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.
Like most polls here, there is a serious, in fact a fatal flaw in this one. The title asks if the government should have the right, and the poll asks if a particular presidential candidate should have the right. Which question are we answering?
Taxes paid for infrastructure are fine as they should be maintained , but redistributing the wealth..medicare and social security where 80% is spent on administrative costs is not. Charities can't do this as they have strict laws to adhere to about what percentage need to go to those they are helping (98%, I think).
Redistributing the wealth is Socialism, plain and simple.
Redistribution of income has been going on since George Washington's administration.
80% administrative costs? I don't think so. Why not get your facts straight and come back. [mod cut]
Last edited by katzenfreund; 11-03-2008 at 05:01 AM..
Reason: no insults please...
Taxes paid for infrastructure are fine as they should be maintained , but redistributing the wealth..medicare and social security where 80% is spent on administrative costs is not. Charities can't do this as they have strict laws to adhere to about what percentage need to go to those they are helping (98%, I think).
Redistributing the wealth is Socialism, plain and simple.
Wow ...
I'm not sure where to start...
First - The assertion that Medicare and Social Security spend 80% on administrative costs is just silly. You're off by an order of magnitude. Unless you mistakenly added the digit zero after the eight...
And (even according to such conservative outfits as The Heritage Foundation) one of the reasons Medicare has done so well is that it's administration cost structure is actually a good deal more efficient than almost any private sector HMO . Here's an excerpt from a Heritage Foundation site discussing this
Administrative Costs
"... Critics of Medicare reform often argue that administrative costs of Medicare (defined as administrative expenses compared with spending on enrollees) averages roughly 2 per cent, and that this is well below the administrative costs of the FEHBP or private plans – suggesting that Medicare is more efficient. Merlis makes this argument, noting that administrative costs compared with benefits averages 7-10 per cent in preferred provider organizations (PPO’s) and 15 per cent or more in health maintenance organizations (HMO’s). On the face of it, therefore, Medicare management appears to be far more efficient, with private plans spending between 3 and 7 times as much on administrative costs for the same spending on beneficiaries. "
I'll leave the "Socialism" comment for another day, except to say that if you really believe what you say, and you vote for Ron Paul, who's party actually advocates ending almost all taxes - You're admirably consistent.
Taxes paid for infrastructure are fine as they should be maintained , but redistributing the wealth..medicare and social security where 80% is spent on administrative costs is not. Charities can't do this as they have strict laws to adhere to about what percentage need to go to those they are helping (98%, I think).
Redistributing the wealth is Socialism, plain and simple.
That is absolutely untrue. The Medicare Rights Center claims that only 2% of Medicare costs are spent on administration. The Council for Affordable Health Insurance argues that while most organizations believe that 2% of Medicare's budget is spent on administrative costs, the real cost of administration is closer to 5%. Compare this to the fact that the average health insurance company spends approximately 20 to 25% of their budgets on administration... and don't forget about advertising costs! Figures on the administrative costs of Social Security are harder to come by, but are likely somewhere in the proximity of Medicare's administrative costs. Thus, you're overestimating the administrative costs of these agencies by approximately 75%! Also, I am unaware of any such limitation being placed on charities so if you'd please find a legitimate source backing up your claim I'll take it seriously, otherwise I'll go ahead and discount it as likely to be untrue.
Additionally, due to the size of the problem being dealt with by programs like Medicare and Social Security there is no way that any organization, charitable or otherwise, could do even half of what they do! These programs have budgets in the hundreds of billions, not even the Gates Foundation can touch them. Some types of programs simply cannot be done in the private sector, therefore we either simply don't have them at all or the government does them. So which is it? Do we just go ahead and deny elderly affordable medical care (and therefore witness dramatic rises in insurance premiums) and cut off their social security so they can't retire or do we provide them with a safety net so they can live, even modestly, after a lifetime of hard work?
i think this is a fair question to ask, especially in light of obama saying that we need to be giving more. he gave less than the average person to charity, at 1% before he started releasing his taxes, and then was up to 6% after releasing his tax returns. (that also includes the chunk that he gives to his famous church). further, does he have the right to take american taxpayer money to redistribute it to other countries, particularly his interest in sub-saharan africa?
You must make over $250,000 in annual salary.
Why bring up sub-saharan africa? GWB is giving your money to the Iraqis. You are grasping at straws at this point,
the more the goverment takes, the less money people make, which means the less they can spend, which means the less businesses make, which means a worse economy.
The more money the goverment takes, the more business must charge, which means higher cost, less sales, lower taxes, which means the less money goverment makes.
Ita all about control over ones life. Is it better for you to take a smaller paycheck, pay higher prices, gove money to others who did not earn it, and let the government decide how to spend your money or is it better for you to keep more of your money, growing the economy, increase the tax revenue, and deciding on what you like to spend your money on.
The government has the right to use my taxes on things that i am going to use schools, roads, library's, and public services. Not to give it to other people that i don't know rich or poor. I give to charity i help out at soup kitchens i help out at my churches food pantry. I want to help out more but it is not the governments duty to take my tax money and give it to other people.
Redistribution of income has been going on since George Washington's administration.
80% administrative costs? I don't think so. Why not get your facts straight and come back. Your making a fool of yourself.
When I read the stats in 2006? that was what the National Taxpayers union had said. For the record, there is no need to sling insults. I thought we were all adults on here.
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.
