21 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by TeinosukeWe were comparing a dollar to ten thousand, now you want to change it up
You'd miss a thousand dollars, but do you think Bill Gates would miss a thousand dollars?
I don't think I know what is best more than any other voter. Fortunately we are all "lord and master" because we all get to cast our votes to determine tax rates among many other things.
to Bill Gates, so what dollar amount do you think 10% of his income would
be, maybe several million, a billion, I'm sure that he'd miss that and I
would also be willing to bet that would be more than he actually pays.
Kelly
21 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayBill Gates is worth 72 billion dollars. Several million to him would be a drop in the ocean! I'd also be willing to bet that that's more than he actually pays. So where does he figure on your list of "selfish" people?
We were comparing a dollar to ten thousand, now you want to change it up
to Bill Gates, so what dollar amount do you think 10% of his income would
be, maybe several million, a billion, I'm sure that he'd miss that and I
would also be willing to bet that would be more than he actually pays.
Kelly
21 Oct 13
Originally posted by KellyJayCharity is a fine thing, but not everyone is charitable. The poor shouldn't have to depend on the arbitrary benevolence of their rich neighbours. That assumes that the rich are virtuous, and there's no guarantee that that will be the case. Only the state, through taxation, can provide a comprehensive safety net.
I also feel compelled to help those that need it, but we are talking about
taxes not your giving. We are forced by law to pay taxes, that is NOT at
all giving to the poor, that is simply obeying the law. Your giving is that
which you do when you have the ability to do anything with it, and instead
of spending it on yourself, you choose to give to another.
Kelly
21 Oct 13
Originally posted by TeinosukeThat is what makes it charity. If it is compulsory, it is no longer charitable, or compassionate.
Charity is a fine thing, but not everyone is charitable. The poor shouldn't have to depend on the arbitrary benevolence of their rich neighbours. That assumes that the rich are virtuous, and there's no guarantee that that will be the case. Only the state, through taxation, can provide a comprehensive safety net.
Both Gates and Buffet are willingly charitable, I suspect because they know they can be more effective in using their money to do good than government can possibly be.
The State's safety net is no more comprehensive than private ones are. Ask the people who suffered storm damage from Katrina or Sandy about how comprehensive or timely FEMA relief is.
21 Oct 13
Originally posted by Teinosuke"If everyone could afford to pay themselves for a private education, there would be no need for taxes to support schools. If everyone could afford private health care, there would be no need for a national health service."
If everyone could afford to pay themselves for a private education, there would be no need for taxes to support schools. If everyone could afford private health care, there would be no need for a national health service.
Taxation is inherently redistributive, in that it provides for all what would otherwise be available only for some.
The problem is that affordable private medical care and education is discouraged when government subsidizes either. Costs escalate, and instead of greater access for the poor, education and health care absorb the subsidies, and increase prices.
"Taxation is inherently redistributive, in that it provides for all what would otherwise be available only for some."
I don't argue that isn't the intent, but it isn't the result. Providers quickly adjust to subsidies, and the poor are still left out.
On the other hand, the free market forces producers to consider low earners if they want that business, and that is why you can buy a decent laptop for under $300. I guarantee if there were subsidies on laptops for the poor, prices would increase to compensate.
21 Oct 13
Originally posted by normbenignUnfortunately, your argument fails through comparison with empirical data. Private health care and education tend to be more, not less expensive than public versions.
"If everyone could afford to pay themselves for a private education, there would be no need for taxes to support schools. If everyone could afford private health care, there would be no need for a national health service."
The problem is that affordable private medical care and education is discouraged when government subsidizes either. Costs escalate ...[text shortened]... guarantee if there were subsidies on laptops for the poor, prices would increase to compensate.
It wouldn't surprise me if the market for laptops is more efficient than a government-run one, but this market cannot be compared well to e.g. health care. There are a number of reasons for this. One, people can generally do without a laptop, but not without health care. This reduces the price elasticity of health care services, which means health care providers do not necessarily maximize profits by ensuring everyone has access. Two, the market for laptops is much more transparent than the health care market. People know and understand reasonably well what a laptop is and what it is used for, but they know too little about health care to judge the effectiveness of treatments or the skills of physicians. Three, there are benefits for others if someone receives treatment, because it will make them more productive. This is a positive externality that the market cannot take into account. In the case of laptops, it doesn't matter much to me whether someone else can afford one. In other words: externalities don't play a strong role in the laptop market.
A similar argument shows why it is more efficient to have government-guaranteed access to education. Of course, empirical evidence validates the argument.
21 Oct 13
Originally posted by normbenignAnother comparison is the relatively unregulated market for private health care of animals versus state mandated health care. Wait 36 hours to get a few stitches in the top lip with blood trickling into your mouth at the 'human' hospital or call the vet up on a Sunday and he'll reset the cats broken tibia for a couple of hundred bucks.
"If everyone could afford to pay themselves for a private education, there would be no need for taxes to support schools. If everyone could afford private health care, there would be no need for a national health service."
The problem is that affordable private medical care and education is discouraged when government subsidizes either. Costs escalate ...[text shortened]... guarantee if there were subsidies on laptops for the poor, prices would increase to compensate.
21 Oct 13
Originally posted by TeinosukePaying taxes has nothing to do with someone being generous or selfish!
Bill Gates is worth 72 billion dollars. Several million to him would be a drop in the ocean! I'd also be willing to bet that that's more than he actually pays. So where does he figure on your list of "selfish" people?
Generous has to do with what you do with what have, tax money isn't
yours it is taken by force of law away from you.
Kelly
21 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by TeinosukeLook if you put yourself in a place that you have to rely on others you are
Charity is a fine thing, but not everyone is charitable. The poor shouldn't have to depend on the arbitrary benevolence of their rich neighbours. That assumes that the rich are virtuous, and there's no guarantee that that will be the case. Only the state, through taxation, can provide a comprehensive safety net.
NOT in a good place. The rich are not only ones that can help, I don't count
myself as rich but we do what we can, and if everyone did that it would be
great. Tax money for a safety net isn't something I'd argue with, but I do
have an issue with it for a way of life.
Kelly
21 Oct 13
Originally posted by normbenignI'd be willing to bet that almost all if not all of those that want to tax the
That is what makes it charity. If it is compulsory, it is no longer charitable, or compassionate.
Both Gates and Buffet are willingly charitable, I suspect because they know they can be more effective in using their money to do good than government can possibly be.
The State's safety net is no more comprehensive than private ones are. Ask the peo ...[text shortened]... ho suffered storm damage from Katrina or Sandy about how comprehensive or timely FEMA relief is.
rich will ALWAYS assume the rich make more money than they do. So if
they make 100K a year than some number above 100K would be thought of
as rich, if they made 40K than some number above 40K would be thought
of as rich.
So the selfishness of them will always have that number above where they
are. If they think they need to give more in taxes, NOTHING is stopping
them other than they speak a good game but DO NOT walk it.
Treat all the same with the same rate, than the argument will become what
people do to steal tax money instead of how other people other than
themselves should have their taxes raised.
Kelly
21 Oct 13
Originally posted by WajomaYou get what you pay for, free is cheap and quality costs.
I wonder why there's this growing industry called medical tourism, where people travel from countries with state mandated health care to countries where they have to pay for fully private care. If it's 'free' why do they voluntarily pay more?
Some things cheap is okay, you may like a cheap creamer for your coffee,
but with medical care you do it sub par you can be harmed or die.
Kelly
21 Oct 13
Originally posted by WajomaBecause whatever procedure someone is after is cheaper, or a country will provide a procedure that another country can't. The only people I've met who have travelled from the UK to another country for treatment had dental work and laser eye treatment done. Both of which you have to pay for in the UK.
I wonder why there's this growing industry called medical tourism, where people travel from countries with state mandated health care to countries where they have to pay for fully private care. If it's 'free' why do they voluntarily pay more?