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.
Please read section 5.2. There are some exempts. And again, not all the VAT is going towards healthcare.
Of course not all the VAT is going to healthcare. But as already explained in my previous post, European and Scandinavian countries can provide the socialist benefits they do like national healthcare because they tax regressively. All the info is in post #29:
Of course not all the VAT is going to healthcare. But as already explained in my previous post, European and Scandinavian countries can provide the socialist benefits they do like national healthcare because they tax regressively. All the info is in post #29:
Again the VAT nonsense. It was explained to you over and over again, that when you consider tax burden, you need to understand what is included. The most regressive stuff is what you call conveniently call fees - insurance, education, child care, retirement. That stuff is included in taxes in many countries, got it? So, that's the problem for the very rich here, if it is a percentage on the income, the amount paid would by much more than an average person pays for exactly identical health coverage. Which is horrific, right?
Also, we spent per capita too much, everybody else spends less, got it? So something needs to be done, this is not sustainable.
Again the VAT nonsense. It was explained to you over and over again, that when you consider tax burden, you need to understand what is included. The most regressive stuff is what you call conveniently call fees - insurance, education, child care, retirement. That stuff is included in taxes in many countries, got it?
As already explained to you multiple times, the ONLY economically feasible way to fund public services is to charge EVERYONE for them. That's why economists who have studied nations' economies and tax systems have repeatedly found that the more regressive a country's tax system is, the more progressive the social program benefits it provides.
Those are the FACTS. If you don't like it, too bad. /shrug
Pretend the federal government has $100,000 to spend on healthcare per year. Resources are not unlimited, they can't confiscate 100% of everyone's pay without shutting down the economy, and they can't print money endlessly either.
Thank you for the excellent post. This thread deals with the harsh realities of government interference with the market. It shows perfectly the reduction in supply when the demand goes up in the example you gave.
Which; is a complete and utter fallacy as proven by any number of other countries managing it for over 60 years of keeping costs constrained and obtaining better outcomes while U.S. costs continue to skyrocket with no improvement of service.
Which; would indicate the complete opposite of hypothetical assumptive nonsense.
No. If the money is not there than you can't just pay. You have to cut expenses.
Yes. Live within your means. I don't see a problem with that, and neither do the Europeans/Scandinavians who willingly pay a 25% VAT tax and higher taxes on everything else without the incessant whining and complaining that characterizes the American left-wing when they're asked to pay their fair share.
Yes. Live within your means. I don't see a problem with that, and neither do the Europeans/Scandinavians who willingly pay a 25% VAT tax and higher taxes on everything else without the incessant whining and complaining that characterizes the American left-wing when they're asked to pay their fair share.
Right so by cutting expenses, I wont have money to pay for food as it is the only variable item that I can control.
The poor have no extra money for things like VAT taxes, that is why they qualify for free healthcare now. They should get free healthcare and those that make large salaries should cover the cost. If one does not like that, they can choose to make less money and not cover the cost for someone poor. It really is that simple
Right so by cutting expenses, I wont have money to pay for food as it is the only variable item that I can control.
The poor have no extra money for things like VAT taxes, that is why they qualify for free healthcare now. They should get free healthcare and those that make large salaries should cover the cost. If one does not like that, they can choose to make less money and not cover the cost for someone poor. It really is that simple
You cannot control your mortgage? paying 1500 out of 2200 is a poor decision.
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.
