a secure health and well being for their family and kids. I don't believe in abortion personally so that was not an option, and I know some dumb ass is going to try and say I didn't use protection, but I did. In fact I had the best IUD on the market to date. What God wants is what God wants. We still can't afford health insurance. I recently had to cancel my insurance to pay the rent. So God forbid something happen to me. We would lose everything.
I find there are a lot of families that are one paycheck away from being homeless. Health care is an expense that not everyone can afford. MY mother and father live with no central air, no gas, no cable, no cell phones, no internet, a paid off house, a paid off truck, and they still cannot afford health insurance for even just themselves. God forbid something happen to my father. They would be in severe debt and probably lose everything.
As jobs get more scare and the cost of everything keeps going up the least people should be able to rely on is their health. We pay taxes to fund free health care for inmates and illegals.....why not the poor needy people who actually live in this country and don't break the law?
I could be wrong....about all of this, but it's just the way I see it. Especially when I have seen people on here call people like me a lazy pot smoker. that expects handouts. I raise two kids on one person's income so we don't have to pay 1000 bucks to put two kids in daycare. That's not lazy. That's the only way we survive financially.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks