And while we're on the subject, IIRC you are over 50. Does it bother you
that Hillary's health care proposal denied a good many medical services to
people over 50, such as dialysis and heart valve replacement? Apparently
she deemed those over 50 to be expendable.

Is it not "nannyism" to expect the guv'mint to pay for that?
And what do you think of cuts in Medicare coverage?

It's rank nannyism to expect anybody else to pay for one's
health care. After all, if you can't pay for it yourself,
clearly you don't deserve it.


And here's a flash for ya--the
Canadian and Norwegian health care systems ration health care similarly.
Where do you think Hillary got her basic concepts for federalized health
care?


Capt. JG wrote:
Where do you get this stuff and why do I care what Hillary proposed in 1992?


Because, man, it's *HILLARY* scary movie theme.

Actually, the tax should be slightly skewed progressively (ie the top
earners pay more) because they gain more from the system.


Maxprop wrote:
Given reasonable taxation, they also *contribute* far more to the system.
Or did you simply ignore that fact.


Not at all.

It's called "progressive" taxation, Max.


Can we presume that you are not in favor of a flat tax? g


We've already bankrupted the gov't with various fiscal
stupidity.

DSK

Maxprop wrote:
"Walt" wrote

Maxprop wrote:

They have 4.5 million folks--we have nearly 300 million. Quite a
different set of dynamics. And our population continues to increase,
especially in the demographics of the working and non-working poor. If
you can provide the recipe for a health care system that equals that of
Norway but provides for a population 65 times larger without bankrupting
the country and killing the economy, I'm all ears.

Sheesh. Ever heard the term "per capita"?

It's an interesting concept. You might want to check it out.

Sheesh. Ever heard of diseconomies of scale?

Yes I have. I'm also familiar with the concept of economy of scale.

Now, would you care to elaborate on why this is an example of the
former and not the latter?

We agree on the scale part. What's not clear is whether the larger
scale makes it more or less economic. Simply stating that there are
more people to serve doesn't imply it's unworkable.

For example, McDonald's isn't exactly going broke just because they
have lots of customers.

// Walt

Dave wrote:
It has never been sold to voters as a welfare program.

DSK said:
Really? Then why all the partisan huckstering (including a
bit from you IIRC) comparing the "return" on Social Security
payments to the potential of the same amount invested in the
stock market?


Dave wrote:
Sorry, but what you're saying here bears so little relationship to
rationality that I just can't respond to it.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s... a0941ead6c198

To give you the benefit of the doubt Dave, you may not
remember all the frantic & fallacious posturing you indulged
in. But it's all on record, in black & white.

DSK

Walt wrote:
The problem lies in that the tax rate changes depening on how you make
the money. If you *earn* it by *working* it's taxed at a higher rate
than if you obtain it without working. That's my main beef with the tax
system.


Agreed.


Maxprop wrote:
Liberal.


Not really. It's just a mainstream sense of what's fair.
I suppose, with the tremendous shift to the right these last
few years, "fair" appears to be a somewhat liberal concept.




That would be one way to try to fix Social Security long-term, but the
same angry voters won't hear of it.


Ever consider why those voters are angry? Could it be that they react to
basic unfairness, despite not being privy to such wealth?

The basic unfairness of what? A plan to keep grandmothers
from starving on street corners?





... You seem to be
from the "if it doesn't affect me, then stick it too 'em" school of
"ethics."


???? Are you referring to my lack of sympathy for people who
expect Social Security to support them in luxury? I thought
that was a rather conservative (certainly it's fiscal
conservatism in action).

But hey, you should feel GREAT! After years and years of
calling me a liberal, for absolutely no reason other than
that I can logical & factual support for my statements & you
can't, I have now actually said something LIBERAL!

LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL!!!!

Better go shout it from a few roof tops, Max!

DSK

I thought the Bush/Cheney SS reform plan was pretty much dead even
before this recent election.


Walt wrote:
Well, yes, but sometimes it's hard to resist giving the dead donkey
another whack for good measure.


And fun

Plus, something similar will be proposed again before too long. It's no
more dead than universal health care - hibernating, perhaps, but it'll
be back.


Oh sure, it's one of the grand theme "issues" that are
really part of the ongoing public ethos but doesn't really
play much part in politics, except for years when the
name-calling gets to be so embarrassing they stop for a while.


Sure. $90k/year puts you in the upper brackets... of course it's not
so great as it used to be... wherein one was an educated professional
(who would receive, as part of their education, some lessons in
managing money) and/or one who inherited wealth (and thus had one
finances guarded by the family banker).


I wasn't aware that managing money was part of the classical liberal
arts education.


Perhaps not, but it's part of the classic conservative
lesson plan.




Are we supposed to feel sorry for the person who, at 65, is earning
$90k/yr + and is looking at retiring with a net worth in the red & no
retirement income beyond Social Security?


Walt wrote:
Well yeah. It must suck to be that stupid.


Some seem to enjoy it. Look at Bubbles, he'd love to join
that crowd.

And guess what, we've got a lot of 'em. About half of AARP
magazine seems to be devoted to them, and I'm sure they are
a group looking for a political voice. I'm half expecting
Maxprop & Dave to try to jerk tears for this bunch because
it serves the current neo-con agenda.

DSK

Maxprop wrote:

"Walt" wrote in message
...

Maxprop wrote:

"Walt" wrote in message


A guy who busts his ass working as a plumber or a ditch digger pays a
higher rate than a guy who makes much more flipping condos or bonds.

Oh really??? Did you conveniently omit the capital gains tax, or just
forget about it.

No. The tax on capital gains is lower than the tax on labor. Look it up
in the tax tables. Don't forget to include payroll taxes.



And the guy who makes money flipping condos in turn pays a higher rate
than the lucky offspring of the well to do who "earn" their fortune
simply by virtue of outliving their parents.

The heirs don't "earn" anything. They inherit the money their
progenitors have *already paid taxes upon.* So you'd tax that money
again? Why?

Every time money changes hands, it's taxed. If I pay a plumber to unclog
my drains, he pays income taxes on it. Yes, I've already paid income taxes
on the money I used to pay him, but that's the way it works. And if he
uses the money to tip a waitress at lunch, she pays taxes on it. And if
she hires a gardener, the gardener pays income taxes on the money he's
paid. And if he hires somebody for something, that person pays too. etc.
etc. etc.


Are you serious? Do you really fail to see the difference?


That's the way income taxes work. Why you want to make a special
exemption for the progeny of the idle rich is beyond me.


Hmmm. A bit of prejudice showing here, Walt. I seriously doubt that the
wealthy got that way by being idle. Of course anyone with more than you
must be a lazy *******, right?


Is it because they don't "earn" it? Are you really so gullible that you
think you're going to be one of them some day?


Oh wait--you're in favor of punitive taxation. I almost forgot.

WHACK that strawman, Max. WHACK it like you mean it. C'mon, you can do
it.


Take a Prozac and call me in the morning.

Earned income is taxed, and should be. Wealth passed from family member to
family member is an entirely different situation. If it were the same,
inheritance would be taxed at the same rates as earned income, but it is
not.

That's a nice circular argument there. Income derived through
inheritance should be taxed at a different rate because the tax code
treats it that way. Nice.


It is taxed exorbitantly, typically at around 50%.

Not quite. Currently it is taxed at a maximum rate of 45%, with the
first $2 Million exempt from the tax.

And it will be ZERO in a couple of years. Do you think zero is an
appropriate rate?

See http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/...atetaxrate.htm

And it affects the
not-so-rich (struggling small businesses, etc.) as well as the "idle
rich."


The struggling family business or family farm that is adversely affected
by due to the estate tax is largely an urban legend.

See http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html

//Walt

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Sidney Greenstreet wrote:

It's ridiculous to tax income. Everyone should pay the same fee to the
government every year. If everyone over 18 paid something like $3,000
regardless of income it would be the most equitable.


Glen, shut the **** up.

The adults are trying to have a conversation.

// Walt


Why should the price of the services of government be based on income?

If so, then one would expect better government services for those who pay
more.

So those who pay higher taxes get better government service.

That's fair?!


Walt, what you call "adult" is a bunch of people so ingrained into a system
that they can't see the obvious injustices and breeding ground for
corruption. You'll get buried in the box you think in.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
He's deliberately nymshifting which is probably a violation of his TOS. Of
course, he'll now claim that I reported him.


Go ahead, make my day.

It's not a violation of TOS. You already reported me once before and were
quite surprised when I came back shifting even more and even used your name!

So make my day.

All this conversation is about is other people's money and what method it is
you find superior to rob them.