Sounds like the solution is not having government at all!Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Printable View
Sounds like the solution is not having government at all!Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
No, the solution is to minimize the control the government has over our lives. Personally, I don't much care for the idea of the government keeping my medical records, deciding which doctor it's all right for me to see, deciding which treatment plan is best for me. I certainly don't like the idea of the government telling me what I must buy, for my "own good".Quote:
Originally Posted by SadisticNature
Yeah, I know someone mentioned car insurance, but that's different. At least here in SC, you are only required to carry liability insurance, so that innocents are not screwed over if you cause an accident. And yes, if you finance the car you have to maintain full coverage, to protect the finance company. Don't like paying insurance? Don't drive a car!
I concede that governments have their uses, especially when acting as a buffer between states, or between nations. But the US government has intruded too deeply into individual lives, to the point where almost every aspect of our lives is impacted in some way by the federal government. That's not how it was meant to be, and I don't think it's good to be that way now.
Exactly! You are not forced to buy car insurance because you are not legally required to drive. Car insurance is a necessity only if you CHOOSE to drive a vehicle. Not only that but you don't need car insurance to have a driver's license. Car insurance is required by the lien holder as insurance against losses incurred.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Florida is a no-fault state, and you can drive a car without insurance if the vehicle is title-owned by you. Personally, I prefer not to do that, I carry insurance on all of our title-owned cars, but not because someone TELLS me to.
Hey you asked...lol. They are the only society that even approaches true equality in my book that I could think of that came to mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelish
Also, when one studdies them one must remember: the Kings were more a matter of a traditional position as well as sitting on the Assembly with an equal vote to the other members of their Gerouseia and they were equally subject even when in the field with the army to the will of the Ephors who were a small council elected for one year terms that presided over the lot of them:
Spartans were also the first society we know of who also refered to each other men and women alike as "equals".
And yes it was only "equal" for the actual Spartans, the helots and others, who were not actual spartans like most non citizens in any greek city state (including athens where women were little better than chattel slaves) didnt live under the same conditions.
Whats most interesting and completely applicable to our modern discussion in examining their society in todays light, isnt any of the above however so much as what it took for them to develope a system of governemnet and an economy that worked to attempt to equalize things for them.
To do any of it, they had to be all on the same religious page (hence why Lycurgus recieved approval for his changes in their governemnt from the oracles) and they had to change whole way of life; especially their economic systems basis, (which is why they made ownership of so many things illegal and used iron bars at exorburant wieghts for wealth instead of gold).
They basically had to move their society as a whole away from one bound by the aquisition of material wealth to one that embraced, duty to the city over duty to the individual and personal honor and merit over arvice and comfort.
Something which unfortunately I see few if any people in the workld willing to even attempt anymore.
And where exactly does one draw the line of "laws should prevent the screwing over of innocents", which appears to be your justification for the liability insurance requirement in SC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Is it screwing over of innocents to deny life saving care? And if people are legally obligated by the government to provide services, should they not be compensated by said organization for those services? If so, if the government is legally obligated to pay for your treatments in the event you have life threatening health problems, should they not be charging you for the insurance they provide in this situation?
If someone chooses to not buy insurance kills someone, is at fault and loses a massive lawsuit, can they be forced to sell their home that they own free and clear to pay damages?Quote:
Originally Posted by steelish
Not in Florida.Quote:
Originally Posted by SadisticNature
I'm not trying to justify it, just explain it. But isn't that what laws are intended to do? Protect the innocent from the guilty?Quote:
Originally Posted by SadisticNature
But they aren't providing insurance, they're providing a service. Only those hospitals which are publicly funded are required to provide indigent care, since they have already received payment from our taxes. And those hospitals are within their legal rights to recover any expenditures from the patient. True, in many cases that's not possible, but if you have any assets and require emergency care, the hospital can sue to acquire those assets to pay for that care. That's what insurance is for, to cover the patients' costs, not to cover the hospitals and doctors. If I choose to go without insurance, I run the risk of losing everything I own in order to pay for any care I'm given.Quote:
if the government is legally obligated to pay for your treatments in the event you have life threatening health problems, should they not be charging you for the insurance they provide in this situation?
With all the claims and counter-claims going on, with all the lying and stretching of the truth on both sides of this fight, it's hard to know exactly what will happen if this program gets passed. But one thing I know is that the taxpayers are going to take it in the end. Those who are in most need of health care, the poor and indigent, don't pay taxes, or don't pay much in taxes, and so aren't going to have to pay for the care they want. But those who do pay taxes can frequently get health care from their employers, yet they are going to have to pay more in taxes to cover those who can't, or won't, buy insurance. It's my opinion that, if the government wants to create a nanny state, let them do so by cutting funding for other, unnecessary programs and use those funds to pay for health care. Force politicians and government employees to be covered by the government run plan, and use the savings to pay for it. But whenever I see Congress trying to push a bill through for my "own good" but they exempt themselves and/or government workers, I get paranoid. If this health care package is good enough for me, then it's good enough for them, too. And when they put that kind of language into the bill, then maybe I can support it.
But I think hell will have to freeze over before that happens. By which time we're likely to have a lot of very chilly politicians.
lol, you're right, I didQuote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Well, for one thing - America embraces various religious beliefs, so everyone being on the same religious page won't work. At one time, duty to country and the well-being of the next generation were the overriding important things in America. Personal honor and merit also played a role in American life. Somewhere along the line people began to lose sight of these things. Believe it or not, there are groups of people in America trying to restore these things. Honor, merit, hope, humility, sincerity, hard work, courage, gratitude, faith (whatever your personal faith might be), personal responsibility...everything that originally made America strong. Unfortunately, in order to get the majority of Americans on this same page, it will take weeding out the politicians who do not possess these values.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
And yet the greatest contribution to charity comes from those that have accumulated the most!Quote:
Originally Posted by TantricSoul
Hear! Hear!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Quote:
Originally Posted by TantricSoul
Explain to me how every freshman does not have an equal opportunity to graduate?
Neither the Klingons, well they did change their mind, nor the Romulans desired to be in the Federation. I never saw any Klingon put money up for anything. And we did not spend much time in their society either.
The only "greedy" people I saw in the Star trek universe were the Ferengi. They also did not support universal suffrage!
The FairTax woul;d be better than what we have now!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by TantricSoul
In '71 there were 25 different rates.
In '90 three. In '71 74.6 million returns $903.5 billion in income - AGI of $742.8 billion. In '90 113.7 million returns $4878.6 billion in income - AGI of $3798.4 billion. With the top one percent being over the top rate entry point at a total of 1.3 million there is no way those at the bottom could make up the difference based on rates.
Also between '71 and '90 there were there reductions in both the top and bottom rate!
Appears population growth had more to do with income than tax rates. I still say that for tax policy we should dispose of the IRS and institute the FairTax!
Because historically what has been done with tax decreases for the top brackets is adjusting the lower brackets upwards to keep government revenues high. Thus those who have $0 in income that is in the top bracket but have income in lower brackets are taxed at higher rates than they were before.
Time when taxes were cut for the rich and raised for a minimum wage earner include 1988 When the taxes on the bottom bracket were raised from 11% to 15% to pay for a cut on the top bracket from 38.5% to 28%.
The net result was:
In 1971: Bottom bracket 14% Top Bracket: 70%
In 1990: Bottom Bracket 15% Top Bracket: 28%
I don't have easily available data on the 2nd and 3rd lowest brackets but suspect the trend is similar. The primary reason tax revenues equal out when the top bracket is lowered is that other brackets are raised.
My point about inheritance being unearned wealth, is that it is money that you get because you happen to be related to someone who did well, and is completely independent of your own abilities, successes or failures. If you want a meritocratic system taxing inheritances heavily seems to be a good start.[/QUOTE]
Health care is not a basic right. Life is! That is why US hospitals are not permitted to turn people in need of life sustaining care away. No one in the US is denied ESSENTIAL medical care.
The larger issue of treatment is not always of cost, or efficacy, but youth. Don't want to pay for a treatment that is new on the scene. Have to prove it works first!
Aside from that hospitals deny care all the time based on triage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SadisticNature
I am inclined to comment in relation to the reference of "the right to pursue happiness." For some people that is jumping out of perfectly good airplanes, some free climbing a cliff. Yet these are inherently risky behaviours. Does anyone foresee the Government deciding that any injury is a result of reckless actions and the responsibility of the individual person?
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelish
I live in a state that requires car insurance, which recently raised the levels of coverage, yet four out of the last five times my car was hit the other driver did not have insurance!
So that is a very bad analogy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelish
Not to stray too far of topic, but I beg to differ. It is no secret that there are people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who donate massive amounts of money to help others. And I'm greatful for their work.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
But I don't think anyone can easily justify your statement. If you're talking in dollars and cents, I doubt anyone could disprove your statement, but if you're talking about how many lives have been affected, then it's an entirely different matter.
Ghandi and Mother Teresa lived through humble means. Mother Teresa helped the poorest of the poor, and became world renowned for her work. Her selfless deeds inspired so many around her and around the world to follow suit. How many lives did Ghandi save through his message of peace. That war was not a way to independence. Countless of British and Indian lives I'd imagine if one were to take the events of the 1850s into consideration.
A man by the name of Ehdi, started and still runs today Karachi's largest charities. This man comes from a modest background, lives under spartan conditions, donating all his time and energy to helping others around him with even the most basic tasks. Stuff that the government takes care of, but no one in the west even considers. Things like hospitals, morgues, women's homes, child adoption agencies, ambulances. It is his organization that handles all of these. His ambulance service is the only one in Karachi, a city of over 10 million. To list all his contributions to humanity would take a while so I'll stop here.
Greg Mortenson spent years of his life fulfilling a promise he gave to a remote village in Pakistan. A mountain climber who was so poor that he at times lived in his car, had promised the residents of a poor village that he'd build a school for them. In order to build the school, he had to build a bridge first. His profession is a nurse practisioner. Yet he managed to do both for $20 000. With that money, he was able to staff the school with a full time teacher, provide materials like books, tables and chairs.
Here's the kicker, this village was in the remote regions of Pakistan where the Taliban love to hide. Word of his achievement spread, and village elders from around invited him to build schools, so that their children, notably daughters could get an education. This man was kidnapped, shot at, faced fatwas against his life, and today, he has been successful in building over 100 schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Areas where even the military won't touch because it's too dangerous. And he does it with the full participation of the community.
Like I said in the beginning of this post, the rich have contributed a lot. It is increadibly noble of them, and I hope that trend only continues to grow. But the statement that the greatest charity comes from the rich, in my humble opinion wrong. You can sign a check at any time, but unless there are people willing to risk their lives in the face of danger, sacrifice their personal interests so that they have more time to take care of others, those checks mean nothing.
Dare I say it, even the rich look to these utterly selfless people as inspiration to do good.
Yikes...this went on longer then I thought. My apologies for straying a lot of topic
Sorry, it was not meant as an analogy, merely a statement of fact. That's the way things are in Florida. Each state is different...Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
I absolutely see the government interfering in individual pursuits. For some, it would be a way to relieve stress and "rejuvenate". Who is the government to say it's wrong???Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
As I've stated before...rights do not come from government, laws do. The right to pursue happiness comes from God/nature (whatever you believe) but it remains that we are born with these rights. It is not something that is "handed" to us from another person. That in itself is the definition...rights come from a higher power, not an individual. Can your neighbor instill you with rights? No. Can your city council member instill you with rights? If not, then why can Congress??
I'm not sure this is accurate. Throughout history people have only had those "rights" which the ruling classes allowed, and they could be taken away at the whim of any member of that ruling class. It's only in modern times that we've begun thinking in terms of "human rights", thanks in large part to the advances of more democratic governments. I think that, ultimately, we can only have those rights which the most powerful people are willing to allow us to have. They have the power to rescind them by simply sending in the military/police forces. Once bullets and bombs start flying, the only right you have is the right to duck!Quote:
Originally Posted by steelish
And yet is it not also true that even the tyrant doth not rule alone, that were it not for the submission of others and those willing to support it, no one would rule for long at all?
I spoke of "inalienable" rights, as outlined by our Declaration of Independence. I guess my view is considered modern then, because I don't see what you've described as a "right" but more as a "privilege" bestowed by the ruling class. Just because they called them rights, doesn't make them so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
That's my point, though. Just because we call them "inalienable" doesn't make them so, either. It's a relatively modern concept. We claim the right to Life: yet at any time the universe can throw you a curve and take you right out. Your "rights" won't make a damn bit of difference. We claim the right of Liberty: but at any time the government can whisk you away, call you a terrorist and lock you up without even a trial. So much for Liberty. We claim a right to the Pursuit of Happiness: as long as Happiness doesn't involve marrying someone of the same sex as yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelish
All of these rights, and all of those outlined in the Bill of Rights, were given to us by the founders and leaders of this country. We consider them to be inalienable, or God-given, or natural. But in actuality they are as tenuous as a wisp of smoke.
Yes, that's true. But someone will replace that tyrant. And he might be worse than the devil you know!Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Of course, you could make sure that no one replaces him. In which case everyone becomes a tyrant, taking what they want, killing anyone they please, until someone strong enough takes control, and you have another tyrant.
Ahhh democracy...voluntary submission to elected tyranny....sighs so romantic.
LOL! It's only romantic if you enjoy voluntary submission! ;) It's much more enjoyable being the tyrant, though. Romance is overrated anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
It seems strange to me that one can choose to not buy insurance, cause damages and then not have one's assets seized to play those damages, particular if the other person is denied quality care because they can't afford to pay medical bills due to that settlement not being made.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelish
To me it seems here the law is unfairly protecting someone's home from being forfeit as the consequence of their actions.
It seems that way, but homes generally contain families, not just individuals. Do you throw a man's family out of the home for his mistake? The wife didn't do anything wrong. Why punish her as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by SadisticNature
Because marriage is a financial contract. It doesn't seem reasonable to use the argument that you can't punish people financially because innocents are involved in the consequences, as that fails in other venues. If a company is involved in an environmental violation most of the stock holders are oblivious but we fine the company, not the executives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
I just find its complicated that someone can be denied a treatment they need because they can't afford to pay for it even though they are owed the money to cover it, because someone was legally allowed to operate a motor vehicle without insurance and did so in a manner causing serious harm.
Fair Tax is a system that is even easier to defraud than the current IRS. How many contractors do you think are going to under report or fail to report work under this system? If they do now they risk having their client claim any deductible work on their taxes and if the IRS tracks it they can show the unclaimed income. The IRS isn't great at it, but it does provide some disincentive. FairTax actually encourages people to be dishonest because from the perspective of the above board guy whose prices are 30% higher, how many sales do you think you get against the guy who cuts corners and claims a much lower bid, adds on the 30% sales tax and doesn't report it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
Also the switch from a largely income tax based approach to a largely sales tax based approach is double taxation on anyone who has already taxed income in investments, this can be a huge issue for retired individuals and will probably result in increased social security expenditures as more individuals become vulnerable in retirement.
Some industries are entirely killed by a high sales tax as well. For instance professional poker would move almost entirely outside the US if there was a X% tax for all entry fees with X around 30%. In this environment there are no poker pros, the edge of the best players in the world at the game is around 25% so they couldn't pay the rake + the tax and still make a living.
Lastly while the tax deduction rules are complicated and need simplification, removing the ability to make deductions entirely would eliminate the governments ability to encourage certain actions. Lack of deductions for charity would result in fewer donations, hurting many charities. Inability to provide financial incentives for marriage and children would result in lower birth rates and the need for more immigration to keep a population level that supports economic growth and funds existing programs. The inability to provide tax deductions for making choices with fewer external costs would result in a lot of individuals externalizing costs to the detriment of society.
High sales taxes would force increased welfare payments and drive up the minimum wage as well. When you shift more of the tax burden onto the poor, the programs that they need to get by will need more money.
The free market has a lot to do with who succeeds and who doesn't. Regardless of prices, offer a substandard product and word gets around. Also, America currently has a 38% Corporate tax - the highest in the world. Doing away with the corporate tax and adding a higher tax at the point of purchase would result in corporations lowering product costs. If they can't sell their product, they can't make money...supply and demand.Quote:
Originally Posted by SadisticNature
We're already double-taxed. We have our income tax and we have our sales tax (which differs state to state).Quote:
Originally Posted by SadisticNature
Two types of taxes is not necessarily doubling the taxation. Taxing the entirety of an income tax on said money, then turning around and raising the sales tax massively is true double taxation.
Getting taxed X% sales tax for small X and Y% income tax for a larger Y is not double taxation compared to paying 30+% sales tax. For anyone who has Y around 30%, the sales tax is actually comparable.
When Ontario introduced the PST, they replaced an internal manufacturing tax, with an external sales tax. The tax was larger, but none of the savings from scrapping the manufacturing tax got passed on to the consumer.
As for free market success rates, my point is consider the following for two contractors with:
-Similar Quality of Work
-Similar Track Record
Offer 1:
$100,000 + 30% sales tax $30,000 =$130,000
Offer 2:
$77,000 + 30% sales tax $23,100 = $101,000
The only difference being in Offer 2 the sales tax never actually gets paid to the government. Offer 2 is not substandard quality, its a huge savings due to cheating on taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelish
Seems it a two edged sword. There are some studies but they seem to focus on income as the greatest indicator of giving. Results, in graph terms, create a "U" shape. But even that is "adjusted".
With the rich giving a lot, and the "poor" giving a large percentage. But the folks in the middle create the bottom of the "U".
These are old but seem to give the clearest picture. Personally I favor the second, because of the author, but it is consistent with the first.
- http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...conservatives/
- http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion
Yeah! I know. Suppose it qualifies as a peeve.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelish
Seems that if the "right" can be taken away it is a "privilege" rather than a "right".
(a moral, or ethical principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
With the "universe" having granted the right to life, than the "universe" taking that life back is consistent.
Admittedly it sounds counter intuitive but Liberty has limits. You are free to do as you will, but that does not extend to indiscriminate taking of life, for example. Happiness is not a right, the pursuit of said happiness is the right. By definition said pursuit can be unsuccessful!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Because of the intent expressed in the Declaration, on this we are going to have to disagree. We both know the reason for that disagreement, therefore discussion of the disagreement would likely go far afield and be unproductive.
In the case of one of my accidents we had the plate and description of the car. Police located the car and the owner. Owner said he was not driving.
That was all it took for the cost to be on my insurance. Too many of those and my cost goes up!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SadisticNature
Quote:
Originally Posted by SadisticNature
Hospitals have three obligations under EMTALA:
1. Individuals requesting emergency care, or those for whom a representative has made a request if the patient is unable, must receive a medical screening examination to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists. Examination and treatment cannot be delayed to inquire about methods of payment or insurance coverage, or a patient's citizenship or legal status. The hospital may only start the process of payment inquiry and billing once the patient has been stabilized to a degree that the process will not interfere with or otherwise compromise patient care.
2. The emergency room (or other better equipped units within the hospital) must treat an individual with an EMC until the condition is resolved or stabilized and the patient is able to provide self-care following discharge, or if unable, can receive needed continual care. Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for all patients, regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals may not discharge a patient prior to stabilization if the patient's insurance is canceled or otherwise discontinues payment during course of stay.
3. If the hospital does not have the capability to treat the condition, the hospital must make an "appropriate" transfer of the patient to another hospital with such capability. This includes a long-term care or rehabilitation facilities for patients unable to provide self-care. Hospitals with specialized capabilities must accept such transfers and may not discharge a patient until the condition is resolved and the patient is able to provide self-care or is transferred to another facility.
[B]"Defraud"
It is easier to defraud under the current system. It only takes on actor to accomplish such an action. Under the FairTax such would require collusion among actors. The seller and buyer at least.
Of course the seller can charge what they see fit. Even if it is a smaller amount. Tax is still due. But if they report they charged less than was paid somebody else knows. You write me a receipt for $1,000 and charge me $1,200 I know what you are doing. I have no incentive to help you.
Say a job costs $1,900 and your scammer comes in and charges $1,900 minus tax of $437, i.e. $1,463 adding 30% for a fee of $1,902. He still sends 23% to the Feds. Where is the scammers gain?
"Double tax on investment"
The FairTax repeals the income tax imposed on investment income and pension benefits or IRA withdrawals. No form of savings or investment is taxed. The beneficiaries and owners of pension funds, IRAs, and 401(k) plans
"Poker"
One thing I think you may have misunderstood. The FairTax is replacement, not reform. It replaces federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes.
Those that set up the tournaments are providing a service for which they take a fee, half of the entry. 23% of that fee is due to the Feds there is no increased cost to the entrant.
"Government encourage"
That is the whole point. Where did Government get the power to decide what companies or industries should succeed? They have no right to be picking the winners in losers in commerce.
You mentioned charity. You must agree that a significant factor in charitable contribution is disposable income. The Fair Tax improves that. Charitable contributions depend on one factor more than any other: The health of the economy (not tax benefits). As a wide range of economists agree on the economic expansion the FairTax delivers, charitable contributions benefit also. With the penalty for working harder and producing more removed, Americans are free to keep every dollar they earn, and a new era of economic growth and job creation is unleashed. Hidden taxes are history, Americans are able to save more, and businesses invest more. Capital formation, the real source of job creation and innovation, is facilitated. Gross domestic product (GDP) increases by an estimated 10.5 percent in the first year alone.
As U.S. companies and individuals repatriate, on a tax-free basis, income generated overseas, huge amounts of new capital flood into the United States. With such a huge capital supply, real interest rates remain low. Additionally, other international investors will seek to invest here to avoid taxes on income in their own countries, thereby further spurring the growth of our own economy.
Real wages are 10.3 percent, 9.5 percent, and 9.2 percent higher in years 1, 10, and 25, respectively than would otherwise be the case.
(Tuerck, David G., Jonathan Haughton, Keshab Bhattarai, Phuong Viet Ngo, and Alfonso Sanchez-Penalver, “The Economic Effects of the FairTax: Results from the Beacon Hill Institute CGE Model,” The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, February 2007. )
Disposable personal income is higher than if the current tax system remains in place: 1.7 percent in year 1, 8.7 percent in year 5, and 11.8 percent in year 10.
The economy as measured by GDP is 2.4 percent higher in the first year and 11.3 percent higher by the 10th year than it would otherwise be.
(Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics, “A Macroeconomic Analysis of the FairTax Proposal,” July 2006. )