> On Jan 30, 6:49 am, "Sean"
blah.com.au> wrote:>>> On Jan 24, 2:44 pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:>>>> On Jan 24, 2:01 pm, ta
nc.rr.com> wrote:>>
>>>>> On Jan 24, 8:58 am, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:>>
>>>>>> On Jan 23, 2:48 pm, Michae...@
gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Just about everybody has their own opinion on how I should
>>>>>>> manage
>>>>>>> "my"
>>>>>>> money. Many on this group have offered helpful and not so
>>>>>>> helpful
>>>>>>> ideas. I think the crux of the matter is realizing what money
>>>>>>> represents and who owns its.
>>
>>>>>>> To my way of thinking, money represents labor and possessions/
>>>>>>> services. While not all of my money was earned through labor,
>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> it was (either my labor or someone else's). And that money
>>>>>>> personifies my ability to obtain possessions and services.
>>
>>>>>>> Also my opinion is that the money I have obtained is mine.
>>
>>>>>>> Taxes. By and far the governments primary means of obtaining
>>>>>>> capital
>>>>>>> (on which to operate) is through collection taxes. Those taxes
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> effect the "fee" I pay to live and work in the US (and entitles
>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> the benefit of continuing to work and live in the US).
>>
>>>>>> That's right. And the wonderful thing about this country is that
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> are always free to leave and go to tax-free Somalia.
>>
>>>>> Sounds like a straw man to me. If I understand his post correctly,
>>>>> he's not taking issue with paying taxes *per se*, but rather *how*
>>>>> we
>>>>> are taxed.
>>
>>>>> If the government is raising taxes to pay for things that I am
>>>>> perfectly capable of doing for myself, or for things that I can
>>>>> obtain
>>>>> through other channels at a better price/higher quality, then the
>>>>> taxes are wasteful (or worse, detrimental to mine and others' self-
>>>>> interest). As taxpayers, we ought to be concerned that we are
>>>>> getting
>>>>> the most bang for our buck, so to speak.
>>
>>>>> If the gummint is not spending our money wisely -- that is, if they
>>>>> are not spending in ways that result in the overall best interest of
>>>>> society at large -- then we ought to be pissed about that.
>>
>>>> I think there's a basic logical flaw in this type of argument about
>>>> taxes. If you buy a product, you care about the value of the product
>>>> to you, not how the price was arrived at. We often buy things that
>>>> have features we are not interested in, and as long as the product
>>>> serves our purpose, we are content----consider operating systems that
>>>> are all full of stuff you never use. So why do people complain about
>>>> governments when they do exaclty the same thing?
>>>> The 'move to Somalia' argument is just making that point.
>>
>>>> A government comes with all the stuff; you can't pick and choose which
>>>> features you are going to pay for. Their business model is to provide
>>>> a range of services to satisfy a wide range of customers, and they
>>>> can't be exactly what any one customer wants.
>>
>>>> -tg
>>
>>>>> A good example is the one he cites -- the gummint ought not be
>>>>> telling
>>>>> people how to manage their money. Instead, our tax money ought to be
>>>>> going toward mandating financial literacy programs in the schools so
>>>>> that we become more self-sufficient.
>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, the gummint often does things that is in the best
>>>>> interest of the gummint. That is, they create dependency.
>>
>>>>>> Which makes all the other stuff irrelevant. If you live in an
>>>>>> apartment building, and the owner decides to put in fancy carpet,
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> can pay the rent increase associated with that or you can move to
>>>>>> another building. If the owner wishes to charge some people more
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> others, based on income, that's just him exercising his property
>>>>>> rights.
>>
>>>>>> As in the other post on cloning, you seem to think that you know
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> is best for everyone else---if people in the free market want un-
>>>>>> cloned food, they are 'stupid'. If they want to live in a country
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> has progressive taxes, they are also 'stupid', I suppose. Only
>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>> is 'smart'.
>>
>>>>>> -tg
>>
>>>>>>> I think taxes can be broken down into two issues (which appear
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> totally independent of each other). The first is "how much
>>>>>>> money
>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>> the government need" and the second is "how much money does the
>>>>>>> government want to collect from me".
>>
>>>>>>> While their are certainly some services that only the government
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> provide (in a reasonable manner), more and more we see the
>>>>>>> government
>>>>>>> becoming involved in delivering services that I could provide
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> myself but which it feels compelled to do for me. For example:
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> save and prepare for my own retirement, but the government feels
>>>>>>> compelled to do this for me. I don't think there is a
>>>>>>> financially
>>>>>>> astute person alive that feels that the return on my government
>>>>>>> controlled retirement investment is a "fair" and equitable"
>>>>>>> value,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> none the less we all still buy into the system. Lets be honest.
>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>> the most part it is our money that is being squandered to
>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>> with goods and services that are below the standard of those
>>>>>>> sames
>>>>>>> goods and services if they were provided by private industry
>>>>>>> (i.e.
>>>>>>> someone other then the government). The argument used is that
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> government plan covers "everybody". What this means is that my
>>>>>>> retirement plan has been mingled with a government run
>>>>>>> charitable
>>>>>>> program. Don't get me wrong. I support charitable enterprises,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> generally I prefer to make my own decisions as to how much and
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> whom
>>>>>>> I am charitable. The politicians don't want us to make those
>>>>>>> decision.
>>
>>>>>>> This leads to the next issue. How much is taken from me. There
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> two general schools of though on this issue. The first centers
>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>> how to fairly break up the tax burden and the second is more
>>>>>>> focus
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> each members ability to pay. While these may sound similar in
>>>>>>> fact
>>>>>>> they are not. The first category looks at each citizens
>>>>>>> intrinsic
>>>>>>> debt to the government as well as inferred debt. I.E. If I
>>>>>>> consume
>>>>>>> more of the government "good will" or took more advantage of
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> "good will" I owe more. The second group resolves more around
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> idea of "fairness" and leveling. I.E. Make everyone equal (or
>>>>>>> equaler) by government mandate. Primarily this is accomplished
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> robin hood dynamic (take from those who have money - when they
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> it - and give money to those who don't have money). The obvious
>>>>>>> downfall to this system (as demonstrated by the good ole USSR)
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> drive to obtain money is diminished. And while on a morale
>>>>>>> level
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> may seem praise worthy, from a fiscal sense this will doom an
>>>>>>> economy.
>>
>>>>>>> So when people talk about raising taxes, I ask myself "why do we
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> to raise taxes" and what will be the cost of that tax increase".
>>
>>> A point worth mentioning is "we are the govmnt". We can decide which
>>> options we don't like. Their is no social mandate saying that every
>>> option (e.g. state run un-healthy care) must be included. Also with
>>> regards to your rent analogy, I think this is does not paint a full
>>> picture. I see taxes more like rowing a boat. The ship of state only
>>> moves forward (this being a considered a good thing) when somebody is
>>> rowing the boat. The question is who should row and how much should
>>> they row. The rowing in no way helps the individual rower beyond the
>>> extent that it helps the entire ship, but it does have a negative
>>> impact on that rower (less energy to do other things). Does it make
>>> sense that only those who have great rowing ability should row and
>>> that those who are bad rowers never have to row. How do we encourage
>>> everybody to be strong and talented rowers (for their own benefit and
>>> also for the benefit they would provide when they row for us all).
>>
>> fwiw it seems to me that what always happens in any discussion about this
>> subject is that too quickly someone will pipe up with a strident
>> "ideological" view and start accusing another as a leftie, a greenie, or
>> a
>> rightard libertarian nutter.
>>
>> This happens whether it's online newsgroups, fox, national tv commentary,
>> or
>> the newspapers .... and so in the process many positive ideas NEVER get a
>> fair hearing in the USA - that includes the Congress and what encircles
>> it.
>> Knee jerk emotional beliefs rule the day, not progressive ideas or
>> knowledge.
>>
>> eg I saw this session about the election on PBS News Hour the other day.
>> An
>> obvious libertarian/right leaning person complained about "universal
>> healthcare" provided by the Govt. because it would mean a person on an
>> HMO
>> no longer making decisions about her health care but a bureaucrat in the
>> Government. That's an "ideological" misunderstanding of the facts.
>>
>> I live in a nation with universal health care and a free hospital system
>> operating alongside a private health insurance health care & private
>> hospital system. No where does a HMO type person, or anyone in Government
>> EVER make a decision about a persons health care .. that is always the
>> patients and the doctors to discuss and choose the best course.
>>
>> Neither in this system are employers made responsible for thier workers
>> health care or for payments of medical insurance ... it is always a
>> private
>> matter. For the poor and disabled unable to work in society there is also
>> Health Care Concessions usually almost free, where the govt pays public
>> or
>> private doctors and services.
>>
>> There's a Pharmacetical benefits system that protects low income or high
>> health cost families and people with subsidised medications .... instead
>> of
>> $120 for a script of Prozac, it's only $5.20 .... for someone with no
>> Concession it's still only about $25 per script.
>>
>> For this each working person pays 1.25%% of their Taxable Personal Income,
>> on
>> top of the usual PAYE Income Tax. That's it.
>>
>> For those who wish higher protection thru Private health insurance they
>> pay
>> premiums of around $3000 per year [average] and they get priority private
>> hospital access for non-urgent procedures, and can go to any private
>> doctor
>> GP or Specialist.
>>
>> It's not a perfect system, like everywhere costs are going up fast all
>> the
>> time .... and it;s hard for the government to contain costs, not enough
>> doctors and nurses, a stressed out system like every other nation ...
>> but
>> overall it's a fairer system, no one pays an arm and a leg like in the
>> USA
>> ... and no one gets turned away from medical attention by a doctor or a
>> hospital becasue they can't afford it.
>>
>> The thing is .... what goes on is always the citizens right to choose, if
>> they don't have the money to do what they'd like, there is always a
>> public
>> system that can help them, and if urgent they will get treated NO MATTER
>> what the problem is ... critical or longterm like Cancer treatments ... $
>> is
>> not the basis upon which medical decisions are made ... everyone is
>> equal,
>> everyone has access to the public system even those with private health
>> insurance.
>>
>> My point? whats the difference between a Govt paying a private doctor for
>> your treatment [ and that's it ] , and your govt mandating that your
>> employer must provide health insurance and mandating that pen pushers in
>> HMO's have the power to make "medical" decisioons about your own private
>> and
>> personal health care???
>>
>> There's alot of difference .... in our system the individual has got far
>> more rights and options to choose from.
>>
>> But the right wing ideologues and free marekteers would cry foul at our
>> system calling it social welfare ..... and enforced govt control .... the
>> thing is the PEOPLE actually like this system ... they are happy with it
>> overall, though it needs improvement on what it was a few decades ago ...
>> mmm
>>
>> mm
>
> Very informative post, Sean.
You're welcome of course ... all grist for the mill.
BTW whilst away from here i read about 20 articles on the stock market crash
and current financial debacles around the world ... every single one
referred to the stock market as gambling, betting, a casino, winning and
losing, good luck bad luck , etc etc etc .. didn;t matter what paper, or tv
news effort, online leftie or a conservative right serious stock market
analysis article.
Weird that ... I must be wrong if everyone else in the world referrs to the
stock market as a casino and gambling. Who'd have imagined that. hehehehe
;-)
more below fwiw
Just to be precise about the US system,
> there has not been a mandate for employers to provide coverage,
> although some states have been moving in that direction---if not
> actual mandate, requirements for some contribution to a state sysem if
> the employer doesn't cover workers. In fact, the govenment subsidizes
> employer plans through the tax system. This is the worst possible
> approach, but just try to get it changed.
>
Oh OK .. it's free will for the employer, but if they don;t do it the moral
indignation, lower competitiveness in the market, and tax imposts means ..
it;s mandatory anyway. ;-) I get it .. the usual free market capitalist
system that isn't.
The question still is ... what does the employer have to do with people';s
personal health care to begin with???? Just find their insurance?
Seems to me the it's the Health Insurance industry over there where ALL the
problems really lay ... they control it and it's all smoke and mirror stuff.
> The essence of the system we have is to *minimize* individual control
> (while maintaining the illusion that it is a market system.)
>
> -tg
>
Well, that's what makes me laugh so much, and I wonder why so few in these
parts and elsewhere seem to miss the bleeding obvious ...
free marketers and libatarians crow how good the USA is and evrryone one of
them complain about the big govt in their business etc .... I mean is the
USA the best example for capitalism and free markets and personal
responsibility and democracy, or isn't it? :-)
>
>
>
>
