Ron Ackerman said this in post #29 : We are not saying that we should not pay taxes. We are saying that rather than the government raising taxes then saying you have to purchase xxxx health insurance. I would rather them give me a tax break and allow me to purchase my own health insurance from a the company I desire. The government is still going to get their money.
You see if you let the government control everything then that makes BIG Government which means BIG taxes. Put it in the control of the people then Government can be smaller requiring less taxes. That is why we didn't want the British here controlling everything. That's why some of our laws are the way they are. Remember Boston Tea Party, Taxation Without Representation?
Big Government serves no one but Big Government. That is not how to grow an economy. Our economy has always been good because we leave the money (for the most part) in the hands of the people.
i am not a proponent of government run health care, etc. neither was kerry. but there are some things and some circumstances where, when the people are deprived, it makes perfectly good sense for the givernment to get involved. if that weren't true, where would we be without social security and medicare?
there are millions of people without health insurance, or who are paying outrageous premiums and/or medical bills. this has been a serious problem for many years and no one has fixed it. i do not advocate a socialized medicine system, but if it means the government has to take charge to some measure to see that all americans have affordable health care, then so be it.
all other things being equal, i would agree with you. but thery're NOT equal. I have relatives who are decent american citizens, yet cannot get health insurance coverage, do NOT want to go on welfare or any form of public assistance, but are terrified that if major surgery becomes necessary, they will be bankrupt. would YOU want to find yourself in a position like that?
Jim Nasium said this in post #31 : I have relatives who are decent american citizens, yet cannot get health insurance coverage, do NOT want to go on welfare or any form of public assistance, but are terrified that if major surgery becomes necessary, they will be bankrupt. would YOU want to find yourself in a position like that?
First off..Kerry's plan wouldnt have paid for every American to have insurance anyhow...and I do NOT want my government running my healthcare...they would know more about me that should only be between my doctor and myself...
Kerry's plan was to pay millions of Americans but his plan was short by millions of Americans, which means he didnt have the other money to fund the other people. (the tax amount he was going to put on the rich werent gonna cover all the people who dont have insurance)...though I imagine you would be happy to see the rich pay insurance for them..
Now..to answer your question...would I want to find myself in a position like that? A position where Im too proud and prideful to go on welfare if I had to? No..Im not that proud. If I had to go on welfare so that I could have insurance...then thats what I would do...but Im not gonna not go on it and then sit around and worry if a sugery might come up.
You are saying this as if they HAVE to be in that position...well, obviously they dont have to...they are just to proud to ask for assistance. That falls in their lap, not in the lap of the wealthy. I get really tired of listening to people act as if the wealthy need to continously pay for others...
Let them pay the taxes, give them no tax breaks or the same as everyone else, and let them continue to pay for those who dont want to ask for assistance...
Well...I have to say..if the wealthy are paying the taxes so that others can have insurance...then arent people in essence asking THEM for assistance? Hmm..Guess they arent to proud to do that huh?
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
you went way off on a tangent, mystic. i used health care only as an example to illustrate the ridiculous tax cut plan. i should have used a different analogy.
my health care argument with ron was a separate matter. i've already been round and round with you on that. you only see it one way - that kerry was planning to institute government run health care, and that's just not true. there was one OPTIONAL government sponsored plan that he wanted to make available to those who otherwise would have no health care. WHAT IN TARNATION IS WRONG WITH THAT? YOU wouldn't have had to do it, and ron wouldn't have had to do it. have you no sympathy at all for those who want to get health insurance, are willing to pay for it and cannot?
this is what was so terribly wrong in the election. too many people who voted for bush believed that (a) socialized medicine was going to be instituted, (b) gay marriages were going to be legalized, (c) guns were going to be outlawed, (d) we were at war with iraq because saddam hussein attacked us, (e) saddam had wmd's, (f) everyone's taxes were going to be raised, etc., etc.
they're ALL lies and karl rove devised a master plan to make enough people believe all those things, and it worked for him.
c'mon, mystic, you're an intelligent woman, i can tell. but please open your eyes. about the unfair and unwise tax cuts and about the sad situation with health care in this country. one more time, i am NOT in favor of government sponsored health care UNLESS it is the only alternative to being completely without protection, and even then, on an OPTIONAL, ELECTIVE basis (and that's what that portion of kerry's plan was).
now, please make me feel better about you and tell me that you now concur that, at least, the health care matter is MORE than reasonable. I guess we'll never agree on the tax cuts, but i did my darnest to plead my case.
When it comes to deciding what is fair and what is unfair, here's my perspective on the current taxation model. Bear with me, the initial concepts are elementary, but boil down to my point..
In our country it is not a God-given-right, but rather a PRIVILEGE to be permitted to acquire personal wealth in the form of an exchange currency which is in fact owned by the government. Taxation is in place as the price we pay for accepting that privilege into our lives.
Since our exchange currency is our government's primary means of self-support, taxation is indeed our government's primary form of income. Since it is the primary income for the government, it is necessary for the government to assess its own income requirements and assemble a taxation system that may be reasonably applied to the people's income which will both allow the people their ability to support themselves and allow the government the income they require.
In increasing taxation rate with personal income makes sense to support our system. Consider the following example case:
Joe Schmoe makes 10 beans per year
Suzie Queue makes 100 beans per year
Bill Gates makes 1000 beans per year
A flat tax of 10% applied to the incomes of all these people evenly results in an income of 111 beans per year to the government. But the government needs 310 beans per year in order to function. So how can it be accomplished? The answer is to tax Joe at 10%, Suzie at 20% and Bill at 30%. This will result in 321 beans per year income for the government.
Now there is a 21 bean surplus that the government has to work with and it could reasonably be proportionately redistributed in the form of tax cuts just as Jim Nasium has suggested, but it is unreasonable to suggest that everyone get taxed at the same rate because:
1) It's not possible for the government to feed itself with the net beans at a flat rate
2) With the scaled rates, everyone is able to feed themselves within reason.
Is it unreasonable for the rich to pay more for the generous privilege that has been extended to them by our country? I think not. WHEN I am rich, I will have no problem with that system. I already pay into higher tax brackets and I don't complain one bit.
Sean Kelly said this in post #35 : Is it unreasonable for the rich to pay more for the generous privilege that has been extended to them by our country? I think not. WHEN I am rich, I will have no problem with that system. I already pay into higher tax brackets and I don't complain one bit.
thanks for articulating so well what i tried to get across. the problem is, though, sean, these folks don't seem to have any trouble understanding that there are higher tax brackets for the higher income earners. what they have trouble understanding is that when the government decides to reduce taxes, it doesn't automatically follow that it has to be returned according to exactly the same formula as it was assessed.
there are tax credits and other breaks for low income earners, but not for the rich. there are allowable write-offs for the rich, but not for the low income earners, and so forth. the tax laws are arbitrary and inconsistent, as legislated by congress. there's absolutely no reason that, when congress authorizes a tax rebate, it has to be one that repays the rich's higher taxes first.
that's what i am objecting to in bush's tax cuts. while it does lower taxes for almost everyone, it rewards the rich to a much greater extent.
when we have a huge deficit and multi-billion dollar war cost, there shouldn't be any tax cuts to begin with. but that's another story.
Sean Kelly said this in post #35 : The answer is to tax Joe at 10%, Suzie at 20% and Bill at 30%. This will result in 321 beans per year income for the government.
Now there is a 21 bean surplus that the government has to work with and it could reasonably be proportionately redistributed in the form of tax cuts just as Jim Nasium has suggested, but it is unreasonable to suggest that everyone get taxed at the same rate because:
1) It's not possible for the government to feed itself with the net beans at a flat rate
2) With the scaled rates, everyone is able to feed themselves within reason.
Is it unreasonable for the rich to pay more for the generous privilege that has been extended to them by our country? I think not. WHEN I am rich, I will have no problem with that system. I already pay into higher tax brackets and I don't complain one bit.
I see what you are saying Sean...but wealthier people are already in a higher tax bracket and do pay a larger percentage than those that make a lower amount.
So when it comes to surplus and a tax break is done...it only makes sense to let the people that paid at a higher percentage, get a higher tax break.
Its like I said...under Jim's plan no one would want to be rich.
You say they should pay for the priviledge of making money...and I dont agree with that. People dont bust their butts to make money to be comfortable in life only so they can get taxed at a higher rate and then get back the same tax cut as everyone else.
Im slightly confused on how people can scream they want things to be fair...and yet come up with something that isnt fair.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
Jim Nasium said this in post #36 : when we have a huge deficit and multi-billion dollar war cost, there shouldn't be any tax cuts to begin with. but that's another story.
It may be another story Jim...but Im not totally out of agreement with you on this.
I think in time of war maybe it would be best not to give tax cuts at all.
See....so we arent totally out of sync.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
Here's something surprising/interesting I just came across that ties this topic to the one about Russia's current announced investigation of "nukyeller" weaponry..
The U.S. Congress denied the Bush administration funds to study a new generation of nuclear weapons, omitting the money from a huge mop-up spending bill it passed over the weekend, lawmakers said on Monday.
The final $388 billion spending bill did not include the $36.6 million President Bush sought to study so-called bunker-busting nuclear weapons that would be used to destroy underground facilities as well as smaller nuclear arms with half the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
11-20-2004 04:32 PM
