The Flat Tax

[Quantum Windbag]

Oldfart made a fool out of himself in that post.

I have a challenge for you, prove that, without government meddling, we would be in worse shape.

I won't hold my breath.

Well for one, FDR put in the SEC after your wealthy american heroes crashed the stock market. Things went along pretty good for for 60, 70 years. Then your wealthy friends were able to overthrow glass-steagal (they stopped the government meddling), and not long after that, they pulled off another crash of the economy and their wealth has increased because of it.

How about the FAA, QW? More Government meddling. Abolishing that department would I'm sure put us in better shape.

The FAA? Are you talking about the agency that is trying really hard to put technology that is generations behind what is available into airports all across the country? The agency that forces the best qualified pilots to retire because they reached an age limit that has nothing to do with their ability to respond to an emergency?

By the way, do you actually understand that neither of the examples you provided even came close to meeting my challenge?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For those who don't get my "issue":

The Flat Tax is demagoguery at its finest. No one likes to pay taxes, but few of us would want government services curtailed to the extent a flat tax of 10% would cause. Some people seem to believe that those who pay a top rate of 90% do so on all of their income. Most of us know that is not true.

The truth being a billionaire pays the same tax that I do and all of us do on equal earnings. The rate goes up on schedules listed in the tax booklet as does income. A flat rate would simply increase the amount of wealth of the very wealthy, rapidly and enormously" in proportion to the hoi polloi of which I proudly belong.

"Wealth = Power, and in a society where money can buy political ads and influence our road to a pure Plutocracy would be facilitated by a 10% flat tax. Hence, those Libertarian types who claim to support Liberty and Freedom for the individual really don't. For economic slavery is little different than confinement.

Does that help?

OK then, give me a list of people who want a flat tax of 10%. Or is that demagoguery on your part?

While we are at it, would you take the time to explain why flat tax is such a total failure that Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Utah are all broke as a result of implementing one. Pennsylvania's is particularly egregious since it doesn't even exempt people of low income.

Then we have quite a few countries that have a flat tax, and,as of yet, none of them have collapsed.

Like I said, your brain is crap.

 

[Rshermr]

For those who don't get my "issue":

The Flat Tax is demagoguery at its finest. No one likes to pay taxes, but few of us would want government services curtailed to the extent a flat tax of 10% would cause. Some people seem to believe that those who pay a top rate of 90% do so on all of their income. Most of us know that is not true.

The truth being a billionaire pays the same tax that I do and all of us do on equal earnings. The rate goes up on schedules listed in the tax booklet as does income. A flat rate would simply increase the amount of wealth of the very wealthy, rapidly and enormously" in proportion to the hoi polloi of which I proudly belong.

"Wealth = Power, and in a society where money can buy political ads and influence our road to a pure Plutocracy would be facilitated by a 10% flat tax. Hence, those Libertarian types who claim to support Liberty and Freedom for the individual really don't. For economic slavery is little different than confinement.

Does that help?

OK then, give me a list of people who want a flat tax of 10%. Or is that demagoguery on your part?

While we are at it, would you take the time to explain why flat tax is such a total failure that Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Utah are all broke as a result of implementing one. Pennsylvania's is particularly egregious since it doesn't even exempt people of low income.

Then we have quite a few countries that have a flat tax, and,as of yet, none of them have collapsed.

Like I said, your brain is crap.

Well, there you go. Pick a country with a flat tax and move there. Because, according to you, it must be paradise. funny.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For those who don't get my "issue":

The Flat Tax is demagoguery at its finest. No one likes to pay taxes, but few of us would want government services curtailed to the extent a flat tax of 10% would cause. Some people seem to believe that those who pay a top rate of 90% do so on all of their income. Most of us know that is not true.

The truth being a billionaire pays the same tax that I do and all of us do on equal earnings. The rate goes up on schedules listed in the tax booklet as does income. A flat rate would simply increase the amount of wealth of the very wealthy, rapidly and enormously" in proportion to the hoi polloi of which I proudly belong.

"Wealth = Power, and in a society where money can buy political ads and influence our road to a pure Plutocracy would be facilitated by a 10% flat tax. Hence, those Libertarian types who claim to support Liberty and Freedom for the individual really don't. For economic slavery is little different than confinement.

Does that help?

OK then, give me a list of people who want a flat tax of 10%. Or is that demagoguery on your part?

While we are at it, would you take the time to explain why flat tax is such a total failure that Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Utah are all broke as a result of implementing one. Pennsylvania's is particularly egregious since it doesn't even exempt people of low income.

Then we have quite a few countries that have a flat tax, and,as of yet, none of them have collapsed.

Like I said, your brain is crap.

Well, there you go. Pick a country with a flat tax and move there. Because, according to you, it must be paradise. funny.

Another crap brain, what a surprise.

Did you notice the states with a flat tax? Isn't Massachusetts considered a progressive paradise?

 

[Wry Catcher]

For those who don't get my "issue":

The Flat Tax is demagoguery at its finest. No one likes to pay taxes, but few of us would want government services curtailed to the extent a flat tax of 10% would cause. Some people seem to believe that those who pay a top rate of 90% do so on all of their income. Most of us know that is not true.

The truth being a billionaire pays the same tax that I do and all of us do on equal earnings. The rate goes up on schedules listed in the tax booklet as does income. A flat rate would simply increase the amount of wealth of the very wealthy, rapidly and enormously" in proportion to the hoi polloi of which I proudly belong.

"Wealth = Power, and in a society where money can buy political ads and influence our road to a pure Plutocracy would be facilitated by a 10% flat tax. Hence, those Libertarian types who claim to support Liberty and Freedom for the individual really don't. For economic slavery is little different than confinement.

Does that help?

OK then, give me a list of people who want a flat tax of 10%. Or is that demagoguery on your part?

While we are at it, would you take the time to explain why flat tax is such a total failure that Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Utah are all broke as a result of implementing one. Pennsylvania's is particularly egregious since it doesn't even exempt people of low income.

Then we have quite a few countries that have a flat tax, and,as of yet, none of them have collapsed.

Like I said, your brain is crap.

Nice try birdbrain. A flat tax of 20% would allow those who earn $10 Million a year (your average major league ball player) to keep $8 million and your local plumber who makes $100,000 a year to keep $80,000. How long until the U.S. began to have a rigid class system, one3 where the wealthy elite made the rules? Something like what we have today but much worse.

 

[AmazonTania]

A genuine flat tax offers no deductions or exemptions, which means people do not have to waste resources figuring out how to avoid paying taxes.

And this is somehow worse than the system we currently have?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For those who don't get my "issue":

The Flat Tax is demagoguery at its finest. No one likes to pay taxes, but few of us would want government services curtailed to the extent a flat tax of 10% would cause. Some people seem to believe that those who pay a top rate of 90% do so on all of their income. Most of us know that is not true.

The truth being a billionaire pays the same tax that I do and all of us do on equal earnings. The rate goes up on schedules listed in the tax booklet as does income. A flat rate would simply increase the amount of wealth of the very wealthy, rapidly and enormously" in proportion to the hoi polloi of which I proudly belong.

"Wealth = Power, and in a society where money can buy political ads and influence our road to a pure Plutocracy would be facilitated by a 10% flat tax. Hence, those Libertarian types who claim to support Liberty and Freedom for the individual really don't. For economic slavery is little different than confinement.

Does that help?

OK then, give me a list of people who want a flat tax of 10%. Or is that demagoguery on your part?

While we are at it, would you take the time to explain why flat tax is such a total failure that Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Utah are all broke as a result of implementing one. Pennsylvania's is particularly egregious since it doesn't even exempt people of low income.

Then we have quite a few countries that have a flat tax, and,as of yet, none of them have collapsed.

Like I said, your brain is crap.

Nice try birdbrain. A flat tax of 20% would allow those who earn $10 Million a year (your average major league ball player) to keep $8 million and your local plumber who makes $100,000 a year to keep $80,000. How long until the U.S. began to have a rigid class system, one3 where the wealthy elite made the rules? Something like what we have today but much worse.

Quick question, why do you care how much people get to keep?

I apologize to all the defecate matter in the universe for comparing it to your brain.

 

[kwc57]

I'd like to see the number of working poor who labor for the 1%. The claim that the very wealthy create jobs maybe partly true - they do hire gardeners and such. I suspect (and I admit to not doing any research) that fewer jobs are created by the 1% then by small business owners, special districts or local, state and federal governments.

Since Foxfyre makes the claim the 1% are job creaters I suppose she can enlighten me.

I'm thinking Bill Gates hires at least a couple more people than a gardner, but I could be wrong.

You're mostly wrong, but not this time. So we have one 1%, Good show.

Here is a list of 100 CEO's who are 1%'ers that provide jobs and employee a massive amount of people. Keep in mind this is a list of the highest paid CEO's. There are hundreds of others drawing less compensation who are still 1%'ers that also hire a massive amount of people. Do you guys really think that the majority of wealthy people somehow magically inherited their wealth and do nothing but jet from one mansion to the next while dreaming of how to keep the little man down? Grow up.

 

[kwc57]

OK then, give me a list of people who want a flat tax of 10%. Or is that demagoguery on your part?

While we are at it, would you take the time to explain why flat tax is such a total failure that Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Utah are all broke as a result of implementing one. Pennsylvania's is particularly egregious since it doesn't even exempt people of low income.

Then we have quite a few countries that have a flat tax, and,as of yet, none of them have collapsed.

Like I said, your brain is crap.

Nice try birdbrain. A flat tax of 20% would allow those who earn $10 Million a year (your average major league ball player) to keep $8 million and your local plumber who makes $100,000 a year to keep $80,000. How long until the U.S. began to have a rigid class system, one3 where the wealthy elite made the rules? Something like what we have today but much worse.

Quick question, why do you care how much people get to keep?

I apologize to all the defecate matter in the universe for comparing it to your brain.

I asked that earlier and never got a response either. He's concerned about how much he might have to pay on the one hand, but also concerned about how much some other guiy is going to keep. My rebuttal was that they pay the same percent on their income and keep the same percent of their income. Fair across the board. If he wants to have as much as the guy he envies. there is nothing stopping him from stepping up to the plate and doing the same things the wealthy guy did to become wealthy. I really don't understand all this angst and hate over people who have more that someone else.

 

[kwc57]

I'd like to see the number of working poor who labor for the 1%. The claim that the very wealthy create jobs maybe partly true - they do hire gardeners and such. I suspect (and I admit to not doing any research) that fewer jobs are created by the 1% then by small business owners, special districts or local, state and federal governments.

Since Foxfyre makes the claim the 1% are job creaters I suppose she can enlighten me.

I'm thinking Bill Gates hires at least a couple more people than a gardner, but I could be wrong.

Bill Gates hires only as many as he is forced to hire by the people who create demand for his companies products. As in, the consumers. He hires none just to hire them. And he creates no demand himself. Just as he produces nothing. His employees produce. He finances.

Hey Rainbow Warrior, I've always wondered with morons like you, does the stoopidity physically hurt or are you as oblivious to it as you are to reality? Why don't you hop on your unicorn and ride on out of here before you get hurt.

You are aware that Bill Gates created Microsoft aren't you? That he created a product that had never existed and created a demand for a product that is used by the vast majority of computer users all over the world? That as his company grew, he had to hire more employees to meet the demand for the product he invented?

 

[Rshermr]

I'm thinking Bill Gates hires at least a couple more people than a gardner, but I could be wrong.

Bill Gates hires only as many as he is forced to hire by the people who create demand for his companies products. As in, the consumers. He hires none just to hire them. And he creates no demand himself. Just as he produces nothing. His employees produce. He finances.

Hey Rainbow Warrior, I've always wondered with morons like you, does the stoopidity physically hurt or are you as oblivious to it as you are to reality? Why don't you hop on your unicorn and ride on out of here before you get hurt.

You are aware that Bill Gates created Microsoft aren't you? That he created a product that had never existed and created a demand for a product that is used by the vast majority of computer users all over the world? That as his company grew, he had to hire more employees to meet the demand for the product he invented?

You are aware that Bill Gates created Microsoft aren't you? That he created a product that had never existed and created a demand for a product that is used by the vast majority of computer users all over the world? That as his company grew, he had to hire more employees to meet the demand for the product he invented?

Wow. Now that was a simplistic version, me boy. Really, really simplistic. But I am sure it is how you would like to believe it. Ever here of paul allen?? Ever here of Lotus 123, or Word Perfect?? Or anti trust legislation? Wow, what was that you said about demand?? You almost had something there.

Ever here of Intel? Or a number of other companies that were making hardware that needed an operating system?? Were you aware that there were others willing to fill the needs that Microsoft filled, and did in many cases. Funny how that works. When people want a product, someone will develop it. However, if they do not, it will not be developed. That me boy, is what is known as demand. And the billions of dollars that Gates made is a result of making a product to serve that demand. And those people his company hired MADE those products. That is what is called productivity. And Gates and his management team arranged financing and provided direction for the company. Did you have a point??? Is this all some sort of surprise to you??? Just wondering.

By the way: Did you think that what you just said had something to do with the Flat Tax? Had you noticed that the Flat Tax was the subject of the thread? Or are you just out making stupid statements again today???

 

[TXBlkConserv258]

Why wouldn't we want a Flat Tax?

For all the talk about equality, this is the best way to go tax-wise.

This way everyone is paying the same percentage on their earned income. So, if I make $2 Million a year and the next person makes $30k, my Flat Tax Bill will still be astronomically more than theirs. My tax rate should NOT be incrementally greater because I earn more.

I do, however, feel that the Capital Gains Tax should lower than Income Tax because it is an incentive for everyone to GAMBLE their own money in the market thus helping the market.

 

[TXBlkConserv258]

For those who don't get my "issue":

The Flat Tax is demagoguery at its finest. No one likes to pay taxes, but few of us would want government services curtailed to the extent a flat tax of 10% would cause. Some people seem to believe that those who pay a top rate of 90% do so on all of their income. Most of us know that is not true.

The truth being a billionaire pays the same tax that I do and all of us do on equal earnings. The rate goes up on schedules listed in the tax booklet as does income. A flat rate would simply increase the amount of wealth of the very wealthy, rapidly and enormously" in proportion to the hoi polloi of which I proudly belong.

"Wealth = Power, and in a society where money can buy political ads and influence our road to a pure Plutocracy would be facilitated by a 10% flat tax. Hence, those Libertarian types who claim to support Liberty and Freedom for the individual really don't. For economic slavery is little different than confinement.

Does that help?

OK then, give me a list of people who want a flat tax of 10%. Or is that demagoguery on your part?

While we are at it, would you take the time to explain why flat tax is such a total failure that Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Utah are all broke as a result of implementing one. Pennsylvania's is particularly egregious since it doesn't even exempt people of low income.

Then we have quite a few countries that have a flat tax, and,as of yet, none of them have collapsed.

Like I said, your brain is crap.

They are broke because I believe most of the ones you named are Liberal states. If they were Fiscally Conservative as my Great State of Texas is, then they probably wouldn't be in a fiscal predicament. There is a reason that Texas leads the pack economically and if we implemented a Flat Tax it would be in an even better situation.

 

[Euroconservativ]

It´s the financial system, and the privileged status of the U.S. Dollar as world´s reserve currency, what makes the rich richer. Not the allegedly unfair tax system. Money flows to America, specially when the other developed economies are not doing very well.

In fact, the US taxation is more progressive than the tax system in most european countries, which usually have a national 20-25% VAT and high taxes on labour.

 

[Foxfyre]

You do have to wonder sometimes what motivates people who seem so protective and supportive of an ever more bloated, intrusive, authoritarian, oppressive federal government amidst all the ineptness and incompetence we witness from that same government.

It is mystifying how they don't understand how expensive that government is, and how much more expensive it is getting day by day, so that it swallows up most of what it collects in taxes just to feed itself.

On my "Are we getting our money's worth (from government)" thread, the straw poll was overwhelmingly a firm "No!! We are not." And yet many of the same people who agree we don't get our money's worth will still beat the drum for sending more and more money to the government.

Again, I ask those who are in the bottom 75%, how you think it will improve your life or increase your pursuit of happiness if Bill Gates or Warren Buffet pay more in taxes? Will it help anybody? If not, then why is that any of your concern?

If you don't think you're getting your money's worth now, why do you have faith that giving the government more will improve that situation in any way? If your auto mechanic or plumber or electrician does shitty work, do you assume they would do better if you pay them more? Or do you look for somebody else who will provide better service?

I am currently looking for a better way to get cable TV, internet, and phone service because the one I have is too expensive and is not providing satisfactory service. I suggest we do the same with what we get from the federal government. A flat tax is a good way to start.

 

[Auteur]

Nonsense. Employment may come from any point of the compass, including government, non-profits, struggling and poor small business, affluent large corporations, or others.

In other words, people with money or those who own the means of production. The government has to get it's revenue from somewhere, and majority of it isn't from the poor. Small businesses and large corporations obtain their funding from somewhere, and it isn't from the poor.

So my point still stands.

"Means of production"! Your sounding positively Marxist AT. I hardly know where to start here. There is employment because some want to do a certain task, and others find this of value enough that they are willing to pay for it. For the sake of this particular arguement, it makes no difference whether said service is within the public sphere, or the private sector. You, for example, could work for Acme Financial Analysis and Pizza Delivery Co Ltd, or, you could work for the People's Democratic Financial Analysis Workers Unit 2315 (Carl Marx Division). Of course the value of any work can be very subjective, and we could go off on endless tangents here, but the basic fact is that someone deems something of value, produces a good or service, and it is paid for.

You are simply following the spin of the far right when you suggest that the private sector produces all of value, and "government" leeches off of these supposedly energetic fellows. Most government services are critical, and would have to be paid for whether they were contracted out, or part of a government bureaucracy. It is a matter of political choice what goes into private vs public areas of the economy, not economic imperative. Yes, there are some pros and cons here re what goes where, but idealizing the business community, while denigrating government is not only simplistic and often misguided, but falls into the hands of some of the most self-serving and voracious in society today.

Theoretically, we could all work for government, with every function of life a subset of the state. Or, to go to the other extreme, all services could be contracted out, and all would be in the private sector.

There is no invisible guiding hand that assuredly makes the wise and energetic rich, the dishonest and slothful poor, and counts and distributes coins to their exact place in the universe. Those on the uber-right will tell you this, but they have their own agenda, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

People do what's in their own self interests. No one wakes up the next morning and think about whether or not their actions will help out the economy. And opinions to the contrary is pure fantasy.

Yes, very many do. That's why we need a referee, in the form of an elected and accountable government to steer those greedy and selfish folks into a more pro-social direction.

I don't see how it's an appalling mess. The US has better health care outcomes than most advance economies. No one complains about the quality. They only complain about the cost. That makes it an economically issue. And health care was very inexpensive before the public sector became involved.

Baloney. The US is on a par with other advance nations generally, although the highly stratified nature of service there means that some live in near third world conditions, while the affluent have everything they need. The former, including those struggling to pay grossly inflated health insurance premiums, would have some complaints I'd bet. Health care is expensive in the US today because it is in the clutches of the business community, which has added several layers of profit and price inflation. That's why those in places like western Europe, Canada, or Australia can get the same care for less.

You could if drugs weren't illegal in the first place. The government finds it feasible to allocate resources from the private sector to keep the war on drugs going.

A non-reply. Your point was that the free market was the best method of allocating resources to where they are most needed. If it were truly "free", without all kinds of government intervention in aid of pro-social goals, then you would have a jungle, with warlords, dope dealers, and crazed Wall Street traders runing a violent melodrama, rather than a civilized middle class society.

You know who also spends less than America per capita, third world countries where there is no health care. It helps if you actually know how to use the 'per capita' metric.

Ridiculous. I'm talking about comparable advanced western democracies, which you well know

You should know that the Canadian system (as well as all other UHC systems) implements price controls on their health care, so the government isn't allowed to spend more than a certain amount relative to the countries GDP. As a result, you have no innovation in Canada. 60% of all medical research is done in the United States. In Canada, you have no innovation, if any at all. The last life saving drug to ever be developed in Canada was probably 30 years ago.

It sounds like you have the foggiest idea of how research, and academia in general, is done these days. Research builds on the work of other fellow collegues in related fields, and universities and other facilities often work in direct cooperation, across international borders. There is plenty of research being done in Canada, as there is in other countries.

And just as an aside here, it is often the publically funded universities that do the basic research that private corporations can then capitalize on, and make their profits.

I don't think I get your point. Yes, offshoring and globalzation are broader issues, ones for which solutions will be difficult. My point is that for the US government, the future of employment is, and must, be an issue. For GM, or any other corporation, it need not, and is not. That is inherent in the mission and the functioning of these two different entities. And that's why government must have sufficient revenue and hence authority to rule on pro-social issues.

Who says that it should be? GM sole responsibility are towards their consumers. In order to create jobs, you have to create value. GM is creating value to someone else. Increasing, we find that the Government cannot create value. All they can create is work.

Society says that it is valuable to have the population working at worthwhile projects. As you say, the corporate world cares nothing about this. Left entirely to the latter, we would have ever increasing efficiency in business, and ever higher unemployment rates, until we returned to the 19th century world of Charles Dickens. We have made a good start in that direction already.

And contrary to your belief, government can create "value" in the sense of directing resources towards employment, or other goals. We could have full employment tomorrow, for example, by altering the labour laws. Of course, this is unlikely as it would create a political firestorm, especially in today's me first society.

Left to the punters on Wall Street, how quickly would the great depression of the '30s have ended? Left to the corporate bandits on Wall Street, how soon would the great recession of '08 turned into the great depression of the decade? Left to the private insurance industry, how many Americans would still be without health care, and what kind of premiums would the rest be paying?

Considering that it was the central government along with the Federal Reserve which was solely behind the Great Depression of the 1930's, Depression of the Late 2000's and the increasing cost of health care? These issues would have never arisen in the first place.

Now you are being completely ridiculous. That's not even worth a reply.

 

[AmazonTania]

"Means of production"! Your sounding positively Marxist AT. I hardly know where to start here. There is employment because some want to do a certain task, and others find this of value enough that they are willing to pay for it. For the sake of this particular arguement, it makes no difference whether said service is within the public sphere, or the private sector. You, for example, could work for Acme Financial Analysis and Pizza Delivery Co Ltd, or, you could work for the People's Democratic Financial Analysis Workers Unit 2315 (Carl Marx Division). Of course the value of any work can be very subjective, and we could go off on endless tangents here, but the basic fact is that someone deems something of value, produces a good or service, and it is paid for.

Nothing Marxist about what I said. I just understand when I'm about to encounter Marxist rhetoric. And it does make a difference whether or not a service is offered by the public sector or the private sector. The public sector will more often than not will deviate from a profit motive. Without this metric, there is nothing to determine whether or not a venture is running efficiently.

You are simply following the spin of the far right when you suggest that the private sector produces all of value, and "government" leeches off of these supposedly energetic fellows.

If the government can create value, then it wouldn't need the use of force and coercion on market participants.

There is a reason no one needed to subsidise the iPod. It was produced. People seem to like it. That's it.

Most government services are critical, and would have to be paid for whether they were contracted out, or part of a government bureaucracy. It is a matter of political choice what goes into private vs public areas of the economy, not economic imperative. Yes, there are some pros and cons here re what goes where, but idealizing the business community, while denigrating government is not only simplistic and often misguided, but falls into the hands of some of the most self-serving and voracious in society today.

We do have proof that these services would have been paid with or without a government bureaucracy. In Hong Kong, the government leases all of the land in the country. In Singapore, the government offers public housing flats for the sale of private individuals. However, unlike the US Government, these other governments operate for profit, which means there is a metric of success and failure.

There would be nothing wrong with Government Bureaucracy offering goods and services to the market, if it operated like a business. This is not what most governments do, which is why most governments fail at whatever they do.

Yes, very many do. That's why we need a referee, in the form of an elected and accountable government to steer those greedy and selfish folks into a more pro-social direction.

People have wants and desires, and by pursuing these desires, they make others better off. Everyone is concerned with their own interests. That's what selfish means. Everyone wants more than what is required for basic survival. That's what greed means. I already have 15 pairs of shoes. I am also not interested in your pro-social rhetoric. I just want another pair of shoes. Someone else who is just about as interested in your nonsense as I am wants to make more money. He makes me better off by giving me what I want, and my money becomes his income.

Greedy people can only get what they want by finding ways to make you and me better off. That is pro-social. We don't have to do anything but let people live their lives. It isn't your place to determine what is good for other people.

Baloney. The US is on a par with other advance nations generally, although the highly stratified nature of service there means that some live in near third world conditions, while the affluent have everything they need. The former, including those struggling to pay grossly inflated health insurance premiums, would have some complaints I'd bet. Health care is expensive in the US today because it is in the clutches of the business community, which has added several layers of profit and price inflation. That's why those in places like western Europe, Canada, or Australia can get the same care for less.

Actually, those places get less, for less. You're more like to survive any type of Cancer in the United States (65.9 % five year survival rate) than any other country in the world. No other country has a rate closer. In terms of medical research and drug innovation, no other nation comes close.

The issues are the cost and the cost only. Health care was always a profit motive business. This has not changed. The increase cost in health care is due to it's government involvement in distorting market prices.

By 1960, nearly 75 % of Americans had some form of private health-insurance coverage and/or paid out of pocked. These numbers were continuing to advance. Then two government programmes were instituted and this number started to dwindle. The per cent of health care expenditures as a part of private insurance increased, but the out-of-pocket expense decreased. The Federal, State and Local Government expenses replaced out-of-pocket expenses. Do you really think health care would be expensive if the Government were not subsidising the ill?

The number of medical schools have declined relative to the size of the population a century since the AMA started it's monopoly style licensing practices. In terms of admissions limits, the peak year for applicants at U.S. schools was 1996 at 47,000 applications with a limit of 16,500 accepted. The original intent of these rigorous regulatory practices were to combat the increasing inflow of new doctors into the marketplace. As the high supply of doctors meant a lower salary provided by the overall market. Do you really think health care would be expensive if the AMA still had no monopoly power on licensing?

In 1992, The Prescription Drug User Fee Act was passed, which allowed the FDA to charge pharmaceutical companies a fee for filing a new drug application. This is goes part of their research and evaluation budget. After the drug is approved it's patented for several years, in which case, the pharmaceutical companies can charge and arm and a leg for their overpriced drugs without the threat of competition. Do you really think drugs would be expensive if the FDA were privatised?

And these are just three examples of the government strain on the health care sector. All of which can be attributed to this:

If you want to understand the economics of the American Health Care System, it probably helps if you got the economics part down.

A non-reply. Your point was that the free market was the best method of allocating resources to where they are most needed.

No I didn't. I said profits are the only reason, and really, the most effective and most efficient ways to allocate such resources. This can happen without a free market, a market economy or just about any economy. Profits are vital for an economy. I'm only telling you that if drugs were decriminalised, then resources would be allocated towards the production and consumption of drugs instead of being wasted trying to stop it.

If it were truly "free", without all kinds of government intervention in aid of pro-social goals, then you would have a jungle, with warlords, dope dealers, and crazed Wall Street traders runing a violent melodrama, rather than a civilized middle class society.

This is all already here, and there is no Free Market to blame it on. Sooner or later, you'll have to find another boogyman.

Ridiculous. I'm talking about comparable advanced western democracies, which you well know

If you think it's so ridiculous, perhaps you should figure out how this metric is suppose to be used before using it. Less spending per capita doesn't tell you anything about quality of the care in said country. You might as well compare it to a country with no health care at all. Increasingly, we find countries which spend less has:

1. Lower health care outcomes
2. Longer wait times
3. Less drug innovation
4. Less treatment

The more you actually learn about these things, the more you will learn that spending does not always equality to quality. Imagine if everyone used such a mundane metric to judge the performance of Tech Companies.

Apple spends less on R&D than Google. Does Apple have more/better products than Goole?

It sounds like you have the foggiest idea of how research, and academia in general, is done these days. Research builds on the work of other fellow collegues in related fields, and universities and other facilities often work in direct cooperation, across international borders. There is plenty of research being done in Canada, as there is in other countries.

I know how research works. You somehow forgot that research eventually leads to some sort of innovation. Otherwise, you are just wasting resources, which is exactly what is happening in Canada. If there is research going on, it's not anywhere near the same capacity the United States. Socialised medicine is practically a parasite off the American Heath Care system. Over the six most important medical innovations in the world four of them were developed in the United States and one was improved in the United States. There is plenty of research being done in the Canada, but the last great medical breakthrough Canada has ever given the world was in 1922.

Give me a break...

And just as an aside here, it is often the publically funded universities that do the basic research that private corporations can then capitalize on, and make their profit

s.

Private corporations already conduct their own research. It's called, Research & Development. And sure, private corporations my decide to recruit a team from these universities for the production of their next drug. It's called a grant.

Society says that it is valuable to have the population working at worthwhile projects. As you say, the corporate world cares nothing about this. Left entirely to the latter, we would have ever increasing efficiency in business, and ever higher unemployment rates, until we returned to the 19th century world of Charles Dickens. We have made a good start in that direction already.

Contrary to popular belief, economies grow to eliminate jobs. As we increase efficiency, we develop more things to do more with less effort. As a result, certain jobs are destroyed and/or replaced for other jobs. It's called productivity. If you want to return to the 19th century, or the stone-age, be my guess.

And contrary to your belief, government can create "value" in the sense of directing resources towards employment, or other goals. We could have full employment tomorrow, for example, by altering the labour laws. Of course, this is unlikely as it would create a political firestorm, especially in today's me first society.

That's not creating value. Again, that is using force. If people are not willing to create certain types of jobs with their own resources, it means people do not value these jobs types of jobs as much as other types of jobs you can create, or other resources for that matter. You'll get more of the type of employment you want, but they'll be worth less in value than the cost to produce.

That means, your plan (whatever it is) would waste resources. There are plenty of other valuable things people are willing to provide voluntarily.

Now you are being completely ridiculous. That's not even worth a reply.

Fine by me. It would save me the trouble of having to correct you. It gets repetitive after a while.

 

[Rshermr]

OK then, give me a list of people who want a flat tax of 10%. Or is that demagoguery on your part?

While we are at it, would you take the time to explain why flat tax is such a total failure that Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Utah are all broke as a result of implementing one. Pennsylvania's is particularly egregious since it doesn't even exempt people of low income.

Then we have quite a few countries that have a flat tax, and,as of yet, none of them have collapsed.

Like I said, your brain is crap.

Well, there you go. Pick a country with a flat tax and move there. Because, according to you, it must be paradise. funny.

Another crap brain, what a surprise.

Did you notice the states with a flat tax? Isn't Massachusetts considered a progressive paradise?

So, got it. You do not know of a country with a flat tax that is doing really well. So, that was my point, me boy. The concept of a flat tax is really simply for weak minded cons, like you. The concept is so bad you can not find a country with a predominantly flat tax that you would suggest is a great place to be. What a surprise.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, there you go. Pick a country with a flat tax and move there. Because, according to you, it must be paradise. funny.

Another crap brain, what a surprise.

Did you notice the states with a flat tax? Isn't Massachusetts considered a progressive paradise?

So, got it. You do not know of a country with a flat tax that is doing really well. So, that was my point, me boy. The concept of a flat tax is really simply for weak minded cons, like you. The concept is so bad you can not find a country with a predominantly flat tax that you would suggest is a great place to be. What a surprise.

Did you hear that France has admitted it cannot afford more taxes? Are you aware that their top marginal rate is 100%? Why don't you tell me how good they are doing.

 

[Rshermr]

Another crap brain, what a surprise.

Did you notice the states with a flat tax? Isn't Massachusetts considered a progressive paradise?

So, got it. You do not know of a country with a flat tax that is doing really well. So, that was my point, me boy. The concept of a flat tax is really simply for weak minded cons, like you. The concept is so bad you can not find a country with a predominantly flat tax that you would suggest is a great place to be. What a surprise.

Did you hear that France has admitted it cannot afford more taxes? Are you aware that their top marginal rate is 100%? Why don't you tell me how good they are doing.

Just checking, me poor ignorant con. Thanks for the conformation that you can not name a country that is doing well with a flat tax.