"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
The hospitals down here are private. And the high fees that the hospital
charges me and my insurance company helps subsidize the folks who show up
there with no insurance


Right, and that's actually a system grown out of control, but with very
sensible roots.

If you show up at an emergency room, clearly needing emergency treatment,
do you want the doctors to find out about your insurance and/or your
financial status first, or do you want them start fixing you?

That is how publicly subsidized hospitals got started (a long time ago)
providing subsidized (and very basic, and very often low quality) health
care to poor people. To folks who want the gov't to take over yet more of
health care, I always answer "You can get all the free gov't health care
you want, just go to the closest emergency room. It's not that good (in
large part because you usually have to wait in long lines), but hey, it's
free (to the user, not the taxpayer)."

An excellent case of TANSTAAFL

Now back to the rest of the argument-

Really? That doesn't quite fit with the last statistics I saw, but *if*
that top 1% has 32% of the overall income, then what is unfair about
making them pay 32% of the taxes?


You're changing the argument now.

No, I'm not.

... You said that it's only equitable to charge them more because they
derive more benefits from the government (which I don't agree with).

No, I said it's fair to charge each income bracket with paying their share
of the overal income tax burden, apportioned by how much of the nation's
overall income they earn.

example If the top 1% earns 50% of all income, then they should pay 50%
of the tax. Fair? I think so, and so far nobody has disagreed, just kicked
& squealed about how those dad-gum poor people have it so easy.

And the fact that you think poor people derive *more* benefits just shows
that facts don't seem to sink in for you.



You have not answered that basic question, just answered with a lot of
whining about how the poor have it made.


They don't "have it made". But their benefit vs. taxes-paid ratio is
much, much higher than that of richer folks.

If that were true, then people in general would be seeking those benefits
by becoming poor, instead of scrabbling to claw their way up the
socio-economic ladder.


Despite the extra tax burden that comes along with doing so, it is still
more self-satisfying and rewarding to "scrabble and claw" ones way up the
socio-economic ladder.



You keep twisting the argument to make it one about quality of life
instead of one about a fair tax system.


No, I'm responding to the knee-jerk claims made by a bunch of out-of-touch
fascists.

NOYB: 1
DSK: 0

You lose a point for being the first one to turn to name-calling.