One Biden question

@averagejoe1 said
Here you mention public health and covid. Off you go. You further imply that abortions qualify as a 'public health' problem like covid. Your movements and intertwining of subjects would make me say 'point of order'; in a stage debate. Covid is a public problem. Govt needs to dig into the kitty and save us all. I agree. Govt should NOT dig into the kitty to correct ...[text shortened]... running, insert affecting. My bad, I guess.

Are you a socialist, too? You dont have to answer.

Maybe this explanation of the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility of Income will help you understand (I doubt it but hey miracles are always possible):

"The marginal utility of income is the change in utility, or satisfaction, resulting from a change in an individual's income.
In a modern economy, individuals trade away their incomes in order to satisfy their wants and remove discomforts, and they do this by buying food, clothing, shelter, entertainment, etc.
According to the law of diminishing marginal utility, the more of a good that is consumed, the less additional satisfaction can be derived from consuming another unit; the law of diminishing marginal utility of income suggests that as income increases, individuals gain a correspondingly smaller increase in satisfaction.
Marginal utility is diminishing in nature; in general, as income increases, individuals gain a correspondingly smaller increase in satisfaction. The economist Alfred Marshall popularized the concept of marginal utility in the 19th century, although the term is originally credited to an Austrian economist named Friedrich von Wieser. In the 1890 book "Principles of Economics," Marshall writes: "The additional benefit a person derives from a given increase of his stock of a thing diminishes with every increase in the stock that he already has."


Individuals Maximize Utility Through Income
Income comes in the form of wages, rents, investment returns, and other transfers. In a modern economy, individuals trade away their incomes in order to satisfy their wants and remove discomforts, and they do this by buying food, clothing, shelter, entertainment, etc.

The field of economics argues that human beings seek to maximize their utility by spending their income first on things they value the most (those items that have the highest "utility"😉. If an individual receives $10 in additional income, and they use that $10 to buy a movie ticket rather than two new pairs of socks, it means they momentarily value the admission to see the movie more than new socks. On a scale of utility, the movie ticket is ranked first for this individual, and socks are ranked lower.

Economists have attempted to quantify how fast the marginal utility of income declines as income increases in order to determine optimal taxation rates and to better understand and measure inequality.

The diminishing marginal utility of income suggests that as an individual's income increases, the extra benefit to that individual decreases. This is because each subsequent dollar is satisfying less and less urgent wants.

Example of Diminishing Marginal Utility of Income
Suppose you have zero income and your income increases to $200 per week. This $200 will significantly improve your standard of living by allowing you to buy food, shelter, and heating.

However, if you already earn $600 per week and your income increases by $200, this additional income has a proportionately smaller impact on improving your standard of living. With an additional $200, you may be able to order takeout dinner more often, but your standard of living hasn't been drastically changed. At $600 per week, you can afford to buy most things you need. But most people would be happy to earn an extra $200 per week to spend on discretionary expenses.

However, suppose you already earn $10,000 per week. An additional $100 of income will have no noticeable impact on your life. Because you may not even have the time to spend it, this extra income is more likely to just be saved."

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/072815/what-marginal-utility-income.asp#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20law%20of,correspondingly%20smaller%20increase%20in%20satisfaction

Simply, those with higher incomes don't get as much "utility" for each additional dollar and don't lose as much "utility" for each less dollar. Thus, you maximize societal utility by requiring those with higher incomes to pay higher taxes and fees.

@no1marauder said
And the hypothetical guy across the street with 7 kids will be "entitled to" health care by "the will of the people" if and when the politicians implement it:

"Among the public overall, 63% of U.S. adults say the government has the responsibility to provide health care coverage for all, up slightly from 59% last year. Roughly a third (37😵 say this is not the responsib ...[text shortened]... -americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/

See how that works?

I certainly do. Don' get me wrong, I know what is going on. I have often said that the liberals (progressives) will win this war. You will prevail, there will indeed be healthcare free to illegals and to everyone else. Even me. That will happen. But you again change the discussion. I am asking for logic from you and it is not forthcoming. If I have big-time assets (the ability that Marx speaks of) and someone else does not care about much more than putting food in his mouth and flying a kite, maybe a little surfing, you tactually hink that I should cover that person. Is that correct? I dont care about those 63%, I am asking Marauder if you think I should cover the guy who had about 5 kids too many. That is all I am asking, and I would like you to justify that. We are just having fun here. Hey, did you see the video I posted? A little humor helps, and that one was funny. I think the guy had it coming. Do you?

@no1marauder said
Maybe this explanation of the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility of Income will help you understand (I doubt it but hey miracles are always possible):

"The marginal utility of income is the change in utility, or satisfaction, resulting from a change in an individual's income.
In a modern economy, individuals trade away their incomes in order to satisfy their wants an ...[text shortened]... , you maximize societal utility by requiring those with higher incomes to pay higher taxes and fees.

I agree with absolutely everything in your post, but let us take note of your last paragraph.

Are you not treading on the ground of 'That man has made enough money,." He wants to buy a 3rd lakehouse, but you think it is acceptable for the government (Bernie, et al) to stop this man in his tracks (tracks of Liberty) and tell him that he has a comfortable lifestyle (by their standards), and that he must now take his lakehouse money and give it to someone else 'according to their needs'. That is what you are saying, you cannot deny it.

And what about a man, say Warren Buffet 20 years ago, that 'has enough!'", but do you know what his pastime is? His hobby? His life? His love? It is making money. So, in closing, you , you cannot deny, want your government to swoop in on Buffet and say stop it. Or, ""if you keep it up, we want 99% or 98%, whatever, of your production (which he is risking every day) to go into a fund to spread your wealth around." Man o man. I think you are at level 2 of Socialism, on the way to Marxism.

As you refer me to the links above, I hereby refer you to this one.........................
Don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg. I employ hundreds of people. I think that I am a goose.

@averagejoe1 said
I certainly do. Don' get me wrong, I know what is going on. I have often said that the liberals (progressives) will win this war. You will prevail, there will indeed be healthcare free to illegals and to everyone else. Even me. That will happen. But you again change the discussion. I am asking for logic from you and it is not forthcoming. If I have big-time assets ( ...[text shortened]... o I posted? A little humor helps, and that one was funny. I think the guy had it coming. Do you?

I find your suggestion that children should have to go without health care because of the decisions and/or income status of their parents monstrous.

Do you really believe that your "liberty" not to pay slightly higher taxes is sooooooo important that it should override the health and even lives of children?

@no1marauder said
I find your suggestion that children should have to go without health care because of the decisions and/or income status of their parents monstrous.

Do you really believe that your "liberty" not to pay slightly higher taxes is sooooooo important that it should override the health and even lives of children?

Silly me, all along I have been thinking we were speaking of every citizen, all of us. Are you speaking of everyone, as I'd thought, or are you speaking of children in need? It has been clear to me you are speaking of everyone. Please clarify. Of course, I would certainly agree to cover children in need, maybe a new thread on that would be in order. I am on a board dealing exactly with that, for what it is worth, so that will be a vanilla discussion!

@averagejoe1 said
OK, I respectfully submit that, for me, it is pretty much all the same. It is like, I have 5 apples in a sack, one is absolutely perfect, protecting individualism, freedom from government control , no regulations which might impede my prospering as much as I want to, the list goes on...I assume you know what capitalism is?

Then all of the other apples are not perfect, ...[text shortened]... ociety. God in heaven. How much contribution would I have to do to get me a 2nd home on the lake?

Yup. A pretty long winded response.
You could have just told us you are clueless.

But yes, take the rest of the day off.
Perhaps read up a bit on the “other” ideas out there.
Hopefully your reading comprehension is up to it.

@mghrn55 said
Yup. A pretty long winded response.
You could have just told us you are clueless.

But yes, take the rest of the day off.
Perhaps read up a bit on the “other” ideas out there.
Hopefully your reading comprehension is up to it.

Other ideas? May be, but we were discussion One idea, which I thought was that everyone in this country, including undocumented people, should have free healthcare . Check with Marauder, and you will see that to be the case. It is just that his response above seems to suggest children at risk. Stand by, we will try to get back on track. Marauder is not one to 'move the goalposts', I hope!!

@averagejoe1 said
I think that I am a goose.

More of a turkey, I'd say.

@handyandy said
More of a turkey, I'd say.

At least thank you for talking with me again. I am a nice person! It is the facts of life, which I speak to a lot, that cause discontent. If we were all content all the time, this wouldn’t be any fun .

@averagejoe1 said
At least thank you for talking with me again. I am a nice person! It is the facts of life, which I speak to a lot, that cause discontent. If we were all content all the time, this wouldn’t be any fun .

Facts aren't always fun.

@averagejoe1 said
On the run, but one comment. Abortion has two discussion themes.. Ending the life of an unborn (we call them babies), and who pays for it. For me, I simply say on the forum that it is wrong to end the life. However, I do believe the mother has a right to do what she wants to do, for one reason...It is NOT the government's business. I think you will agree with this lo ...[text shortened]... ment's business, how can you logically profess that the government (my tax money) should pay for it?

While we wait for Marauder to delineate if he is discussing free heath care for every person inside our borders, or just for children who are at risk, can anyone respond to this post? Thanks. There seem to be quite a few unanswered posts out there.

@averagejoe1 said
While we wait for Marauder to delineate if he is discussing free heath care for every person inside our borders, or just for children who are at risk, can anyone respond to this post? Thanks. There seem to be quite a few unanswered posts out there.

Re abortion: Women have the right to choose and to avail themselves of free healthcare.

@averagejoe1 said
I agree with absolutely everything in your post, but let us take note of your last paragraph.

Are you not treading on the ground of 'That man has made enough money,." He wants to buy a 3rd lakehouse, but you think it is acceptable for the government (Bernie, et al) to stop this man in his tracks (tracks of Liberty) and tell him that he has a comfortable lifestyle (by t ...[text shortened]... t kill the goose that lays the golden egg. I employ hundreds of people. I think that I am a goose.

No you're the farmer who takes the eggs from the goose.

@athousandyoung said
No you're the farmer who takes the eggs from the goose.

Just as long as the eggs are used properly+ for the right reasons, and not plundered by people who have no right to them for any reason. Imagine, if the goose lays Iphones, but someone kills the goose. That means no more IPhones, No Tictoc. Downer.

@handyandy said
Re abortion: Women have the right to choose and to avail themselves of free healthcare.

You may be right, right? (That looks silly in print), yes they have right to choose, and Planned Parenthood. But that is not the subjectMarauder and AvJoe are writing about.