|
Post by Jon Broxton on Oct 28, 2009 18:51:15 GMT -8
And who said anything about damning people to Hell? It was just a turn of phrase. If wealthy people don't feel it's their responsibility to contribute to the welfare of the society that serves them, it's basically saying the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by TJ on Oct 28, 2009 19:33:01 GMT -8
And who said anything about damning people to Hell? It was just a turn of phrase. If wealthy people don't feel it's their responsibility to contribute to the welfare of the society that serves them, it's basically saying the same thing. If they didn't feel responsible, then they wouldn't donate to charities or give large gifts to their employees/ service people (mail man, personal trainer, hair stylist--whoever)---not to mention provide health care for all employed by them for a mere $20 a week! The difference is, you want a mandatory re-distribution of sort through the US government.....there's a reason everyone comes here for surgery.
|
|
|
Post by Craig Richard Lysy on Oct 28, 2009 19:51:07 GMT -8
T.J. - "I am strongly against any political agenda that punishes people just because they happen to be better off financially. The government already takes 25% from most people, they don't need any more, and they take significantly more from those with higher incomes. It's bad enough as it is."
Taxation provides for the common good and common defense. To suggest that people making 30K a year should pay the same as people making 30M a year is absurd.
T.J. - "Brendan's absolutely right, you keep taxing people, then donations are going to suffer. Whats the first thing thats going to take a hit? Non profit art groups like symphony's and theater."
I address this in a later paragraph.
T.J. - "I was raised to believe you should give 10% to charity, that's in addition to the 25% income tax that goes to the US government, not to mention all the other various taxes & such. Do you want EVERYBODY to be living off of top ramen 3 times a day?"
Charity is admirable I agree. Your other conclusion is hyperbole. Europeans do not eat top ramen!
T.J. or centuries capitalism has not distributed wealth equitably. My supporting facts; intractable poverty, the vast majority of societal wealth concentrated in a small minority. T.J., in our country, the top 1.5% possess more wealth that the bottom 90%, that is not right, not moral, not sustainable.
T.J. - "Not to mention, if you eliminate all the benefits of making a higher income, what benefit would there for someone to strive to continue to do better?"
The motivation is that your efforts benefit others and your society. I have studied all the great faiths, and the Eastern practices have it right; harmony and the needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the one. We dominate this planet because our species is social and we have empathy. The ethos of enshrining the needs of the individual over the needs of society has lead to inequity, exploitation, class divisions, intractable poverty and deprivation. How is it that the richest country in the world cannot eliminate poverty, homelessness, lack of health care? I answer by saying because it does not work.
T.J. - "As far as I know, the government already helps out the legitimately poor, if I'm heartless for thinking those who make stupid decisions shouldn't be bailed out, then so be it. "
T.J. a single mother who loses a job and becomes homeless is not stupid or illegitimate. Kids that leave abusive families and prostitute themselves to survive on the street are not stupid or illegitimate. People born into poverty and who live in neighborhoods bereft with crime, no jobs and hopelessness are not stupid or illegitimate. Blue collar workers layed off by cold capitalist consultants that out-sourced good paying American jobs overseas for profit are not stupid or illegitimate. They are all victims. What is required of all of us and of our society is empathy, compassion and assistance.
Charity failed to meet the needs of the impoverished in the early 20th century because the vast numbers of people that moved to our urban centers. These workers were exploited (child labor, no breaks, no workman's comp for injuries, no family leave, no sick time) by corporations and overwhelmed charitable resources. In these pre-union times people were exploited and not paid living wages. Government stepped in under Republican president Theodore Roosevelt (God bless him) out of necessity. The fact that for over 50 years in the richest country in the world we see urban cores that fester in abject decay, poverty and hopelessness offers damning testimony that the current economic system does not work. Health care is but another sad symptom of a failed system.
We need to model what works and follow the successful methods of our Canadian neighbors and Europe. I talk to my Canadian and European friends daily, they like their universal health care system, despite the 'Fox news' argument by exception, hyperbole and propaganda.
Here is the final point, just as we have national defense FOR ALL, PAID FOR BY ALL. We need universal health care FOR ALL, PAID FOR BY ALL. The same principle applies and neither you, Brendan or Hook can refute my logic or premise. To do so, you must abandon taxing people for the common defense.
Please respond sir, why is it essential that we pay our government to protect us from AL Queda that has killed several thousand of us, and yet it is not OK for us to pay our government to protect us from bacteria and disease that has killed 10 times as many per year? Where is your sense of proportion sir? It seems to me that disease is killing more of us each year and is therefore by the numbers the more lethal foe? For me the enemy that which kills most of my brethren and my fellow citizens poses the greatest threat to my country. You can deny this?
I await your response Sir.
I appreciate the honor of this discourse sir.
|
|
|
Post by Christian K on Oct 28, 2009 19:56:41 GMT -8
I agree with you, Craig, on at least one point wholeheartedly: that every government should spend more money on education, science/research and health care than on the military.
|
|
|
Post by TJ on Oct 28, 2009 20:01:02 GMT -8
I would tend to agree, once you get over a certain threshold like 1 million or 2 million, but I don't like that 'upper middle class' is being taxed so heavily, still I don't think it's my place to decide how an athlete or celebrity or big corporate guy should spend his rightfully earned money.
That's all fine and good, but I see no reason why one should take a risk if not for the possibility of reward, if you eliminate rewards, you're better off taking a lesser job that is far less stressful, as far as I can see.
|
|
|
Post by Jangles on Oct 28, 2009 20:05:36 GMT -8
I see what TJ is getting at and agree with it. I don't think the rich or even the "upper middle-class" have to directly contribute to the welfare of society (as it were). The fact that these classes of people are spending money and allowing it to circulate within the economy is all the contribution necessary. Millonaires spend money and this allows industries to exist and people working in those industries can make and spend money which allow other industries to exist who also have people working in them who can spend their money, and etc etc it keeps going on forever. I guess it's just the classic example of what controls the flow money - free market or the government. I honestly feel like I am doing my duty to society by spending money.
For healthcare, I don't really care either way. It's deducted from my paycheck - whether it's for me or in some fund for everyone, I don't care. A few extra dollars per paycheck either way doesn't bother me either. Whatever works I guess...
|
|
|
Post by Jangles on Oct 28, 2009 20:10:47 GMT -8
I don't see the relevance in comparing spending tax money for defense to spending tax money on healthcare. For healthcare spending, it will be realized definitively by people going to the hospital, while for the army, the money is just spent on some notion of defense that might or might not be actually realized or even valid.
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Oct 28, 2009 20:53:37 GMT -8
Here is the final point, just as we have national defense FOR ALL, PAID FOR BY ALL. We need universal health care FOR ALL, PAID FOR BY ALL. The same principle applies and neither you, Brendan or Hook can refute my logic or premise. To do so, you must abandon taxing people for the common defense. Craig, I already addressed this in an earlier post - individuals cannot on their own defend against other nations. If the million-man Chinese army decides to invade my town, no amount of my personal responsibility or liberty will be able to prevent it. But individuals can absolutely take responsibility for their own health. It's a huge difference! This is why the defense of the country is a government mandate as provided by the U.S. Constitution. Providing health care is not mandated by the constitution. Your 'logic' does not apply because, again, you're not comparing apples to apples. And Jon, I almost passed out when I read that you support a flat, nationwide income tax percentage or "flat tax" - assuming that's what you meant, I agree completely! Our current graduated income tax system is unfair, overly complex (thereby creating bureaucratic waste) and punishes success. -Brendan
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Oct 28, 2009 21:06:11 GMT -8
And Jon, I almost passed out when I read that you support a flat, nationwide income tax percentage or "flat tax" - assuming that's what you meant, I agree completely! Our current graduated income tax system is unfair, overly complex (thereby creating bureaucratic waste) and punishes success. Yep, that's exactly what I meant. In Britain we all pay 'national insurance' charged at 17.5%, which is what goes to fund many of our public services, including health. If you earn $1,000,000 per year, you pay 17.5% of $1,000,000 in tax. If you earn $1,000 per year, you pay 17.5% of $1,000 in tax. It's absolutely fair, and allows everyone who works to contribute equally to the services.
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Oct 28, 2009 21:25:53 GMT -8
Yep, that's exactly what I meant. In Britain we all pay 'national insurance' charged at 17.5%, Ack! No no no..that's not what I meant. I was referring to our overall income tax, not a special tax just for universal health care. Yikes... -Brendan
|
|
|
Post by Chris Tilton on Oct 28, 2009 21:32:56 GMT -8
And who said anything about damning people to Hell? It was just a turn of phrase. If wealthy people don't feel it's their responsibility to contribute to the welfare of the society that serves them, it's basically saying the same thing. Did you forget that the wealthiest 5% of this country pay for 60% of the nations taxes? I think they pay their fair share.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Oct 28, 2009 21:34:54 GMT -8
Ack! No no no..that's not what I meant. I was referring to our overall income tax, not a special tax just for universal health care. Yikes... Well. it's not *that* bad, because we don't pay into private health insurance policies (unless you choose to), and there's no such thing as a 401k, so it all works out about the same in the end, and everyone gets covered.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Oct 28, 2009 21:36:52 GMT -8
Did you forget that the wealthiest 5% of this country pay for 60% of the nations taxes? I think they pay their fair share. Well, as I said in the reply above, I think this needs changing too. Everyone should pay the same amount of tax, as a universal flat percentage of their income.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Tilton on Oct 28, 2009 21:41:49 GMT -8
Yep, that's exactly what I meant. In Britain we all pay 'national insurance' charged at 17.5%, Ack! No no no..that's not what I meant. I was referring to our overall income tax, not a special tax just for universal health care. Yikes... -Brendan Brendan, he stated that its "national insurance," not just health care. So it seems it goes to a lot of public services, however it would be interesting to know what other taxes there are besides this. I assume there are more.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Tilton on Oct 28, 2009 21:42:57 GMT -8
Did you forget that the wealthiest 5% of this country pay for 60% of the nations taxes? I think they pay their fair share. Well, as I said in the reply above, I think this needs changing too. Everyone should pay the same amount of tax, as a universal flat percentage of their income. Bush tried to propose a universal flat tax, or at least he championed it in the debates. The Democrats are vehemently against this.
|
|