04 Jun 11
Originally posted by normbenignIn an economy with 9+% unemployment, employment itself is an improvement for many poor people.
I don't believe that minimum wage or sub minimum wage employees can afford most of the desirable things in life. That is the motivation for them to improve themselves. If government supplies all the wants and desires, the what is the incentive to improve?
Bear in mind that wants, and needs are unlimited, but resources are not. Some manner of rationing happens regardless of the system employed in distribution of services.
So let's expand on the hypothetical waiter's story. Let's say he started his job a year ago, after spending months surviving on unemployment benefits; in other words, he was happy to have this job at all. The restaurant owner can't afford to provide health care insurance, and then all of the sudden, last month the waiter scrounged up enough to get a physical and discovered while at the doctor's office that he had brain cancer.
Does the government not have any responsibility to provide basic medical care? Or should the man be forced to "improve himself" by magially finding a 6-figure-salary job that can give him enough revenue to purchase insurance (assuming they'll cover the pre-existing condition)?
I don't doubt for a second that people will take advantage of any sort of universal health care system; I know several people who take advantage of government funding of health care as it is now. But I would argue that the moral good gained outweighs the moral bad incurred.
If you disagree, fine, but tell me, what should happen to the waiter?
04 Jun 11
Originally posted by bill718http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/ge-exxon-10-other-major-corporations-paid-negative-tax-rate
There is something your macro economics teacher did not discuss. TAX LOOPHOLES. The rich get lots of them, the poor get very few. Conservatives whine and whail constantly about how high the tax rates are for the well to do, what they don't talk about is the fact that the well off rarely pay these tax rates, in fact in many cases the rich pay less tax than po ...[text shortened]... tax rates than they are now??? I wonder what your macro economics teacher would say about that?
04 Jun 11
Originally posted by EladarWho was your macro teacher? You should find him/her and demand your money back for that class.
In a discussion with Kazz I was reminded of what my macro-economics teacher said to the class, taxes are not for raising money for the government, taxes are a way of managing an economy.
If the economy is heating up, then you raise taxes to slow it down. If the economy needs money, then you lower taxes to increase the money supply.
The government does ...[text shortened]... Conservative-> Taxes are a way of managing the economy, the job market is the primary concern.
It's been standard theory for a long time now that taxes are NOT the way to manage the business cycle.
This has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative.
04 Jun 11
Originally posted by bill718The rich very rarely pay less taxes than the poor. In some cases, they may pay a lower fraction of their income than the poor, but very, very rarely do they actually pay less absolutely.
There is something your macro economics teacher did not discuss. TAX LOOPHOLES. The rich get lots of them, the poor get very few. Conservatives whine and whail constantly about how high the tax rates are for the well to do, what they don't talk about is the fact that the well off rarely pay these tax rates, in fact in many cases the rich pay less tax than po ...[text shortened]... tax rates than they are now??? I wonder what your macro economics teacher would say about that?
04 Jun 11
Originally posted by Eladar1979: James Callaghan's Labour government is brought down by the then horrifying spectacle of a million unemployed, or a 5% unemployment rate. Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives come to power under the slogan "Labour isn't working."
To sum it up:
Liberal-> Taxes are a way of taking from the rich to give to the poor, the job market is a secondary concern.
Conservative-> Taxes are a way of managing the economy, the job market is the primary concern.
1982: Under Thatcher, unemployment rates rise to 10%
1986: Still under Thatcher, unemployment hits the hitherto unthinkable figure of three million.
2000: Under a Labour government again, unemployment returns for the first time to 1979 levels.
So when you say that "the job market is a primary concern" for conservatives, I take it you mean that conservatives are primarily concerned to achieve and sustain high unemployment? This was certainly Thatcher's deliberate aim and policy, since high unemployment depresses wages - which was her key goal.
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by EladarIt's probably a little of both.
Sure they could, if they actually offered insurance, not a health plan that covers everything.
The problem with health care is modern health insurance. Doctors and hospitals can charge whatever they like because insurance will pay for it. You have to get insurance because you can't afford what hospitals and doctors charge. Nice little circle where insur ...[text shortened]... get rich.
The problem isn't with Taxation. The problem is with a broken health care model.
I completely agree that a big problem with healthcare is that the consumer does not pay for his or her service and so there's no economic incentive to conserve.
Still, paying for healthcare for people who really need it is a laudable government function and right now, in the US, the taxes are simply not high enough to pay for all the laudable government functions (and plenty of ridiculous government functions) that are currently being paid for.
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by telerionIt's rare as well that the rich even pay a lower fraction of their income than the poor (especially since the poor don't pay federal income tax other than payroll tax).
The rich very rarely pay less taxes than the poor. In some cases, they may pay a lower fraction of their income than the poor, but very, very rarely do they actually pay less absolutely.
Still, I do agree that some loopholes, such as the 15% cap on capital gains tax, should be closed.
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by telerionIn recessions or market crashes, the rich lose a lot of money. And since one doesn't pay tax on a loss, they may not pay anything in those years. In profitable years, the rich pay lots of tax.
The rich very rarely pay less taxes than the poor. In some cases, they may pay a lower fraction of their income than the poor, but very, very rarely do they actually pay less absolutely.
When socialists are looking for lies to stir the masses into revolution, they cherry-pick a recession year and trumpet that as evidence that "the rich don't pay tax."
It's done for a purpose -- to spread misinformation and mislead people.
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaLet's say this waiter is covered by a government program. What if the doctors give him a very slim chance of recovery even if they throw everything they can think of at him? Is it worth the money when he might survive only a few months? Do you think it's okay for someone else to make this decision about the waiter's life?
In an economy with 9+% unemployment, employment itself is an improvement for many poor people.
So let's expand on the hypothetical waiter's story. Let's say he started his job a year ago, after spending months surviving on unemployment benefits; in other words, he was happy to have this job at all. The restaurant owner can't afford to provide health ...[text shortened]... bad incurred.
If you disagree, fine, but tell me, what should happen to the waiter?
How about if the waiter got lung cancer because he smokes 3 packs a day? Should we support that lifestyle choice by paying for treatment? Should we demand he quit smoking in exchange for treatment?
Maybe the waiter hates to wait for the walk signal and has been frequently sited for jaywalking. Should we pay for treatment when he is run over by a taxi? Should we demand that he wait for a crossing guard in the future?
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by dryhumpYes. There are limited resources available. Allocating these resources should be done by medical professionals for medical reasons, not by bureaucrats at an insurance company for financial reasons. That way, people live longer and healthier lives, they are happier and more productive.
Do you think it's okay for someone else to make this decision about the waiter's life?
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNeither bureaucrats nor service providers should make such decisions. The individual himself should make the decision using his own funds which WOULD be sufficient if third parties were not continually driving up costs with endless money-transfer schemes that only those parties and suppliers benefit from.
Yes. There are limited resources available. Allocating these resources should be done by medical professionals for medical reasons, not by bureaucrats at an insurance company for financial reasons. That way, people live longer and healthier lives, they are happier and more productive.
People are only happier and more productive when they have liberty.
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by spruce112358The electorate in the UK for example already decides how many funds are available for health care through the ballot box. Utopian ideas of more efficient health care don't change the reality that collective goods cannot be bought individually - or at least not in an efficient way.
Neither bureaucrats nor service providers should make such decisions. The individual himself should make the decision using his own funds which WOULD be sufficient if third parties were not continually driving up costs with endless money-transfer schemes that only those parties and suppliers benefit from.
People are only happier and more productive when they have liberty.
People are only happier and more productive when they have liberty.
Yes, and reducing the availability of health care reduces liberty in a society in my book.