P
phil3
Guest
Raising taxes on income brings in no more revenue. This is a proven fact and I have posted that proof several times. No I wont do it again because you can cure ignorance you cant cure
Last edited:
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I agree. We should always be looking for better ways to do things.
I think I can agree with this too. But does this mean that you are satisfied with the level of involvement the Federal government has now and just don’t want to see it increased? Or do you think it should be decreased from its current level?
Once more I find myself in agreement, provided what you mean is you don’t want a health care system where doctors work directly for the Federal government and Federal law decides on individual courses of treatment. I think Federal involvement should be limited to providing insurance that does not micro-manage treatment decisions. But I would like to see everyone 100% covered for a certain core set of services that most people would agree are necessary for normal health care. (Not most cosmetic surgery, for example.)
S
Socrates92
Guest
Can you name a time and place where we did?
Hardly. If I’m not mistaken none of the major economies are on the gold standard anymore.
S
Socrates92
Guest
Requiring this would just add to the labour costs and increase unemployment issues. However… if the government did want to encourage such a thing, a great way would be to eliminate the standard restraints on how compensation is structured. This includes laws on min wages, overtime, vacation pay, other benefits, etc. Not everyone values those things the same, and allowing people to choose to swap them out for some profit-sharing component makes sense.
S
Socrates92
Guest
It is economically the same thing as welfare. The only way this would not be the case would be if mandated social security reduced risks and costs overall compared to private insurance, which it does not do. Whether it is a justified form of welfare is a separate question.
P
phil3
Guest
Yes, the best of times. We have a poverty rate of about 13% in the usa. Just 100 years ago the poverty rate was 70% go back anther 100 years and the poverty rate was 90%. In the next 100 years things will only improve.
You want to end poverty, more capitalism will do it.
You want to end poverty, more capitalism will do it.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
I don’t know much about it, just read it’s called a best practice that is achieving results. Thus I would hope more communities adopt the model.
P
PetraG
Guest
Calling people ignorant because they do not take your side of a hotly debated premise is not proof.
I would agree with you, however, that if you’ve posted it over and over and people still don’t believe you, you may as well give it up. Whether you are right or wrong, what you haven’t managed to be is convincing. (As we know, that can come from factors that are no fault of yours; I’m not saying that.)
E
EndTimes
Guest
Call it what you will … That said,
Major Nations have gotten into Hoarding Gold
P
phil3
Guest
I am not calling people ignorant because they disagree with me. I am calling them ignorant because they refuse to see facts. Facts are facts,.
When people demand we raise taxes, what they are really demand is that we raise tax rates. Raising those rates for the income tax will result in about the same amount percentage to GDP. This has been tracked for decades and if the marginal tax rate is 90% for the rich or if the marginal tax rate is 35% for the rich, the usa receives about the same amount in revenue per GDP.
You can raise the tax rates all you want, you are not going to get a higher % of gdp in revenue.
When people demand we raise taxes, what they are really demand is that we raise tax rates. Raising those rates for the income tax will result in about the same amount percentage to GDP. This has been tracked for decades and if the marginal tax rate is 90% for the rich or if the marginal tax rate is 35% for the rich, the usa receives about the same amount in revenue per GDP.
You can raise the tax rates all you want, you are not going to get a higher % of gdp in revenue.
E
Elizabeth3
Guest
I would have to do more research into the specifics but in general I think until we look into and clean up the inefficiency, wasteful spending, loopholes in which people game the system, the causes of dependency on the system for the able-bodied, people avoiding marriage but living together in order to continue to get benefits thus reducing the marriage rate which is proven to be a leading factor in poverty rates, it’s hard to say if we need increased, decreased or current levels.
"the means-tested welfare system actively penalizes low-income parents who do marry. All means-tested welfare programs are designed so that a family’s benefits are reduced as earnings rise. In practice, this means that, if a low-income single mother marries an employed father, her welfare benefits will generally be substantially reduced. The mother can maximize welfare by remaining unmarried and keeping the father’s income “off the books.”
https://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/how-welfare-undermines-marriage-and-what-do-about-it
I also think the US should study Hungary’s and Poland’s recent pro-family policies to see if there is anything to be learned from them and can be implemented here.
https://catholicherald.co.uk/dailyh...earn-a-lot-from-hungarys-pro-family-policies/
I would have to see what costs this would be to the middle class in terms of taxes. We’re a one income family because I chose to stay home and raise our children. I’d really hate to be pushed into the workforce in order to afford the taxes on paying for healthcare insurance for 100% of the population. I’m not a fan of any policy that weakens families. It’s very difficult for women to stay at home and raise their children in European nations with high taxes to cover universal healthcare.
Last edited:
C
Crocus
Guest
Can you elaborate on this for European countries? My impression is very different.
Netherlands as example. (First of all everyone gets a decent income.) A mother chooses to stay home to look after her kids, gets refundable tax credits, depending on household income. Government actually encourages stay home moms, makes it easy. Same program to stay home to look after elderly parents.
Universal health care is included in regular income taxes.
In Canada overall income taxes are a little less than in US, and that includes universal health care.
Last edited:
E
Elizabeth3
Guest
Articles like this one.
and articles like this on the terrible wait times that can be deadly in countries with single payer systems
The single payer system assumes a young and plentiful workforce to pay into the system. How sustainable are they in the long run with declining fertility rates due to needing two income families just to get by for whom it isn’t as feasible to have more than one or two children?
T
Theo520
Guest
Access to capital isn’t an issue.
NYC is spending $3,200,000,000 on the homeless (last year)
SFC is spending $40,000 per homeless person, to ‘help’ them
Their problems are due to policy and not spending the money wisely rather than a lack of capital.
NYC is spending $3,200,000,000 on the homeless (last year)
SFC is spending $40,000 per homeless person, to ‘help’ them
Their problems are due to policy and not spending the money wisely rather than a lack of capital.
Last edited:
C
Crocus
Guest
Are you seriously buying the misinformation
and agenda in the article you posted?
and agenda in the article you posted?
Edit: ditto your second article. Example: go to hospital to have a baby, no waiting list, no charge (maybe parking, or have a friend drop you off), medical by helicopter no wait no charge, stroke, clot busters on way to hospital, no waiting, more?
Last edited:
E
Elizabeth3
Guest
No. The part I was concerned about were the examples of why single payer healthcare works in other countries - because everyone is expected to work and pay into the system, including moms raising families.
Re: the second article - are you saying the wait times aren’t terrible in countries with single-payer systems?
Last edited:
R
RCIAGraduate
Guest
That may be a lot of money but couldn’t the issue also be that there’s so many people in need (they’re being overwhelmed especially if the homeless are being shipped from other states), and also, they need to rework their zoning to promote low cost housing developments like Tiny Homes, Manufactured Housing or even bringing back SROs somewhere?
T
Theo520
Guest
SFC is spending $40k per person
If they aren’t solving the problem then it’s very likely they are misspending their money.
More money isn’t always the answer.
R
RCIAGraduate
Guest
Touche, ideally we’d want government to be effective but it’s a complex issues so maybe it takes time to find out what works? Couldn’t they be overwhelmed?
Btw, Happy Christmas, how have you been?
Last edited:
- Status