If the government's healthcare insurance is so good...

mallory knox said:
do you know what else is funny shai gar

the fact that i mentioned the wars. So killing people with your tax money is not as horrifying as saving poor with your tax money.
Click to expand...
Yeah... Australia has a good Healthcare System because we don't spend most of our tax money on a Defence System.

Our soldiers are paid well. DAMN WELL!* However, that's not at the expense of the Medicare System. But if you guys actually prefer that money which is already being diverted to the Intelligence and Military community, going to kill foreign people, instead of saving the health of citizens, so be it. It proves to the rest of the world the priorities of Americans.





*I should know, my dad is a soldier and I'm living in a mini-mansion at government expense.
 
minority funk said:
The problem is, it is in fact the populations tax money, and they just might support war more than they support universal health care.
Click to expand...

thats only because you allow certain media organisations to control/influence the agenda.

I'm still laughing at the Fox news panel show about emissions standards discussing how children were going to die in accidents because their parents won't be able to buy SUVs anymore.
 
YES GUYS
if those are your priorities
don't be surprised when the world is mad at you

carry on exploiting overseas workers, polluting the enviroment (and the whole world has to face consequences), starting pointless wars for the interest of few.

i mean, if those things are people's priorities rather than saving or treating your own fellow americans, you will have to excuse the world when they all hate you.

maybe i'm too naive to believe there's a heart underneath the greed for most of you, i think I am.
 
errrrrrrrrrm said:
can't be arsed explaining the obvious to people who can't/won't think for themselves, if you can't work out that people benefit from paying taxes then I can't be bothered explaining it.
Click to expand...

So the answer is "no" then.

Nice ad hominem by the way.

mallory knox said:
OH WHY IS THAT?

DID IT CAUSE THEM TO STARVE?

maybe its because the top 5% detain most of the wealth?

americans like to defend the right of exploiting and having obscene wealth because they think they could be one of them

chances are you won
Click to expand...
 
Satya said:
So the answer is "no" then.

Nice ad hominem by the way.
Click to expand...

saying I can't be bothered explaining the obvious to you isn't attacking you as a person.

In all honesty if you can't reason the benefits you gets from paying tax versus not then it's pointless discussing it with you.
 
errrrrrrrrrm said:
saying I can't be bothered explaining the obvious to you isn't attacking you as a person.
Click to expand...

I would say that the "people who can't/won't think for themselves" part was the attack. It's interesting that I pose a reasonable question and the response is that you can't be bothered to reply with evidence since I'm apparently not thinking for myself. What a wonderful way to get people to think for themselves! Deny them evidence that would allow them to see for themselves how you came to your conclusion.

In all honesty if you can't reason the benefits you gets from paying tax versus not then it's pointless discussing it with you.
Click to expand...

As I recall your argument was, "in a cost/benefit analysis everyone bar a very very few have their lives improved more by the benefits of paying taxes than they lose by having less to spend themselves." That seems like an assumption to me. In fact, it almost seems like you are arguing that the government inherently does a better job of spending my money than I do. The market is usually a far more efficient tool for distributing resources than the government, and that is simply economics. Central planning has historically failed and so I think it prudent for me to ask what evidence you have that the benefits obtained from taxation outweigh all the costs. You used the word "analysis" so I assume you have actually investigated this assumption and have backed it up with valid evidence.

My intuition tells me that I called you out with my simple question and your ad hominem response was to hide how weak argument actually is.
 
it's basic logic.

even math.

i might pay taxes which go around 15% of my income, but with that i get free health care, social security, free education, maternity/sick leave etc. If you're going to actually pay those things privately I am pretty sure you'll spend more than that.
 
mallory knox said:
it's basic logic.

even math.

i might pay taxes which go around 15% of my income, but with that i get free health care, social security, free education, maternity/sick leave etc. If you're going to actually pay those things privately I am pretty sure you'll spend more than that.
Click to expand...

How do you know?

Nothing is free. Someone has to pay for it. Just because you may be paying less than what you would have to pay if you had to pay for it privately does not mean that someone else isn't picking up your share. Why should they pick up your share so that you don't have to pay as much for health care, education, etc.?
 
if they're picking up my share that's because they make more. it's fair. the more money you make the more money you can make, so it makes sense, you're in a privileged position.

taxes are proportional.

when i made less money i paid less taxes
when i make more money ill pay more taxes
and ill do it happily
for the sake of the majority and happily

you seem to forget that every single product has taxes in them, and in that case there's no difference how much you make. you will be stunned to find out exactly how much of everything you buy is pure tax.

if anything i want my tax money to provide the best services possible for everyone and ill fight for that

thats how it is in most places

people are not selfish and greedy enough to simply say "let the poor go fuck themselves".

But you are? I mean, you're the one who said starving people in Asia or Africa are living shit conditions by choice.
 
besides, if you don't charge taxes proportionally you will only create a bigger abyss between classes and no one, no one benefits from that.

that causes isolation, violence, hostility and all sorts of social problems, that everyone has to live with.
 
mallory knox said:
if they're picking up my share that's because they make more. it's fair. the more money you make the more money you can make, so it makes sense, you're in a privileged position.

taxes are proportional.

when i made less money i paid less taxes
when i make more money ill pay more taxes
and ill do it happily
for the sake of the majority and happily

you seem to forget that every single product has taxes in them, and in that case there's no difference how much you make. you will be stunned to find out exactly how much of everything you buy is pure tax.

if anything i want my tax money to provide the best services possible for everyone and ill fight for that

thats how it is in most places

people are not selfish and greedy enough to simply say "let the poor go fuck themselves".

But you are? I mean, you're the one who said starving people in Asia or Africa are living shit conditions by choice.
Click to expand...

Why is it fair that if someone makes more, they should pay for you?

And just so you know, the taxes you talk about on products you buy, are state taxes, not national taxes. These do nothing for the national government.

Also on the note of sales tax, why is it fair that the rich and poor are taxed the same on sales tax? By your arguement, shouldn't the rich have a higher sales tax than the poor? After all, 'they can afford it'.

Also he didn't say they were starving by choice, rather by chance of being born there. Huge difference.
 
i am not in america.

when you buy something you're buying implied taxes on that good.
more expensive products have more expensive taxes in general.

it depends what category it is.

and yes of course the rich have to pay more taxes.

the richer you are the less it'll impact your quality of life how much you're charged.
money makes money.

the more money we make the more we contribute for the less advantaged and to the country.

i pay more tax then i did when i made less, so what? its whats fair. I hope that money is being put to good use. I work for my benefit and also the benefit of the rest of the people in the nation.

its that idea of unity between human beings that the usa lacks.
 
Last edited:
mallory knox said:
if they're picking up my share that's because they make more. it's fair. the more money you make the more money you can make, so it makes sense, you're in a privileged position.

taxes are proportional.

when i made less money i paid less taxes
when i make more money ill pay more taxes
and ill do it happily
for the sake of the majority and happily

you seem to forget that every single product has taxes in them, and in that case there's no difference how much you make. you will be stunned to find out exactly how much of everything you buy is pure tax.

if anything i want my tax money to provide the best services possible for everyone and ill fight for that

thats how it is in most places

people are not selfish and greedy enough to simply say "let the poor go fuck themselves".

But you are? I mean, you're the one who said starving people in Asia or Africa are living shit conditions by choice.
Click to expand...


If only we could get our tax system set up like that. I doubt it will ever happen though, because it makes too much logical sense.
The fat cats of our society benefit too much with the tax system we have now.

Government for the people by the people, is a nice phrase, but it is far from the truth!
 
it's not relevant because in theory services could be provided nationally of by states.

besides i was just clarifying in case you weren't aware.
 
Last edited:
The problem is you're comparing (I think, I might just be misunderstanding your argument) two systems that are vastly different. You said "
when you buy something you're buying implied taxes on that good.
more expensive products have more expensive taxes in general". I'm not too sure what you mean by this (and sorry about missing it the first time, I didn't catch the edit). If your implying more expensive things are taxed more, that's not how it works in the United States. Sales taxes are flat taxes set up by the states. You get taxed the same rate on a cheeseburger as you do on a brand new car. It doesn't discriminate between the rich and the poor. Everyone pays the same. What I'm saying is, by your arguement, if the rich should pick up the expenses of the poor, shouldn't they pay more in sales tax than the poor?

The problem with the national health care is it comes directly from people's paychecks. We don't support the national government in other taxes. It scares people to think it's coming directly from their wallets.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression you were born into a system with national healthcare. We're seeing things from a different perspective.
 
Yes.

And ask everyone living in a place with public health care if they'd want it abolished.

I have never heard such talk.

It makes no difference, money comes your pocket to buy private insurance (if you're accepted and can afford to).

You wouldn't even have to raise taxes in theory. Because:

a- look at how much money you've been spending on wars and weapons

b- the majority of the countries with public health care generate way less money than America. If people can do it, how come the richest country in the world can't?

Most of the "developed" and "developing" world has that service, to me it's just a basic human right.

As far as I'm aware, all other democracies have it.

If the nation is healthy and wealthy everyone benefits. I imagine poverty would be less significant if in the past people weren't losing their assets, their houses due to illness.

Everyone benefits from a healthier nation, even companies. Everyone can take comfort in that security in case everything fails and you get denied care from your private insurance, for example. Why wouldn't you wanna spare a few dollars for that?
 
Last edited:
mallory knox said:
Yes.

And ask everyone living in a place with public health care if they'd want it abolished.

I have never heard such talk.

It makes no difference, money comes your pocket to buy private insurance (if you're accepted and can afford to).

You wouldn't even have to raise taxes in theory. Because:

a- look at how much money you've been spending on wars and weapons

b- the majority of the countries with public health care generate way less money than America. If people can do it, how come the richest country in the world can't?

Most of the "developed" and "developing" world has that service, to me it's just a basic human right.

As far as I'm aware, all other democracies have it.

If the nation is healthy and wealthy everyone benefits. I imagine poverty would be less significant if in the past people weren't losing their assets, their houses due to illness.

Everyone benefits from a healthier nation, even companies. Everyone can take comfort in that security in case everything fails and you get denied care from your private insurance, for example. Why wouldn't you wanna spare a few dollars for that?
Click to expand...
To start, I'm going to state that I am for some sort of national health care, just to get that out there. But you have to understand that fear it raises in people. Sure other countries have it but you don't know any different. We DON'T have it so we are fearful of change. It's people money so of course they are going to be afraid of how it's spent.

And it does make a difference. Yeah the money comes from us already for insurance. Either through jobs or out of pocket, but the change would have it coming from the government. Many people are generally fearful of the government (that's one of the reasons we separated from European colonies and became a nation of states). The national insurance would be different from their previous insurance, that is if they were to accept the new insurance. If they decided to keep their old insurance, they'd be paying for both.

The problem with your theory is twofold.
1, we'd have to cut back our spending on defense and withdraw from wars, that is making another huge change, all to fund another drastic change. Isn't going to happen easily at all. Then the scaremongers will bring up the fact that we are the United States, and much of the world doesn't like us as it is. Lowering defense would leave us vulnerable to attack, they'd say.

2, the nations you are comparing us to have nowhere near the population of the united states. the money it would cost to supply this to 300 million people is a lot different than supplying it to 30 million. You're comparing vastly and completely different nations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top