| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
In gaming terms, this is called theorycrafting. You've reasoned out how things ought to work, if everything works like a well-oiled machine, and so you've convinced yourself that it's how it MUST work.
I'd like to remind people that this is the same logic that said, back in the 50s and 60s when the idea that tobacco caused cancer was controversial, the tobacco companies wouldn't sell a dangerous product because it's not profitable to kill their customers. It has a sort of folksy, common-sense pseudo-rational bent to it, but in the end it's utter shash.
In reality, none of this in the case. If no employer offers a benefit, and they collude not to, none of them is at a particular disadvantage. While it may be true that two otherwise identical firms may find it an advantage to compete by offering such incentives, no two firms are nearly so similar as to fit this criteria. In fact, firms are becoming so big and such near-monopolies that they can utterly dominate their position in a field to create leverage against prospective employees.
Many jobs actually THRIVE on the high turnover rate that they cultivate through grueling hours and low pay, because in dire economic times such as those in which we are now living, people are desperate and there's ALWAYS a boss eager to exploit desperation. There are all KINDS of reasons why people take jobs or stay in them, and reducing human beings to an interchangeable input unfairly discounts all sorts of reasons you couldn't predict for why they act in an (apparently) economically irrational manner.
What in the roleplaying community we call theorycrafting, in economics we call the Austrian school of thought. Empiricism be damned, they've decided how things must work and if you show them evidence to the contrary they'll ignore you.
| 3 people 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.
I shouldn't have to spell this out to you: income tax deductions.
If you invest $5000 into a money market account in year X, you can deduct 5k from your income for that year. Look at that! You're effectively not paying taxes on your initial investment!The problem with your idea is that a low capital gains tax should IN THEORY incentivize new investment. What we WANT is investment in domestic capital and labor. What we GET is financial investment on the stock market, much of which goes to companies already producing or spending a significant amount of money internationally. In other words, it only accelerates the movement of capital off-shore.
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.
None taken ;)
| 3 people 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.
So many flaws.
As someone else pointed out, a capital gains tax isn't a tax on capital, it's a tax on the difference between what you started with and what you end with (assuming the end total is higher).
If you start with X and earn 1, you end with X+1. You aren't taxed on X+1, you're only taxed on the 1. You're not paying taxes on the money you've already earned, you're paying taxes on the new money you earn.
Second, you're telling me that wealthy people will stop investing their money if the tax rates are slightly higher? That's just silly, because you're saying that rich people will completely avoid the opportunity to become richer, just because it'll happen slightly slower.
Rich people don't create jobs. Our economy is primarily driven by consumers. The businesses that are the largest and most influential are those that deal with the highest volume of consumers. They provide goods and services to massive numbers of people. It's the desires and needs of those large groups that create jobs.
Amazon doesn't exist because some rich guy decided it would exist. Amazon exists because there was an opportunity to make money from the things people needed/wanted. If customers didn't need/want Amazon's offerings, it would have folded, regardless of how much a rich person really wanted it to succeed.
Wealthy people put more of their money into savings, as much as 50% or more at the wealthiest. Poor and middle class people often save 10% or less of their income. If you have an interest in increasing jobs, is it better to give the money to people who will save half of it, or the people who will spend almost all of it?
|
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....
I would happily accept payment in silver so no fiat currency is used. The government has earned nothing, it is a necissary evil to pay some tax to pay for roads and the like but those that refuse to work (and do not pay tax themselves) have NOT earned a damn penny of my hard work. The owner deserves the bulk of the profits you are right, i work and earn what we have agreed to nothing more and nothing less.
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?
Because no one is hiring people with gaps in their resume. Unemployment is so high there are at least 5 applicants for every job, and employers HATE seeing downtime on a resume.
Also, if you've had a serious injury or illness, chances are pretty good you can't go back to doing your previous occupation which means you effectively have no experience, out of date qualifications, AND gaps in your resume. No one wants to hire you, and after going through all that muck you probably don't have the resources to start your own business (4/5 of which will leave you bankrupt anyway)
New york states idea of worker re training is to show people how to use microsoft word.. oOOOoooOOo that'll get you paid!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would happily accept payment in silver so no fiat currency is used.
You do realise that silver is as much a fiat currency as paper money, don't you?
It has zero inherent value, except what a government has agreed to guarantee?
The only reason people ever accepted coinage, whether in pure metal or debased metal, is because they knew they would be able to pass it on to someone else.
That someone else only accepted it, because he knew he could pass it onto someone else, who only accepted it, because he knew he could pass it onto someone else, who only accepted it, because he knew he could pass it onto someone else, who only accepted it, because he knew he could pass it onto someone else, who only accepted it, because he knew he could pass it onto someone else,...
...and eventually it would end up in the king's coffers, accepted as guaranteed payment, that was now returned to source.
By that time, the coin would probably be looking rough, so it would be re-minted, and sent out, possibly with a new ruler's head on it, showing that the new regime was willing to guarantee this otherwise worthless chunk of metal.
If you were truly a libertarian, you would be asking for payment in trade goods and livestock. Tangible assets, with visible proven worth. (ooh! A chicken! Eggs for breakfast!)
But most people prefer to be paid in fiat currency, because it has a nationally-agreed value, and they don't have to play 'Settlers of Catan', every time they want goods or services.
"I got wood for sheep!"
| 3 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
And taxes are the amount you've agreed they're entitled to, ergo, it's not theft. If it makes you feel better envision it as you being a stockholder in the representative democracy corporation of America. You're also an employee of their "society enterprise". You draw a paycheck and part of it goes to the owners via taxes and as a stockholder you get to say how those "profits" are spent. So at the stockholder meetings we all vote to spend them on roads and schools. If you don't like the direction the company is taking, divest your interest and get a job at another country.
How you think a person who inherits a business is more entitled to fruits of your labor than a fellow human being is entitled to be treated humanely baffles me. I guess dehumanizing them as moochers helps....
While that may have merit, that is another matter that is not directly one-and-the-same as paying for other people's healthcare.
Its the exact same thing.
You ARE going to be paying for some peoples healthcare. The old, the sick, and the poor. You are going to be paying for people you don't consider old enough, poor enough, or sick enough. Unless you don't pay for anyone this is inevitable. Stop whining about it and accept reality. The government is not perfect, it will never be perfect, but it is completely necessary. Not paying for these people would not change your taxes or the national debt one bit. The amount of loss is too small a part of the federal government to be noticeable.
The rage machine (fox news, right wing radio, tea party astroturf) over this exists simply to propogate the golden mean fallacy. If you start your argument at "End all government subsidies!" suddenly cutting government subsidies seems like the compromise position rather than Not expanding it or only expanding it 20%.
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."
Right, because wealthy people are going to bring the money back home because they don't want to pay 15% on it, but they will pay 7% on it rather than 0% on it?
|
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?
Because no one is hiring people with gaps in their resume. Unemployment is so high there are at least 5 applicants for every job, and employers HATE seeing downtime on a resume.
Also, if you've had a serious injury or illness, chances are pretty good you can't go back to doing your previous occupation which means you effectively have no experience, out of date qualifications, AND gaps in your resume. No one wants to hire you, and after going through all that muck you probably don't have the resources to start your own business (4/5 of which will leave you bankrupt anyway)
New york states idea of worker re training is to show people how to use microsoft word.. oOOOoooOOo that'll get you paid!
Yeah, having a seven and a half year gap on the resume does wonders for the callback to submission ratio. The reason for that gap also negates a lot of the experience advantages I have in the positions I go for. Any kind of black mark is poison in a buyer's market.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Involving a high marginal tax rate there's a great example of how it could disincentivize someone, it happened to Ronald Reagan. When he was still a working actor, the marginal tax rate on income was really high, 93% if you made enough. As a working actor, he sometimes reached that level, but he made his money by actively doing something. Once he hit that amount, if he worked on a movie he only took home 7% of what he made, so it didn't make a lot of sense for him to spend time on making the movie.
The reason this example fails with a lot of wealthy people is that investing takes little to no effort. It's a process that can just keep going on in the background while they take a vacation. Even though the rate at which new money arrives in their account, it continues to do so and requires little to no additional effort. That's why the Reagan example and concept that the rich would stop investing is false.
A capital gains tax is also progressive. Poor families make virtually no income from capital gains. Middle income families might make some, but it's not even close to a significant portion of their yearly income. Even people just inside the top 5% of earners make most of their money from their jobs. It's not until you get to the top couple percent that you see people who's primary source of income is investment.
Some stats from the 2003 capital gains tax cut:
On average middle income families received about a $20 tax break.
Families that earned over $1,000,000 on average received a $32,000 tax break.
As for the economic effect of capital gains and the economy, you'll be hard pressed to find a link. Seriously, people have studied it and tried to find a causal link and there just isn't one, at least not on a large or lasting scale. Variations of the capital gains tax account for 0.12% of economic change. By that, it means that if the economy changed by 2%, capital gains might account for a 0.0024% change in the economy... at most. Even then, we can't be sure which way it influenced the economy, because it's such a small effect.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Having the highest corporate tax rate in the world, (I haven't time to search, so I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt), is meaningless if no-one actually pays it.
Losses carried forward, subsidies, allowances, incentives, and whatever other euphemism a lobbyist will come up with to pretty up a 'loophole' all mean that no company pays corporate taxes on its full profits.
The book rate may be 30%, but if half your profits are in some way ineligible, you're only paying tax as if it were 15%.
If 90% of your profits are exempt, the result is as if the tax rate were 3%.
The baseline has to be kept higher, to raise the amounts needed from the tiny percentage of profits that some companies allow themselves to be taxed upon.
If you are a company that is paying corporate taxes on near 100% of your profits, I can see how this seems burdensome.
But your anger should be directed where it belongs.
Instead of "All Tax is Theft!", or "No Handouts to Welfare Scum!", the cry should be "Boycott the Tax-Thieving Businesses, who Force Honest Businesses To Subsidise Them!".
When I hear the words 'welfare scum', I think Starbucks and Walmart, not the guy down the VA with one leg, not the old person who's benefitting from the taxes they paid during their working life, not the person working two jobs for minimum wage.
Why are you paying Starbucks' taxes?
Why are you paying Walmart's payroll?
And why are you arguing that you should be paying more to them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason this example fails with a lot of wealthy people is that investing takes little to no effort. It's a process that can just keep going on in the background while they take a vacation. Even though the rate at which new money arrives in their account, it continues to do so and requires little to no additional effort. That's why the Reagan example and concept that the rich would stop investing is false.
Yup...plus what else are they going to do with the money...stuff it in a mattress?
Oh noes, I have to pay as much tax on this money (which I did nothing to earn) as some work working schmuck pays on his wages.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wealthy from here and abroad park money off shore. We can't tax that money, because it is deposited in another country.
Another misconception.
When faced with a prevailing opinion such as that, you need to ask if that is actually a legal fact, or is it that what those who wish to cheat you would like you to believe?
Fostering a culture of hopelessness works in their favour, as it disincentivises any efforts to change the status quo.
Actually, you can seize assets offshore. Even in countries that were once considered inviolable.
Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility expected to bring in up to £3 billion
Don't know if you can read that, but the key text is reproduced below;
An HMRC disclosure scheme launched in the wake of the UK’s landmark tax agreement with Liechtenstein is now expected to bring in up to £3 billion by 2016, it was announced on Monday.
The Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility (LDF) gives people with unpaid tax in accounts in the principality the chance to come forward and pay what they owe. So far, 2,400 people have registered to disclose their liabilities, with £363 million already paid up.
It was originally estimated that the opportunity would bring in £1 billion from around 2,000 people. But, on Monday, Permanent Secretary for Tax Dave Hartnett revealed the estimated revenue was now much higher.
He said: “In the light of the ongoing success of LDF, we now anticipate the arrangements will produce up to £3 billion from a much larger number of people.”
Dave was speaking at the signing of a Double Taxation Agreement (DTA), strengthening the cooperation between the UK and Liechtenstein. This follows the signing of the landmark Tax Information Exchange Agreement in 2009.
The DTA was signed by David Gauke, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (XST), and Dr Klaus Tschutscher, Liechtenstein’s Prime Minister.
The XST said: “The UK has the largest tax treaty network in the world but, until now, Liechtenstein was the only country in the European Economic Area we had no agreement with. This new treaty and the existing disclosure facility show that the net is closing on those who try to evade their UK tax liabilities by using offshore structures – there are fewer and fewer places to hide.”
The LDF was originally scheduled to run until 31 March 2015, but has been extended. It will now close on 5 April 2016.
To recap; even the amnesty has brought in three times what was expected, and there are bound to be those that missed the email, who will find that not only are their offshore assets seized to pay their unpaid tax, but will find themselves stripped of further assets as punishment for fraud (up to +100% of evaded tax, if it matches penalties for mainland evasion).
| 6 people 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.
Yes, thats how it works for me, you and meatrace. Thats NOT how it works for the rich.
The rich got their money by investing, not working. This is an easy distinction to make legistlatively, just tax the first million per year at the lower rate and then tax the rest at progressively higher rates.
You however, are too busy railing against the guy getting a free hospital visit to ignore the guy who's getting a free hospital- just like you're supposed to.
The big companies have it so hard with the high taxes.
It's probably tough on the small guys, but f***ing General Electric? They've got it made.
Free healthcare for the poor doesn't mean the system is socialist.
I live in what's probably the most free-market oriented country in the world -Chile-, where even the socialists would be called capitalist in other nations, and everyone gets access to free healthcare. You can pay for more exclusive private clinics, but if you can't afford it, you can use the public system. While it tends to be a bit slower, the quality is just as good (and, for certain specialties, the public system is actually better).
The way our system works is as follows:
-The moment you turn 18, you automatically join the FONASA system (National Healthcare Fund, in Castilian). Before that, you are included in your parent's plan.
-If you earn more than the minimum wage and you are employed by someone else, your employer retains 7% of your wage and pays it to FONASA every month. If you earn the minimum, have no earnings or have 65 (for men) or 60 (for women) years, you don't pay anything.
-FONASA can cover up to 100% of your medical bill, so long as you go to a public hospital. In some special cases it can also cover the bill on private institutions (such as in the case of a grave accident or a very specific illness that requires you to go to a certain clinic).
-As an alternative, and if you earn more than minimum wage, you can instead join one of the seven ISAPREs (Previsional Healthcare Institutions, in Castilian). You pay slightly more than the 7%, depending on the plan you choose.
-An ISAPRE can cover up to 100% of your medical bill (though usually it's somewhere between 80-90%), but only in private institutions. The tradeoff here is that private clinics can be much more expensive, so if it doesn't cover 100%, you can end up paying quite a bit. They also have some other perks, like special assistance in specialty institutions and stuff like free movie tickets.
-Note that full coverage only works when you really need the procedure. For instance, facial reconstruction after a car crash can be fully covered by both systems, but plastic surgery because you want a new nose isn't.
-In adition, there's the AUGE (Universal Access Plan of Explicit Guarantees, in Castilian), which forces both FONASA and the ISAPREs to cover 100% of treatments if they belong to the list of those included in the system. For instance, if you are 60+ years, AUGE ensures all your dental bills will be covered by the State; if you have linfoma, the State pays for everything; cancer-related pains, 100% coverage; AIDS, 100% coverage; depression if you have 15+ years, 100%; Parkinson's, 100%; and so on. Currently, the AUGE includes 80 different cases, and is constantly being expanded (about 13 new ones are being added this year, for example).
So far it's been working pretty good, since it manages to both allow the private sector to be economically viable while at the same time ensuring everyone, regardless of income, can get treatment, specially if the disease is either life-threatening, life-impairing, or affecting risky individuals (elders, pregnant women, and babies), in which case the State pays for everything if you can't pay it yourself.
All without socialism!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lower tax rate on capital gains makes sense if everyone is at more or less the same economic level, and you want to encourage people to save money (for retirement or whatever). It's a terrible idea if some people can just straight-up live off of the magic money created by their massive piles of existing money, while other people work hard and can never get there because of the higher taxes on the money they're actually earning. An equitable solution would be to have a steeper scale, so that at low and moderate capital gains, they'd be taxed a lot less than wages, but at the upper end they'd be taxed more. But that's not going to happen.
Involving a high marginal tax rate there's a great example of how it could disincentivize someone, it happened to Ronald Reagan. When he was still a working actor, the marginal tax rate on income was really high, 93% if you made enough. As a working actor, he sometimes reached that level, but he made his money by actively doing something. Once he hit that amount, if he worked on a movie he only took home 7% of what he made, so it didn't make a lot of sense for him to spend time on making the movie.
You mean he only took home 7% of the income in that tax bracket, right?
You mean he only took home 7% of the income in that tax bracket, right?Involving a high marginal tax rate there's a great example of how it could disincentivize someone, it happened to Ronald Reagan. When he was still a working actor, the marginal tax rate on income was really high, 93% if you made enough. As a working actor, he sometimes reached that level, but he made his money by actively doing something. Once he hit that amount, if he worked on a movie he only took home 7% of what he made, so it didn't make a lot of sense for him to spend time on making the movie.
You did notice the words "marginal tax rate" correct?
|
|
I would happily accept payment in silver so no fiat currency is used.You do realise that silver is as much a fiat currency as paper money, don't you?
It has zero inherent value, except what a government has agreed to guarantee?
The only reason people ever accepted coinage, whether in pure metal or debased metal, is because they knew they would be able to pass it on to someone else.
That someone else only accepted it, because he knew he could pass it onto someone else, who only accepted it, because he knew he could pass it onto someone else, who only accepted it, because he knew he could pass it onto someone else, who only accepted it, because he knew he could pass it onto someone else, who only accepted it, because he knew he could pass it onto someone else,...
...and eventually it would end up in the king's coffers, accepted as guaranteed payment, that was now returned to source.By that time, the coin would probably be looking rough, so it would be re-minted, and sent out, possibly with a new ruler's head on it, showing that the new regime was willing to guarantee this otherwise worthless chunk of metal.
If you were truly a libertarian, you would be asking for payment in trade goods and livestock. Tangible assets, with visible proven worth. (ooh! A chicken! Eggs for breakfast!)
But most people prefer to be paid in fiat currency, because it has a nationally-agreed value, and they don't have to play 'Settlers of Catan', every time they want goods or services.
"I got wood for sheep!"
Silver, as any trade good, is worth what someone agrees to pay nothing more or less. Just because i pay with a us dollar, or mexican peso for that matter, doesn't entitle them to a quarter of what i earn. That is the little point that you missed there.
|
|
Come on Meat. In order to invest, you're putting in money you already have, and have already paid taxes on once.
Yes, thats how it works for me, you and meatrace. Thats NOT how it works for the rich.
The rich got their money by investing, not working. This is an easy distinction to make legistlatively, just tax the first million per year at the lower rate and then tax the rest at progressively higher rates.
You however, are too busy railing against the guy getting a free hospital visit to ignore the guy who's getting a free hospital- just like you're supposed to.
Which can be handled by treating all income the same and bringing back more progressively higher tax brackets.
No need for separate handling of earned income and capital gains.
I cannot agree we need to be taxed more but all incomes should be taxed the same regardless of source.
Free healthcare for the poor doesn't mean the system is socialist.
I live in what's probably the most free-market oriented country in the world -Chile-, where even the socialists would be called capitalist in other nations, and everyone gets access to free healthcare. You can pay for more exclusive private clinics, but if you can't afford it, you can use the public system. While it tends to be a bit slower, the quality is just as good (and, for certain specialties, the public system is actually better).
Of course it doesn't. But for those opposed to universal healthcare for whatever reason, calling it socialism is a common and effective tactic.
Anyway in US political discourse "socialism" is really just a buzzword meaning "evil like those commies".Thanks for the look at your system. Yet another that sounds better than ours. :)
Mmm, the sooner people get over the cold-war hype and realize most things labelled "socialism" nowadays tend to mean "looking after the members of society, rather than just the top 5%", the better.
|
|
Mmm, the sooner people get over the cold-war hype and realize most things labelled "socialism" nowadays tend to mean "looking after the members of society, rather than just the top 5%", the better.Free healthcare for the poor doesn't mean the system is socialist.
I live in what's probably the most free-market oriented country in the world -Chile-, where even the socialists would be called capitalist in other nations, and everyone gets access to free healthcare. You can pay for more exclusive private clinics, but if you can't afford it, you can use the public system. While it tends to be a bit slower, the quality is just as good (and, for certain specialties, the public system is actually better).
Of course it doesn't. But for those opposed to universal healthcare for whatever reason, calling it socialism is a common and effective tactic.
Anyway in US political discourse "socialism" is really just a buzzword meaning "evil like those commies".Thanks for the look at your system. Yet another that sounds better than ours. :)
The second "looking after members of society" no longer means a free ride for drug addicts to buy snackfoods and have the choice to never work, we can talk about it. As long as this system exists i want no part in it.
|
|
Mmm, the sooner people get over the cold-war hype and realize most things labelled "socialism" nowadays tend to mean "looking after the members of society, rather than just the top 5%", the better.Free healthcare for the poor doesn't mean the system is socialist.
I live in what's probably the most free-market oriented country in the world -Chile-, where even the socialists would be called capitalist in other nations, and everyone gets access to free healthcare. You can pay for more exclusive private clinics, but if you can't afford it, you can use the public system. While it tends to be a bit slower, the quality is just as good (and, for certain specialties, the public system is actually better).
Of course it doesn't. But for those opposed to universal healthcare for whatever reason, calling it socialism is a common and effective tactic.
Anyway in US political discourse "socialism" is really just a buzzword meaning "evil like those commies".Thanks for the look at your system. Yet another that sounds better than ours. :)
It's got very little to do with the Cold War. Demonizing Communism was pretty much the point of the Cold War from the bosses point of view.
The end of the Cold War lets them point at communism as a loser economically as well as a totalitarian nightmare.
Point out the fact that it cannot work?
The second "looking after members of society" no longer means a free ride for drug addicts to buy snackfoods and have the choice to never work, we can talk about it. As long as this system exists i want no part in it.Mmm, the sooner people get over the cold-war hype and realize most things labelled "socialism" nowadays tend to mean "looking after the members of society, rather than just the top 5%", the better.Free healthcare for the poor doesn't mean the system is socialist.
I live in what's probably the most free-market oriented country in the world -Chile-, where even the socialists would be called capitalist in other nations, and everyone gets access to free healthcare. You can pay for more exclusive private clinics, but if you can't afford it, you can use the public system. While it tends to be a bit slower, the quality is just as good (and, for certain specialties, the public system is actually better).
Of course it doesn't. But for those opposed to universal healthcare for whatever reason, calling it socialism is a common and effective tactic.
Anyway in US political discourse "socialism" is really just a buzzword meaning "evil like those commies".Thanks for the look at your system. Yet another that sounds better than ours. :)
Liar. And I don't mean your straw man BS either (though I certainly could have). You're a hypocrite if you're using the internet and want no part of our system. (also, leave?)
Stop vilifying other people. Ever notice how you're like, a fully realized entire person? Well everyone else is too. Other people aren't the evil two dimensional caricatures you're pretending they are. And stop using that flawed foundation to support a nirvana fallacy argument.
You did notice the words "marginal tax rate" correct?You mean he only took home 7% of the income in that tax bracket, right?Involving a high marginal tax rate there's a great example of how it could disincentivize someone, it happened to Ronald Reagan. When he was still a working actor, the marginal tax rate on income was really high, 93% if you made enough. As a working actor, he sometimes reached that level, but he made his money by actively doing something. Once he hit that amount, if he worked on a movie he only took home 7% of what he made, so it didn't make a lot of sense for him to spend time on making the movie.
Whoops! :p
Point out the fact that it cannot work?Mmm, the sooner people get over the cold-war hype and realize most things labelled "socialism" nowadays tend to mean "looking after the members of society, rather than just the top 5%", the better.Free healthcare for the poor doesn't mean the system is socialist.
I live in what's probably the most free-market oriented country in the world -Chile-, where even the socialists would be called capitalist in other nations, and everyone gets access to free healthcare. You can pay for more exclusive private clinics, but if you can't afford it, you can use the public system. While it tends to be a bit slower, the quality is just as good (and, for certain specialties, the public system is actually better).
Of course it doesn't. But for those opposed to universal healthcare for whatever reason, calling it socialism is a common and effective tactic.
Anyway in US political discourse "socialism" is really just a buzzword meaning "evil like those commies".Thanks for the look at your system. Yet another that sounds better than ours. :)
It's got very little to do with the Cold War. Demonizing Communism was pretty much the point of the Cold War from the bosses point of view.
The end of the Cold War lets them point at communism as a loser economically as well as a totalitarian nightmare.
Just like Libertarianism!
I cannot agree we need to be taxed more...
I too like to refrain from making declarations about things I do not understand.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The second "looking after members of society" no longer means a free ride for drug addicts to buy snackfoods and have the choice to never work, we can talk about it. As long as this system exists i want no part in it.
And y'know, I agree with your sentiment there. I'm just not willing to ignore the people that truly do need help because the proposed solution also gives it to others. I'd rather see the system refined so it only gave help where it should be given (which would still see those drug addicts given the option to enter state rehab and be looked after until they've recovered and can become productive members of society, along with similar options for anyone else that needed help, but wouldn't just resort to handouts if they declined that help.)
My own depression issues saw me at the other end of that handout system for a while, to the point where I had to actually fight to get the help I needed returning myself to a working state, because the system seemed to be more content just giving me money to stay depressed and had very little in place for helping me lift myself out of that hole. I'd reached the point where I was looking for was a way to contribute again, to do some kind of work that I could still do and use that to feel I was worth something again, but I had to push at the system every part of the way (which isn't exactly simple for someone that's already suffering from depression issues) to get that help rather than it being offered as a default.
That kind of system, I agree, isn't something we should just accept as being just fine as it is, but I'm also thankful there was at least something in place to ensure I didn't simply fall out of the system altogether and get totally abandoned.
Every system can and should be improved. Perhaps in your way that's what you're pushing for, to get the system improved so it does what it's supposed to do and stops doing what it isn't before you're willing to support it.
There are three main options for welfare systems:
- Option One: We're very sorry you don't have enough money to live off. You should go do something about that.
- Option Two: We're very sorry you don't have enough money to live off. Here's some cash.
- Option Three: We're very sorry you don't have enough money to live off. Here's some cash, and if your situation can be improved here's the help to do that so we can try to get you to the point where you can fend for yourself. If you refuse that help, well, we offered, so now you're on your own.
The world is too full of Ones and Twos, and not enough Threes.
Most of the people receiving Two really want Three, while most of the people arguing for One tend to do so because they see the alternative as Two.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The second "looking after members of society" no longer means a free ride for drug addicts to buy snackfoods and have the choice to never work, we can talk about it. As long as this system exists i want no part in it.And y'know, I agree with your sentiment there. I'm just not willing to ignore the people that truly do need help because the proposed solution also gives it to others. I'd rather see the system refined so it only gave help where it should be given (which would still see those drug addicts given the option to enter state rehab and be looked after until they've recovered and can become productive members of society, along with similar options for anyone else that needed help, but wouldn't just resort to handouts if they declined that help.)
I'm a big fan of Blackstone's Formulation. I won't say I don't care that part of my money goes to a drug user if that's the price to help the helpless who need it., but I don't care enough to not want to be a part of it.
To Andrew I would say, "The second you devise a system of ensuring help is given to people who need it without any chance of error or abuse, I will support that system whole heartedly." In the meantime, it's Blackstone's Formulation for me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Past a certain point, it becomes more expensive to make sure no one's cheating the system than it is to just let some cheaters get away with it.
The recent experiments with drug testing welfare recipients in a couple states spent more on the testing than they saved in not giving benefits to drug users.
I can believe that. I've seen (and been a part of) expensive audit procedures in state-funded education designed to prevent waste and theft, that ended up costing far more than simply allowing the waste and theft to occur.
"Good news! We've eliminated waste and theft! The cost to the taxpayer is now only twice what it used to be!"
As an actual example: We discovered students had been removing memory from PCs in the classrooms, rooms full of machines with 2xGB RAM were suddenly discovered to have a computer with only 1x1GB and a couple of missing screws in the back of the case.
It cost something like $500-ish at the time to replace the memory lost over the space of a year. Fitting security screws and chains across the entire campus over the next few months cost closer to $4000, and I'm not sure how much it cost us in time spent on a yearly inventory check.
|
|
The second "looking after members of society" no longer means a free ride for drug addicts to buy snackfoods and have the choice to never work, we can talk about it. As long as this system exists i want no part in it.And y'know, I agree with your sentiment there. I'm just not willing to ignore the people that truly do need help because the proposed solution also gives it to others. I'd rather see the system refined so it only gave help where it should be given (which would still see those drug addicts given the option to enter state rehab and be looked after until they've recovered and can become productive members of society, along with similar options for anyone else that needed help, but wouldn't just resort to handouts if they declined that help.)
My own depression issues saw me at the other end of that handout system for a while, to the point where I had to actually fight to get the help I needed returning myself to a working state, because the system seemed to be more content just giving me money to stay depressed and had very little in place for helping me lift myself out of that hole. I'd reached the point where I was looking for was a way to contribute again, to do some kind of work that I could still do and use that to feel I was worth something again, but I had to push at the system every part of the way (which isn't exactly simple for someone that's already suffering from depression issues) to get that help rather than it being offered as a default.
That kind of system, I agree, isn't something we should just accept as being just fine as it is, but I'm also thankful there was at least something in place to ensure I didn't simply fall out of the system altogether and get totally abandoned.Every system can and should be improved. Perhaps in your way that's what you're pushing for, to get the system improved so it does what it's supposed to do and stops doing what it isn't before you're willing to support it.
There are three main options for welfare...
I am with you on that, the problem is that many here in the us WANT it to be corrupt and abusable. There are many easy cheap ways we can fix it to be better but there is a huge backlash against any attempts to fix it. Rome had bread and circuses to keep the commoners docile while it crumbled and we have this mess.
|
|
Past a certain point, it becomes more expensive to make sure no one's cheating the system than it is to just let some cheaters get away with it.
The recent experiments with drug testing welfare recipients in a couple states spent more on the testing than they saved in not giving benefits to drug users.
Faster cheaper and smarter is to just take benifits from anyone getting a drug arrest. damn near free after a simple set up to have the criminal justice system send the red flags. But testing sounds better to many and should remain a rarely used but usable option.
And y'know, I agree with your sentiment there. I'm just not willing to ignore the people that truly do need help because the proposed solution also gives it to others. I'd rather see the system refined so it only gave help where it should be given (which would still see those drug addicts given the option to enter state rehab and be looked after until they've recovered and can become productive members of society, along with similar options for anyone else that needed help, but wouldn't just resort to handouts if they declined that help.)My own depression issues saw me at the other end of that handout system for a while, to the point where I had to actually fight to get the help I needed returning myself to a working state, because the system seemed to be more content just giving me money to stay depressed and had very little in place for helping me lift myself out of that hole. I'd reached the point where I was looking for was a way to contribute again, to do some kind of work that I could still do and use that to feel I was worth something again, but I had to push at the system every part of the way (which isn't exactly simple for someone that's already suffering from depression issues) to get that help rather than it being offered as a default.
That kind of system, I agree, isn't something we should just accept as being just fine as it is, but I'm also thankful there was at least something in place to ensure I didn't simply fall out of the system altogether and get totally abandoned.Every system can and should be improved. Perhaps in your way that's what you're pushing for, to get the system improved so it does what it's supposed to do and stops doing what it isn't before you're willing to support it.
There are three main options for welfare...
I am with you on that, the problem is that many here in the us WANT it to be corrupt and abusable. There are many easy cheap ways we can fix it to be better but there is a huge backlash against any attempts to fix it. Rome had bread and circuses to keep the commoners docile while it crumbled and we have this mess.
Hey, common ground achieved!
At least we agree on some things in principle, that makes me happy (no sarcasm intended whatsover, it really does) and even makes me feel the time spent discussing things here (at least, in the threads that don't end up looking like demilitarized zones) really can be worth it :)
Faster cheaper and smarter is to just take benifits from anyone getting a drug arrest.Past a certain point, it becomes more expensive to make sure no one's cheating the system than it is to just let some cheaters get away with it.
The recent experiments with drug testing welfare recipients in a couple states spent more on the testing than they saved in not giving benefits to drug users.
For how long should benefits be withheld? If they end up in prison, are the benefits withheld after release? What about while awaiting trial?
|
|
The second "looking after members of society" no longer means a free ride for drug addicts to buy snackfoods and have the choice to never work, we can talk about it. As long as this system exists i want no part in it.And y'know, I agree with your sentiment there. I'm just not willing to ignore the people that truly do need help because the proposed solution also gives it to others. I'd rather see the system refined so it only gave help where it should be given (which would still see those drug addicts given the option to enter state rehab and be looked after until they've recovered and can become productive members of society, along with similar options for anyone else that needed help, but wouldn't just resort to handouts if they declined that help.)I'm a big fan of Blackstone's Formulation. I won't say I don't care that part of my money goes to a drug user if that's the price to help the helpless who need it., but I don't care enough to not want to be a part of it.
To Andrew I would say, "The second you devise a system of ensuring help is given to people who need it without any chance of error or abuse, I will support that system whole heartedly." In the meantime, it's Blackstone's Formulation for me.
One simple change i would love to see is to stop sending out debit cards. tie it to the state ID (drivers licence included) as most can be scanned just like a credit card already. Now they cannot "lose" (sell) the cards regularly or use stolen cards. Also flag all of these cards as "no eligible for alcohol tobacco and lotto" since if they are so poor they need someone else's money they have no business pissing it away on over priced vices, treat getting it to them just like to a minor. Also put a small tax on all junk food, and set the welfare card to never work on a taxed product. Those that do not need it but take it out of laziness might opt to work so they can have their vices. Also mandatory classes on budgeting and smart shopping
On the health care front covering basic care and medication is ok. nothing elective, nothing unneeded like viagra. Birth control fully covered because that is the health care they most need.All aid conditional, time limited and removable for criminal acts.
Faster cheaper and smarter is to just take benifits from anyone getting a drug arrest. damn near free after a simple set up to have the criminal justice system send the red flags. But testing sounds better to many and should remain a rarely used but usable option.Past a certain point, it becomes more expensive to make sure no one's cheating the system than it is to just let some cheaters get away with it.
The recent experiments with drug testing welfare recipients in a couple states spent more on the testing than they saved in not giving benefits to drug users.
I believe that is already the case. Though requirements are state by state, so perhaps it's not universal. Testing violates the 4th amendment as Florida found out.
|
|
For how long should benefits be withheld? If they end up in prison, are the benefits withheld after release? What about while awaiting trial?Faster cheaper and smarter is to just take benifits from anyone getting a drug arrest.Past a certain point, it becomes more expensive to make sure no one's cheating the system than it is to just let some cheaters get away with it.
The recent experiments with drug testing welfare recipients in a couple states spent more on the testing than they saved in not giving benefits to drug users.
Immediately on conviction manybe temporary first offence. after that im ok with permanent. "what about the kids"? give em to someone that care more for them than drugs.
|
|
I believe that is already the case. Though requirements are state by state, so perhaps it's not universal. Testing violates the 4th amendment as Florida found out.Faster cheaper and smarter is to just take benifits from anyone getting a drug arrest. damn near free after a simple set up to have the criminal justice system send the red flags. But testing sounds better to many and should remain a rarely used but usable option.Past a certain point, it becomes more expensive to make sure no one's cheating the system than it is to just let some cheaters get away with it.
The recent experiments with drug testing welfare recipients in a couple states spent more on the testing than they saved in not giving benefits to drug users.
BULL we drug test truck drivers so why not burdens of the state?
I am with you on that, the problem is that many here in the us WANT it to be corrupt and abusable. There are many easy cheap ways we can fix it to be better but there is a huge backlash against any attempts to fix it. Rome had bread and circuses to keep the commoners docile while it crumbled and we have this mess.
Again, you are simply assuming the worst about everyone. Yet also championing the free market which only works with either a totally selfish or totally altruistic populace, so either A. These people are acting as you expect and that's a good thing or B. What you propose must then be impossible. Which is it?
How "many" want it to be corrupt and abusable? Is it as many as need legitimate help from it? Back to Blackstone, how many is enough to shut it down?
When "fixing it" consists of more than sweeping cuts to it, give me a call.
|
|
...I am with you on that, the problem is that many here in the us WANT it to be corrupt and abusable. There are many easy cheap ways we can fix it to be better but there is a huge backlash
And y'know, I agree with your sentiment there. I'm just not willing to ignore the people that truly do need help because the proposed solution also gives it to others. I'd rather see the system refined so it only gave help where it should be given (which would still see those drug addicts given the option to enter state rehab and be looked after until they've recovered and can become productive members of society, along with similar options for anyone else that needed help, but wouldn't just resort to handouts if they declined that help.)My own depression issues saw me at the other end of that handout system for a while, to the point where I had to actually fight to get the help I needed returning myself to a working state, because the system seemed to be more content just giving me money to stay depressed and had very little in place for helping me lift myself out of that hole. I'd reached the point where I was looking for was a way to contribute again, to do some kind of work that I could still do and use that to feel I was worth something again, but I had to push at the system every part of the way (which isn't exactly simple for someone that's already suffering from depression issues) to get that help rather than it being offered as a default.
That kind of system, I agree, isn't something we should just accept as being just fine as it is, but I'm also thankful there was at least something in place to ensure I didn't simply fall out of the system altogether and get totally abandoned.Every system can and should be improved. Perhaps in your way that's what you're pushing for, to get the system improved so it does what it's supposed to do and stops doing what it isn't before you're willing to support it.
There are three main options for welfare...
Common ground can be had occasionally. It is hard when most here are highly liberal pro socialism and i am mostly conservative and oppose taking what we earn and believe in personal responsibility being very important. The funny part is that my hands off belief in religion and morality get me called too liberal in conservative forums....
BULL we drug test truck drivers so why not burdens of the state?I believe that is already the case. Though requirements are state by state, so perhaps it's not universal. Testing violates the 4th amendment as Florida found out.Faster cheaper and smarter is to just take benifits from anyone getting a drug arrest. damn near free after a simple set up to have the criminal justice system send the red flags. But testing sounds better to many and should remain a rarely used but usable option.Past a certain point, it becomes more expensive to make sure no one's cheating the system than it is to just let some cheaters get away with it.
The recent experiments with drug testing welfare recipients in a couple states spent more on the testing than they saved in not giving benefits to drug users.
Because the 4th amendment and the right to regulate interstate commerce are different things?
Definitely NOT "BULL"
See..
Traditionally, health insurance had a monthly premium and small amounts to pay for specific services. For example, generic drugs (drugs that don't have an active patent on them) might cost you $10 for a 30-day supply. Brand-Name drugs (new drugs that have patents on them so competitors can't make cheaper generics) might be $45 for a 30-day supply. A dr visit might be $25, for example....
Now. Since the healthcare law has been implemented, a form of plan has blossomed that reduces the coverage for members. In essence, you now pay a percentage of the negotiated rate for prescriptions, dr appts, hospital stays, etc... Of course, now there's a deductible, so you may be paying hundreds of dollars a month, but if you're healthy, you're still paying full price out of pocket for all medical services and prescriptions until you've paid $1,000 or more out of your own pocket, and then the "discount" applies.
In theory, there's a maximum out of pocket amount per year that, if you spend that much, the insurance covers 100% of costs. However, that's being chipped away at, too, on many plans. Of course, when this amount is $10,000 or more per year, you can see how someone with a catastrophic illness may still go bankrupt. Of course, if you can't pay your share, you suddenly find yourself unable to get medicines and services.
The few doctors that I know are very frustrated with this system. Often their hands are tied because their patients can't afford the out-of-pocket costs for their medications or treatments. So we still have a huge problem with medical bankruptcies.
It gets more complicated as insurers make lists of drugs that they'll pay for called formularies, which can change in the middle of your plan year (so you can suddenly find out that your insurance won't pay for your insulin, for example, as happened to me).
Also, insurers have started denying claims because they claim the patient had other insurance available and won't pay the claim unless the patient provides a statement proving when their last insurance policy expired (of course, this can be difficult to come by if your employer changes insurance companies often). If that happens, the patient can be on the hook for the bill.
So...In short...You may have insurance but that doesn't guarantee affordable coverage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Immediately on conviction manybe temporary first offence. after that im ok with permanent. "what about the kids"? give em to someone that care more for them than drugs.For how long should benefits be withheld? If they end up in prison, are the benefits withheld after release? What about while awaiting trial?Faster cheaper and smarter is to just take benifits from anyone getting a drug arrest.Past a certain point, it becomes more expensive to make sure no one's cheating the system than it is to just let some cheaters get away with it.
The recent experiments with drug testing welfare recipients in a couple states spent more on the testing than they saved in not giving benefits to drug users.
That is a horrible and immoral idea, because people who have done drugs are not thereafter bad people who should never be helped. Throwing them is prison is stupid enough. Refusing help after they get out? They'll probably just turn to crime and do more drugs if they can't get some assistance to build a new life. They mostly do that already, so why would refusing help improve that? Furthermore, one chance is not exactly realistic, because relapses are abundantly common.
Common ground can be had occasionally. It is hard when most here are highly liberal pro socialism and i am mostly conservative and oppose taking what we earn and believe in personal responsibility being very important. The funny part is that my hands off belief in religion and morality get me called too liberal in conservative forums....
Please tell me what role her "personal responsibility" played in this girl's circumstances
Link.