Health Care for Everyone
- Thread starter Danoff
- 1,658 comments
- 200,649 views
- 10,309
- San Francisco, CA
- Vasco506
- Vasc0
What incentive would people have to complete a tax return if they know they're going to have to pay some of that out? Also, they may not have the funds available to pay their taxes (some people are terrible at budgeting). By estimating your tax payable (which tends to stay constant for most people) and taking the appropriate amount out along the way it helps the system flow more smoothly.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
- 38,942
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
or just FairTax without the "prebates." I wouldn't mind an apportioned national sales tax, or that OneTax thing which is basically like a 0.1% VAT.
- 10,309
- San Francisco, CA
- Vasco506
- Vasc0
Flat tax? That's the whole premise of the Pay-As-You-Go system here (I assume America has a similar thing), but obviously people's tax payable is not just dependent on how much they make and even with such a system in place tax returns need to be filled out so that people can claim deductions.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
I actually meant a fair tax, but said flat tax.
There is a massive system overhaul that needs to be done, but a proper and fair tax system wouldn't work in a way to do the deductions like this. I am actually a huge proponent of a consumption based tax. You are taxed based on what you spend, not what you earn. The current US tax system is thousands of pages a laws and every individual is expected to know all of it, or face a penalty at the end of the year. Teh fact is that the current system has people so scared of screwing it up, or so confused, that they believe they are better off giving the government extra money all year and then getting it back in a zero interest refund. Of course, if you accidentally pay too little you have to pay it back, plus interest and penalties. And a large number of people don't realize just what things in their life save them money, because it is too daunting of a task. So often they don't even take all the deductions they should.
Straighten all that out and have it be a very simplified system and there will be greater government revenue as there will be less instances of fraud or error, thus less employees required to investigate it. Simplified also likely means less paperwork, so less supply cost to the government as well. The more complicated taxes get the more it costs government to collect taxes.
But back to your original point, now that I have more time.
It is fiscally smarter to set up your taxes in a way that you have as little refund as possible, or even owe some. This drives my wife insane, as she loves that giant check every year, but I can do much better thinsg with my money over the year than let it sit in the Uncle Sam bank of zero interest savings account. Something like increase the amount I put toward my retirement fund. I mean, I could take a $1,500 refund check every single year, or I could already have put all of that $1,500 into my retirement fund (assuming all at the beginning with a one time annual interest rate growth in order to simplify the discussion) throughout the year where it could be gaining 2% interest in a year as bad as this (giving me an extra $30 at the end of the year) or as much as 20% interest in a booming economy (giving me an extra $300 at the end of the year).
So, what incentive is there to complete a return if I don't get a refund, and may even owe? Because over the past year I had more of my money not in government hands, and if used wisely, have even more money now.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Let's imagine that everyone had to send a check in for all there income taxes. There would be a revolt in this country to make the tea parties look like a childs party.
The only reason the government gets away with the taxes it does is because people don't understand how much they are losing.
FK is doing the smart thing. Using his money for himself, not letting uncle sam own it all year.
The only reason the government gets away with the taxes it does is because people don't understand how much they are losing.
FK is doing the smart thing. Using his money for himself, not letting uncle sam own it all year.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,029
- Mile High City
I'm sure that some people would be very upset. But roughly half of the country pays no tax. Some of those people actually receive money. Most of these people are under the illusion that they are tax payers because some money is still withheld from their paychecks.
So yea, there would be a lot of people who would come to a rude awakening about the size of government. But many people, if not more, would get off free. I'd still prefer that they knew though.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
nobuffalo
Premium
- 2,692
- USA
Wow! Over the past few days I have read all 28 pages of this thread. Unfortunately, I would need to read it all a couple times to really remember all the information.
Thank you Danoff for expressing my opinion on the subject through your words. There are several others, but you seemed to be the one there through the entire thread. I really can't recall a point where I disagree with anything you've said. Actually, thanks everyone who have expressed their opinions!
👍
Thank you Danoff for expressing my opinion on the subject through your words. There are several others, but you seemed to be the one there through the entire thread. I really can't recall a point where I disagree with anything you've said. Actually, thanks everyone who have expressed their opinions!
👍
- 38,942
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
Well, guess what? The government would have to shrink dramatically after people finally see how bloated and expensive it is. Why is it ok to tax the rich or print money like they've been doing instead of just taxing everyone at an equal rate (NOT an equal fee)? In time, people's dollars won't afford to buy them groceries anyway.
Because the rich can afford it, and the poor can't. You tax the rich an extra 20% and it means they can afford one less Ferrari per year. You tax the poor an extra 20% and it means they can't afford to feed their children.
Regardless of how much government spending there is, a flat tax is still going to result in the above. Even if there is a massive spending reduction to the tune of 50%, the poor still can't really afford it, and the rich can, easily.
- 38,942
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
That line of reasoning has been thoroughly demolished on the opinions board before. I'm not really going to argue it again because I don't like the idea of an income tax anyway. But, if we had a sales tax, should rich people pay 50% tax on the food they buy while poor people pay nothing?
Also, spending would have to be reduced by far more than half.
Also, spending would have to be reduced by far more than half.
- 3,425
Obama changed tax law to hold less fica , my w2 comes only 11.50 was witheld , now I get to send them a fat check ...I earned less than 100 k last year ..so being married and a homeowner and decidely in midle class --wtf ? ...I thought we were better off now ,,I have not sen't a check to them since I owned a business ...
I think we are being played with.
Anyway ..the cash I send to uncle , will have been dumped into the economy --just like those "rich " people who fuel jobs by spending ..so do the 95 % of us who do not fit into rich category ..raping rich people just insures everyone will be equally poor ..no thanks pls --if I wan't class warfare and wealth redistribution --first I need to quit working and get on the dole .
I am getting older and have lived some amazing history .Growing up we did A-bomb drills in school .what saddens me most is how little value this generation places on its liberty ,its taken for granted and bartered away ,How can you be educated,read our constitution , then ACCEPT a mandate
I think we are being played with.
Anyway ..the cash I send to uncle , will have been dumped into the economy --just like those "rich " people who fuel jobs by spending ..so do the 95 % of us who do not fit into rich category ..raping rich people just insures everyone will be equally poor ..no thanks pls --if I wan't class warfare and wealth redistribution --first I need to quit working and get on the dole .
I am getting older and have lived some amazing history .Growing up we did A-bomb drills in school .what saddens me most is how little value this generation places on its liberty ,its taken for granted and bartered away ,How can you be educated,read our constitution , then ACCEPT a mandate
Last edited:
It's not a line of reasoning, it's a fact. People that are barely making it now (or not really making it) can't afford to pay more. I fail to see how it's possible to "demolish" that line of reasoning. How much do you think the crime rate will go up when you take a huge number of people and, via taxation, shuttle them from "barely making it" over to "not even close to making it?"
No point in arguing that because taxes that are entirely based on consumption are also terrible, and I don't think anyone should pay tax on food at all.
Good luck with that.
- 38,942
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
Florida and Texas are proof that consumption based taxes are at least better than income taxes.
Also, if spending isn't cut by more than half (which means cut it over 1 trillion dollars) then the debt will just grow to unsustainable levels and will have to be monetized, hurting all of the money in our wallets as if we've been taxed anyway. You can find the past arguments we've been through on this forum and raise your objections after reading them.
Also, if spending isn't cut by more than half (which means cut it over 1 trillion dollars) then the debt will just grow to unsustainable levels and will have to be monetized, hurting all of the money in our wallets as if we've been taxed anyway. You can find the past arguments we've been through on this forum and raise your objections after reading them.
- 38,942
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
I already read that thread, and I'm not seeing where anything was "demolished."
Fair is subjective, and debatable. Some people think a fixed amount is fair. Some people think a fixed percentage is fair. Some people think a progressive percentage is fair.
I don't think taxing people 20+ % of their income when they make 20k a year and can barely afford to survive is fair. You can disagree with that all you want, but that doesn't mean you're right and I'm wrong.
On top of that, even if everyone were to agree on what fair is, it DOESN'T MATTER. Just because something is fair doesn't mean it's practical. Making poor people poorer is not a good idea, for a variety of reasons.
- 54
- KingTigerAus
Ok. The following is a point of view from someone who works in a health care system that is very different to that of the US. It is not a political opinion and is not to do with taxes, but more to do with how the system works and general philosophy.
The health system in which I work is probably best described as a public/private partnership. The state governments provide hospitals, dental service, statutory emergency ambulance services as well as other services to their citizens. To varying extents these are free to use. For example a public hospital is free to anyone, but an ambulance trip to hospital is not (at the moment if an ambulance is called and treatment given, but no transport provided, then there is no charge but this may be changing). Funding is derived from taxes and provided by state governments. At the moment there is a plan to nationalise health so that all the states pool their money and the Commonwealth provides the service.
There are numerous private organisations that provide hospitals, dental, allied health, radiographic and non-emergency ambulance services at a cost. Private hospitals are only accessible to those with private health insurance.
I fear our system is becoming more privatised and hence similar to the US than I would like. I feel our current system is good (not perfect) and it means that a person who is suffering a problem no matter their personal situation (finances/family/job) can receive the care they need.
Going to see a physician (called a GP - General practitioner here) is not free. Say I go to see the GP and the cost is $60. I will pay $30 and Medicare (the government) will pay $30. The rate at which Medicare will pay depends on the service provided, by whom and how much it costs.
Therefore people have a choice. If they can afford it, they can purchase private health insurance and be treated in a private hospital. Here private hospitals can do most things that public hospitals can, but major emergencies like massive trauma and serious heart attacks are usually dealt with in public hospitals because they have better facilities and more staff (nurse to patient ratios are usually better in public hospitals than in private).
Some of you are expressing views similar to what I think most American's seem to think: every man for himself.
Imagine the following scenario. Your wife is driving with your kids on a country road at high speed and her tyre blows out and the car rolls. Both your wife and children are seriously injured. They are retrieved (on scene ambulance, rescue helicopter with doctor and paramedic on board) to the closest major trauma centre. The cost is already quite high. They both need to stay in hospital for a number of weeks and will require rehabilitation for a few months to return to a normal life. Do you honestly believe that this (very real) situation can be affordable to most people? A lot of private health insurance doesn't completely cover all the costs involved in treatment let alone financial loses accrued from loss of work etc. Our health system essentially removes the treatment costs.
Should people who are having chest pain or other potential medical emergencies be put off from going to hospital and receiving potentially life saving care because they may not be able to afford it?
What about a young working family with one child who is diagnosed with cancer? That child hasn't even finished school, how can they provide for themselves?
Yes sometimes our system is taken advantage of by people who know how it works. Drunks and other frequent fliers at hospitals do use resources, but this still happens in America.
I haven't read the plan for the American health system reform, but I highly doubt it will be a system that pays for EVERYTHING. Our system doesn't cover cosmetic procedures for example unless there is enough evidence to support that it is causing serious secondary problems that can be rectified by surgery.
Why are people so concerned about Government run health? Police, Fire, Waste, utilities are all provided by governments to various extents, why shouldn't health? Government run health can provide better consistency and generally more transparency IF IT IS DONE RIGHT.
Again, I am not saying our system is perfect. Its far from it, but I would much rather be a patient in Australia than in the US.
The health system in which I work is probably best described as a public/private partnership. The state governments provide hospitals, dental service, statutory emergency ambulance services as well as other services to their citizens. To varying extents these are free to use. For example a public hospital is free to anyone, but an ambulance trip to hospital is not (at the moment if an ambulance is called and treatment given, but no transport provided, then there is no charge but this may be changing). Funding is derived from taxes and provided by state governments. At the moment there is a plan to nationalise health so that all the states pool their money and the Commonwealth provides the service.
There are numerous private organisations that provide hospitals, dental, allied health, radiographic and non-emergency ambulance services at a cost. Private hospitals are only accessible to those with private health insurance.
I fear our system is becoming more privatised and hence similar to the US than I would like. I feel our current system is good (not perfect) and it means that a person who is suffering a problem no matter their personal situation (finances/family/job) can receive the care they need.
Going to see a physician (called a GP - General practitioner here) is not free. Say I go to see the GP and the cost is $60. I will pay $30 and Medicare (the government) will pay $30. The rate at which Medicare will pay depends on the service provided, by whom and how much it costs.
Therefore people have a choice. If they can afford it, they can purchase private health insurance and be treated in a private hospital. Here private hospitals can do most things that public hospitals can, but major emergencies like massive trauma and serious heart attacks are usually dealt with in public hospitals because they have better facilities and more staff (nurse to patient ratios are usually better in public hospitals than in private).
Some of you are expressing views similar to what I think most American's seem to think: every man for himself.
Imagine the following scenario. Your wife is driving with your kids on a country road at high speed and her tyre blows out and the car rolls. Both your wife and children are seriously injured. They are retrieved (on scene ambulance, rescue helicopter with doctor and paramedic on board) to the closest major trauma centre. The cost is already quite high. They both need to stay in hospital for a number of weeks and will require rehabilitation for a few months to return to a normal life. Do you honestly believe that this (very real) situation can be affordable to most people? A lot of private health insurance doesn't completely cover all the costs involved in treatment let alone financial loses accrued from loss of work etc. Our health system essentially removes the treatment costs.
Should people who are having chest pain or other potential medical emergencies be put off from going to hospital and receiving potentially life saving care because they may not be able to afford it?
What about a young working family with one child who is diagnosed with cancer? That child hasn't even finished school, how can they provide for themselves?
Yes sometimes our system is taken advantage of by people who know how it works. Drunks and other frequent fliers at hospitals do use resources, but this still happens in America.
I haven't read the plan for the American health system reform, but I highly doubt it will be a system that pays for EVERYTHING. Our system doesn't cover cosmetic procedures for example unless there is enough evidence to support that it is causing serious secondary problems that can be rectified by surgery.
Why are people so concerned about Government run health? Police, Fire, Waste, utilities are all provided by governments to various extents, why shouldn't health? Government run health can provide better consistency and generally more transparency IF IT IS DONE RIGHT.
Again, I am not saying our system is perfect. Its far from it, but I would much rather be a patient in Australia than in the US.
- 14,055
- Ireland
- driftking18594
- CiaranGTR94
- 4,687
- Golden State
- xViLLaiNx12
Certain things are better off publicly funded - the Military, Law Enforcement, Fire Protection, Disaster Relief, and Healthcare.
The smoothest running Hospital I've ever personally seen is the California State Prison Hospital in Blythe, California. The doctors all make a ton of money, they don't have to fight insurance companies, and they all get along fine with the Administration department because they get a healthy salary no matter how many CT Scans or cancer operations they perform. It's a world where profit isn't necessary.
You can still have medical contractors to thrive in the free market system. Look at Lockheed, Boeing, McD-Douglass, and so on. The system would work better if it were united.
/Conservative voter.
The smoothest running Hospital I've ever personally seen is the California State Prison Hospital in Blythe, California. The doctors all make a ton of money, they don't have to fight insurance companies, and they all get along fine with the Administration department because they get a healthy salary no matter how many CT Scans or cancer operations they perform. It's a world where profit isn't necessary.
You can still have medical contractors to thrive in the free market system. Look at Lockheed, Boeing, McD-Douglass, and so on. The system would work better if it were united.
/Conservative voter.
Similar threads
