Wealth redistribution

[kallend 2,028]

Quote

Quote

What % of your taxes goes to those who choose not to work?

Less than what is in Obama's plan!

No answer, eh? Could it be that your favorite bogeyman, the slacker who won't work and is responsible for your tax bill, is actually a phantom when you put numbers to it?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,008]

>You somehow forgot to add extra $12,648 for Social Security . . .

An interesting example. Social security is a regressive tax; the more you make, the less you pay as a percentage of your income. So it rapidly becomes a non-issue for someone making $500K. (i.e. it's around 2%.)

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

What % of your taxes goes to those who choose not to work? Compare with the % that goes to running a war based on false pretenses

False pretenses? Do you disagree with these folks?

http://s63.photobucket.com/albums/h122/ricochet69/forum%20pics/?action=view¤t=dems-wmd-before-iraq.flv

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[kallend 2,028]

Quote

Quote

What % of your taxes goes to those who choose not to work? Compare with the % that goes to running a war based on false pretenses

False pretenses? Do you disagree with these folks?

And the amount of WMDs found was .....?

And the link with 9/11 was .....?

And the RPVs that could attack the USA in 45 minutes were found .....where?

And the "centrifuge tubes" turned out to be ..... what?

And the "mobile bioweapons labs were ..... what?

Bush started this war under FALSE PRETENSES and it has cost us nearly $1 trillion so far. That's the biggest waste of taxpayer money in a generation.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

[I don't understand why you took such a personal insult to my issue with those that just want to take my money without effort on their part.
.

Why don't you just come right out and say that you don't like taxes, because your description applies to ALL taxes.

I don't mind paying MY SHARE to the community. I give to support what I use and expect others to do the same. I carry my weight and I would guess the weight of others that don't want to. Yes, I did say don't "want" to.

I have no problem with welfare plans that help those that need the support in times of crises (I've seen and helped MANY of these). I agree with government support for those that HONESTLY can't. It's the "don't want to" that annoy me. How do we differentiate between them? Sometimes it's hard, but I think when you come into the OB/Gyn office pregnant and on Medicaid, then play with your iPhone while the doc is trying to do some teaching... SOMETHING IS WRONG.

What % of your taxes goes to those who choose not to work? Compare with the % that goes to running a war based on false pretenses, running a DoD that outspends the rest of the world's defense spending combined, supporting the country's infrastructure that enables us to be productive, running services like Air Traffic Control, CDC, NSF, the National Labs, the DoE, supporting those unable to support themselves due to health or age issues.......

OK. Maybe I'm not as bright as some, but I don't see a relavant response to my comment in your reply.

I said I'm ok with paying for my part of the community. You replied with a random side note on government expenses.

Maybe the highlights in YOUR statements above will give you a hint.

What % of your taxes go to the people that "annoy" you?

I can play with the markup's too.

The portion of my taxes that "annoy" me are the parts that redistribute my "wealth" to give to those that take it without the work. Whether that number is 10% or 90%, it is still theft. Shall we "redistribute" all that is gained through effort? Cuz it must be unfair that I have gained knowledge that others haven't studied. So let everyone be called "Doctor"?

Or maybe allow anyone to be called "plumber"?
You seem to argue against the "Plumber" part. So... it's incorrect for him to use that gain, but it would be ok for him to take the money of a plumber?

[kallend 2,028]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

[I don't understand why you took such a personal insult to my issue with those that just want to take my money without effort on their part.
.

Why don't you just come right out and say that you don't like taxes, because your description applies to ALL taxes.

I don't mind paying MY SHARE to the community. I give to support what I use and expect others to do the same. I carry my weight and I would guess the weight of others that don't want to. Yes, I did say don't "want" to.

I have no problem with welfare plans that help those that need the support in times of crises (I've seen and helped MANY of these). I agree with government support for those that HONESTLY can't. It's the "don't want to" that annoy me. How do we differentiate between them? Sometimes it's hard, but I think when you come into the OB/Gyn office pregnant and on Medicaid, then play with your iPhone while the doc is trying to do some teaching... SOMETHING IS WRONG.

What % of your taxes goes to those who choose not to work? Compare with the % that goes to running a war based on false pretenses, running a DoD that outspends the rest of the world's defense spending combined, supporting the country's infrastructure that enables us to be productive, running services like Air Traffic Control, CDC, NSF, the National Labs, the DoE, supporting those unable to support themselves due to health or age issues.......

OK. Maybe I'm not as bright as some, but I don't see a relavant response to my comment in your reply.

I said I'm ok with paying for my part of the community. You replied with a random side note on government expenses.

Maybe the highlights in YOUR statements above will give you a hint.

What % of your taxes go to the people that "annoy" you?

I can play with the markup's too.

The portion of my taxes that "annoy" me are the parts that redistribute my "wealth" to give to those that take it without the work. Whether that number is 10% or 90%, it is still theft.

You asked where my question came from as if it came out of left field, and I showed EXACTLY which of your statements prompted it.

Fact is, you have no idea how much of your tax goes to the undeserving slackers. Why don't you find out before whining for the sake of whining.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

You asked where my question came from as if it came out of left field, and I showed EXACTLY which of your statements prompted it.

Fact is, you have no idea how much of your tax goes to the undeserving slackers. Why don't you find out before whining for the sake of whining.

Your response did not deal with my complaints. You redirected it and then with that focus taken off the "redistribution" context, you attacked my concerns and belittled my annoyance. Theft of what is mine is still theft. I would rather GIVE willingly than to have it stolen.

We have differences of opinions, you and I.

[tkhayes 348]

I too have DIRECT experience with both systems, yet we disagree on what 'fair and balanced' is.

Studies I have seen show that both systems get abused by people who 'sneeze and then run to the ER.' Even in the 'free' system, it is no more abused than in the pay-for system.

I lived in Canada for 34 years and now here for 13 years. I do not go to the doctor any more or any less under either system. I go when I need to go.

The hypochondriac will do the same, they do not go more or less often based on the system they have,

Quote

And many people don't feel like they have affordable access.

It's not a 'feeling' Many people simply DON'T have affordable access. Period.

And you cut costs in the military the same way you cut it in any corporation. Retire people out, cut programs, scale back production and decide where to best use your dollars. GM and the other manufacturers do it every day. The military can too, but they are not used to operating like that - they are more interested in fat government contracts, massive cost overruns and and endless pot of gold. If we can do that for them, then we can do it in education and healthcare too.

But we don't.

If taxes go up, so what? The monthly cost of my health insurance bill goes down or even goes away. That is a trade I will gladly accept.
I actually do not mind paying taxes if I am getting something for it.

The US government is already pretty small. Another cultural fallacy that you have big government and big taxes here in the USA. Go to Canada if you want to see big government and big taxes. But we also have the watchdogs and the government programs for all that are justified by those taxes. (that's why our banks are surviving the financial mess, not failing like yours) Are they all good? No of course not, and I am all for lower taxes and less government, but you get what you pay for, like anything.

I am paying $750/month for health care (and please do not patronize me by telling me that I should shop around), it is what it is. That's what I pay. Am I am not getting my money's worth, but I have to pay that.

Or go without. For me, it is NOT affordable and there are NO other alternatives.

I really doubt my income tax would go up by $750/month to pay for universal healthcare. Or maybe it would if we left George W Bush to run it.

TK

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Bush started this war under FALSE PRETENSES....

You can spout this bullshit all day long, but to demonize Bush for it when a bunch of high level liberals supported it even before Bush took office is simply ridiculous. The UN was proving how toothless they were after our inspection teams were kicked out, and a decision had to be made. Thats what leaders do. They make decisions, not vote "present." Was it the right one? Maybe. Maybe not. It has been expensive, in terms of money and lives. But if allowed to keep his weapons research and chemical facilities intact Hussein (the dead one) might have been able to provide weapons to terrorists. He'd certainly shown his penchant for using them in the past. What would have happened? Please, wise one, consult thy crystal ball and inform us. Had we done nothing and terrorists had used a dirty nuke or chemical weapon of Iraqi origin, you guys would be calling for his head.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

>You somehow forgot to add extra $12,648 for Social Security . . .

An interesting example. Social security is a regressive tax; the more you make, the less you pay as a percentage of your income. So it rapidly becomes a non-issue for someone making $500K. (i.e. it's around 2%.)

Social security is a bunch of programs under one heading - a retirement savings plan, life insurance for a bread-winner's dependants, and disability insurance.

Mostly it's a mandatory retirement savings plan which is very progressive and a bad value at the top.

A married person with a non working spouse at the bottom of the scale will have about 75% of their income replaced when they retire while a single person at the wage cap only gets 25%.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

"Society should have laws which mean our spending on criminals and people who choose not to work are minimized, which means not working has to be sufficiently more attractive than crime which results in shelter and three meals a day (plus extreme overhead) at government expense."==================================Such as getting rid of people in prison for non-violent drug use would go a long way but hey that's big bucks for the powers that be. And it's taxpayer expense. Not government expense.

Right. Legalize drugs and prostitution, but keep driving under the influence and locking kids in the car while visiting brothels illegal.

Much cheaper.

[kallend 2,028]

Quote

Quote

You asked where my question came from as if it came out of left field, and I showed EXACTLY which of your statements prompted it.

Fact is, you have no idea how much of your tax goes to the undeserving slackers. Why don't you find out before whining for the sake of whining.

Your response did not deal with my complaints. You redirected it and then with that focus taken off the "redistribution" context, you attacked my concerns and belittled my annoyance. Theft of what is mine is still theft. I would rather GIVE willingly than to have it stolen.

We have differences of opinions, you and I.

Yes we do. And I think you overestimate the effect of "redistribution" to the unworthy on your taxes (in fact, you don't even know what the effect is yet you complain loudly about it).

How would you propose excluding those you consider unworthy of help, from those who truly need help, in a cost-effective manner?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,028]

Quote

Quote

>You somehow forgot to add extra $12,648 for Social Security . . .

An interesting example. Social security is a regressive tax; the more you make, the less you pay as a percentage of your income. So it rapidly becomes a non-issue for someone making $500K. (i.e. it's around 2%.)

Social security is a bunch of programs under one heading - a retirement savings plan, life insurance for a bread-winner's dependants, and disability insurance.

Mostly it's a mandatory retirement savings plan which is very progressive and a bad value at the top.

A married person with a non working spouse at the bottom of the scale will have about 75% of their income replaced when they retire while a single person at the wage cap only gets 25%.

At the very top it's an insiginicant extra burden because it is so regressive.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,028]

You still can't accept the FACT that no WMDs were found, Powell's claims at the UN all turned out to be falsehoods, there were no centifuge tubes, no RPVs, no bioweapons labs, and the supposed link with the 9/11 terrorist Atta turned out to be a MYTH.

And the Bush administration's lies are still costing us between $10 Billion to $12 Billion/month.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,028]

Quote

>So did Bush's stimulus work?

I think it's pretty clear that it didn't reverse the course of the economy, wouldn't you say?

Well, it **might** have been even worse without the checks (not that I got one anyway).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

I will reiterate why this cannot work effectively. There are three factors to. Consider with regard to health care policy:
1) Quality;
2) Affordability; and
3) Availability.

One can fully have two of those three but not all three.

You can get high quality care that is affordable, but it will be rationed.
You can get affordable health care on demand, but it will necessarily be low quality.
Or you can get high quality care available on demand, which will be extremely expensive!

Policy makers must determine what they believe to be to be the best mix of these factors. Which means that cheap, high quality, unrationed healthcare won't exist. Moderately expensive, reasonably good healthcare that you cab usually get is about the upper limit or what can be delivered.

For many, this will be better than what they have now. For many, this will be worse than what they have now. But that is what poilitics does...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

You're including the employer portion, which is probably cheating a bit, or you have to say the person made $537k, not 500.

A person making 500K is likely to be self-employed.

Quote

Then there is the question of is it a tax, since it results in benefits in retirement, or just a really crappy retirement plan?

All taxes paid result in benefits in something (but not always for us though). But it is a tax since it is mandatory, and the amount you pay depends on how much you make.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kelpdiver 2]

TK,

I think it's easier to measure the failures of the various medical systems than the success.

US - the high cost per capita, 20% aren't insured
universal - the metered care, the stories of slow service

The overall metrics suggest the US system is worse based on life span and infant mortality, but no measure is made for the difference caused by the people rather than the system. Universal care won't make Americans work less or eat better. Or eliminate our car centric city design (though the cost of oil might in time).

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

You're including the employer portion, which is probably cheating a bit, or you have to say the person made $537k, not 500.

A person making 500K is likely to be self-employed.

Is that a guess on your part? Lots of employed professionals making that sort of money - in sales, finance, law, medicine, pro sports. Much of it is in bonus pay.

And the self employed half is deducted off the top, so the denominator has to shift somehow if you're making this about 1099 folks.

[kallend 2,028]

Quote

Quote

You're including the employer portion, which is probably cheating a bit, or you have to say the person made $537k, not 500.

A person making 500K is likely to be self-employed.

.

In that case they're probably cheating on their taxes anyway. According to the IRS the self employed are by far the most likely to underreport income and claim personal expenses as business expenses, and account for over half of the "tax gap" despite being a small fraction of the population.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

"Why should someone that makes 500k pay 40% in taxes (200,000 to uncle sam)" .
State taxes are not "Uncle Sam",

Well, it depends on how you interpret "Uncle Sam". It could be "a United States government" or " the American nation or people" according to Webster. Second definition definitely justifies state taxes being paid to Uncle Sam as well.

Quote

and Social Security/Medicaire are already flat rated (social Security is actually regressive).

It doesn't matter if it is flat rated or restricted, this is still tax one have to pay.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kallend 2,028]

Quote

TK,

I think it's easier to measure the failures of the various medical systems than the success.

US - the high cost per capita, 20% aren't insured
universal - the metered care, the stories of slow service

The overall metrics suggest the US system is worse based on life span and infant mortality, but no measure is made for the difference caused by the people rather than the system. Universal care won't make Americans work less or eat better.

That depends on whether it's health centered or sickness centered.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I guess we need a few more Reichstag fires! Then we could have more wars and solve all our problems.

People still use the autobahns.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[tkhayes 348]

we fundamentally disagree. I never said Cheap was the answer. The thread is WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION.

there is plenty of wealth in the country to distribute to get QUALITY health care for everyone.

yes availability may suffer some, but no one in all those 'socialized' countries is dying in the streets waiting for health care. Urgent care is always provided.

But in the USA, people DO die in the streets trying to find a hospital that will take them. Florida is suffering under the crisis of malpractice insurance. Doctors are leaving in droves. OB's cannot even afford to operate (different issue, but still part of the bigger picture)

Does not matter what anyone says. universal health care is a coming reality. it is an eventuality, maybe 10 years, maybe 20, but it is going to happen. Why? For the same reason that the French Revolution happened. The very large majority of extreme poor are tired of 'being taken advantage of' by the very small percentage of extreme wealth.

They will rise up and behead them all. People like to make fun of the French, even me. But ever since the French Revolution, the French have done a great job of taking care of the French.

American can realize and deal with that ahead of the 'revolution' or deal with the consequences of the 'revolution'. Since we are smarter than that, I think we will deal with it.

Universal healthcare is coming because it is what civilized nations do. Oh that's right, America is not that civilized afterall...... What was I thinking.....

TK

Voting for what I believe in, not either of the two major parties.....

[kallend 2,028]

Here's a nice article on the wealth redistribution that's been going on for the past 30 years.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.