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.
1. Greatly reduced healthcare. (Patients would ONLY pay a $50 co-pay for office visits, a $200 co-pay for ER visits, a $500 per day co-pay for hospital stays, and a $5,000 co-pay for surgeries. Any non-essential surgeries or procedures would be paid for by the individual, but they could buy supplemental health insurance to pay for that and also the co-pays if they wanted.)
2. A free tubal ligation or vasectomy for everyone who wants it, and a $25,000 bonus for any woman who receives SNAP benefits and who already has two or more children. (And government paid temporary birth control for anyone who wants it.)
3. An equal education for every child attending public school in the U.S. -- meaning the same teacher to student ratio and the same per child budget (only allowing for differences in the COL in different areas, meaning that teachers and staff in San Francisco would be paid more than teachers in Dubuque, Iowa.)
4. Free college for everyone who is admitted. (However, the number of admissions would be sharply reduced, as admission would be based solely on how many college graduates in each field are projected to be needed in each field, without giving any regard to race, ancestry or socioeconomic status -- so no more 18-year-olds with only average IQ's getting in just because their parents are wealthy alumni or because they are poor and Hispanic.)
Now ask me which items in the federal budget I would like to see sharply reduced, lol! (I would guess that the number of cuts I would like to see would be more than enough to pay for the above.)
Nothing. Fulfilling wants and needs is what the private marketplace is for.
This, to which I would add that the majority of government spending is already wasteful, so giving them more means simply increasing the amount of waste.
So the question of the thread is really "for what purpose would you light more money on fire?" Because that's all paying more in taxes amounts to - taking more money out of your wallet and simply lighting it on fire. How much money do you feel comfortable wasting in that fashion?
Universal healthcare. (Must have copays and deductibles. They are important gatekeepers. Figure 2K a year individual deductible for hospitalization and 25 bucks MOL to see a doc)
Repeal the hideous law by Billy Tauzin not letting govt negotiate drug prices.
No to free college.
No to paid parent leave.
No to mandated vacation time
(a) A Balanced Budget Amendment were passed, with exceptions only for wars (not "States of Emergency") declared by Congress;
(b) Automatic Tax Withholding from our paychecks is repealed;
(c) "Early voting" is banned in all states; and
(d) Income Tax Day (currently April 15) is moved to the Monday before the Tuesday in November on which national elections are held.
All four must be fulfilled. Otherwise why on Earth would I ever hand even more of what I worked for, to this bloated bureaucracy that mostly uses it to buy votes with free goodies from government?
Originally Posted by katharsis;52737800[COLOR=Blue
]1. Greatly reduced healthcare. (Patients would ONLY pay a $50 co-pay for office visits, a $200 co-pay for ER visits, a $500 per day co-pay for hospital stays, and a $5,000 co-pay for surgeries. Any non-essential surgeries or procedures would be paid for by the individual, but they could buy supplemental health insurance to pay for that and also the co-pays if they wanted.)[/color]
2. A free tubal ligation or vasectomy for everyone who wants it, and a $25,000 bonus for any woman who receives SNAP benefits and who already has two or more children. (And government paid temporary birth control for anyone who wants it.)
3. An equal education for every child attending public school in the U.S. -- meaning the same teacher to student ratio and the same per child budget (only allowing for differences in the COL in different areas, meaning that teachers and staff in San Francisco would be paid more than teachers in Dubuque, Iowa.)
4. Free college for everyone who is admitted. (However, the number of admissions would be sharply reduced, as admission would be based solely on how many college graduates in each field are projected to be needed in each field, without giving any regard to race, ancestry or socioeconomic status -- so no more 18-year-olds with only average IQ's getting in just because their parents are wealthy alumni or because they are poor and Hispanic.)
Now ask me which items in the federal budget I would like to see sharply reduced, lol! (I would guess that the number of cuts I would like to see would be more than enough to pay for the above.)
On the blue, I noted above healthcare is one for me too but I think your fee schedule is too expensive. $50 just to go to the doctor is a lot of money. So is $200 for ER and the hospital/surgery stays would keep people from going to the doctor or getting surgeries.
I make a good amount of money and at one point in time, because I had a higher deductible plan (everything was "free" after I met the deductible) I often didn't go to the doctor because I had to pay $80 for every visit. When you have a family, those $50 will add up. Both my son and husband had a surgery last year. Even though I could afford $10k for them, I didn't have to pay $10k for them. That would ruin our family's budget.
Another family member of mine spent almost 6 weeks in the hospital last year (very unexpected, fluke healthcare issue that was life threatening and not related to lifestyle - was actually for a 19 year old member of the family). This teenager also had a surgery. By your fees they'd have to pay nearly $30k, which is way more than a college student makes in a year. Their parents make $70k combined per year. That is nearly half their income before taxes.
I would want to make people who ask for stuff to be the ones responsible for paying it... So if someone wants healthcare, the can join together and pay for all of it as a group... If you want free college for your descendants then you have to pay for everyones college bills.... You can opt in one time a year and cannot opt out for fifteen years... Your tax rate will depend on how many groups you join and how much is needed for each group... There is a baseline tax rate (infrastructure, defense, etc)
Or....we could do it the way it was supposed to be done all along. The Constitution lists certain things that the Federal government is supposed to do, and also contains and amendment that says that anything not listed here is a power that belongs to the states. Let's get back to that. Then, we can cut Federal tax rates WAY down, the way they were before the Civil War. There wasn't even a personal income tax then; the government funded itself primarily via import duties. The state tax rates would have to be increased, but then at least you have an option -- if you don't like what your state is doing with your tax money or think that the tax rate is too high, move to another state.
In an ideal world, IMO, even states would delegate much of what they do to local governments. We have this whole thing bass-ackwards. A local government is FAR more responsive to its citizens. There are far fewer voters overall, so each voter has increased importance. Further, if you don't like what you're government is doing, it would be nearly impossible to move to another country and likely very inconvenient to move to another state. (You'd have to find a new job, move far away from family and friends, etc.; at least that's true for many people unless you live somewhere like NYC, DC or Philly). It is not so difficult, though, to move to a nearby local municipality, though, so people would have the ability to hold government accountable in that way also.
If we were to increase local power, all I would suggest would be a Constitutional amendment that stated that local governments are bound to respect all Constitutional protections. That is not explicitly stated in our current Constitution; the 14th Amendment has been interpreted such that this applies to state governments. This would need to extend to local municipalities as well.
I know it's all a pipe dream, but one can dream, can't he?
This, to which I would add that the majority of government spending is already wasteful, so giving them more means simply increasing the amount of waste.
So the question of the thread is really "for what purpose would you light more money on fire?" Because that's all paying more in taxes amounts to - taking more money out of your wallet and simply lighting it on fire. How much money do you feel comfortable wasting in that fashion?
And yeah a thread like this really brings out the greedy with their wish lists that they want someone else to pay for.
Maybe, but only if we stop imprisoning people for victimless crimes. Why should the government have the authority to regulate what we put in our bodies, for example? If I want to shoot heroin (I don't because I'm not stupid; I know it could kill me), why should the government be able to tell me I can't and put me in prison if I don't obey? I know full well the harm that drugs cause, but they cause that harm NOW, while they are illegal. People are going to take drugs anyway, so why put them in jail for it? Further, many drug users who are addicted are hesitant to seek treatment for that addiction because they fear prosecution. Remove the fear of prosecution and maybe you'd see more people seek treatment.
Legalizing drugs would also take a big bite out of the current business of drug dealers. Why would you go to a shady and possibly violent drug dealer if you could go to a store and buy the same thing? The contents of legal drugs could also be regulated; currently many people who die from taking drugs do so not because of overdose, but because the dealers cut the drugs with toxic substances. That could be eliminated by legalization.
Now, if someone is addicted and commits crimes in support of that addiction, then by all means prosecute and sentence harshly. If you kill someone because you're high, you're a murderer and should be dealt with accordingly. If you steal money to buy drugs, you're a thief and should be prosecuted. Heck, even if you take LSD and get in a car and drive, you are a danger to others and should be prosecuted for driving under the influence (DUI does NOT only mean alcohol). Increase sentences for those committing DUI's would not be a bad idea. If you sit in your house and snort cocaine, though, you're NOT a criminal, just stupid.
Other laws dealing with victimless crimes like prostitution and gambling regulations could also be eliminated with similar effect. Heck, do all that, and maybe we wouldn't need more prisons. I am all in favor, though, of keeping REAL criminals locked up. Murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. SHOULD be sentenced harshly, and we should stop letting them out long before the sentences are up. If you're sentenced to 20 years, you serve 20 years. Perhaps if we stop overcrowding prisons with those who commit victimless crimes, we could have the facilities to actually do this.
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.
