[JGBigGreen]

I've lived in both Scotland and Sweden. The healthcare I received in both countries was as good as that I've received anywhere in the US.



Again, what are you basing your claim on? Your own experience living abroad? Secondhand stories from family in London? Anecdotal evidence from uncle Hank in Canada? Actual data supporting your claim? I think we have great healthcare in the US (if you're lucky enough to have access to it which I do thankfully) but other countries have equally great health care systems and if you look at health outcomes, access to services, etc. we lag behind comparable countries.

Originally Posted by Stepfordct

Where is it so much better?
Have you lived overseas? Have family overseas that give you first hand reports

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by Stepfordct

No system is perfect....true. Fraud under 1%!? It's so so much higher......

Perhaps before the information age a.k.a the advent of computers. There is so much cross referencing now it would be extremely difficult to scam. Same thing goes for Govt corruption.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

25% paying 66% seems fine, by me. I actually favor an absolute flat tax. No deductions nor exemptions. No carried interest income. Income is income.

You may be fine with it but it is hardly their fair share. That’s the whole point, why should the wealthy get away with paying less and the rest of us get stuck paying more. What the Walton family doesn’t have enough eight figure paintings in their collection?

I also deeply resent that companies like Wal-Mart and McDonalds rely on public assistance like food stamps and Medicaid for their employees when their top executives are making eight figures plus. That’s completely unfair. Furthermore I resent the fact that these rich people got a massive tax cut that added to an already insane National Debt. The amount from just the four years Trump was in office comes to $23,500 per person. Do you have that kind of money lying around? I don’t. It’s time for a title fairness to return to our government. I’m just not seeing the Republicans doing that given their past history. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

You may be fine with it but it is hardly their fair share. That’s the whole point, why should the wealthy get away with paying less and the rest of us get stuck paying more. What the Walton family doesn’t have enough eight figure paintings in their collection?

Fairness is subjective. I am not jealous of the Walton kids, nor any other families. I just focus on doing what I need to for me, family, and friends.

[Stepfordct]

Originally Posted by JGBigGreen

I've lived in both Scotland and Sweden. The healthcare I received in both countries was as good as that I've received anywhere in the US.



Again, what are you basing your claim on? Your own experience living abroad? Secondhand stories from family in London? Anecdotal evidence from uncle Hank in Canada? Actual data supporting your claim? I think we have great healthcare in the US (if you're lucky enough to have access to it which I do thankfully) but other countries have equally great health care systems and if you look at health outcomes, access to services, etc. we lag behind comparable countries.

Yes living overseas, and from relatives anecdotally. Uncle passed from prostate cancer. No screening, Aunt breast cancer, no mammograms. Brother in law with bad hernia waiting 6 months for operation.
Socialized medicine. My daughter was treated in an ER in England few years ago. Great care from the Paramedic to the ER. Wife had to go to ER in Paris. Was fine.

Access here is a mess, but it's the insurance system. It's been broken for a while. Obamacare made it worse for most.
Think the US is ahead of every country with CV....

[Stepfordct]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

Perhaps before the information age a.k.a the advent of computers. There is so much cross referencing now it would be extremely difficult to scam. Same thing goes for Govt corruption.

Most govt computer systems are in the dark age.
But that's not really the point.
Why is the family unit broken in low income areas. Because they get rewarded for not being married.
Less bennies married. Yet they live together sometimes. Had a couple with kids each had their own place.
Section 8 for both individually. The man came as he pleased into his baby mamas life.
Try to get some of the same to work over 30 hours.....no way. Make more not working.
Quit my job and lie about it to collect. The UI staff basically coaches them on the phone on how to collect.
It's a completely one sided affair.
This is not about computers......your just showing how little you know about this...

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Fairness is subjective. I am not jealous of the Walton kids, nor any other families. I just focus on doing what I need to for me, family, and friends.

You continuously complain about taxes yet do not see that your tax dollars are going to subsidize the rich and big business. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

You continuously complain about taxes yet do not see that your tax dollars are going to subsidize the rich and big business. Jay

I do not agree they subsidize the rich, as most people without marketable skills drift from one minimum wage job to another, while maintaining social welfare benefits. We are truly subsiding their lack of initiative. The jobs where they earn so little are best suited for teenagers and retirees supplementing SS. Not for folks in prime working years. I knew it as a 17 year old working at the Connecticut Post, and it is every bit as true now. Most of the others bagging or ringing groceries then also were college bound, and Stop & Shop was simply a short term way to earn a bit of money, and get a little initial work history.

If I had chosen not to add education past high school, nor training, and still been doing such jobs, the taxpayers would be subsidizing my lifestyle choices or lack of initiative, not the employer nor industry.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

I do not agree they subsidize the rich, as most people without marketable skills drift from one minimum wage job to another, while maintaining social welfare benefits. We are truly subsiding their lack of initiative. The jobs where they earn so little are best suited for teenagers and retirees supplementing SS. Not for folks in prime working years. I knew it as a 17 year old working at the Connecticut Post, and it is every bit as true now. Most of the others bagging or ringing groceries then also were college bound, and Stop & Shop was simply a short term way to earn a bit of money, and get a little initial work history.

If I had chosen not to add education past high school, nor training, and still been doing such jobs, the taxpayers would be subsidizing my lifestyle choices or lack of initiative, not the employer nor industry.

Who are working the jobs at fast food or dept stores while teenagers are in school during the day ?


Is Mcdonalds closed during lunch ? That's their busiest time. So the argument that teenagers can fill these jobs is silly.


The decline of unions and off shoring of manufacturing jobs is mostly to blame.


What people don't realize is the US changed from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. The service jobs now need to pay living wages like the manufacturing jobs did in the past.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

Who are working the jobs at fast food or dept stores while teenagers are in school during the day ?

.

Not a customer. Not sure. It's also not important who does the job, as the fair market value does not change based on needs.