Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those who benefit more from living and doing business in our nation should pay more.
The average family benefits from about a dozen people learning to read and write in public schools. The Waltons (Walmart owners) benefit from a couple million learning to read and write.
The average family takes maybe one cross-country trip a year on the interstate highway system. Compare that to the number of Walmart trucks eating up the interstates.
No one else benefits from Walmart? What about the people who shop there? Don't they benefit from Walmart supplying the goods for them to buy, including the use of the roads, etc., to get the goods there, as well?
How about if Walmart and all the other sellers/providers of goods/services just closed up shop? Would that affect only them? Or would it affect everyone who uses/buys their goods/services, and their investors (which include many public employee pension funds)?
See what I mean? Stop being so short-sighted! THINK! Don't just "emote."
A tax payer funded health care system saves ordinary people thousands of dollars over a for-profit rip off health care system like we have in America. Thats one of the reasons why ever single developed country in the world has it. People pool their resources and the people with the broadest shoulders who are able to pay more, pay more into such a tax funded system.
You realize that would actually be true with a flat tax, no?
You realize that would actually be true with a flat tax, no?
Which is MORE?
15% of $50,000?
Or 15% of $5,000,000?
This is where the concept of marginal income kicks in. A person making $50k/yr has a much harder time eating a 15% income tax than someone making $5,000,000/yr. Yes, that person, who is in the top 0.01% of the economy, will definitely notice the loss of $750,000, but honestly, if they can't live quite comfortably on $4,250,000... they have serious money management issues.
At some point, the majority have to stand up for ourselves and say enough is enough. I make a decent living, and my income tax rate after deductions and credits ends up being 15%. I think that's fair, but I wouldn't scream bloody murder if it went to 20% and we got universal healthcare/single payer. Heck, considering I spend about 12% of my paycheck for insurance premiums & FSA contributions, I'd gladly take that trade off.
I lived in Canada, and my taxes were the same as California, except I paid no healthcare premium, so I saved more in Canada. Had my sons birth for free, all paid for with taxes.
There is a reason why health care is cheaper in other countries and it's because everyone has to contribute, so the risk is spread out and that brings costs down. Which is exactly what Obamacare tried to achieve.
I lived in Canada, and my taxes were the same as California, except I paid no healthcare premium, so I saved more in Canada. Had my sons birth for free, all paid for with taxes.
There is a reason why health care is cheaper in other countries and it's because everyone has to contribute, so the risk is spread out and that brings costs down. Which is exactly what Obamacare tried to achieve.
Also.
Hedge fund managers are not allowed to buy exclusive rights to non patented medicines.
Companies are not allowed to unilaterally triple the price of Epi pen
Companies are not allowed to reformulate repatent and pull the old drug.
Companies are not allowed to advertise to ask their doc about some patented medicine the probably do not need.
Hospitals are not allowed to hide pricing
E room docs are not allowed to be out of network, refuse to be in any network, and bill whatever they want for 15 minutes of work.
This is where the concept of marginal income kicks in. A person making $50k/yr has a much harder time eating a 15% income tax than someone making $5,000,000/yr. Yes, that person, who is in the top 0.01% of the economy, will definitely notice the loss of $750,000, but honestly, if they can't live quite comfortably on $4,250,000... they have serious money management issues.
See, that's the thing about living in a free society. Anyone can work/earn as little or as much as they want/can. Given that some have chosen to work harder/smarter than others, why should they be penalized by having to pay extra for doing so? Are they getting any more government services/benefits for their money than anyone else? No. Therefore, it makes no sense to charge them more.
A completely fair tax would be a capitation tax, in which the costs are evenly divided per capita and that's what each person owes in taxes.
Most are willing to accept a flat tax rate instead of a capitation tax, but even a flat tax rate results in some paying substantially more than others for the exact same thing.
The healthcare insurance lobby is the villain in this, not so much the healthcare providers.
Partially true.
In my area nearly every suburban town has a hospital. EACH hospital wants the latest and greatest machines. That cost millions of dollars. May only be used a few times per month. All pay for these machines. Does every hospital need to have the latest and greatest machines when the hospital in next town has the same expensive machines?
See, that's the thing about living in a free society. Anyone can work/earn as little or as much as they want/can. Given that some have chosen to work harder/smarter than others, why should they be penalized by having to pay extra for doing so? Are they getting any more government services/benefits for their money than anyone else? No. Therefore, it makes no sense to charge them more.
A completely fair tax would be a capitation tax, in which the costs are evenly divided per capita and that's what each person owes in taxes.
Most are willing to accept a flat tax rate instead of a capitation tax, but even a flat tax rate results in some paying substantially more than others for the exact same thing.
Again, which is MORE?
15% of $50,000?
Or 15% of $5,000,000?
And that would be for the exact same thing.
You're living in an alternate reality if you believe that we are all born on a level playing field in terms of both conditions and innate abilities, let alone which abilities society places a greater value on.
I won't argue with you because I know we're dealing with two different forms of reality. Mine acknowledges that life isn't fair, that at some point everyone needs a helping hand, and that the people who make it to the top naturally want conditions that are conducive to their children staying at the top.
It's not some stupid or naive notion that anyone can work or earn as little or as much as they want. Who would want to earn less even if living paycheck to paycheck? You might be referring to the few who are taking advantage of the safety net as a means to justify tearing it up, but you'd be ignoring the millions who genuinely need it to pick themselves back off their feet. In a country of 320,000,000 people, even a small percentage like 0.5% is 1.6 million people. Please keep that in mind before spouting off any platitudes about how much harder you worked than someone.
Regarding working hard: my job is pretty easy, and I get paid 6 figures for it. I busted my tail in my earlier years and got to where I am now. That said, my parents came to this country as immigrants in the mid 70s and are millionaires. They both came here with college degrees but one of them had a degree in nursing, which was very much in demand, and still is. My dad was a chartered accountant, but didn't want to go through the rigmarole required to get his US CPA. So my family relied on my mom until my dad got on his feet after getting an associates and working some menial jobs. If my mom didn't have degree in a field that was in demand, our lives could've been very, very different. That, by definition, is luck.
Not sure if you read the article you posted, but one of the paragraphs kinda shoots your argument in the foot.
In Europe, drug prices are set by governments, not by pharmaceutical companies the way they are in the U.S. On average, the difference between the price of one drug in the U.S. and the same drug in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the U.K. was 50 percent, an analysis by the consulting firm McKinsey has found.
If you set your own prices for a drug, knowing you'll have no competition for the first few years due to patents... what incentive would you have to reduce the price? That is, by definition, asking the fox to guard the fiscal hen house.
To be fair the canadians also have GST and HST which is a sales tax on most everything including services
GST and HST are the same thing. Only difference is with HST they combine provincial GST with the federal GST. HST stands for harmonized sales tax
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
