Equality?

[TantricSoul]

And who should pay for that care?
The same people that pay for any service, the consumers.
Should we imprison the doctors in their hospitals and force them to work for nothing?
No I am quite certain the doctors wouldn't like that, not even sure why you would suggest it.
Should we randomly break into people's homes and strip them of their belongings so we can sell it to pay for that care?
Again ... No

Where is the money to provide such excellent care supposed to come from?
A realignment of tax brackets & codes, along with a severe realignment in prioritizing how tax dollars are spent.


I'm sure the answer, as usual, will involve some form of, "steal from (excuse me, tax) those who have, and throw it away (I mean, donate) to those who want."
As I am sure you will see only what you are expecting to.

Respectfully,
TS

[SadisticNature]

I think from a societal perspective such a massive accumulation of wealth in the hands of so few is very bad. For instance, it has been shown to radically increase crime and cause other problems.

When taxes are decrease how is that you see this only as taxes decreased for the "rich" at the "expense" of the "poor & middle class"?

Show me a time when taxes were cut for the "rich" and raised on the minimum wage earner?

Inheritance comes from three sources; wages, investment, or prior inheritance. In all of these instances these funds have already been taxed. Why then should it be taxed again?? In many cases there is a family business involved that suddenly becomes the property of someone else!

Lastly, why have we chosen to tax investment income at a lesser rate than income earned through labor. A long line of those who are claimed to be champions of conservative economics was strongly opposed to this, the likes of which include Adam Smith and Andrew Mellon. The liberal economists have always been against it. Warren Buffet ripped the US government because he paid a lower % on his income than his secretary did, despite earning way more, because investment income is taxed so lightly.

[/QUOTE]

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.

[SadisticNature]

That quote is wrong on so many levels. But basically it should read, "He who lives with the best toys wins!"

I have no qualms about buying trinkets and toys if I can afford them. I've worked my whole life to be able to afford them. And I don't believe that everyone has an equal right to own those same trinkets and toys unless they've earned them and can afford them as well.

And yet this concept has failed miserably all over the world. Oh, sure, on a small scale it can work: families, small groups, perhaps even tribes. But once a group reaches a certain density (and I have no idea how to determine what that density may be) you develop classes. Someone who is good at one thing trades his work for someone else's work. If you're good enough at what you do your work is in demand, and you can trade at more advantageous rates. Why, for example, should a spear-maker trade his spears to a lazy hunter who only brings him scavenged, half-rotten meat, when he can trade them to the good hunter who brings him fresh-killed, prime meat? And once he has that meat, assuming he doesn't waste it, why should he be forced to share it with the bum who doesn't bother to hunt or scavenge but only begs from others?

Similar rules apply to modern scenarios. Why should someone bother to do all the hard work, spend all that time in education and training, to become a doctor if, without lifting a finger, he will be supplied with the same compensation as everyone else? Without the stimulus of a better lifestyle, there is no reason to try to succeed.

Every truly socialist state in history (to my admittedly uncertain knowledge) has only been able to survive through fear and the utter degradation of the populace, while the hierarchy reaped all the benefits. And each of those states evolved either into self-destroying dictatorships (Soviet Union & North Korea) or more capitalist societies (China). Just ask the North Korean people if they enjoy being so "equal."

Basic food, basic shelter, basic medicine, yes these should be available to all citizens. Should everyone be supplied with a million dollar home just because some people can afford them? No! Should everyone be allowed to eat at the finest restaurants just because some people can? No again! Should everyone be provided the best quality medical care just because some can afford it? A third NO!

Some would argue that basic food and basic shelter are human rights because without this one would die. The next two are not complicated, the answer is obviously no. The third question is not like the previous two however, it is far more complicated, and touches on the question of dying.

How do we define/measure quality of care? Should a person have a right to be treated at the closest hospital when they are picked up by ambulance in time sensitive situations? Should insurance plans be able to force someone all the way across the city resulting in them dying before getting to the hospital? This has happened in the current American system.

It also seems like tilting at straw men to compare a health system that is less public than those of U.K., Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Italy and many other countries which are justifiably considered incredibly capitalist, and argue that the best comparison for this bill is to the Soviet Union, China or North Korea.

[Thorne]

Thorne, my friend, of course I will pardon the expression. After all, you saying my thoughts and opinions are horseshit is simply reaffirming what I've known for such a long time… that I have a fertile mind.

LOL! Yes, you do indeed. And it's not your mind that I'm denigrating, just the fungal ideas which are grown in it.

So what I get from your post is that you agree we are all part of a whole, yet you see / feel no connection between us. An interesting viewpoint.

Of course we are parts of a whole, each of us a part of the universe, just as a grain of sand is a part of the beach. That doesn't mean there is any kind of connection, though. Some grains are washed out to sea, some are washed in from the sea, some are blown away on the wind, yet the beach remains. And the grains of sand, even when touching one another, are still discrete entities, not connected at all.

Yet instead what I witness most prevalently is the ridiculous concept of self importance. As if, somehow, being luckier than someone else equates to being "better" or more deserving.

Maybe it does equate as such. I've known people who just seem to have all the bad luck, falling into every sad situation that comes along, always getting the short end of the stick. I've known others who could fall into a puddle and come up with a $100 bill clutched in their hands. It has nothing to do with personalities, as far as I can tell. Maybe it's a kind of evolution, winnowing out the unlucky ones in favor of the lucky.

But while I view myself as somewhat lucky, even though I can't win at any kind of gambling, I certainly don't perceive myself as better because of it. However, I have taken charge of my life, dealt with the good and the bad, and helped myself. This can also affect one's luck. And that is what makes me feel somewhat more deserving than someone who just sits back and bemoans his bad luck, blaming everyone and everything but himself for his problems.

[Thorne]

Some would argue that basic food and basic shelter are human rights because without this one would die. The next two are not complicated, the answer is obviously no. The third question is not like the previous two however, it is far more complicated, and touches on the question of dying.

All three questions are matters of life and death. I see no difference between them.

How do we define/measure quality of care? Should a person have a right to be treated at the closest hospital when they are picked up by ambulance in time sensitive situations? Should insurance plans be able to force someone all the way across the city resulting in them dying before getting to the hospital? This has happened in the current American system.

I agree these are complicated questions. Yes, a person should be treated for any life-threatening injuries at the nearest hospital. That does not mean he should be given a private room, or given every test known to man just for the sake of running them. Basic care, yes. Save their lives. Treat their broken bones. Help people, without question.

Have you ever been in an emergency room on a Friday or Saturday night? Count the number of people there with minor problems, such as colds or sore feet or just headaches. Count the numbers of real emergencies, and compare the two. You'll find the freeloaders generally far outweigh the critical patients, almost every time.

You don't run to the emergency room every time you get the sniffles, or bruise a finger. Yet we are building a culture in this country that does just that, and people will sue anyone who won't provide them with the best care someone else's money can buy.

[SadisticNature]

All three questions are matters of life and death. I see no difference between them.


I agree these are complicated questions. Yes, a person should be treated for any life-threatening injuries at the nearest hospital. That does not mean he should be given a private room, or given every test known to man just for the sake of running them. Basic care, yes. Save their lives. Treat their broken bones. Help people, without question.

Have you ever been in an emergency room on a Friday or Saturday night? Count the number of people there with minor problems, such as colds or sore feet or just headaches. Count the numbers of real emergencies, and compare the two. You'll find the freeloaders generally far outweigh the critical patients, almost every time.

You don't run to the emergency room every time you get the sniffles, or bruise a finger. Yet we are building a culture in this country that does just that, and people will sue anyone who won't provide them with the best care someone else's money can buy.

It is better that one hundred guilty men be set free than one innocent man go to jail. Such is the standard of proof and obligation of government to uphold its citizens rights.

Yet when it comes to the right to emergency care, you feel just because some people abuse the system it is acceptable to deny people basic rights.

Propose ways to crack down on abuses that fix this problem, the fact is the cure here is not worse than the disease. The system you have now actively denies people essential medical care.

As for the earlier questions, quality of medical care is quite different from the clear questions about luxuries you proposed earlier. If there are two procedures for curing a life threatening condition one with a 40% chance of survival that is cheap, and one with an 80% chance of survival that is expensive, does a human being have a right to the 80% chance of survival?

[Thorne]

It is better that one hundred guilty men be set free than one innocent man go to jail. Such is the standard of proof and obligation of government to uphold its citizens rights.

So are you proposing that all accused people should be provided the very best lawyer someone else's money can buy?

Yet when it comes to the right to emergency care, you feel just because some people abuse the system it is acceptable to deny people basic rights.

That's not what I said! I have stated clearly that we are all entitled to basic rights. The problem seems to be in defining just what is basic and what is extravagant.

Propose ways to crack down on abuses that fix this problem, the fact is the cure here is not worse than the disease. The system you have now actively denies people essential medical care.

The problem is that the ways to fix this problem could be viewed by some as denying those people their basic human rights. The system we have now requires publicly funded hospitals to treat the indigent and the poor. It is the privately owned hospitals which turn them away. That won't change regardless of what kind of health care reform gets passed.

As for the earlier questions, quality of medical care is quite different from the clear questions about luxuries you proposed earlier. If there are two procedures for curing a life threatening condition one with a 40% chance of survival that is cheap, and one with an 80% chance of survival that is expensive, does a human being have a right to the 80% chance of survival?

That depends on the person. There are some who don't deserve the 40% chance. Who decides? What you're proposing, along with our illustrious representatives in Congress, is to have political appointees decide for us! Want to guess who gets the 40% and who gets the 80%? I can picture the debate in Congress now!
"Gentlemen, the new procedure the doctors want us to pay for costs three times as much as the old procedure while only doubling the chances of survival. This is not cost effective. I propose that we only fund the old procedure, to keep our costs down. And now, since we've saved the people so much money, let's legislate raises for ourselves."

Just think of how much we are helping our poor, deprived Congress critters.

[steelish]

We are all fundamentally equal in terms of our inalienable rights. No matter whether you are an atheist, Christian, Taoist, Muslim, Jew, Mormon, Lutheran, etc. there's no doubt that at the moment of birth, we are all intrinsically equal. The equality we are born with is the equality that should be preserved in America, not equality of economics...not equality of "things accumulated"...but equality of the right to pursue happiness.

The government might try to "spread the wealth" but no matter how hard they try, it will never be equal. It's much like a pond. On the surface it appears even, yet everyone knows that ponds are not of an equal depth all the way across. Forcing equality on a large population of citizens will be like pointing at that pond and saying "look, there's an equal amount of water no matter where you step".

Show me a country that successfully "spread the wealth" and has complete equality with a majority of the citizens singing the praises of the government that "equalized" them and I might actually begin to see a glimmer of hope.

[denuseri]

Sparta did it for oh, around 400 years or so, give or take a decade.

Of course it wasnt a nation by todays standards per say, but still it worked for them.

They also managed to dominate all the other greek city states for the better part of their existeance with their system too, including Athens, until of course Phillip and Alexander the Great came along.

[steelish]

Sparta did it for oh, around 400 years or so, give or take a decade.

Of course it wasnt a nation by todays standards per say, but still it worked for them.

They also managed to dominate all the other greek city states for the better part of their existeance with their system too, including Athens, until of course Phillip and Alexander the Great came along.

Ah yes, in the 10th Century BC...Sparta was unique in ancient Greece for its social system and constitution, which completely focused on military training and excellence. Its inhabitants were classified as Spartiates (Spartan citizens, who enjoyed full rights), Mothakes (non-Spartan free men raised as Spartans), Perioikoi (freedmen), and Helots (state-owned serfs, enslaved non-Spartan local population). Spartiates underwent the rigorous agoge training and education regimen, and Spartan phalanxes were widely considered undefeatable in battle.

In Sparta they also had two "kings" who ruled...and only the Spartiates were true citizens. Much of what I read on Sparta is exciting, to be sure, but not translatable in today's society.

[SadisticNature]

That depends on the person. There are some who don't deserve the 40% chance. Who decides? What you're proposing, along with our illustrious representatives in Congress, is to have political appointees decide for us! Want to guess who gets the 40% and who gets the 80%? I can picture the debate in Congress now!
"Gentlemen, the new procedure the doctors want us to pay for costs three times as much as the old procedure while only doubling the chances of survival. This is not cost effective. I propose that we only fund the old procedure, to keep our costs down. And now, since we've saved the people so much money, let's legislate raises for ourselves."

Just think of how much we are helping our poor, deprived Congress critters.

Sounds like the solution is not having government at all!

[Thorne]

Sounds like the solution is not having government at all!

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".

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.

[steelish]

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!

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.

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.

[denuseri]

Ah yes, in the 10th Century BC...Sparta was unique in ancient Greece for its social system and constitution, which completely focused on military training and excellence. Its inhabitants were classified as Spartiates (Spartan citizens, who enjoyed full rights), Mothakes (non-Spartan free men raised as Spartans), Perioikoi (freedmen), and Helots (state-owned serfs, enslaved non-Spartan local population). Spartiates underwent the rigorous agoge training and education regimen, and Spartan phalanxes were widely considered undefeatable in battle.

In Sparta they also had two "kings" who ruled...and only the Spartiates were true citizens. Much of what I read on Sparta is exciting, to be sure, but not translatable in today's society.

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.

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.

[SadisticNature]

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".

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.

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.

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?

[SadisticNature]

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.

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.

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?

[steelish]

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?

Not in Florida.

[Thorne]

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

[steelish]

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.

lol, you're right, I did

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.

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.

[DuncanONeil]

If you want to work your whole life to acquire trinkets and toys then by all means you should get what you deserve. And I agree with you about others and their ability to collect trinkets and toys.

Where my heart grows heavy in this debate, is the obvious "MINE, MINE, MINE" mentality at work in our society. While others go without food, water, clothing, shelter, and medical care. This is the inequality that is sickening.

And yet the greatest contribution to charity comes from those that have accumulated the most!

[DuncanONeil]

Hear! Hear!

What sickens me is the willingness of some people to give away that which doesn't belong to them, simply because they think it is "fair" or "equitable." I have no problem if someone wants to give their own things away. I can guarantee that there will be plenty of people there to take it off your hands, and then ask for more, and more, and more. But forcing people to give away what they have, whether by legislation or by force of arms, is robbery, pure and simple.


And who should pay for that care? Should we imprison the doctors in their hospitals and force them to work for nothing? Should we randomly break into people's homes and strip them of their belongings so we can sell it to pay for that care? Where is the money to provide such excellent care supposed to come from?

I'm sure the answer, as usual, will involve some form of, "steal from (excuse me, tax) those who have, and throw it away (I mean, donate) to those who want."

[DuncanONeil]

View Post

Does that not depend on the definition of opportunity?

Well here is one definition: From online Merriam Webster Dictionary
Main Entry: op·por·tu·ni·ty
Pronunciation: \ˌä-pər-ˈtü-nə-tē, -ˈtyü-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural op·por·tu·ni·ties
Date: 14th century

1 : a favorable juncture of circumstances <the halt provided an opportunity for rest and refreshment>
2 : a good chance for advancement or progress

The fact of high school graduation rates may give the appearance of supporting the position you state. But did not every Freshman that entered high school have the same "opportunity" to graduate?
Based on the above definition, and what I was asserting prior, I would still have to say no, every freshman does not have the same opportunity to graduate.

Like "Star Trek"?

Well not exactly like "Star Trek," , on the other hand, maybe ... if the Klingons and Romulans were part of the "Federation" too...Respectfully,
TS

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!

[DuncanONeil]

Where is the money to provide such excellent care supposed to come from?
A realignment of tax brackets & codes, along with a severe realignment in prioritizing how tax dollars are spent. Respectfully,
TS

The FairTax woul;d be better than what we have now!!!!

[DuncanONeil]

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]

[DuncanONeil]

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.

It is better that one hundred guilty men be set free than one innocent man go to jail. Such is the standard of proof and obligation of government to uphold its citizens rights.

Yet when it comes to the right to emergency care, you feel just because some people abuse the system it is acceptable to deny people basic rights.

Propose ways to crack down on abuses that fix this problem, the fact is the cure here is not worse than the disease. The system you have now actively denies people essential medical care.

As for the earlier questions, quality of medical care is quite different from the clear questions about luxuries you proposed earlier. If there are two procedures for curing a life threatening condition one with a 40% chance of survival that is cheap, and one with an 80% chance of survival that is expensive, does a human being have a right to the 80% chance of survival?

[DuncanONeil]

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?

We are all fundamentally equal in terms of our inalienable rights. No matter whether you are an atheist, Christian, Taoist, Muslim, Jew, Mormon, Lutheran, etc. there's no doubt that at the moment of birth, we are all intrinsically equal. The equality we are born with is the equality that should be preserved in America, not equality of economics...not equality of "things accumulated"...but equality of the right to pursue happiness.

The government might try to "spread the wealth" but no matter how hard they try, it will never be equal. It's much like a pond. On the surface it appears even, yet everyone knows that ponds are not of an equal depth all the way across. Forcing equality on a large population of citizens will be like pointing at that pond and saying "look, there's an equal amount of water no matter where you step".

Show me a country that successfully "spread the wealth" and has complete equality with a majority of the citizens singing the praises of the government that "equalized" them and I might actually begin to see a glimmer of hope.

[DuncanONeil]

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!

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.

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.

[Lion]

And yet the greatest contribution to charity comes from those that have accumulated the most!

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.

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

[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!

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...

[steelish]

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?

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???

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??