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.
should food be a for profit industry? how about housing? how about clothing? being for profit is a good thing. however, that can get screwed up generally by government. profit doesnt increase your overall cost. things typically cost more in a non-profit.
Farming is highly subsidized. Housing should be a right. Someone can make their own clothes, they can't cure themselves of cancer.
How is a CEO making hundreds of millions of dollars a good thing, while the people their insurance company covers still go bankrupt? There are countless articles on how the US spends the most on health care but that does not translate into better care. Money=/=quality. A CEO's salary should NOT be more important than my right to be alive.
None of this matters anyway. If we don’t build a wall soon the Puerto Ricans will take over and there will be no reason to worry about North Korea or China.
Farming is highly subsidized. Housing should be a right. Someone can make their own clothes, they can't cure themselves of cancer.
How is a CEO making hundreds of millions of dollars a good thing, while the people their insurance company covers still go bankrupt? There are countless articles on how the US spends the most on health care but that does not translate into better care. Money=/=quality. A CEO's salary should NOT be more important than my right to be alive.
so you avoided answering the question directly.
you are saying:
yes, food should be non-profit?
yes, housing should be non-profit (or completely government operated)?
no, clothing should be for profit?
you are placing too much emphasis on the CEO pay. the CEO doesnt collect the profits. i said that being for profit doesnt increase cost. if you wipe out the profit margin you also wipe out the incentive to keep costs down. most likely, other costs will increase more than the profit margin.
you are saying:
yes, food should be non-profit?
yes, housing should be non-profit (or completely government operated)?
no, clothing should be for profit?
you are placing too much emphasis on the CEO pay. the CEO doesnt collect the profits. i said that being for profit doesnt increase cost. if you wipe out the profit margin you also wipe out the incentive to keep costs down. most likely, other costs will increase more than the profit margin.
Farming is highly subsidized.
Housing is either highly subsidized or free to low-income people. Governments incentive development through tax breaks. Governments highly regulate housing markets by guaranteeing tenants' rights in situations such as unfair rent increases, unlivable conditions, abusive landlords, etc. We allow insurance companies to charge anything they want, deny any coverage they want, etc. If my pipes burst and my apartment becomes unlivable and my landlord refuses to fix anything, I can take him to court. If my insurance decided to charge me anything it wants for any procedure, or denies me coverage for something my doctor mandates as medically necessary so I'm forced to pay out of pocket, I have very limited resources to fix this.
Clothing is definitely full for-profit. The difference being someone can make their own clothes if they don't want to buy them. I can't cure my own cancer in my living room. We all must have prescriptions for life-saving medication, whereas we don't require someone else's approval before putting clothes on. If my clothes rip, I can sew them back together for cheap. But if I break my bone, I can't just fix it before cooking dinner; I need to go to the ER or doctor and seek medical treatment.
Housing is either highly subsidized or free to low-income people. Governments incentive development through tax breaks. Governments highly regulate housing markets by guaranteeing tenants' rights in situations such as unfair rent increases, unlivable conditions, abusive landlords, etc. We allow insurance companies to charge anything they want, deny any coverage they want, etc. If my pipes burst and my apartment becomes unlivable and my landlord refuses to fix anything, I can take him to court. If my insurance decided to charge me anything it wants for any procedure, or denies me coverage for something my doctor mandates as medically necessary so I'm forced to pay out of pocket, I have very limited resources to fix this.
Clothing is definitely full for-profit. The difference being someone can make their own clothes if they don't want to buy them. I can't cure my own cancer in my living room. We all must have prescriptions for life-saving medication, whereas we don't require someone else's approval before putting clothes on. If my clothes rip, I can sew them back together for cheap. But if I break my bone, I can't just fix it before cooking dinner; I need to go to the ER or doctor and seek medical treatment.
saying "farming is highly subsidized" isnt saying anything. what is your point there?
and i see you are saying x is ____. i am asking if you are suggesting that this is how it should be. do you want to answer the questions or just mindlessly babble?
saying "farming is highly subsidized" isnt saying anything. what is your point there?
and i see you are saying x is ____. i am asking if you are suggesting that this is how it should be. do you want to answer the questions or just mindlessly babble?
Farming is highly subsidized. By taxpayer money. It's for-profit, but subsidized. And it should stay that way. That way, farmers make a living and we can afford our food.
Housing is for-profit, and should stay that way. However, some regulations should be relaxed while others should be tightened. I.e. NIMBY-ism needs to end because a few neighbors complaining that their good Christian suburbs will be ruined by an apartment building are not understanding the simple economics of supply and demand and the affordability crisis we're currently in. I.e. OTOH more regulations should be implemented to ensure that slumlords don't exist and some adjustments need to be made to AH/rent control/rent stabilization. I'm no expert on that area, but it seems they are not being implemented properly.
Clothing is for-profit and should remain for-profit.
Healthcare, even government run, is still somewhat for-profit and should be like that across the board. Doctors deserve good salaries and so do nurses. But insurance CEOs dictating who lives and dies should not exist. A limited profit should go to funding salaries and expenses of actual health CARE industry, not lining the pockets of the health INSURANCE industry. That's the big difference here. Health CARE=/=Health INSURANCE. Farmers still make a living while the government subsidizes them. Landlords and real estate developers still make profits while AH and tenant's rights are implemented. Doctors and nurses can still make excellent money even with stricter controls over the health CARE industry. So health CARE should be for-profit only in the sense that it pays the costs of salaries and reasonable medical expenses. It should not be for-profit in the sense that an insurance companies gets rich off dying Americans. Run all health systems in the US like Medicare. Doctors and hospitals get paid, but nobody is price-gouged and left to die simply because they aren't rich enough.
Farming is highly subsidized. By taxpayer money. It's for-profit, but subsidized. And it should stay that way. That way, farmers make a living and we can afford our food.
do you really figure that if the government didnt give money to "farmers" that we wouldnt have affordable food? its just crony capitalism/government corruption.
do you really figure that if the government didnt give money to "farmers" that we wouldnt have affordable food? its just crony capitalism/government corruption.
Social Security is not "getting tax dollars back". It is it's own fund financed by payroll deductions. It is NOT an entitlement contrary to what Paul Ryan said.
A lot of states that get more in tax dollars back vs what paid have large military or other federal installations. NY and NJ do not. That said I do think the full SALT deduction should be restored. NJ tax issues are partially from the way local governments are set up, fine back 200yrs ago, onerous today. That said you get what you pay for, most of NJ has excellent schools, decent roads, (crowded but most were horse and buggy trails 100yrs ago), and generally good municipal services. We are also the most densely populated state in the country, a lot different than "middle America". With the convenience of goods and services, communications, Arts, etc. yes there is a price to pay.
Social security is an entitlement. It has no relation to how much you put it.
If I retired today, say I got disability, I would get about 2300 out of max 2600 or 90% max. However, if I work for next 30 years to be eligible for social security, assume my income remind consistent over time, I would still get about 90%.
The difference is, if I start collecting now and assume I die in 40 years from now, I would be collecting for 40 years vs the same term if I start collecting 30 years from now and die after 10 years.
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.
