Raising taxes on the rich

[MarkInOregon]

So, why should we punish the people who contribute the most economic growth to our society? What happens if they sense they are being punished, is that they move to someplace else … Singapore or South Korea or Hong Kong … the U.S. is no longer the #1 economic engine of free market economics.

Is this what you want? … to drive away and/or discourage innovative and inventive people? [Well, maybe, if you, personally, are not innovative or inventive. But then, that’s classical envy.]

If some 12-year-old writes a computer program that everyone loves and willingly pays for, why should the rest of us take his money away from him. It would certainly discourage him from writing any more computer programs that people love.

So he writes a progam and makes a billion dollars and pays some taxes. I noticed how Bill Gates packed up Microsoft and moved it to Singapore to escape. You all act like they are taking 90% of what he makes and leaving him to live in poverty. He’s going to go to Singapore–really? Can’t he get cained there? What kind of free speach rights does he have there or in Hong Kong for that matter? He made a forturne and lives well. He’s really not going to write anymore programs because he’s discouraged?

How is paying taxes punishing people? They are paying for:
Security and stability to ply their trade and to create.
For good roads and an interstate highway system that makes it easy to transport there goods and services
For an educated work force–that helps them create and produce their goods and services.
For copyright and patent protections that allow them to profit from their creations without them being stolen and duplicated by others.
And the list goes on.
Punished? Really? I’m not for higher taxes and reform is in order–but punished?

What about the tax break he gets for mortgage interest paid on his million dollar home? Why should the government help finance his mansion–why aren’t you complaining about that?

Peace,
Mark

 

[Ridgerunner]

Maybe. I know that my insurance keeps costs down by negotiating on my (actually their) behalf with health care providers ahead of time. On the other hand, I used to go to a practice that seemed to try to set you up on a revolving door, wasting my time and everyone’s money. I finally wised up and found a new practice after the office tried to get me to go in for a follow-up when the doctor had specifically told me I didn’t need to.

The issue is going to the doctor isn’t exactly like buying a gallon of milk. The time it takes to shop around for the best quality at the lowest price for all but the most common ailments does not lend itself to being naturally regulated by the markets very easily. Look at the other end of the spectrum: when you go to the emergency room, you don’t even know the cost until you’re done. You could ask, but if it’s really an emergency how are you going to be able to do anything about it? (In extreme cases are they even allowed to let you leave?)

 

[Ridgerunner]

Maybe. I know that my insurance keeps costs down by negotiating on my (actually their) behalf with health care providers ahead of time. On the other hand, I used to go to a practice that seemed to try to set you up on a revolving door, wasting my time and everyone’s money. I finally wised up and found a new practice after the office tried to get me to go in for a follow-up when the doctor had specifically told me I didn’t need to.

At one time in my life, I negotiated costs for an insurer. Never, ever, ever did I fail to get a discount from Medicare rate. Medicare rate is the starting point in negotiations because it’s a comprehensive listing of costs for nearly everything, that’s accessible to everybody.

Supposedly Medicare is a discounted rate itself, but it isn’t except relative to the totally bogus and inflated “Reasonable and Necessary” cost that is charged to “walk-in trade”. But even individuals can usually negotiate down from “R & N” after the fact. But they can’t usually do it before the charge is incurred because of the necessity of maintaining the fiction that Medicare is a discounted rate. Insurers don’t negotiate from “Reasonable and Necessary” because everybody knows it’s inflated and that the real “retail” rate is Medicare rate.

Medicare rate varies from place to place. For one thing, it supposedly takes into account all the actual costs of providing the service, which includes administration, buildings, equipment, etc. In some places (like here) that leads to “gold plating”; very high administrative salaries, stupefyingly expensive facilities, duplication of equipment, etc.
In other places, it seems to ensure a tatterdemalion kind of service and facilities. As with a lot of things in government, “them that has, gets”, because in reviewing costs, Medicare looks at what the entity is building on.

One is very tempted to blame government for the distortions, all of which have to be taken into account and which add to the cost of the whole.

One thing it has done for sure is increase administrative costs. The cheapest kind of medical service, theoretically, is one doctor or a handful of doctors in their own office. But, in order to administer Medicare, Medicaid and insurance billing, payments and all kinds of mandates, they have to keep bloated staffs and expensive programs and equipment to run the programs.

I have, at times, seen Amish come into a doctor’s office and negotiate payment in greenbacks. They never have insurance of any kind, but they go to the doctor when they need to do it. Not being entirely stupid, the clinics will always give them a discount. With cash money, all you have to do is give a receipt and put the cash in the drawer. Saves the clinics a lot of time and money.

Of at least passing interest is this. In the French medical system, 2/3 of which is government, you pay at the time of service. You then file your claim with the government for reimbursement less the deductible. Cuts down on a lot of overutilization. If you’re illegal, the government doesn’t reimburse you at all. The only exception is ER, but the last I knew they were changing that in order to cut down on overutilization as well.

Obviously, doing this shifts the administrative burden, or a lot of it, anyway, onto the individual rather than the provider. And, too, probably a lot of people just don’t seek reimbursement for small bills because of the hassle. I’m not sure I see a whole lot wrong with that.

Oh, yes. In addition, it is my impression that there are also localized “provincial” programs in France to take care of totally poverty stricken people who perhaps can’t “front the cost”.

 

[JimG]

I have, at times, seen Amish come into a doctor’s office and negotiate payment in greenbacks. They never have insurance of any kind, but they go to the doctor when they need to do it. Not being entirely stupid, the clinics will always give them a discount. With cash money, all you have to do is give a receipt and put the cash in the drawer. Saves the clinics a lot of time and money…

Before the general advent of health insurance that’s pretty much the way that all doctor’s offices operated. If I recall correctly, Blue Cross / Blue Shield was at first intended as much as a guaranteed income plan for docs and hospitals as it was for patients. Before health insurance, docs and hospitals could only charge what the market could bear, and it couldn’t bear all that much.

Now, I’ve known a few docs who virtually use Medicare, and presumably other health plans, to guarantee income by scheduling what they know the insurance will pay. I once had an optometrist who scheduled appts as close as possible knowing what Medicare would pay for, to the penney.

And of course medical equipment manufacturers rely on payments guaranteed by health insurance. Would anybody get as many tests, scans, and procedures if they had to pay out of pocket? No, but they do still pay in either inflated premiums or inflated taxes. Nothing is free.

Insurance inflates demand–especially first dollar coverage.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Well, how would you rearrange the list.

And there are other issues as well.

I used to deal with high tech Canadian companies and I asked them why they were so competitive. They said they had to be because the competition was so stiff.

Consider that Canada makes specialty electronics and airliners and an amphibious water bomber to put out forest fires. Among other things. The PT-6 engine is Canadian and is arguably the best engine of its class in the world.

So, I would not put Canada down.

They also make a lot of television programs and movies there. Better cost structure than in the United States.

And they produce and ship a HUGE amount of oil and natural gas, and gold, and other metals.

If you thought about it, you could probably come up with a much longer list of things that Canada is very good at making / doing / producing.

I’m not putting Canada down. I was commenting on one ranking category–not the worth or value of Canadian products. I am saying that we can skew statistics to say what we want. I am saying the list should be evaluated closely and the factors taken into consideration should be evaluated. I said nothing about the products Canada produces or their quality. So I’m not sure why it came up. If you thought about it I’m sure you could come up with long lists of things that various countries are good at making/doing/producing–regardless of their ranking on that Heritage list. That wasn’t the point. Where’d you get I’m attacking Canadian products?

Peace,
Mark

 

[copperblade]

Of at least passing interest is this. In the French medical system, 2/3 of which is government, you pay at the time of service. You then file your claim with the government for reimbursement less the deductible. Cuts down on a lot of overutilization. If you’re illegal, the government doesn’t reimburse you at all. The only exception is ER, but the last I knew they were changing that in order to cut down on overutilization as well.

Ah, but how would insurance companies profit off of that?!

Generally I think insurance is an unwise hedge. I can see how in certain circumstances it’s a good thing to have. But of course over the long run you have to lose–you have to pay something to mitigate the risk.

I wonder if there are any insurance companies that are run as co-ops. That would seem to be a step in the right direction.

 

[silicasandra]

I wonder if there are any insurance companies that are run as co-ops. That would seem to be a step in the right direction.

I recall reading a few years ago in the NYT about a medical practice that was run this way, cutting out insurance entirely. It sounded like a great idea, but unfortunately it was small and if you needed any kind of specialty care you would have to go elsewhere.

I struggle a great deal with understanding financial issues and reconciling them to how I am to live life as a practicing Catholic - especially when it comes to issues larger than myself such as tax policy and then spending. I just want to say thank you to copperblade and many of the other posters here for really getting down to some of the issues instead of just pointing fingers and name-calling. I feel like I’ve actually learned a little instead of just hearing the same old, same old.

 

[valentino]

I would suggest you review the history of industrial accidents in this county, labor conditions in the early 20th century, industrial polution, employers knowingly exposing their employees and surrounding communities to toxic waiste and dangerous conditions and then tell me how ridiculous these regulations are. I suggest you contact the widows and parents of the recently killed miners and ask them how ridiculous those unfollowed regulations were that were put on the poor mine owners. If business owners did the right thing we wouldn’t need these regulations–most regulation is brought about because business owners don’t do the right thing–they subject their workers to unsafe working conditions–using substandard scaffold bolts, lock them into factories, disable coal dust detection monitors, etc.–and bring the regulation on themselves. Additionally they knowingly sell unsafe products weighing profits against the legal and settlement costs of being sued. Again bringing the regulation on themselves.

Yes, one can argue that we consumers pay the cost of corporate taxes but only to the extent that they can pass them on and they can’t always pass them on due to competition. If they could then no company would lose money–the fact that a company loses money tells you that they can’t always pass on all the costs of production due to the market place. So while in theory the cost is passed on to us–in practice it is not necessarily so.

I would posit that more jobs are lost to low wages in foreign countries and to a lack of environmental regulation in those countries (and you’ve ignored the cost of corruption in many other countries) than “high” tax rates. I would further suggest that the potential for double taxation of corporate profits when the dividends are paid out contributes more than the actual corporate tax rate itself. This is an easy claim to make but I think it is very complex and requires looking at a whole set of tax law and transfer pricing issues, etc. Being overseas just makes it easier to play games with corporate income and expense–though this must be balance with the cost of a myriad of new compliance issues.

I think if you take a look at the underlying profits and balance sheets for many companies when the DOW was at 15,000 you will find that they were overvalued and that their underlying assets and profits did not warrant their valuation on the market. An overvalued stock/stock market is not a sign of economic health.

Out of curriousity would you outline the policies that the democrats enacted over the protests of the Senate and GW between 2007 and GW leaving office–that led to or contributed to the economic melt down? It seems that there is blame for both parties and that finger pointing is counter productive and well a bit unfair as well as untrue on both side of the isle.

Thank you,
Mark

what good does it do to try and regulate when a corporation gets around the regulation and then a new regulation is put in place to stop them getting around the first regulation?And then the government just keeps passing new regulations to bring the corporation(s)under control?The corps.can always find away to avert a regulation.But the government just gets bigger and bigger with more red tape.THere has got to be a fairer and cheaper way to manage business.Obviooulsly gov.regulation is not the answer.So it has to be cut or trimmed or some how eliminated.THe final question is how can we get corps.to pay a fair share of taxes without costing American jobs?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

what good does it do to try and regulate when a corporation gets around the regulation and then a new regulation is put in place to stop them getting around the first regulation?And then the government just keeps passing new regulations to bring the corporation(s)under control?The corps.can always find away to avert a regulation.But the government just gets bigger and bigger with more red tape.THere has got to be a fairer and cheaper way to manage business.Obviooulsly gov.regulation is not the answer.So it has to be cut or trimmed or some how eliminated.THe final question is how can we get corps.to pay a fair share of taxes without costing American jobs?

The way you control corporations is by free and open competition.

But when, like GE today, a really biggie corporation is in cahoots with the government, then everybody who wants to compete is screwed. The GE’s arrange for the government to grant them favors … that is crony capitalism. Not real capitalism.

Not sure what anybody means by “their fair share” of taxes.

The tax code is in black and white. If they make profits they pay taxes.

If they don’t make profits they still pay a lot of taxes. They pay all kinds of payroll taxes, real estate taxes, permitting and leasing and licensing fees and sales taxes, ad infinitum. Etc, etc, etc. You need to look at the details of their financial statements. Boring, I know. But accounting is all numbers.

In addition they employ thousands or TENS of thousands of people … and THEY pump up the economy and THEY pay a lot of taxes … I once worked for a SMALL corporation. Just outside the Fortune 100 list. And they employed 40,000 people!

And they buy huge amounts of equipment … which is provided by smaller corporations. One of my bosses, bosses bosses was on an airline flight some years ago and Henry Ford personally came over and demanded to know why we weren’t buying HIS trucks. I think we were running them into the ground instead of buying new trucks. My b-b-b said their price was too high. Well, gotta tell ya … they got a very handsome discount!

Take a look at Federal Express. They employ tens of thousands of people. Buy huge fleets of airplanes and trucks and build sorting terminals. All started by ONE guy with his own money. In fact, his idea gave rise to an entire industry. Look up their financials.

If most of their activity is in foreign countries, the pay a lot of foreign taxes.

The other problem is that some government agencies issue edicts … like the way EPA has stopped a pipeline project in North Dakota, or after Shell Oil spent $4 billion up in Alaska … EPS shot down their project because some paper study said that an icebreaker would pollute the air 70 miles away!!! What a bunch of “stuff”!! EPA has also shut down 79 coal mines that the states WANT in West Virginia, Ohio and environs.

The point is that we don’t need the government to regulate corporations.

And the tax code is so comprehensive that there is more than enough there to keep everyone busy.

So, when somebody says they should pay their fair share, I start thinking: “envy”.

If someone thinks that THEY know better what “their fair share” is … better than the 70,000 page tax code, then you’re looking at a dictatorship … where ONE GUY knows better than anyone else.

Found this today:

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Ah, but how would insurance companies profit off of that?!

Generally I think insurance is an unwise hedge. I can see how in certain circumstances it’s a good thing to have. But of course over the long run you have to lose–you have to pay something to mitigate the risk.

I wonder if there are any insurance companies that are run as co-ops. That would seem to be a step in the right direction.

Would you buy insurance for a car or for a house?

Would you buy insurance for a ship?

Ever hear of Lloyds?

lloyds.com/Lloyds/About-Lloyds/Explore-Lloyds/History

Read over and explore their history!

Actually, you COULD start your own insurance company … with your friends.

How would you feel about going into business with YOUR friends to insure your cars? How good a risk are your friends?

You don’t need for insurance companies to run a profit.

BUT, if they run losses, then they are out of business.

ALL insurance started out as co-ops!!!

Please read this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance

Please!

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ah, but how would insurance companies profit off of that?!

Generally I think insurance is an unwise hedge. I can see how in certain circumstances it’s a good thing to have. But of course over the long run you have to lose–you have to pay something to mitigate the risk.

I wonder if there are any insurance companies that are run as co-ops. That would seem to be a step in the right direction.

Point 1: QUESTION: How can insurance companies profit off of that? ANSWER: They don’t. They profit off the private 1/3 of the system, which is entirely free of government control. The doctors are “out of the system” and so is insurance. You buy what insurance you think you want or just pay your own if you can. It is somewhat instructive that a lot of the best physicians are in the “private system”. But the French government also pays for medical education, so the doctors don’t have enormous debts to pay off. It also expands or contracts admissions to medical schools based on the population’s perceived need. It’s presently in an expansion mode due to the aging population. Unfortunately, in our own system, medical admissions are totally controlled by the universities, which have counter-incentives to expansion, not the least of which is that they lose money on medical schools. Medical schools are enormously expensive and are “subsidized” by those portions of the university that require little more than a chalk board, a professor and a room. A very big subsidizing segment for medical schools are the law schools, which are big money-makers due to the high tuition and low (name removed by moderator)uts. That’s a big part of the reason why we’re short of doctors and long on lawyers in this country. (less than 50% of law graduates end up in private practice) The cost of operating medical schools keeps climbing, which is why universities keep expanding their law schools (and other chalkboard/professor/room grad schools).

My favorite doctor friend and I were once discussing the concentration in American medical providers. I asked him whether he thought that trend would also be felt in other professions, like dentistry or law. It was his opinion that dentistry would to some degree, but nothing like medicine, and law not at all. I asked him why he thought that. “Because, he said, not everybody has dental coverage, so a lot of it is self-pay. When it comes to law, in most instances, people actually have to pay 100% of what it costs.” That, he said, leaves little for the big organizations to profit from in dentistry and almost nothing in law.

Now, for the most part, dentists and lawyers are not as crucial as physicians to our well-being (unless you need them badly enough, then it seems like it) But dentists, to some degree, and lawyers almost entirely, have to gear what they charge to what people can pay themselves. So, people will resist paying exhorbitant fees in those fields, whereas in the medical world nobody cares what they charge as long as somebody else is doing the paying.

I’m not an expert at any of this, but I do think too many people have too little “stake” in their own medical care. Because of what I do, I read a lot of medical charts of people on Medicare and Medicaid, and the overutilization is just breathtaking, particularly with Medicaid.

Point 2: Sure. Insurance is a gamble, like going to Vegas. You’re hoping you win, (only sort-of with medical insurance) but most of the time you lose because, most of the time you’re paying the medical expenses of those who use it (properly or improperly) a lot. To me, that’s one of the reasons Obamacare is so awfully wrong. It encourages overutilization without actually having adequate incentive for those who don’t want to throw their money at the medical roulette wheel, to do so. And for the most part, it’s unnecessary anyway. Yes, there are the “uninsurables” with preexisting conditions. Well, if those people are employable with companies with ERISA qualifying plans, (which is almost all of them) they can only be excluded for a year anyway, and then only for the condition in question. That has been the case for a long, long time. If they’re not employable, then there’s a good chance they’re receiving Medicare or Medicaid anyway. If they’re not employable but don’t qualify for either of those, they can get “Fair Plan” insurance. Fair Plan coverage is high, but perhaps, then, that’s where any new subsidies ought to go instead of to everybody making up to $88,000/year (family of four) as provided by Obamacare, most of whom had employer-based coverage anyway.

Point 3: Maybe coops would help. But I have purchased other kinds of insurance through mutual companies that are supposed to be coops, and I can’t tell the difference in what they charge. I live in a rural area just outside a town. A private utility and a coop (REA) utilty meet right about at my house. I’m on the private and my neighbor is REA. There is no difference in what we pay. So, I’m not sure that’s an answer. Well, when you get down to it, almost every hospital and clinic in the U.S. is “not for profit”. But that doesn’t mean nobody profits. Those who run the place, not stockholders, get the profit. Look up the earnings ratios of health insurance companies. They’re not all that stellar. And unless I’m mistaken, Mutual of Omaha is, in effect, a coop. It’s good insurance, but I don’t think it’s any cheaper than any other health insurance.

 

[brgregmack]

Why do the republican resist raising taxes on the rich?Its been proven that it won’t produce more jobs to cut their taxes and they can’t say that its unfair because they already pay most of the taxes.When you compare how much they pay %wise compared to the amount of the wealth they control its surely obvious that they don’t pay enough.We know that the tax rate system has benifited the rich making them able to gain such wealth.Is it there lobbying to republican members(the spend much money in their support and actually get them elected through many means)the reasons the members are against it?

Proven by who??? Provide the source and then examine the source; see if they cite any statistics or just assert it. Even if they do cite sources, examine they’re sources and the context.

“Some things are believed because they’re true. Some things are believed because they’ve been asserted over and over” Thomas Sowell

Study economic history. It proves otherwise. A book that I would recommend is “New Deal or Raw Deal” by Burton Folsom, Jr.

 

[MarkInOregon]

what good does it do to try and regulate when a corporation gets around the regulation and then a new regulation is put in place to stop them getting around the first regulation?And then the government just keeps passing new regulations to bring the corporation(s)under control?The corps.can always find away to avert a regulation.But the government just gets bigger and bigger with more red tape.THere has got to be a fairer and cheaper way to manage business.Obviooulsly gov.regulation is not the answer.So it has to be cut or trimmed or some how eliminated.THe final question is how can we get corps.to pay a fair share of taxes without costing American jobs?

What would be your answer then? To simply let corporations do whatever they want no matter the cost in human life and destroyed environment? They don’t always “get around” the regulation more often they flout the regulation (as in our most recent mine disaster) and regulators look the other way. If those who ignore the regulations and regulators who look the other way were prosecuted and sent to jail–these practices would stop. I am open to suggestions if you have a fairer and cheaper way to keep businesses from locking employees in sweat shops where they burn to death, and builders from constructing building and bridges that collapse. Obviously an absence of government regulation is not the answer either–unless you want to return to yesteryear where you worked 12-15 hour days in unsafe conditions 6 or 7 days a week and shopped at the company store. I am sure your employer would be happy to return to that arrangement. I’m not sure what the answer is but it isn’t a repeal of saftey regulations.
Possibly we should try to export our safety and environmental standards through the use of tariffs so that our businesses play on a fair footing from that stand point. Low wages we can compete against by increased productivity and the cost to ship items across the ocean.
If we won’t allow our children to work in sweat shops should we be importing clothing or soccer balls made with child labor under sweat shop conditions? If we won’t allow x polution from our factories should we import products from factories the spill x polution? Or should our tariffs adjust the price of those products for those factors? Well those are my thoughts. I am for free trade, but we should all play by the same rules. If I can’t have my product made with prison labor for free why should I have to compete with a product made by prisoners in a foreign country?

Peace,
Mark

 

[Monte_RCMS]

What would be your answer then? To simply let corporations do whatever they want no matter the cost in human life and destroyed environment? They don’t always “get around” the regulation more often they flout the regulation (as in our most recent mine disaster) and regulators look the other way. If those who ignore the regulations and regulators who look the other way were prosecuted and sent to jail–these practices would stop. I am open to suggestions if you have a fairer and cheaper way to keep businesses from locking employees in sweat shops where they burn to death, and builders from constructing building and bridges that collapse. Obviously an absence of government regulation is not the answer either–unless you want to return to yesteryear where you worked 12-15 hour days in unsafe conditions 6 or 7 days a week and shopped at the company store. I am sure your employer would be happy to return to that arrangement. I’m not sure what the answer is but it isn’t a repeal of saftey regulations.
Possibly we should try to export our safety and environmental standards through the use of tariffs so that our businesses play on a fair footing from that stand point. Low wages we can compete against by increased productivity and the cost to ship items across the ocean.
If we won’t allow our children to work in sweat shops should we be importing clothing or soccer balls made with child labor under sweat shop conditions? If we won’t allow x polution from our factories should we import products from factories the spill x polution? Or should our tariffs adjust the price of those products for those factors? Well those are my thoughts. I am for free trade, but we should all play by the same rules. If I can’t have my product made with prison labor for free why should I have to compete with a product made by prisoners in a foreign country?

Peace,
Mark

The safety of tunnel mining has improved to the point that it no longer is even in the top ten of unsafe jobs. Even so, open pit mining is probably safer than tunnel mining. So, over the objections of the governors, the EPA has shut down 79 open pit coal mines … even though the mine owners spent millions to meet all the code requirements imposed by EPA and the other Federal agencies.

Where do YOU draw the line?

You have the option of buying clothing hand made in the USA by people who get paid very well. So, where do you buy your clothing and your shoes?

Do you eat fish? Commercial fishing is probably now the most dangerous job.

Do you live in a house made of wood? [2x4’s?] Do you use any products made of wood? Plywood? Wood furniture? Logging is probably now the second most dangerous job.

Do you use any kind of energy … electricity, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel? Providing energy to YOU is dangerous.

Where do you draw the line?

Should everyone work in a nice cubicle in an airconditioned building?

Construction is one of the ten most dangerous jobs.

Do you eat food? Where do you get the food? In a store? Well, agriculture is one of the ten most dangerous jobs.

Have you ever watched the program “Dirty Jobs”?

Where do you think eggs come from?

I’m thinking you have never actually worked out in the real world.

Maybe you should quit school and get a job.

Spend a few years as a garbage collector … it’s an essential job, it’s very dirty, and dangerous. Can’t do without it, though.

If you think that third world countries are really bad places, then join the Peace Corps and spend some time in Burundi … and see how long you last.

 

[copperblade]

Would you buy insurance for a car or for a house?

Depends on the numbers. I am required to pay for liability, for example so I do. But in all my years of driving I have never caused an accident. Lucky me right? For my own sake I wouldn’t buy car insurance. The fact that the law applies to everyone so other people have to have it to protect me makes me willing (and required) to buy it.

Would you buy insurance for a ship?

Ever hear of Lloyds?

lloyds.com/Lloyds/About-Lloyds/Explore-Lloyds/History

Read over and explore their history!

Not exactly sure what you’re getting at.

Actually, you COULD start your own insurance company … with your friends.

How would you feel about going into business with YOUR friends to insure your cars? How good a risk are your friends?

Some states allow you to declare yourself as self-insured if you have enough cash. When I was younger my parents did this, and we were fine.

You don’t need for insurance companies to run a profit.

BUT, if they run losses, then they are out of business.

If they’re for-profit businesses I think they would need to run a profit. Otherwise why would they keep the business open?

ALL insurance started out as co-ops!!!

Please read this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance

Please!

Ok will do. Sounds interesting.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Depends on the numbers. I am required to pay for liability, for example so I do. But in all my years of driving I have never caused an accident. Lucky me right? For my own sake I wouldn’t buy car insurance. The fact that the law applies to everyone so other people have to have it to protect me makes me willing (and required) to buy it.

Not exactly sure what you’re getting at.

Some states allow you to declare yourself as self-insured if you have enough cash. When I was younger my parents did this, and we were fine.

If they’re for-profit businesses I think they would need to run a profit. Otherwise why would they keep the business open?

Ok will do. Sounds interesting.

All businesses, even “non-profits” must run a profit.

Non-profits have “surpluses” … they simply give their profits a different name, so that they sound like they are “holier than thou”.

Profit is merely the arithmetic … the difference between revenue intake and expenses outgo.

If the difference is positive, you have a “profit” … or a “surplus”.

If the difference is negative, you have a “loss” … and if you don’t correct that, you will unable to pay your bills and you will be forced to close your doors.

It doesn’t matter what kind of enterprise it is. Could be a Fortune 100 U.S. company, an international oil company, your local blood bank, a sports team, or a co-op apartment house, or a co-op local electric utility …

Government is a slightly different animal.

State governments cannot print money, but they can borrow … with the promise to pay in the future. However, if they run losses for a long enough period of time, then no sane person will lend them money … because there is a zero likelihood of getting their money back. That is what a loan is … you let somebody use YOUR money … and they pay rent on the borrowed money … we call that interest. And when they are done using your money, they pay it back. The interest can be paid in a wide variety of different ways. For example, they can borrow $1000, but only take $800 … so you get your interest up front … and when they pay the money back, they pay the $1000.

The Federal Government can (supposedly) print money. The sovereign can do that.

What happens is that printing money devalues the value of the money that is already out there in circulation … we call that “inflation”.

The U.S. Federal Government has now spent something like $50 Trillion more than it has taken in. You can look up the real number, but it is much larger than the $14 Trillion that is bandied about, as the “national debt”.

 

[bjryman]

Im not talking about communism or making everyone equal.Im saying since the wealthy have beniffited from our unfair tax system shouldn’t they be required to help out this country to get out of the mess were in?Im not advocating taking all their wealth or make them equal to everyone else.But when the top 2% control 65%of the wealth in the nation Don’t you believe we are a little out of balance and it will continue so if the republicans do you they have been debating about?thanks.I read St.John’s quote.but he isn’t talking about what im referrring to.

Whoa now…Communism is exactly the perfect social justice system. Take away the physical violence and it clearly is made to redistribute income so that the masses goods and services are equalized. The early Christians were a good example of Communists…they pooled all their wealth and redistributed according to each’s need. The key then of course is that they assumed Jesus was returning soon…perhaps in their lifetimes. Thus, planning for the future, with a division of labor based on skills, education, motivation, etc. was not necessary.

I would like you to go back to your research as well, and report to all of us the following flip side of your message: What percent of total tax dollars are paid by top 10% of wage earners? You will find that they pay well over 60% of all taxes. So, when will the social justice folks be happy…when these hard working, dedicated individuals pay 90, or 95%?
Are you aware also of the facts that the richest of us pay more to charitable causes than any other income group? Then of course there are those super wealthy like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who are recruiting more of their social strata to donate their wealth to charity upon their deaths

And what I find absolutely obscene is that within the entire social justice debate, we seldom put on the table the personal responsibility of each of us to “take our talents given by the Master” and multiply them. We are very quick to simply accept that most all of the less fortunate were not responsible for their own situation…and thus there is no accountability by the individual.

The US was established on the framework of equal opportunity, not equal entitlement. Oh, yes, and separation of Church and State, so that there is no oppressive control of either the secular or religious parts of our society over one another.

 

[brgregmack]

Whoa now…Communism is exactly the perfect social justice system. Take away the physical violence and it clearly is made to redistribute income so that the masses goods and services are equalized. The early Christians were a good example of Communists…they pooled all their wealth and redistributed according to each’s need. The key then of course is that they assumed Jesus was returning soon…perhaps in their lifetimes. Thus, planning for the future, with a division of labor based on skills, education, motivation, etc. was not necessary.

There was no Apostolic mandate that people sell all of their belongings. The sin of Annanias and Sapphira was that they LIED, not that they held anything back.

Also, socialism and communism are terrible. In order to have a healthy economy, there needs to be fluidity. Grow the pie, then choose to share your part of the pie out of free will. That’s what works.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Whoa now…Communism is exactly the perfect social justice system. Take away the physical violence and it clearly is made to redistribute income so that the masses goods and services are equalized. The early Christians were a good example of Communists…they pooled all their wealth and redistributed according to each’s need. The key then of course is that they assumed Jesus was returning soon…perhaps in their lifetimes. Thus, planning for the future, with a division of labor based on skills, education, motivation, etc. was not necessary.

I would like you to go back to your research as well, and report to all of us the following flip side of your message: What percent of total tax dollars are paid by top 10% of wage earners? You will find that they pay well over 60% of all taxes. So, when will the social justice folks be happy…when these hard working, dedicated individuals pay 90, or 95%?
Are you aware also of the facts that the richest of us pay more to charitable causes than any other income group? Then of course there are those super wealthy like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who are recruiting more of their social strata to donate their wealth to charity upon their deaths

And what I find absolutely obscene is that within the entire social justice debate, we seldom put on the table the personal responsibility of each of us to “take our talents given by the Master” and multiply them. We are very quick to simply accept that most all of the less fortunate were not responsible for their own situation…and thus there is no accountability by the individual.

The US was established on the framework of equal opportunity, not equal entitlement. Oh, yes, and separation of Church and State, so that there is no oppressive control of either the secular or religious parts of our society over one another.

Have the popes of the Catholic Church condemned communism?

Yes, repeatedly. Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical letter, Divini Redemptoris, on atheistic communism on the Feast of St. Joseph, March 19, 1937. (St. Joseph is a model for workingmen.) His Holiness spoke of the “trickery in various forms” used by Communists. He wrote to the world’s bishops: “See to it, Venerable Brethren, that the faithful do not allow themselves to be deceived! Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever.”

As early as 1878, Pope Leo XIII defined communism this way: “the fatal plague which insinuates itself into the marrow of human society, only to bring about its ruin.”

Even before Pope Pius XI issued his famous encyclical on atheistic communism, he had written nine official documents on its evils. Succeeding popes — Pope Pius XII, Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI — have also condemned communism. Pope John Paul I who reigned but 34 days (August 26-September 29, 1978) was immediately recognized as strongly opposed to communism. Pope John Paul II in his first encyclical to the world spoke of those who give “only atheism the right of citizenship in public and socal life.”

Pope Pius XII, in addition to opposing and condemning communism in 1949, decreed the penalty of excommunication for all Catholics who hold formal and willing allegiance to the Communist Party and it policies. This pope, sorrowfully, saw some fifteen countries fall under the hammer and sickle and religious and other freedoms thus destroyed.

According to accounts judged by Church authorities as authentic in apparitions of God’s Mother on six occasions (the thirteen of each month, May through October 1917), the Mother of God, known as Our Lady of Fatima, appeared near the town of Fatima in a deserted area known as the Cova da Iria in central Portugal. The Lady, who mentioned Russia by name, foretold the end of World War I. Our Lady also stated that if her call for special prayer and penance, especially eucharistic reparation, is not heeded, “Russia will spread her errors throughout the world, promiting wars and the persecution of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be annihilated…” Both predictions — the end of World War I, followed by another more terrible war if men did not repent — are now matters of history.

Each time the Mother of God appeared in the Cova, she asked that the rosary be prayed daily. She also called for the proper praying of the rosary, which consists of meditating on the mysteries which concern the word of God, relating the chief events of our salvation.

Scholars who have studied the Fatima message in depth relate that our Lady taught the children as a catechist, and the message is rich in doctrinal content. The basics of the Catholic faith are to be found in the Fatima message. The message also called for the consecration of individuals, families, and nations — and Russia in particular — to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The consecration of Russia was to be accomplished by the pope in union with the bishops of the world.

 

[rturner76]

Lower taxes do create jobs under GW Bush we had a unemployment rate below 5% thats basically FULL employment. We had the DOW above 15,000 and over 70 monthes of steady job creation. You can see when everything started to fall apart is in 2007 when the Democrats took back the house and the senate. They were the ones who drafted TARP Bush just signed it.

The market needs certainty, lower taxes, lower regulations and lower government spending
Peace
DLG

AM I dreaming? George W Bush single handedly gave our country to his business partners at the bank and we will be paying off his family and the friends of his family for generations. I never believed in all that conspiracy theory stuff but GW set up our childres for at least the next 5 generations to be owned by his golbal conglomeration. DId you knoe the Bushe’s got out of the oil business. Gues what they’re in now?..WATER. Oh yeah, it’s coming, All you rapture people, I never believed you but your favorite republican kicked it all of with his war in the middle east. The USA is in a position to owe the Fed money until Jesus comes back! Who runs the Fed??? Nobody knows??? The same people that buy elections while the American people sit and watch their fradulent elections be taken over by the same unseen force that is leading us to the rapture. You guys are so hot on the Republicans, I think they must be working for the anti-christ…

There, I said it!
Obama inherited not a recession but a DEPRESSION. He had to spend some money so the whole country wouldn’t shut down and it was all designed by whatever anti-christ council put those Republicans in charge at that time. Look what they did to us. Now they are going to make it seem like it was Obama, when all he did was try to stop the bleeding and help the children! They need health care and you rich republicant’s only think you should get care if you can afford it? Education if you can afford it? You and your antichrist are going to try and bring back slavery?? well I’m not going for it! Give the rich everything and just leave us poor folks to starve with no education or healthcare. Just a bag of dope and a bottle of malt liquor while you keep EVERYTHING for you and the antichritst!

When Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001, the national debt was $5,727,776,738,304.64.

When “W” left office on January 20, 2009, the national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08.

The growth in the national debt during his eight years in office: $4,899,100,310,608.44.

The average yearly growth in the national debt during Bush’s presidency: $612,387,538,826.05.

During much of Bush’s tenure, he had a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate.

He claimed that tax cuts would pay for themselves - they did not. He claimed that tax cuts would result in growth - we are in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.