Yet another reason to tax the rich more

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You are doing, exactly, the same thing. You have no clue, as to the struggles a person has gone through, to achieve their financial station, in life, which you are calling class. They may have started at a lower station, than you, but worked harder, had different natural gifts, which they took advantage of, and simply achieved more.
You simply want to punish them, becuase they have more than you.

Nope, the country work well when taxes are raised for the rich, you can't establish otherwise and I can establish it does. You are fighting an ideology of tax cuts my friends, I am trying to create a better-running country.

Quote

Tell me, why does it make you feel good, that the fastest runners, be mechanically hobbled, just so that those, at the back of the pack, will finish closer to them? I.E. close the gap.

Because otherwise we end up with monopolies and massive influence rather than a country of equality and opportunity. Don't worry, Obaam's tax incr won't affect you, I just can't figure why guys like you are fighting for far richer people.

Quote

One of the stupidest things, this feel good, liberal society has done, is to eliminate competition, amongst children, because someone might have their self esteem crushed.

How has children's competition been eliminated and how did the liberals do what you claim? Pleae, not ideologically, tangibly.

Quote

Are we not to learn from nature? There's one head stallion, buck, rooster and everyone else gets second pickings and the castoffs.

That's classic and explains conservative mentalities. So I guess your favorite movie was Mad Max. The idea behind out laws are to become less like the animals in nature, ficghting for territory, etc.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Your statement that one will always work for a marginal dollar is not true. The tax rate matters.

Certainly with Royd's 95% marginal rate, all but the most pathetic of people will stop working and instead enjoy leisure time. At 50%, which is pretty close to your and my marginal rate in CA, I suspect most will keep working, but mostly because the cost of housing in CA drives the need.

And sadly, that's where the powers that be, would like to keep everyone. Making just enough money, after taxes, to maintain the basics of life.... Government hates free people, who do not require the rat race, to survive.
If it weren't for the necessity of money, at the point of diminishing returns, the best thing the people could do, to keep the government in check, would be to sit down, for the rest of the year, and enjoy themselves.

[Royd 0]

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Tell me, why does it make you feel good, that the fastest runners, be mechanically hobbled, just so that those, at the back of the pack, will finish closer to them? I.E. close the gap.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

Because otherwise we end up with monopolies and massive influence rather than a country of equality and opportunity. Don't worry, Obaam's tax incr won't affect you, I just can't figure why guys like you are fighting for far richer people.

Let's start with the old adage,"You never got a job, from a poor man."
Other than that, I am not filled with jealousy or contempt, because some man has more than me. I don't feel some need for egalitarian justice. When someone I know, makes a major advancement, in life, I truly congratulate them, and wish them the best. I have no desire for the govt, to get its GREEDY, wasteful hands, upon their hard earned gain.

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


One of the stupidest things, this feel good, liberal society has done, is to eliminate competition, amongst children, because someone might have their self esteem crushed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

How has children's competition been eliminated and how did the liberals do what you claim? Pleae, not ideologically, tangibly.

We now have elementary schools,[Let's brainwash 'em early] which, at the beginning of the school year, removes all of an individual's supplies, and puts them into a common box, to be redistributed....God forbid, you should have the 64 count box of Crayons, with the built in sharpener, and some other kid, only got the 24 colors.
Then, there's the stupidity of giving everyone a trophy, just so that they won't feel left out...And what's up with graduating from Kindergarten? How frigging stupid is that?

[Royd 0]

Quote

The idea behind out laws are to become less like the animals in nature, ficghting for territory, etc.

Are you sure?

[Royd 0]

You will not get any of what you want with what is being proposed.

Quote

So you want less competition? Interesting.

Maybe, the problem of competition, within the industry should be looked at, first.
There have been several suggestions, which have simply been ignored, because it causes financial harm to another sector... Namely, trial lawyers..Removing state boundaries, has also been shot down.
How about a person actually being able to pick and choose their personal coverage? If I am not diabetic, why should I even have such things in my policy?
Honestly, the best thing the consumer could do, for themselves, is to get catasrophic care, with a high deductible, and set the saved money aside, to cover it. At today's rates, it wouldn't take long to set aside 10-20,000, for a deductible.

[Royd 0]

Quote

To go back to the 95% example, I bet you'd be willing to take the risk on netting $175K if your annual net salary was $5K due to that 95% tax rate. Needless to say, it would be foolish to tax anyone at that rate, no matter what their income.

My problem, personally, is that, my work is my commodity.
Even if I changed the exercise to $100,000@25%, $200,00@40% and above that, at 75%, the man who makes money, by the sweat of his brow, is going to sit down, once he starts doing the math.

[billvon 2,434]

>My problem, personally, is that, my work is my commodity.

Then perhaps you would prefer a different country, one where such things as a military, national highway system, veteran's hospital system etc do not exist. In such countries, there is no need to give up the fruits of your labor to such common causes.

>Even if I changed the exercise to $100,000@25%, $200,00@40% and
>above that, at 75% . . .

Also a bad idea. Discontinuities are, generally, a bad idea. A formula such as (T=(I-P)*R)>0 where I is income, P is the poverty line and R is tax rate make much more sense.

[billvon 2,434]

Try to avoid personal attacks. Your one warning.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

?? It's not. That's why any system should remain competitive. That's why I support a public option - so that insurance companies actually have some competition for low cost health care.

How can the government be a "competitor" in a system that it regulates?

A key part of a being a competitor is the possibility of failure. Will they scrap the public option if it runs out of money or just continue borrowing to fund it? When has the government ended a program of this nature instead of just continuing to pump additional taxes and borrowed money into it? Never?

Insurance companies must price their products based on their costs - they must be self-sufficient. Is the "public option" self-sufficient, or is it going to be supported by funds from other sources (taxes, etc..)?

Suppose they've added wording to the bills that make the above conditions true. Three years down the road, if the rise of healthcare costs doesn't slow down and the program can no longer be self-sufficient, what's stopping the government from changing the rules?

How can any insurance company truly compete with an entity that:

1. Controls/Regulates it and a very large share of it's market.

2. Has essentially an unlimited supply of money.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Let's start with the old adage,"You never got a job, from a poor man."
Other than that, I am not filled with jealousy or contempt, because some man has more than me. I don't feel some need for egalitarian justice. When someone I know, makes a major advancement, in life, I truly congratulate them, and wish them the best. I have no desire for the govt, to get its GREEDY, wasteful hands, upon their hard earned gain.

When the gov taxes less, the country goes to shit. I have shown this, you are more concerned with a rich guy's gold, yet claim to be the true patriot. Hoover in 1929, Reagan in 1981 and GWB in 2001 cutting taxes harshly, esp the latter in a time of war. These are the major taxe cuts that have led to disaster, can you dispute those or are you more concerned with rich people's money than you are the health of a nation?

Quote

We now have elementary schools,[Let's brainwash 'em early]

But enough about the pledge of allegiance.

Quote

removes all of an individual's supplies,

Binary.

Quote

We now have elementary schools,[Let's brainwash 'em early] which, at the beginning of the school year, removes all of an individual's supplies, and puts them into a common box, to be redistributed....God forbid, you should have the 64 count box of Crayons, with the built in sharpener, and some other kid, only got the 24 colors.

How does this eleiminate competition between children? This is a crayon travesty.

Quote

Then, there's the stupidity of giving everyone a trophy, just so that they won't feel left out...

Apparently you didn't get yours and you're still pissed. We didn't have that trophy no-kid-left-behind program, so I know not of what you say, but as an esteem builder maybe it's a good idea. Kids should all know they're important and when you have a disparity in praise that can lead to issues/complesxes. So apparently you are against giving every kid praise if say they have a race and the winning kid gets a trophy, but the other kids get a sportsmanship award as well for being good competitors? I'm not a teacher and don't have kids, so I'm just trying to think of how it could work where everyone walked away feeling good about themselves.

Quote

And what's up with graduating from Kindergarten? How frigging stupid is that?

Feeling of accomplishment. Why not, we all need to feel as tho we are worthy and this develops young.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

How can the government be a "competitor" in a system that it regulates?

If it's a not for profit competitor it's not a conflict.

Quote

A key part of a being a competitor is the possibility of failure. Will they scrap the public option if it runs out of money or just continue borrowing to fund it?

Probably fund it since it would be serving largely customers who couldn't buy HMO insurance anyway, so they wouldn't be taking away many paying customers from the HMO's, hence no conflict anyway.

Quote

When has the government ended a program of this nature instead of just continuing to pump additional taxes and borrowed money into it? Never?

But enough about the grossly over-funded military that you have no issues with.

Quote

Insurance companies must price their products based on their costs - they must be self-sufficient.

And if costs become breater than profits, they must change the way they do business or go out of business; that's the idea behindd the public option.

Quote

Is the "public option" self-sufficient, or is it going to be supported by funds from other sources (taxes, etc..)?

I don't know, but I do know that money is FAR more important than the health of a nation. Also, there is no connect between taxation and spending other than a very indirect connect at the deficit/debt, and of course bond or specifically taxed items (SS, Medicare, etc).

Quote

Suppose they've added wording to the bills that make the above conditions true. Three years down the road, if the rise of healthcare costs doesn't slow down and the program can no longer be self-sufficient, what's stopping the government from changing the rules?

The rules will be changed, but not based upon need, based upon the sitting politician. Get a GW Bush in there and we can become a nasty, indifferent at best country once again.

Quote

How can any insurance company truly compete with an entity that:

1. Controls/Regulates it and a very large share of it's market.

2. Has essentially an unlimited supply of money.

It would likely be less efficient so people who could afford HMO ins might be prone to go that way, right? I mean, we all know the gov can't do anything right, right? So don't worry, it will dry up and go away.

We are the least compassionate country on earth I venture to say. There are worse countries, but they don't have the means, so we can't compare us to them. Compare us to countries with similar means and we are the lest compassionate country on earth in that context. I'm sorry, but we are about to become more compassionate.

[Ron 7]

You seemed to have avoided these, so I will ask again:

Quote

What people are doing is saying that HC will raise taxes, yet no one has shown me how.

How about how the CBO thinks it will increase the Federal Deficit?

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8662052/CBO-Report-on-Cost-of-Health-Care-Bill

According to CBO’s and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

How do you read a 239B increase in the Deficit?

Or maybe you could look at this exchange between Sen Conrad (D, ND) and Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office:


Conrad: "I'm going to really put you on the spot, from what you have seen from the products of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?"

Elmendorf responded: "No, Mr. Chairman." Although the House plan to cover the uninsured, for example, would add more than $1 trillion to federal health spending over the next decade, according to the CBO, it would trim about $500 billion from existing programs -- increasing federal health spending overall.

Some provisions of the bill have the potential to trim spending further, Elmendorf said, but "the changes that we have looked at so far do not represent the sort of fundamental change, the order of magnitude that would be necessary, to offset the direct increase in federal health costs that would result from the insurance coverage proposals."

So the CBO seems to think it will add to the deficit... Who are you to argue?

Add into it how you want to raise taxes to pay for it... well if it costs more, and you want to raise others taxes to pay for it.... How *exactly* is that not making others pay for it?

And about taxing the rich to bring them down a little You said:

"The rich are running away, the class disparity is growing, time to bring it back a tad."

That would be like taking points away from Airspeed at the Nats to give to the last placed team. Airspeed earned those points... Why punish them for hard work?

So would you propose taking points off of Airspeed to give to the bottom teams?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,434]

>How can any insurance company truly compete with an entity that:
>1. Controls/Regulates it and a very large share of it's market.
>2. Has essentially an unlimited supply of money.

There are three possibilities:

1) The public option will be bad. If you are to believe every conservative on this board who has talked about it, this will be the case. Endless bureaucracy, long waits, substandard care. In this case your question is easily answered; people who can afford it will choose quality over horrible service. Only the poor who can afford nothing else use this option, and it becomes that safety net that we're talking about.

2) The public option will be competitive. In that case the system works - other insurance companies try to streamline and lower their prices to compete.

3) The public option does much better than the private option. If this happens healthcare costs down down significantly. Private insurers suffer, people get better care than they are getting now.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You seemed to have avoided these, so I will ask again:

I don't avoid questions.

Quote

How about how the CBO thinks it will increase the Federal Deficit?

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8662052/CBO-Report-on-Cost-of-Health-Care-Bill

According to CBO’s and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

OK, so it will raise the deficit which under vitually all years since our inception has increased.

Quote

How do you read a 239B increase in the Deficit?

I read it as total spending more than taxing. Taht could be fixed 2 ways: cut spending in other areas or raise taxes....or just continue to be status quo and spend more than we tax.

Quote

Or maybe you could look at this exchange between Sen Conrad (D, ND) and Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office:


Conrad: "I'm going to really put you on the spot, from what you have seen from the products of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?"

Elmendorf responded: "No, Mr. Chairman." Although the House plan to cover the uninsured, for example, would add more than $1 trillion to federal health spending over the next decade, according to the CBO, it would trim about $500 billion from existing programs -- increasing federal health spending overall.

Some provisions of the bill have the potential to trim spending further, Elmendorf said, but "the changes that we have looked at so far do not represent the sort of fundamental change, the order of magnitude that would be necessary, to offset the direct increase in federal health costs that would result from the insurance coverage proposals."

So the CBO seems to think it will add to the deficit... Who are you to argue?

Before you make an argument that I claim HC won't add to the deficit, you need to claim where I have stated it won't add to it.

Quote

Add into it how you want to raise taxes to pay for it... well if it costs more, and you want to raise others taxes to pay for it.... How *exactly* is that not making others pay for it?

I would like to see military expenditures cut 25% immediatley, that would be a savings enough to pay for it, altho I would like to see that with or w/o HC. I would like to see the rich, the top 10% let's say, taxed more regardless of HC or not. As with Clinton, he wanted a few things, most prominently HC and higher taxes, he got the latter and not the former. These things aren't tied at the hip.

But there is no direct connection between your taxes and HC reform. You have Medicare/Medicaid as a direct tax, but a HC reform you do not. Just as if they draft a 200B warship/warplane contract, does that raise your taxes? No. Might it raise the debt? Probably. Legislatively, tax rates are not figured with a direct connection to expenditures for major issue like social svs and military. The RW wants to make it appear that way, but it is not so.

Quote

And about taxing the rich to bring them down a little You said:

"The rich are running away, the class disparity is growing, time to bring it back a tad."

That would be like taking points away from Airspeed at the Nats to give to the last placed team. Airspeed earned those points... Why punish them for hard work?

So would you propose taking points off of Airspeed to give to the bottom teams?

Trying to compare a private sport to a national HC emergency isn't even relevant. Airspeed could never win another competition and all would be well. We spend more on HC than nations with uni-care and we deliver less, so this is an emergency that the party with the R has ignored. Now, let's demonize Obama for fixing this. Of course it's not an emergency for you since you have HC, just as if you were a white in 1850 slavery wouldn't be an issue for you.

[Ron 7]

Quote

I don't avoid questions.

You did till I called you out on it. The proof is in the posts for all to see.

Quote

OK, so it will raise the deficit which under vitually [SIC] all years since our inception has increased.

And that's a GOOD thing?

Quote

I read it as total spending more than taxing. Taht could be fixed 2 ways: cut spending in other areas or raise taxes....or just continue to be status quo and spend more than we tax.

But you have claimed you don't see HC as making others pay for it.... If you raise taxes to pay for it, how is that NOT making others pay for it?!?!?!?

Quote

But there is no direct connection between your taxes and HC reform.

Yes there is if you plan on raising taxes to pay for it. That is crystal clear.

Quote

Just as if they draft a 200B warship/warplane contract, does that raise your taxes? No. Might it raise the debt? Probably.

If you are financially responsible (which it seems you are not) it does have a connection. You just want to ignore it and then try to make others pay for it.

Quote

Trying to compare a private sport to a national HC emergency isn't even relevant.

It is relevant as an example.

Quote

Airspeed could never win another competition and all would be well.

Then it should not matter that they are taxed say 10 points per round. Since if they never win again all would still be well according to you.

You are more than willing to punish those that work hard to give to those that don't.

Quote

Of course it's not an emergency for you since you have HC, just as if you were a white in 1850 slavery wouldn't be an issue for you.

Lame. It is not an emergency for me because I have been financially prudent and made sure my basics were covered BEFORE I bought toys.

It is not an emergency for me since I have DONE what I needed to do to ensure that I stay that way. Which means I make sure my HC and disability payments are paid BEFORE I take vacations and goof off.

It is only an emergency for you since you DIDN'T do these things.

Don't blame me for you not doing what you needed to make sure you have your basics covered. I stopped expecting others to take care of me long before I moved out of my parents home at 18. You still expect people to take care of you.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you've worked twenty years, in a company, and studied, and gone through an apprenticeship program, [Oops. that ugly class thing, raising its head, again] and moved up, you are willing to split your pay, and prestige and parking spot, with the rookie, who just walked in the door?

careful, there, Lucky - I'm assuming you are also pro-union, so the pecking order must be supported in your answer even though it conflicts with your other philosophies.....

You can have unionization and allow for seniority while reducing class disparity. Union seniorty can be realized within while reducing class disparity without.

"seniority" huh? nothing about skill and talent?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Ion01 1]

Quote

When the gov taxes less, the country goes to shit. I have shown this, you are more concerned with a rich guy's gold, yet claim to be the true patriot. Hoover in 1929, Reagan in 1981 and GWB in 2001 cutting taxes harshly, esp the latter in a time of war. These are the major taxe cuts that have led to disaster, can you dispute those or are you more concerned with rich people's money than you are the health of a nation?

And if you would have actually read the article about the drop in the 1920's you would see that you are completely wrong.

Here are some more facts:
Yet most economists seem to agree that tax cuts really do provide a stimulus. The real reason may be that they provide flexibility: people who want to consume more can use their tax cut for that purpose; people who want to save more can use theirs to buy up the new government bonds. This is the perfect scenario during a recession, when prior over-investment has resulted in bloated inventory levels and poor private investment opportunities.

http://www.moneychimp.com/articles/econ/tax_cuts.htm
More:
But, some will ask, what about the deficit? This is a legitimate concern, but pro-growth tax cuts never reduce tax revenues nearly as much as the critics predict they will. That's because lower tax rates encourage taxpayers to work more, save more and invest more. As a result, national income increases and the tax base grows larger. One example: Tax revenues doubled during the 1980s because Ronald Reagan's tax cuts triggered an economic boom.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed042403a.cfm
More about Reagan:
Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3

As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4

Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg1414.cfm
The point is your statement is completely false and once again if you had actually read one of the earlier references you would see that such things as increasing taxes made the depression into a great one and extended it for years.

Lets look at your country:
The government of Zimbabwe faces a wide variety of difficult economic problems as it struggles with an unsustainable fiscal deficit, an overvalued official exchange rate, hyperinflation, and bare store shelves. Its 1998-2002 involvement in the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo drained hundreds of millions of dollars from the economy. The government's land reform program, characterized by chaos and violence, has badly damaged the commercial farming sector, the traditional source of exports and foreign exchange and the provider of 400,000 jobs, turning Zimbabwe into a net importer of food products. The EU and the US provide food aid on humanitarian grounds. Badly needed support from the IMF has been suspended because of the government's arrears on past loans and the government's unwillingness to enact reforms that would stabilize the economy. The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe routinely prints money to fund the budget deficit, causing the official annual inflation rate to rise from 32% in 1998, to 133% in 2004, 585% in 2005, passed 1000% in 2006, and 26000% in November 2007, and to 11.2 million percent in 2008. Meanwhile, the official exchange rate fell from approximately 1 (revalued) Zimbabwean dollar per US dollar in 2003 to 30,000 per US dollar in September 2007.
http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/zimbabwe/zimbabwe_economy.html
This fact is particularly interesting:
Unemployement: 80% (2005 est.)
We are worried about a 10% unemployment rate. Here and once again the poor here still have cars. homes, TV's, dishwashers, microwaves, etc.....
So how are all your ideas working for your country? Well, they are destroying it where as freedom and capitalism has made our country strong and have given the poor here more than the average and even "rich" in many countries! These are the facts....you can theories all you want but this is how things work and this is what works. There's no way around it.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

This is a crayon travesty.

I believe this is a crayon "Holocaust"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,434]

>I believe this is a crayon "Holocaust"

You know who had Crayolas? Hitler! Do you really want to be like Hitler?

[Ion01 1]

Quote

We spend more on HC than nations with uni-care and we deliver less

How can you continue to make such obviously false statements? Compare the care in the US to countries like the UK!
"Great Britain's National Health Service (NHS) was created on July 5, 1948. As with all government programs, bureaucrats underestimated initial cost projections. First-year operating costs of NHS were 52 million pounds higher than original estimates1 as Britons saturated the so-called free system.
Many decades of shortages, misery and suffering followed until 1989, when some market-based health care competition was reintroduced to the British citizens2.

Unfortunately for those requiring care, a mostly socialist health care system has problems. The articles and commentaries in this section identify some disasters caused by government intervention in the British health care system. "

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html

Read and educate yourself with the facts.

Here is one such article listed in the link. It is an example of why less is spent:
Kidney cancer patients denied life-saving drugs by NHS rationing body NICE
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/ukkidney.html
Girl, 3, has heart operation cancelled three times because of bed shortage
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/ukheartop.html
Disabled children wait up to two years for wheelchairs
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/ukwheelchair.html
Stop asking for antibiotics to cure coughs and colds, Government tells patients
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/ukantibiotic.html

[wmw999 2,148]

Quote

Girl, 3, has heart operation cancelled three times because of bed shortage

Anecdotal

Quote

Disabled children wait up to two years for wheelchairs

Average overall is 5 months. How long is the waiting time for children who don't have insurance in the US?

Quote

Stop asking for antibiotics to cure coughs and colds, Government tells patients

That's a great idea. Antibiotics don't do anything for colds, and most coughs. Prescribing them is a waste of money. That's the argument that really made me reply. It has "I come from a stupid and shortsighted source" written all over it.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Ion01 1]

Lucky-
What are you doing skydiving? You spend all this money just to go jump out of a plane and to add carbon to the atmosphere and destroy the planet when that money could be used for so many poor people! There are children that starve to death and families that could use that money to eat and yet you waiste it on a carbon dumping plane ride so you can get an adrenaline rush by foiling your own attempt at suicide! Where is the social justice?!?!

[timmyfitz 0]

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

Quote

Conclusion

The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is di sproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you've worked twenty years, in a company, and studied, and gone through an apprenticeship program, [Oops. that ugly class thing, raising its head, again] and moved up, you are willing to split your pay, and prestige and parking spot, with the rookie, who just walked in the door?

careful, there, Lucky - I'm assuming you are also pro-union, so the pecking order must be supported in your answer even though it conflicts with your other philosophies.....

You can have unionization and allow for seniority while reducing class disparity. Union seniorty can be realized within while reducing class disparity without.

"seniority" huh? nothing about skill and talent?

Seniority is how unions establish rank, that was the context with which I wrote that. If you've ever worked a trade job, you know talent is trumped by popularity.

[Ion01 1]

Quote

Quote

Girl, 3, has heart operation cancelled three times because of bed shortage

Anecdotal

Quote

Disabled children wait up to two years for wheelchairs

Average overall is 5 months. How long is the waiting time for children who don't have insurance in the US?

Quote

Stop asking for antibiotics to cure coughs and colds, Government tells patients

That's a great idea. Antibiotics don't do anything for colds, and most coughs. Prescribing them is a waste of money. That's the argument that really made me reply. It has "I come from a stupid and shortsighted source" written all over it.

Wendy P.

First, none of these are a problem here. Second colds and coughs are caused by infections which antibiotics are used to fight!!
Anecdotal? They cancelled her operation cause they didn't have a place to let her lay down! Where has that ever happened here?
And about waiting on wheelchairs: The point is that if you work hard to make a good living and provide for your children you still have to wait 5 months for a wheel chair no matter what under the government where as here the is no waiting! If you don't have insurance there is still no waiting cause you can pay cash or get a loan for one if needed. Over there you have NO CHOICE but to wait.