RE: Let's Raise Taxes

RE: Let's Raise Taxes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/17/2008 9:58:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: I could certainly name a whole series of disasterous privatisations in Europe since th fashion of privatisations began in the 80s. If fact telecommunications apart, I'm struggling to think of one privatisation that has meant more efficiency, lower prices and a better service. The nationalised companies were always far better. In fact Britain's privatisations have such a bad reputation in Europe, many European governments have since halted the process of privatisation. When I go back to Britain, I find myself longing for the old days of British Rail when one could catch a train and get to ones destination on the same day for the price of a ticket that is cheaper than flying to the mediteranean. Privatization with massive government regulation is not privatization. Efficiency can only come if the corporation has the ability to hire/fire people, close inefficient operations, and not be subject to after the fact penalties. The European standard of privatization is to defer the cost of a government program but still have private company management. I agree - that won't and can't work. Are you telling me that America doesn't have regulation for important industries and services? Maybe on some they don't which is why Americans pay 60-100% more than Europeans for health cover while still not being sure they are covered because of the small print in their private health insurance policies. Correct me if I'm wrong but about five years ago wasn't California experiencing rolling power cuts? Was that regulations or lack of regulations that caused that? America subsidizes agriculture so it doesn't believe in real competition in that industry.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/17/2008 9:59:47 AM)
quote: Actually, there have also been a lot of disastrous privatizations in the third world. I'll call your unsubstantiated remark... "Actually, there have also been a lot of disastrous government take overs in the third world". Except I'd point to 1955 Chevy's still being the desired auto of choice in the government taken over land of Cuba. Albeit weak and cheap, but at least it give an example of what I base my opinion. Enron's fall, was not the result of electricity privatization, it was the result of investment fraud. I'd support a similar result for those currently in a similar situation regarding their mortgages. As with Enron, let the foolish investors fail, and the foolish enables, the mortgage companies, with them. If there was fraud involved, let them go to prison. Unlike a government failed program, like Education where their failure results in getting more money from the taxpayers; failed private sector businesses and individuals should be allowed to fail if it proves their decisions were bad. Basically, you want a government program that protects people from failure, businesses, individuals in the case of the current mortgage situation. An 'ideal' government in good times. A bankruptcy waiting to happen in these times. To be clear, I don't support enablers in government. I won't/don't support it in the private sector. Neither government or the private sector is always good or bad. Decisions they make are and should have consequence. Everyone who makes an investment purchase has the opportunity to read about the risk. Whether its the person needing a mortgage, or the investor buying $100 Million blocks of mortgage backed notes. Last Monday, it would have cost you $34.00 to buy Bear Sterns, today its worth $2.00. Are you suggesting that each and every buyer from last week be 'bailed out'? Failure is good. You learn from it. Next time those who 'lost their homes' are in a position to get a mortgage, my guess is they will calculate the 'worst case' payment. By the way, they didn't really loose their homes, they just can't afford them, and never could in the first place. Next time and investment firm is present with $100 Million mortgage investment, they'll look at the qualification of the borrowers. Granted its a bad result for those making bad decisions. How is it a bad result for those who had the same opportunity and did NOT make the same decision? It's only 'bad' when the government uses your taxes to ease or eliminate the consequence for those who made the bad decisions; corporate and individual alike. That is VERY bad, because it establishes precedent, which when it happens again, will be considered an entitlement - VERY VERY bad for all who try to avoid bad decisions, because we pay for errors we did not make.

Stephann -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/17/2008 10:08:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Actually, there have also been a lot of disastrous privatizations in the third world. I'll call your unsubstantiated remark... "Actually, there have also been a lot of disastrous government take overs in the third world". Except I'd point to 1955 Chevy's still being the desired auto of choice in the government taken over land of Cuba. Albeit weak and cheap, but at least it give an example of what I base my opinion. Enron's fall, was not the result of electricity privatization, it was the result of investment fraud. I'd support a similar result for those currently in a similar situation regarding their mortgages. As with Enron, let the foolish investors fail, and the foolish enables, the mortgage companies, with them. If there was fraud involved, let them go to prison. Unlike a government failed program, like Education where their failure results in getting more money from the taxpayers; failed private sector businesses and individuals should be allowed to fail if it proves their decisions were bad. Basically, you want a government program that protects people from failure, businesses, individuals in the case of the current mortgage situation. An 'ideal' government in good times. A bankruptcy waiting to happen in these times. To be clear, I don't support enablers in government. I won't/don't support it in the private sector. Neither government or the private sector is always good or bad. Decisions they make are and should have consequence. Everyone who makes an investment purchase has the opportunity to read about the risk. Whether its the person needing a mortgage, or the investor buying $100 Million blocks of mortgage backed notes. Last Monday, it would have cost you $34.00 to buy Bear Sterns, today its worth $2.00. Are you suggesting that each and every buyer from last week be 'bailed out'? Failure is good. You learn from it. Next time those who 'lost their homes' are in a position to get a mortgage, my guess is they will calculate the 'worst case' payment. By the way, they didn't really loose their homes, they just can't afford them, and never could in the first place. Next time and investment firm is present with $100 Million mortgage investment, they'll look at the qualification of the borrowers. Granted its a bad result for those making bad decisions. How is it a bad result for those who had the same opportunity and did NOT make the same decision? It's only 'bad' when the government uses your taxes to ease or eliminate the consequence for those who made the bad decisions; corporate and individual alike. That is VERY bad, because it establishes precedent, which when it happens again, will be considered an entitlement - VERY VERY bad for all who try to avoid bad decisions, because we pay for errors we did not make. An example I'm personally familiar with... Last year, there used to be only private bus service in Santiago, Chile. Several competing bus service lines led to an often frustrating, but overall tolerable public transportation system in a city where only about half of adults own cars. A government program was implemented to 'modernize' the public transportation system. It was lauded as being a landmark achievement for the country with a fleet of brand new doublelong buses, that was supposed to make it one of the best systems in the world. A week after it was operational, people were so angry that buses were actually hijacked, rolled, and burned because the system was a total failure. Yet the 'old' bus companies had been run out of business, and there was no alternative. It was revealed that the original studies and planning had woefully under reported demand and expectations, and that vast sums of government money had been subverted into private pockets. The end result was a far more expensive (with fare costs doubling), less efficiant system bordering on catastrophe. Today, it's still seen as one of the worst failures in the countries history. Publicly controlled systems don't have any competition to bury them when they fail. Stephan

meatcleaver -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/17/2008 10:25:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Actually, there have also been a lot of disastrous privatizations in the third world. I'll call your unsubstantiated remark... "Actually, there have also been a lot of disastrous government take overs in the third world". Except I'd point to 1955 Chevy's still being the desired auto of choice in the government taken over land of Cuba. Albeit weak and cheap, but at least it give an example of what I base my opinion. It proves nothing. The US has done all in its power to strangle Cuba's economy and punish and bully any country or company that deals with Cuba. Why the US is scared of a small island producing even a half succcessful nationalised economy is beyond me but there you go. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Enron's fall, was not the result of electricity privatization, it was the result of investment fraud. I'd support a similar result for those currently in a similar situation regarding their mortgages. As with Enron, let the foolish investors fail, and the foolish enables, the mortgage companies, with them. If there was fraud involved, let them go to prison. Maybe also a lack of regulation to control criminals? quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Unlike a government failed program, like Education where their failure results in getting more money from the taxpayers; failed private sector businesses and individuals should be allowed to fail if it proves their decisions were bad. Since most countries in the world have state education and many have highly successful state run education, perhaps the problem is not about whether education is state run or not but something else? quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Basically, you want a government program that protects people from failure, businesses, individuals in the case of the current mortgage situation. An 'ideal' government in good times. A bankruptcy waiting to happen in these times. No, I want my electric power when I need it, trains to run and be cheap enough to buy a ticket, I want my water supply to be clean and at a reasonable price, I want roads and infrastructure to be well serviced and usable, I want healthcare when I need it and not too expesive because private health insurance companies need profits to pay dividends. Many such services private sector has proved to be expensive and inadequate. Governments are reapplying regulations precisely because private companies can't be trusted. Private companies should be left to what they are good at, responding to the market and not essential services and maintaining infrastructure, something they have proved useless and expensive. Like the private maintainance company that had to be bailed out in London by the tax payers. Well I guess the government could have let London come to a stand still. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth To be clear, I don't support enablers in government. I won't/don't support it in the private sector. Neither government or the private sector is always good or bad. Decisions they make are and should have consequence. Everyone who makes an investment purchase has the opportunity to read about the risk. Whether its the person needing a mortgage, or the investor buying $100 Million blocks of mortgage backed notes. Last Monday, it would have cost you $34.00 to buy Bear Sterns, today its worth $2.00. Are you suggesting that each and every buyer from last week be 'bailed out'? Failure is good. You learn from it. Next time those who 'lost their homes' are in a position to get a mortgage, my guess is they will calculate the 'worst case' payment. By the way, they didn't really loose their homes, they just can't afford them, and never could in the first place. Next time and investment firm is present with $100 Million mortgage investment, they'll look at the qualification of the borrowers. Granted its a bad result for those making bad decisions. How is it a bad result for those who had the same opportunity and did NOT make the same decision? It's only 'bad' when the government uses your taxes to ease or eliminate the consequence for those who made the bad decisions; corporate and individual alike. That is VERY bad, because it establishes precedent, which when it happens again, will be considered an entitlement - VERY VERY bad for all who try to avoid bad decisions, because we pay for errors we did not make. One bank or another, it matters little because in the banking market one bank can take over another bank. When it comes to infrastructure and essential services, they are too important, if a company fails the tax payer picks up the bill so it might as well pay from the off. The reason the banks aren't being allowed to fail is nothing to do with the banks per se but the effect their bankruptcy will have on the rest of the economy. The tax payer always ends up paying for private greed if the greed is big enough. It is best to restrict private greed to the parts of the econio=my best suited to work through private greed.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/17/2008 10:30:04 AM)
quote: Maybe on some they don't which is why Americans pay 60-100% more than Europeans for health cover while still not being sure they are covered because of the small print in their private health insurance policies. Here again it is a matter of decision and consequence. In the US, especially at a young age, you can buy medical insurance. It is voluntary, as it should be. Choosing to only do so after you have a diagnosed medical problem is a bad decision. Not qualifying is the consequence of that decision. Dying is the ultimate consequential result, worthy of pity; similar to a person not wanting to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle who could have survived if he/she did. It is pitiful, but I respect and will defend his/her right to do so. beth just had surgery to remove degenerative broken bones in her foot. We had insurance, paid for it for 5 years without ever using it beyond the basic physical and check up. On the surface that was a bad cost/benefit decision. We could have spent the money upgrading the dungeon. However, the decision was mine to get it when we didn't need it. I'm happy to live in a place that allows me that decision and not under the influence of a dictatorial program where last weeks 'voluntary' corrective surgery would have been scheduled for sometime in the next 5 years. A decision, appreciating that many aren't capable and don't want that freedom of choice and would prefer a dictatorial obligation for mediocre service. My reference to mediocre is based upon the condition that if it were 'utopia' there would be no 'rich' persons optional coverage being sold. quote: Correct me if I'm wrong but about five years ago wasn't California experiencing rolling power cuts? Was that regulations or lack of regulations that caused that? Okay - you are wrong. Fraud caused the problem, occurring in both a regulated and unregulated environment. quote: America subsidizes agriculture so it doesn't believe in real competition in that industry. See that, MC, we have found common ground. Eliminate ALL welfare, corporate, individual, and as I said in private correspondence earlier today, religious. (Eliminate the religion industry's tax exempt status.) In my opinion government subsidiaries represents government take over because they establish a 'government' set, artificial price of goods. I think it very consistent to want these eliminated too. Edited to add: quote: Since most countries in the world have state education and many have highly successful state run education, perhaps the problem is not about whether education is state run or not but something else? Yes - it should be very obvious if you live in Europe. The educational system lets those being educated fail. They have a standardized test to qualify to get into higher education. The consequence of not getting in result in an inordinate amount of suicides from those who fail to qualify for government run schools. You also live in a world of 35 year old 'students'. In the US we don't have a name for those people who can usually be found living in their parent's basements.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/17/2008 10:50:50 AM)
quote: Maybe on some they don't which is why Americans pay 60-100% more than Europeans for health cover while still not being sure they are covered because of the small print in their private health insurance policies. Here again it is a matter of decision and consequence. In the US, especially at a young age, you can buy medical insurance. It is voluntary, as it should be. Choosing to only do so after you have a diagnosed medical problem is a bad decision. Not qualifying is the consequence of that decision. Dying is the ultimate consequential result, worthy of pity; similar to a person not wanting to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle who could have survived if he/she did. It is pitiful, but I respect and will defend his/her right to do so. beth just had surgery to remove degenerative broken bones in her foot. We had insurance, paid for it for 5 years without ever using it beyond the basic physical and check up. On the surface that was a bad cost/benefit decision. We could have spent the money upgrading the dungeon. However, the decision was mine to get it when we didn't need it. I'm happy to live in a place that allows me that decision and not under the influence of a dictatorial program where last weeks 'voluntary' corrective surgery would have been scheduled for sometime in the next 5 years. A decision, appreciating that many aren't capable and don't want that freedom of choice and would prefer a dictatorial obligation for mediocre service. My reference to mediocre is based upon the condition that if it were 'utopia' there would be no 'rich' persons optional coverage being sold. quote: Correct me if I'm wrong but about five years ago wasn't California experiencing rolling power cuts? Was that regulations or lack of regulations that caused that? Okay - you are wrong. Fraud caused the problem, occurring in both a regulated and unregulated environment. quote: America subsidizes agriculture so it doesn't believe in real competition in that industry. See that, MC, we have found common ground. Eliminate ALL welfare, corporate, individual, and as I said in private correspondence earlier today, religious. (Eliminate the religion industry's tax exempt status.) In my opinion government subsidiaries represents government take over because they establish a 'government' set, artificial price of goods. I think it very consistent to want these eliminated too. Edited to add: quote: Since most countries in the world have state education and many have highly successful state run education, perhaps the problem is not about whether education is state run or not but something else? Yes - it should be very obvious if you live in Europe. The educational system lets those being educated fail. They have a standardized test to qualify to get into higher education. The consequence of not getting in result in an inordinate amount of suicides from those who fail to qualify for government run schools. You also live in a world of 35 year old 'students'. In the US we don't have a name for those people who can usually be found living in their parent's basements. quote: It is best to restrict private greed to the parts of the econio=my best suited to work through private greed. You mean, for instance, VOLUNTARY home ownership and the VOLUNTARY decision made regarding a mortgage with the anticipation of continued property value? If not, perhaps you can provide an example of an industry "best suited to work through private greed"? It would seem a moving target with a foundation based upon your personal involvement or political agenda, and I don't think that is the case.

QuietlySeeking -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/17/2008 10:51:27 AM)
Okay, I'll be glad to "pay my share" or "pay the same **** taxes as everyone else". I did a good friend of mine's taxes in 2006. She made 1/2 of what I made. She paid 1/4 of the taxes I did. For those who missed it, that means that I paid as much as four people at her income level with her circumstances while making only twice as much. In 2005, because of the AMT, another friend who makes twice as much as I do, wound up paying four times what I paid.....so for four (4) times the income, he got to pay sixteen (16) times the taxes (as my 2006 friend). Same tax...WOO HOO....that means I get a 50% tax break? Personally, I believe the people who pay taxes should be the ones who get tax breaks. Since the "rich" pay the lion's share of the taxes, it only make sense that they would receive the lion's share of the tax breaks. As a middle class person, I like the Colorado Income Tax model. ALL tax increases must be voted on by the taxpayers. All tax increases must be ear-marked for a particular purpose with a particular timeframe for expiration. All budget expenditures must be within the boundaries of the growth percentages defined by the tax law, which must be approved by the voters. All budgets must be balanced. No borrowing without voter approval....period. During the two years I lived there, only one increase got approved; it was either a school bond or a green-way bond, I don't remember which. quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 No,lol. You`ll just pay the same fuck`n tax as everyone else. The free ride is over.Well this one anyway. Ending corporate welfare,ruinous privatization and off shore tax shelters is the next step towards financial solvency. I have nothing against rich people. I have everything against giving them special tax breaks at the middle class` expense. As a middle class person,I`d hope you feel the same way too. Added:tell the story of the up-trodden wealthy losing their special tax break to the hundreds of thousands of folks losing their private homes to foreclosure and see how much traction you get.

subexploring -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/17/2008 11:08:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Actually, there have also been a lot of disastrous privatizations in the third world. I'll call your unsubstantiated remark... "Actually, there have also been a lot of disastrous government take overs in the third world". Did I say that there hadn't been a lot of disastrous government government take overs in the third world? Stop arguing with the communist straw man in your own head and listen to what people are saying. As for third world privatizations, I was thinking of water privatizations in particular: http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/water/ but there are lots of other privatizations that have gone very wrong. Of course, the most prominent example is the privatization through auction of Russia's major industries in the early 1990s, which was utterly disastrous and led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions during Russia's economic collapse under the Yeltsin regime. I also notice you didn't respond on the California electricity privatization, which cost the state tens of billions and got only blackouts in return, much worse service than had been available under public power before. I grant that if every time someone tells you about an unsuccessful privatization you're just going to say "it's because of government regulation!" or "it's because of fraud!" then I admit that by the special Merc definition, there have been no unsuccessful privatizations anywhere ever. Some of us are suspicious of privatization exactly because it lessens public oversight, which allows for a lot more fraud and backroom deals with the government. But whatever. Look, no successful industrialized country is communist or completely government-controlled. And no successful industrialized country is libertarian either. Every single country -- including ours -- has a mix of government regulation and the market. There's a reason for that.

subexploring -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/17/2008 11:13:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking Personally, I believe the people who pay taxes should be the ones who get tax breaks. Since the "rich" pay the lion's share of the taxes, it only make sense that they would receive the lion's share of the tax breaks. As a middle class person, I like the Colorado Income Tax model. ALL tax increases must be voted on by the taxpayers. All tax increases must be ear-marked for a particular purpose with a particular timeframe for expiration. All budget expenditures must be within the boundaries of the growth percentages defined by the tax law, which must be approved by the voters. All budgets must be balanced. No borrowing without voter approval....period. During the two years I lived there, only one increase got approved; it was either a school bond or a green-way bond, I don't remember which. Well, if tax breaks for the rich are paid for by borrowing, then effectively everyone in the society is taking on debt so we can give money to the rich. One-fifth of the value of the Bush tax break go to the top three-tenths of one-percent of taxpayers who earn one million dollars or more per year. And we all borrow that money so the government can give it to them. As for the Colorado method, it's so incredibly far from how the Federal government actually does business that I can't even tell you.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/17/2008 11:36:05 AM)
quote: I also notice you didn't respond on the California electricity privatization, which cost the state tens of billions and got only blackouts in return, much worse service than had been available under public power before. The blackouts were the direct result of the fraud perpetrated by Enron. It wasn't the response you wanted, but it was accurate. quote: I grant that if every time someone tells you about an unsuccessful privatization you're just going to say "it's because of government regulation!" or "it's because of fraud!" then I admit that by the special Merc definition, there have been no unsuccessful privatizations anywhere ever. Some of us are suspicious of privatization exactly because it lessens public oversight, which allows for a lot more fraud and backroom deals with the government. But whatever. "Whatever"? Your position is that there is no privatization? I'd agree, it speaks to the repressive environment that corporations are forced to exist. Amazing that anyone would seriously consider investing in opening up an industry in the US. Oh yeah - they really aren't doing that much anymore, and our exporting manufacturing and production outside the US. Cause and effect, or effect and cause? Maybe in 21st century USA debating the benefits of privatization can only be done in the theoretical? Sad, but truer than many realize. However, there have been plenty of government take overs, 100% government take overs. Any work? quote: Of course, the most prominent example is the privatization through auction of Russia's major industries in the early 1990s, which was utterly disastrous and led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions during Russia's economic collapse under the Yeltsin regime. Back in the '20's the US government 'took over' the production and distribution of all liqueur sales in the US. They didn't anticipate the citizens desire for that prohibited product. As a result, prohibition was a boon for the criminal element of the time. This is very similar to the break up of the USSR. The desire for capitalism, so long prohibited, was unanticipated. Open markets created a huge influx of individuals looking to cash in the opportunity. Many did so, the majority weren't criminals, however the lack of experience allowed the criminal element to take up the space created by the vacuum of policing. You are correct. Privatization is a fertile ground for criminal activity. Prosecutions of these criminals should occur. From your article: quote: quietly assumed control over the water supplied to almost 300 million people in every continent of the world. A 12-month investigation by journalists in Canada, the U.S., Europe, Asia and Latin America shows that the results range from questionable to disastrous. And it shows how well-meaning municipal governments in the U.S. and Canada can become vulnerable to the persuasive techniques of these high-powered corporate giants. How is it "quiet" if its published in 'Fortune' magazine? Better yet, in the countries identified, what prohibited them from undertaking the same initiative as the companies who invested in the area? "Pervasive techniques" aka bribes? Arresting them would be consistent to my position. The government officials as well as the corporate initiators. Without that consideration there are, according to the article, 1.1 Billion people worldwide without access to clean drinking water. The choice should be taken at the beginning of the process, government initiated action or corporate. After the investment fact the entity making the investment reaps the benefit. Excluding the criminal element is essential. The results shouldn't be a criteria if the action was good or bad, based upon corporate ROI or government foresight.

MzMia -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/17/2008 11:48:26 AM)
oops. Let's NOT raise taxes, let's lower taxes. At what point are we working almost only to pay taxes? Isn't paying 40% to 50% of our paycheck in taxes, enough? If taxes are raised much more, there will be a revolution.

QuietlySeeking -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/17/2008 11:54:49 AM)
As I said in the prior post (that you quoted), I believe that taxpayers should have to approve borrowing. In addition, the borrowing doesn't come from a tax break...it comes from spending more than a given entity is collecting. Stop the spending equals stop the borrowing. My apologies for the incorrect figures in earlier posts. http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22652.html In 2005, The top 10% (AGI over $103, 912) paid 70.3% of all taxes collected, but only earned 46% of the income. The top 25% (AGI over $62,068) paid 85.99% of the taxes but only earned 68% of the income. The bottom 50% (AGI under $30,881) earned 12.83% of the income and only paid 3% of the federal income taxes. Since 1981, the bottom 50% has decreased from a high of 7.5% of the total income tax to 2005 rates of 3.07% of total income tax. In that same time, the top 1% has risen from 17.5% to over 39% of the total income taxes collected. What conclusion can we draw from the above statements? The "rich" tax rate has more than doubled in 25 years while the "poor" tax rate has been halved. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html Remind me again who pays taxes and deserves tax breaks? quote: ORIGINAL: subexploring quote: ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking Personally, I believe the people who pay taxes should be the ones who get tax breaks. Since the "rich" pay the lion's share of the taxes, it only make sense that they would receive the lion's share of the tax breaks. As a middle class person, I like the Colorado Income Tax model. ALL tax increases must be voted on by the taxpayers. All tax increases must be ear-marked for a particular purpose with a particular timeframe for expiration. All budget expenditures must be within the boundaries of the growth percentages defined by the tax law, which must be approved by the voters. All budgets must be balanced. *No borrowing without voter approval....period*. During the two years I lived there, only one increase got approved; it was either a school bond or a green-way bond, I don't remember which. Well, if tax breaks for the rich are paid for by borrowing, then effectively everyone in the society is taking on debt so we can give money to the rich. One-fifth of the value of the Bush tax break go to the top three-tenths of one-percent of taxpayers who earn one million dollars or more per year. And we all borrow that money so the government can give it to them. As for the Colorado method, it's so incredibly far from how the Federal government actually does business that I can't even tell you.

meatcleaver -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/17/2008 12:38:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Yes - it should be very obvious if you live in Europe. The educational system lets those being educated fail. They have a standardized test to qualify to get into higher education. The consequence of not getting in result in an inordinate amount of suicides from those who fail to qualify for government run schools. You also live in a world of 35 year old 'students'. In the US we don't have a name for those people who can usually be found living in their parent's basements. There is no standardized education system in Europe, the same as there is no standardized health care or standardized anything else. In most countries people are encouraged to get reeducated throughout their life but I'm struggling to think of one European state who would pay a 35 year old for the privilege. Even in states that pay a bursary, you get one shot at the apple. As for suicides, I'm not sure where you are coming from on that one. http://web4health.info/en/answers/bipolar-suicide-statistics The suicide rate in Sweden, for this age group, is similar to the American rate. In Sweden, however, the total number of deaths by suicide has dropped significantly since the 1980s, except for this specific group. The United States and Sweden still have a relatively low rate for this group, compared to the average number in Europe. The European suicide rate is 22.2 for boys and 4.8 for girls, or around 13 in average. Suicide in Europe is only worse than in the US if you include east European countries such as Ukraine, Russia and the like. If you compare like with like, west Europe and the US, you get pretty much the same stats or maybe I should include Latin American countries in the US stats?

meatcleaver -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/17/2008 12:53:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: I also notice you didn't respond on the California electricity privatization, which cost the state tens of billions and got only blackouts in return, much worse service than had been available under public power before. The blackouts were the direct result of the fraud perpetrated by Enron. It wasn't the response you wanted, but it was accurate. This made me mile. Every time the private sector fucks up it is always someone elses fault, some fraudster, some government regulation but it is never the private sector's fault, like who the fuck is the private sector? I have just heard on the news that Siemans (private energy provider sector) has been fined a record amount by the EU for price fixing and Siemans (defence) has had to apologize to Norway for profiteering on government contracts but of course, Siemans isn't the private sector, though it is the latest private company to be found basically stealing off their customers. Oh but that is to do with fraudsters and not the private sector, right?

meatcleaver -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/17/2008 12:57:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Maybe on some they don't which is why Americans pay 60-100% more than Europeans for health cover while still not being sure they are covered because of the small print in their private health insurance policies. Here again it is a matter of decision and consequence. In the US, especially at a young age, you can buy medical insurance. It is voluntary, as it should be. Choosing to only do so after you have a diagnosed medical problem is a bad decision. Not qualifying is the consequence of that decision. Dying is the ultimate consequential result, worthy of pity; similar to a person not wanting to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle who could have survived if he/she did. It is pitiful, but I respect and will defend his/her right to do so. beth just had surgery to remove degenerative broken bones in her foot. We had insurance, paid for it for 5 years without ever using it beyond the basic physical and check up. On the surface that was a bad cost/benefit decision. We could have spent the money upgrading the dungeon. However, the decision was mine to get it when we didn't need it. I'm happy to live in a place that allows me that decision and not under the influence of a dictatorial program where last weeks 'voluntary' corrective surgery would have been scheduled for sometime in the next 5 years. A decision, appreciating that many aren't capable and don't want that freedom of choice and would prefer a dictatorial obligation for mediocre service. My reference to mediocre is based upon the condition that if it were 'utopia' there would be no 'rich' persons optional coverage being sold. I think you will find that in Europe rich people go private to jump queues for minor surgery or ailments but when it comes to serious surgery or illness, they make a direct route for where the best treatment is, ie. the National Health Services. There was an American report someone posted on these threads about six months ago lammenting on the state of American health provision and the US having mortality rates amongst babies on par with third world countries. I guess you pay your money and take your choice. Europeans make their choice through the ballot box and are not dictated to.

cloudboy -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/17/2008 2:10:29 PM)
What the DEMS won't do is slash taxes, raise spending, buy debt from China --- and claim to have passed a tax cut. Bush has not ratified one tax cut since being in office; rather he's passed a series of tax deferments payable down the road.

cloudboy -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/17/2008 2:12:33 PM)
Its hard to pull a person out of his own libertarian fantasy land.

meatcleaver -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/17/2008 2:29:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Its hard to pull a person out of his own libertarian fantasy land. Yep. I wish I could give him an account of my American's friend's experience of healthcare over here but here is the next best thing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yEdJkPjJzY

Archer -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/17/2008 9:12:57 PM)
meatcleaver we've had this discussion before about infant mortality rates. You seem to forget that the US records live births in a different manner than the suggested criteria of thw WHO. "what the World Health Organization itself recommends that for official record keeping purposes, only live births of greater than 1,000g should be included." Guess what country leads the world in recorded births under 1,000g? So unless you correct for those births/ and deaths within the first few days that according to the WHO should not be recorded as live births, comparison is impossible. This does not eliminate the entire record, nor does it move the US way up to the top of the list, but it does move us up many notches.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/17/2008 9:25:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann ...Santiago, Chile... The people there are often more politically astute than americans, but then the system is also vastly more corrupt at the same time. Maybe those two things go hand in hand. But in Europe they make it work far better. One can argue that smaller countries makes the difference. But then, that basically says that an anti-federalist stance is in the offing for the U.S. - that the revolution will take the form of a collective desire to separate into smaller more manageable units. California Uber Alles!

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 [8] 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625