There's a fun post from back in November that I imagine was inspired by visits to our fun OTD, "So ignorant leftists continually spout off about 'anarchnocapitalists'" which is followed by some "Random Quotes by Economists" starting with, yup, you guessed it, Murray "I invented anarchocapitalism" Rothbard.I mean, you may be right, Doug, maybe ignorant leftists continually spout off about anarchocapitalism, but I am not an ignorant leftist, and, um, Murray Rothbard invented anarchocapitalism. Just so you know.
Yeah, he then goes on to put up a straw man rhetorical definition of anarchocapitalism which is so bizarrely wrong I don't know how to process it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I continually accuse people of theft and robbery is it true or an overly hostile barb that eliminates the chance for civil debate?If i rob your house to give the money to a sick friend does it matter if i give some of my own money too?Liberals pay taxes too, you know.I still do not understand how we can have so many "compassionate liberals" some with huge amounts of cash and they do not CHOOSE to help the poor themselves. Certainly there are enough of them to make a noticeable dent in the issue should they choose. Instead they push to take money from others to do their "charity"
I'm glad you can buy induglences to alleviate your guilt about not helping the poor more. Plus, you get the added benefit of watching the government punish those who don't believe the way you do. That's almost like a win-win situation, right? Win for you, win for power-brokers in government. Lose for other people, but as long as they're not poor, too bad for them, eh?
What else do you call forcible taking from a man what he has earned?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to say banking.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I continually accuse people of theft and robbery is it true or an overly hostile barb that eliminates the chance for civil debate?What else do you call forcible taking from a man what he has earned?
Andrew, up thread you said you agreed with the government forcibly taking money to pay for things you agree with- roads and defense.
So, I think people want a bit more consistency.
|
|
If I continually accuse people of theft and robbery is it true or an overly hostile barb that eliminates the chance for civil debate?What else do you call forcible taking from a man what he has earned?Andrew, up thread you said you agreed with the government forcibly taking money to pay for things you agree with- roads and defense.
So, I think people want a bit more consistency.
necessary evil is still evil and needs to be kept to a minimum. That doesn't change the fact that some things are indeed necessary, but evil beyond that...
necessary evil is still evil and needs to be kept to a minimum. That doesn't change the fact that some things are indeed necessary, but evil beyond that...If I continually accuse people of theft and robbery is it true or an overly hostile barb that eliminates the chance for civil debate?What else do you call forcible taking from a man what he has earned?Andrew, up thread you said you agreed with the government forcibly taking money to pay for things you agree with- roads and defense.
So, I think people want a bit more consistency.
If it starved you to death or deprivation it would be evil. It doesn't so its not.
Save the word evil for the stuff that actually is, like what has happened to EVERY SINGLE country that didn't have a reasonably funded central government: civil war, anarchy, and starvation.
|
|
necessary evil is still evil and needs to be kept to a minimum. That doesn't change the fact that some things are indeed necessary, but evil beyond that...If I continually accuse people of theft and robbery is it true or an overly hostile barb that eliminates the chance for civil debate?What else do you call forcible taking from a man what he has earned?Andrew, up thread you said you agreed with the government forcibly taking money to pay for things you agree with- roads and defense.
So, I think people want a bit more consistency.
You may be familiar with this question, but if that is so necessary, why don't you pay for it yourself, without reaching into other people's pockets and stealing their hard earned money?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We just disagree what's necessary then.
I think of healthcare as a basic human necessity, and due to the economic factors involved it makes sense for the government to pay for it, since it's something everyone needs. Healthcare costs are so high that someone of meager means can no more afford to pay out of pocket for it than they can build their own roads or hire their own private army. And yet, by pooling resources, we can reach an efficient solution that helps everyone equally.
Granted, Obamacare is not that efficient solution.
Again, we pay more for, and get less from, our healthcare system than any other industrialized nation. I hate being ripped off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
necessary evil is still evil and needs to be kept to a minimum. That doesn't change the fact that some things are indeed necessary, but evil beyond that...If I continually accuse people of theft and robbery is it true or an overly hostile barb that eliminates the chance for civil debate?What else do you call forcible taking from a man what he has earned?Andrew, up thread you said you agreed with the government forcibly taking money to pay for things you agree with- roads and defense.
So, I think people want a bit more consistency.
If defense is among this necessary evils, would not a healthcare system that costs less and provides better care to the population as a whole also be a necessary evil as opposed to a more expensive and less effective system that isn't funded through taxes?
Woops, my bad, "Marxism is the nemesis of human achievement," May 8, 2012.Man, I've got a good memory for a pothead!
Yeah, that makes more sense. I was confused, because the name of the blog is in huge letters at the top, and the next lines are considerably smaller.
Probably the pot messing with your perception.
No worries, my goblinoid comrade.
In my profile, I did warn people not to go to the blog. Caveat posteri and all that . . . .
and an earlier one about how to choose a spouse.
How do libertarians (of whatever flavor) who are all into moral self reliance, individual freedom and all that reconcile that with the whole "wife must submit to her husband" thing? Don't women get any of that freedom? Or is it just for men?
I wonder if we should be asking him if the government should provide healthcare for women (and children?)? Or is it just their fault for not finding a proper provider?
If you'd like to take that up in a separate OTD post, I'd be happy to oblige, but I'm pretty sure that'd be locked by the Paizo forum-masters rather quickly. Perhaps an ongoing debate at the blog? Or an off-site location?
http://freakonomics.com/2013/08/23/paying-less-without-health-insurance/
Stupid free market . . . .
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I should stay away from here for my own sanity... Andrew R, I already outlined why taxation isn't theft. You are contributing nothing but spite by constantly throwing around that same poisonous excuse for an argument.
Denmark:
Maximum income tax around 60%
Free (read: tax-funded) healthcare for all citizens
Free (tax-funded) education with very few exceptions
American Dreamliness
Happiest country in the world
Several
Times
Over
We call it welfare. Because people fare well.
Why do you hate happiness?
necessary evil is still evil and needs to be kept to a minimum. That doesn't change the fact that some things are indeed necessary, but evil beyond that...If I continually accuse people of theft and robbery is it true or an overly hostile barb that eliminates the chance for civil debate?What else do you call forcible taking from a man what he has earned?Andrew, up thread you said you agreed with the government forcibly taking money to pay for things you agree with- roads and defense.
So, I think people want a bit more consistency.
Just to be clear, you're saying that society getting together and deciding that we all need certain things... is evil?
Well, that's my cue to go, I guess. But before I do, and for the record, many, many stupid people throw boxes at UPS. Am I one of them? Maybe, but I don't pay shiznit for my health insurance.
U-nion! U-nion! U-nion!
Comrade, there is no shame in honest work. You provide a service that other people voluntarily pay you to provide.
It's almost . . . entrepeneurial.
Let's see . . . the last UPS delivery I received is when I ordered some new garden implements from roguehoe.com last year. Nothing else recently. Sorry I can't be of a bigger help to your revolution.
http://freakonomics.com/2013/08/23/paying-less-without-health-insurance/
Stupid free market . . . .
No one is denying that the free market is great for people that have 20 grand in cash just lying around.
http://freakonomics.com/2013/08/23/paying-less-without-health-insurance/
Stupid free market . . . .
Lets look at this through your free market lens.
If the operation costs $3,000, but insurance companies are charging $20,000, why isn't some other insurance company snatching up market share by only charging $10,000? And then some other company would eat up their market share by only charging $5000.
Lets look at this through your free market lens.
If the operation costs $3,000, but insurance companies are charging $20,000, why isn't some other insurance company snatching up market share by only charging $10,000? And then some other company would eat up their market share by only charging $5000.
You'd have to ask someone in the insurance industry.
Most likely there are other insurance companies which offer better deals.
No one is denying that the free market is great for people that have 20 grand in cash just lying around.
People go into debt for new cookware. Do you think they won't take on debt for medical procedures?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's almost like it would be wise to shop around for insurance. If only there was a marketplace of some kind where I could compare plans and pick the best one for me.... Who am I kidding. That's dangerous communist thinking!
If i rob your house to give the money to a sick friend does it matter if i give some of my own money too?
...and so we're back to taxes are theft. We can talk in circles all day, but as long as you fundamentally believe that, there is very little point.
People go into debt for new cookware. Do you think they won't take on debt for medical procedures?
No one is denying that the free market is great for people that have 20 grand in cash just lying around.
No one will give them a loan for a medical procedure. You can always repo the cookware, a new kidney? Not so much (barin las vegas/mexico urban legends)
And if you only have a 50 50 % chance of survival? Fuggetaboutit.
Well, that's my cue to go, I guess. But before I do, and for the record, many, many stupid people throw boxes at UPS. Am I one of them? Maybe, but I don't pay shiznit for my health insurance.
U-nion! U-nion! U-nion!
Comrade, there is no shame in honest work. You provide a service that other people voluntarily pay you to provide.
It's almost . . . entrepeneurial.
Let's see . . . the last UPS delivery I received is when I ordered some new garden implements from roguehoe.com last year. Nothing else recently. Sorry I can't be of a bigger help to your revolution.
Well, they voluntarily hired me, that's true.
About a month after I made my 30 days the shift manager told my anarcho-syndicalist hetero life partner that he (the manager) didn't understand why he (the hetero life partner) would bring an "a&~$~@~ like that" (me) into the company and that he (the manager) would hold it against him (the life partner) for as long as he lived. Then there was the time they tried to fire me for "workplace violence" and it never went anywhere because the union squashed it. And then there was the time the district manager cut me off while I was reciting my Weingarten rights with "Yeah, I know the National Labor Relations Act, blah blah blah." And then and then there was the time they told me to go home and I told them I had seniority and they told me to go home and I filed a grievance and got paid anyway.
I think a lot of my bosses would chuckle at the idea that they pay me voluntarily, but, regardless, I'm pretty sure it's not what "freedom of contract" had in mind.
Anyway, unfortunately, receiving shipments from UPS does nothing to further the international proletarian socialist revolution, but seeing as UPS spends 2/3rds of its income on labor, it does help strengthen the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Thank you very much.
Much more importantly, I (sorta) remembered a line in a post on some dude's website that I saw two years ago? Weed or no weed, regardless of font size, I think my memory's pretty good.
And yes, I'm actually with you on that to a degree. If people are purposely not contributing to society when they have the ability to, they should forfeit any benefits from said society. The issue is when there's a blanket policy that also prevents the legitimately sick and injured getting treatment by having a system that tries its best to re-categorize them into the latter groups.
Many people suffer hardships. Helping those individuals & families has to be TEMPORARY in nature. It cannot be a way of life. However little in the current administration's policies or in Obamacare push people to work towards becoming self sufficient. The subsidies actively discourage it. Make $2 dollars more per year, and you lose thousands in subsidies to pay for your healthcare plan. SSDI has reported that more than half of the 10 MILLION people who are on 'Government Disability' shouldn't be on it. I've seen Disability applications for "depression" and "sleep apnea." OVER 50 million Americans are on Medicaid, which means that they pay NOTHING for their own healthcare. You and I pay for it, in addition to our own. At some point, we've all got a responsibility to see to our own welfare. I believe in charity and looking after others, but there are obvious limits to that, and there are too many who are leeching off of others and the system, and will continue to do so, unless actively prevented. The liberals in Washington aren't going to do that, because the assistance they give out continually helps win them re-election.
People go into debt for new cookware. Do you think they won't take on debt for medical procedures?
No one is denying that the free market is great for people that have 20 grand in cash just lying around.
Doug, props to you and Andrew R for preaching sanity, sensibility and accountability on the boards today.
IIRC, Killer GM, Matt is from the United Kingdom, so he doesn't pay for 50 million Americans on Medicaid, just the, um, I don't know how many millions enrolled in the NHS. Spirit of '47 and all that.
Many people suffer hardships. Helping those individuals & families has to be TEMPORARY in nature. It cannot be a way of life. However little in the current administration's policies or in Obamacare push people to work towards becoming self sufficient. The subsidies actively discourage it. Make $2 dollars more per year, and you lose thousands in subsidies to pay for your healthcare plan.
And the conservatives won't fix that either, because their entire rage machine is built around having those people there taking a pittance for you to be angry at so that you don't notice the people taking in the real money.
They won't impose a sensible, graduated system either, because that would cost a LOT of money and they want to keep theirs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
o you think they won't take on debt for medical procedures?Doug, props to you and Andrew R for preaching sanity, sensibility and accountability on the boards today.
Wait, isn't it April SECOND where you are?
IIRC, Killer GM, Matt is from the United Kingdom, so he doesn't pay for 50 million Americans on Medicaid, just the, um, I don't know how many millions enrolled in the NHS. Spirit of '47 and all that.
More than sixty or seventy million (in the UK) I think. The Manchester United fans probably shouldn't be counted though... I was merely using Matt's comments as a Segway into my soapbox... No offense Matt.
And the conservatives won't fix that either, because their entire rage machine is built around having those people there taking a pittance for you to be angry at so that you don't notice the people taking in the real money.
They won't impose a sensible, graduated system either, because that would cost a LOT of money and they want to keep theirs.
It's still April 1. Don't know about any rage machine. I'm not angry at anyone. I think that pretty much everyone wants to keep their money. That's why wealthy liberals hire the same tax lawyers and find the same tax loopholes that conservatives do. I do know what direction our healthcare, and my work as a healthcare professional is headed under the current administration. I don't think it's in anyone's best interest to continue where we're headed, save those who pay nothing for it. At some point, you've got to reward those who work hard, play by the rules, and pay into the system. A system that increasingly shakes down the average working Joe to perennially pay for the non-working guy, simply doesn't cut it.
Would it be incorrect to assume you don't want to pay any taxes at all?It's correct to assume I don't want my money stolen from me. If taxes were solely voluntary, I might donate.
How much of someone else's money do you need to be "civilized"? How much of what some of us have to sweat and bleed to earn do we deserve to keep? Or in the case of many of the socialist/comies how much will you allow us to keep when you have the power to take?Yeah, sorry. I like civilization.Would it be incorrect to assume you don't want to pay any taxes at all?It's correct to assume I don't want my money stolen from me. If taxes were solely voluntary, I might donate.
Oh you guys!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What else do you call forcible taking from a man what he has earned?If I continually accuse people of theft and robbery is it true or an overly hostile barb that eliminates the chance for civil debate?If i rob your house to give the money to a sick friend does it matter if i give some of my own money too?Liberals pay taxes too, you know.I still do not understand how we can have so many "compassionate liberals" some with huge amounts of cash and they do not CHOOSE to help the poor themselves. Certainly there are enough of them to make a noticeable dent in the issue should they choose. Instead they push to take money from others to do their "charity"
I'm glad you can buy induglences to alleviate your guilt about not helping the poor more. Plus, you get the added benefit of watching the government punish those who don't believe the way you do. That's almost like a win-win situation, right? Win for you, win for power-brokers in government. Lose for other people, but as long as they're not poor, too bad for them, eh?
Your argument is invalid since all of your income only has value due to the government's fiat. Unless you can actually trade your skills and you can prove you would have the same income without a government as you currently enjoy with it and what it provides, you are saying nothing and proving nothing.
I also notice you pivoting from an unsubstantiated claim to something contradictory to the very claim you just made. Very classy.
The government has earned a cut of your income because of its role in facilitating your ability to draw an income. You don't complain about your business's owner getting paid more than you for work you're actually doing do you?
If you think it's taken forcibly you misunderstand representative government entirely. Some of us like paying taxes and getting what they provide. You don't? Well the right to tax is in the Constitution, so you'll just have to LEAVE.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A system that increasingly shakes down the average working Joe to perennially pay for the non-working guy, simply doesn't cut it.
here's a thought...
Rather than the prohibitively expensive if not outright impossible job of squeezing the money out of the people living it up in the lap of luxury with bargain basement doctors, bulk food purchases, and cockroach infested apartments you get the money from the millionaires paying a lower % of taxes than you are by hiding the money off shore and outright bribing lawmakers to KEEP their tax rates that low.
That's socialism!
If, in aggregate, paying for the healthcare for citizens so they can get back to being productive inputs in the economy is CHEAPER for an individual than offsetting the price increase, isn't it a good idea to do so? Purely economically speaking, which is to say nothing of the moral imperative to see the sick healed.
We're paying for the healthcare for a lot of citizens. They are LEAVING the workforce in record droves. Two or three times the number of people drop out of the work force (Unemployed, but Quit Looking for Work) per month, than those who find a job (now days, typically a part time job that doesn't offer employer benefits). As those numbers aren't counted in the unemployment statistics, it gives the appearance of an economic recovery. Point is, Medicaid is given to more than 50 million Americans. If getting healthcare is supposed to help you "get back to work" and be productive, why are people instead not going back to work?
here's a thought...
Rather than the prohibitively expensive if not outright impossible job of squeezing the money out of the people living it up in the lap of luxury with bargain basement doctors, bulk food purchases, and cockroach infested apartments you get the money from the millionaires paying a lower % of taxes than you are by hiding the money off shore and outright bribing lawmakers to KEEP their tax rates that low.
While that may have merit, that is another matter that is not directly one-and-the-same as paying for other people's healthcare. Wealthy people don't park that money offshore for no reason. Reduce the capital gains tax and corporate tax rates, and people will likely bring that money, and many jobs back to this country and negate the need to "go after them."
We're paying for the healthcare for a lot of citizens. They are LEAVING the workforce in record droves. Two or three times the number of people drop out of the work force (Unemployed, but Quit Looking for Work) per month, than those who find a job (now days, typically a part time job that doesn't offer employer benefits). As those numbers aren't counted in the unemployment statistics, it gives the appearance of an economic recovery. Point is, Medicaid is given to more than 50 million Americans. If getting healthcare is supposed to help you "get back to work" and be productive, why are people instead not going back to work?
If, in aggregate, paying for the healthcare for citizens so they can get back to being productive inputs in the economy is CHEAPER for an individual than offsetting the price increase, isn't it a good idea to do so? Purely economically speaking, which is to say nothing of the moral imperative to see the sick healed.
He who does not work shall not have health care?
Do you have sources?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While that may have merit, that is another matter that is not directly one-and-the-same as paying for other people's healthcare. Wealthy people don't park that money offshore for no reason. Reduce the capital gains tax and corporate tax rates, and people will likely bring that money, and many jobs back to this country and negate the need to "go after them."here's a thought...
Rather than the prohibitively expensive if not outright impossible job of squeezing the money out of the people living it up in the lap of luxury with bargain basement doctors, bulk food purchases, and cockroach infested apartments you get the money from the millionaires paying a lower % of taxes than you are by hiding the money off shore and outright bribing lawmakers to KEEP their tax rates that low.
So if we don't tax that money and let them keep it they'll put it in a US bank instead of an offshore tax haven? What's the difference? WHy not just write the rules so that they can't hide it and avoid taxes?
Davick, the 3-to-1 rate of those leaving the job market to those who find a job has been all over the news for several years. I'm not going to put up links, but you can readily find it if you want to.
The reason companies go abroad is due in part to the fact that the USA has the HIGHEST corporate tax rate of any country in the world. Add to that any company here in this country has to pay wages as high as almost anywhere in the world, and benefits, including health care. In short, it is hard to turn a respectable profit when you're operating a company in this country and competing against other countries who pay a fraction of what we pay here to keep their operation going, and they sell here and compete with our domestic companies. The wealthy from here and abroad park money off shore. We can't tax that money, because it is deposited in another country. If you want that money in this country, you're going to have to provide an incentive to bring it back voluntarily. If our Democrat friends would do that, they would more than make up the difference that the "tax cut" would cost. They don't do it, because in their core values, (here I go generalizing) liberals don't believe in tax cuts, even when everyone would stand to gain from it.
While that may have merit, that is another matter that is not directly one-and-the-same as paying for other people's healthcare. Wealthy people don't park that money offshore for no reason. Reduce the capital gains tax and corporate tax rates, and people will likely bring that money, and many jobs back to this country and negate the need to "go after them."
At what point does doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results become insanity?
Lowering taxes for the rich is something we've been doing over and over since Reagan, and yet we seem to still be hemmorhaging jobs to overseas firms. The reason is that the elite want to have their cake and eat it, too, and there's nothing we can do to compel the corporations to hire here. So they won't, because it's still more efficient in the short-term to do otherwise.
Meatrace, while much is often said about what Personal income tax rates "should be," I don't think there's a solid argument against low corporate and capital gains tax rates (the latter is absolutely a double tax). Given that we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world, you simply DON'T know what "they" would or wouldn't do, because it costs SO much to do business here, that "they" aren't stupid enough to do so. They go abroad. Try lowering the corporate rates, and see what happens, before you try and tell me (unsuccessfully) that it won't work. The current strategy of having the highest corporate rate in the world clearly is having disastrous results. Or are you suggesting that we live in economically prosperous times?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're paying for the healthcare for a lot of citizens. They are LEAVING the workforce in record droves. Two or three times the number of people drop out of the work force (Unemployed, but Quit Looking for Work) per month, than those who find a job (now days, typically a part time job that doesn't offer employer benefits). As those numbers aren't counted in the unemployment statistics, it gives the appearance of an economic recovery. Point is, Medicaid is given to more than 50 million Americans. If getting healthcare is supposed to help you "get back to work" and be productive, why are people instead not going back to work?
I'm not even sure what you're referring to. The vast, vast majority of the healthcare being provided by medicare and medicare is for elderly retirees, who aren't likely to go back to work any time soon. Are you saying you think they ought to?
I think you misunderstand me though, healthcare doesn't magically make people who are unemployed find jobs (and I can't imagine why you'd think it would), it helps those who ARE employed stay productive. It's one reason why employers offer it--they know that a healthy workforce is a productive workforce. But many jobs don't offer healthcare, and to me the choice is between forcing them to or simply allowing them to sign onto medicare.
Personally I dislike the idea of subsidizing the employer's bottom line, if we're going to be a system where labor is dependent on their employer for healthcare they NEED to do so and not doing so amounts to a free ride for the employer. Which again brings us back to single-payer.
If NO employer is required or even needs to provide insurance as a benefit to employees it's an immediate positive supply shock to those companies who previously were. It adds immeasurably to the liquidity of labor and would cut down significantly on frictional unemployment. It would also prevent employees from feeling trapped in a job due to the need for medical care, such as for chronic conditions. In other words, it allows the invisible hand to actually work in the labor market.
EDIT: I just wanted to add one more thing about the shift to part-time employment. Productivity per capita has been skyrocketing for the last several decades while wages remain stagnant. If we, as an industrialized society, can continually produce the means to sustain life ever more efficiently, shouldn't we expect to do so with ever less effort? Once everything is automated, and labor isn't needed to produce anything (on a sustaining level, I'm not talking about innovation or growth, that's another topic entirely) shouldn't we all be free of the shackles of wage labor? If not, what exactly is in it for the regular joe to work ever harder when a greater portion of the fruits of his labor go to his slave master....er employer?
Davick, the 3-to-1 rate of those leaving the job market to those who find a job has been all over the news for several years. I'm not going to put up links, but you can readily find it if you want to.
Well, if you can't handle the burden of proof, instead I'll just assume you're making it up.
Meatrace, while much is often said about what Personal income tax rates "should be," I don't think there's a solid argument against low corporate and capital gains tax rates (the latter is absolutely a double tax). Given that we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world, you simply DON'T know what "they" would or wouldn't do, because it costs SO much to do business here, that "they" aren't stupid enough to do so. They go abroad. Try lowering the corporate rates, and see what happens, before you try and tell me (unsuccessfully) that it won't work. The current strategy of having the highest corporate rate in the world clearly is having disastrous results. Or are you suggesting that we live in economically prosperous times?
I'm not even sure if you're reading my posts...
We've cut capital gains and corporate tax rates in the past. There has been NO correlation with employment rate, investment rate, or GDP growth whatsoever. What makes you think that it would work when, empirically, it hasn't when we have tried it before?
As for the last bit, we are absolutely living in economically prosperous times...for the 1%.
As for capital gains tax being a double tax, my solution is to not tax the original income that an individual invests, but tax the capital gains at a progressive rate identical to that of regular income. Capital gains tax rates are at the lowest point since WWII if not earlier. It only seems to serve to make the rich gratuitously richer.
I'm not even sure what you're referring to. The vast, vast majority of the healthcare being provided by medicare and medicare is for elderly retirees, who aren't likely to go back to work any time soon. Are you saying you think they ought to?If NO employer is required or even needs to provide insurance as a benefit to employees it's an immediate positive supply shock to those companies who previously were. It adds immeasurably to the liquidity of labor and would cut down significantly on frictional unemployment. It would also prevent employees from feeling trapped in a job due to the need for medical care, such as for chronic conditions....
I am referring to those who report looking for a job in a previous month, who stop looking for a job in the following month. I am not referring to those who are retiring, but there is undoubtedly some overlap.
Employers who chose not to offer healthcare coverage are at a disadvantage in their efforts to hire or retain quality employees, with those employers who do offer coverage. Not having/retaining productive personnel is directly related to a company's viability and survival. If you can't keep good employees, you won't survive in business. Therefore, companies are rewarded by offering healthcare coverage because it allows them to have a better workforce than other companies that don't offer coverage. And that, without a single ounce of involvement from the inefficient leviathan beauracracy that is our federal government.
It's 12:20 AM gents. I'll hope to continue this stimulating discussion again soon. Davick, just go Google it, you'll find it easily.
As for the last bit, we are absolutely living in economically prosperous times...for the 1%.
As for capital gains tax being a double tax, my solution is to not tax the original income that an individual invests, but tax the capital gains at a progressive rate identical to that of regular income. Capital gains tax rates are at the lowest point since WWII if not earlier. It only seems to serve to make the rich gratuitously richer.
Come on Meat. In order to invest, you're putting in money you already have, and have already paid taxes on once. How would you 'not tax' that original income. It's already been taxed before you invest it. As you point out, capital gains are at low rates. I can live with 15%. It is the corporate rate that needs to come down. The president wants to raise Capital Gains to 30%. And what do you think the result will be on business if he succeeds? Less business.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Come on Meat. In order to invest, you're putting in money you already have, and have already paid taxes on once. How would you 'not tax' that original income. It's already been taxed before you invest it. As you point out, capital gains are at low rates. I can live with 15%. It is the corporate rate that needs to come down. The president wants to raise Capital Gains to 30%. And what do you think the result will be on business if he succeeds? Less business.
As for the last bit, we are absolutely living in economically prosperous times...for the 1%.
As for capital gains tax being a double tax, my solution is to not tax the original income that an individual invests, but tax the capital gains at a progressive rate identical to that of regular income. Capital gains tax rates are at the lowest point since WWII if not earlier. It only seems to serve to make the rich gratuitously richer.
You're obfuscating the truth to an almost disingenuous level. Its a not a capital investment tax. It's a capital GAINS tax on the money you haven't already paid taxes on.