Would you rather...

Grumpy said:
Europe has everything you talk about with much smaller populations per country. Their tax rates run between 40% to 63%. So most likely with state and federal it could run as high as 73%. How would you like to get to keep $27,000 out of $100,000? Thanks I'll stay were I am.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with the cost of healthcare. They actually have safety programs to help people, free college and total healthcare. In our case, we are talking just healthcare. They spend half what we do on healthcare and cover everybody. That is, as even a die hard righty can figure out, saving money. You would not have to make all the payments you do now. You would not have to buy your own healthcare or pay copays. Ypour company would not have to pay for healthcare. It is a far mopre civilized and christian system they have. And it saves you money.
 
WalterWilson said:
I've been working steadily since I was 15, moved out of my Mom's house when I was 17. I've collected 4 unemployment checks in my life, fuck face.

My dad died of cancer when I was kid, you piece of shit.
Click to expand...

So me NOT knowing when your dad died, is my fault; because...…………………………………………………..??
 
WalterWilson said:
Now, some comments on Health Care from a good friend of mine in Finland

The wall doesn't help your society to function, health care does. By paying taxes for the hospitals to function you don't have to worry about how you pay the hospital bills when you fall ill yourself. The likelihood of you not requiring medical attention at some point of your life is basically non-existent, but the likelihood of you being unable to pay a medical bill when you do is highly likely.

Not to mention that taxes are secure funds for the health care to exist on, which means the budget can be controlled.

The case of Finland's current government trying to privatize the health care system in Finland is a fine example of how the currently upheld system is cheaper, more effective and has higher standards compared to the privatized system that would make services more unavailable while making them more costly to the government and the consumer.

The only one that benefits from privately owned health care are the companies that own the businesses. To everyone else the system is highly counter beneficial and costly.

I'm not saying Obamacare was perfect. It came out as perfect as the opposition let it, really. The insurance policies are straight down retarded in America.

I don't really understand how the Americans are so divided by mere brainwashing that they keep kicking themselves in the ass constantly. The corporate lobbying is your common enemy and yet all of you act like The Flat Earth Society defending some sort of ultimate truth that isn't based on logic or facts, but opinion alone.

Again, I'm not defending Obamacare. It differs a whole lot from how our system operates and maintains. We get our medication cheap. We get our hospital bills cheap. There are no middlemen like insurance companies in it, so 100% of the assets get used.

Hospitals are constantly expanding and are sponsors for almost any event in the community due to their "non-profit" status. And that's why you should be interested in our implementation of said system, that gets void of that problem entirely.

In our system hospitals are owned and maintained by the government with tax money, which makes it so that expanding said system comes out of need, not by a decision made by someone that owns the hospital or handles the insurance policies. Thus we citizens are able to partake in the deciding factors of this budget by voting. Your citizens hold zero power over your health care budget and have to just suck it up when they get sick.

This is why our system works better than yours. Because there are laws that make sure that the health care is for the people no matter their status. Because everyone maintains said system and benefits from it. It's due to well thought policies that we have a win/win situation in health care here in Finland.

Same with education; due to taxes people get free education, which eliminates the problem of universities hoarding money, for example. Again, 100% of the assets get used to actually educating people and no middle man benefits from this.

Both policies uphold the welfare of our citizens and make said platforms cheaper to upkeep.

And we can do this, because there are no middle men taking that 30 000 € for every student.

I'm going to tell you something else, too, we are headed towards a more socialistic society. Technology alone is going to put millions of people out of work. Just look at the transportation industry where everything is going automated. What we have now is not self-sustaining. It’s time to stop fighting the future and start preparing for it. The problem is that most of you don't even know what real Socialism is. I think there is confusion between true socialism and the term "socialism" that gets passed around the media. American society is already a pretty socialistic society. And it has been for a long time.
Click to expand...

I guess all this "automation" isn't going to need tech's or repair people; because it will be IA self-sustaining??
 
Grumpy said:
Europe has everything you talk about with much smaller populations per country. Their tax rates run between 40% to 63%. So most likely with state and federal it could run as high as 73%. How would you like to get to keep $27,000 out of $100,000? Thanks I'll stay were I am.
Click to expand...

Your kind of ignorance just never understands the truth:

https://www.quora.com/Do-Europeans-dislike-the-high-tax-rates-they-have-to-pay

"Rather anecdotally, I’ll add that technically, I pay the highest rate of tax in Denmark on part of my salary. That would be in the high 50% category. There are however, lots of legal and sensible deductions that I can make. For example, all my pension contributions are taken off at source before I pay tax. I’m also allowed to deduct any interest payments on my mortgage, car or bank loan if I had one. My trade union membership is also deductible and there are many other exemptions, which bring down the tax threshold.

The point I’m trying to make is that while we often hear that everyone in Denmark has to pay nearly 60% in tax, it’s more usually a theoretical figure and no-one I know ever really pays that rate. There are simply too many other benefits to deduct first.

Most people I know, are in favour of paying taxes. We feel that we get something for our money and we’ve been fortunate in benefiting from society. This is payback time. I’m lucky to have a high salary, free education and healthcare, good roads, safe neighbourhoods and so on. Why wouldn’t I want to pay for it?


You do know that these countries have no "State" taxes, right?

https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/countries-highest-income-taxes/
 
Last edited:
Tranquilizers in Equines said:
Wasn't Reagan big on that one? Didn't quite work out ...
Click to expand...

It didn't?


ED-AW658_GRAMMS_GR_20170802155920.jpg



Critics of the Reagan tax cuts today compare the 11.6% growth in federal revenue in 1980, the last year of the Carter administration, with the decline in revenue in 1983. They then declare that the Reagan tax cuts slashed federal revenue. Conveniently missing in that comparison is that the 1980-82 recession, with 10.8% unemployment, reduced federal revenue twice as much as the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the Reagan tax cuts would in 1982 and 15% more than its estimate for 1983.

What’s more, the expectations of rising revenue during the early Reagan years were based on the assumption that inflation and bracket creep would not let up. In 1981, all public and private economic forecasts predicted continued high inflation.

The opposite occurred. As inflation plummeted from the CBO’s projected average annual rate of 8.3% for 1982-86 to an average of 3.8%, revenue compared with projections tumbled $22 billion in 1982 and $70.4 billion in 1983 solely because of reduced inflation and bracket creep.

The Joint Committee on Taxation’s static cost estimate of the Reagan tax cuts was $37.6 billion in 1982 and $92.7 billion in 1983. In other words, the collapse of inflation and bracket creep and the double-dip recession caused revenue losses more than twice as big as the projected static cost of the Reagan tax cuts.

The Reagan tax cuts were implemented in three installments, with the top marginal rate falling to 50% from 70%.

When the reductions were fully in effect in 1983, the economy snapped out of the recession, and real growth averaged 4.6% for the remainder of the Reagan presidency—more than his much-maligned “rosy scenario” ever promised.

In 1984, a final good-government tax provision—indexing individual brackets for inflation and thereby eliminating bracket creep—was implemented.

Although indexing reduced revenue, it was overpowered by surging economic growth. Then the 1986 tax reform cut subsidies and special-interest provisions, lowered the top individual tax rate to 28%, dropped the top corporate tax rate to 34% from 46%, and provided additional incentives to work, save and invest.

When Reagan left office, real federal revenue was more than 19% higher than it was the day of his first inauguration.

A major recession had been overcome, inflation had been broken, the tax code had been indexed to eliminate bracket creep, and the largest tax cut of the postwar era had been implemented.

The Reagan tax cuts and the boom they created stand as the most successful policy initiative and recovery of the postwar era—the polar opposite of Obama’s program and economy.

The Reagan tax cuts laid the foundation for a quarter-century of strong, noninflationary growth, which, despite three subsequent recessions, averaged 3.4% until the beginning of the Obama administration

Tax revenue was generated by an expanding economy rather than pilfered through bracket creep.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/reagan-cut-taxes-revenue-boomed-1501800678
 
WalterWilson said:
Would you rather pay the same taxes but higher healthcare costs or slightly higher taxes and no healthcare costs?

Next question. Would you rather pay the same taxes and insanely high education costs that usually destroy peoples credit do to defaults and bankruptcies, or would you rather pay slightly higher taxes and be able to get a better education and have access to better employment opportunities for free?

I know Republicans like to cut taxes, I mean federal income without cutting spending and don’t understand this concept of balance.

Think before you reply.
Click to expand...

There's an easier way to pay lower healthcare costs. When someone wants care and can't pay or get one of you bleeding hearts to do it for them, go without. That way, the rest of us that fulfilled the responsibility we have to provide ourselves with coverage don't get charged more because some freeloader is getting it for nothing.

As for lower taxes, stop spending on things for which the government has no authority and see what lower levels of revenue can do an even better job.
 
Nordberg said:
That has nothing to do with the cost of healthcare. They actually have safety programs to help people, free college and total healthcare. In our case, we are talking just healthcare. They spend half what we do on healthcare and cover everybody. That is, as even a die hard righty can figure out, saving money. You would not have to make all the payments you do now. You would not have to buy your own healthcare or pay copays. Ypour company would not have to pay for healthcare. It is a far mopre civilized and christian system they have. And it saves you money.
Click to expand...

Sorry sport it has everything to do with healthcare costs and services. Europeans pay out the nose for their socialized system. But you free healthcare for all types will never understand until it happens to you.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I'm sorry, I didn't see where you had posted your biography.

Could you link me to it, so I can make sure I don't hurt your feelings again??
Click to expand...

I also never posted that I don't work or my father paid for everything, but you had no issue with making some stupid comments about that.
 
Old Trapper said:
Your kind of ignorance just never understands the truth:

https://www.quora.com/Do-Europeans-dislike-the-high-tax-rates-they-have-to-pay

"Rather anecdotally, I’ll add that technically, I pay the highest rate of tax in Denmark on part of my salary. That would be in the high 50% category. There are however, lots of legal and sensible deductions that I can make. For example, all my pension contributions are taken off at source before I pay tax. I’m also allowed to deduct any interest payments on my mortgage, car or bank loan if I had one. My trade union membership is also deductible and there are many other exemptions, which bring down the tax threshold.

The point I’m trying to make is that while we often hear that everyone in Denmark has to pay nearly 60% in tax, it’s more usually a theoretical figure and no-one I know ever really pays that rate. There are simply too many other benefits to deduct first.

Most people I know, are in favour of paying taxes. We feel that we get something for our money and we’ve been fortunate in benefiting from society. This is payback time. I’m lucky to have a high salary, free education and healthcare, good roads, safe neighbourhoods and so on. Why wouldn’t I want to pay for it?


You do know that these countries have no "State" taxes, right?

https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/countries-highest-income-taxes/
Click to expand...

Why wouldn’t I want to pay for it?
Click to expand...
Difference is you want the rich to pay not you!

And fucking fools like you do not understand that what might work in Europe will not work here. Europe has different cultures, different mindsets, accept less freedoms, and are generally more submissive than Americans. I lived in Europe for over 10 years and seen it have you?


You do know that these countries have no "State" taxes, right?
Click to expand...


Guess you have never heard of the value added tax VAT! The VAT runs from 8% to 25% depending on the country. So everything you buy has the tax added to the total cost.
 
Last edited:
WalterWilson said:
Would you rather pay the same taxes but higher healthcare costs or slightly higher taxes and no healthcare costs?

Next question. Would you rather pay the same taxes and insanely high education costs that usually destroy peoples credit do to defaults and bankruptcies, or would you rather pay slightly higher taxes and be able to get a better education and have access to better employment opportunities for free?

I know Republicans like to cut taxes, I mean federal income without cutting spending and don’t understand this concept of balance.

Think before you reply.
Click to expand...

Why not get a proper health system and pay half as much for it, yet cover everyone?
 
WalterWilson said:
Would you rather pay the same taxes but higher healthcare costs or slightly higher taxes and no healthcare costs?

Next question. Would you rather pay the same taxes and insanely high education costs that usually destroy peoples credit do to defaults and bankruptcies, or would you rather pay slightly higher taxes and be able to get a better education and have access to better employment opportunities for free?

I know Republicans like to cut taxes, I mean federal income without cutting spending and don’t understand this concept of balance.

Think before you reply.
Click to expand...

I reject your premise

But I ALWAYS want to pay less in taxes. I can take care of my own healthcare thank you very much
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top