|
Scott fails to get the point:
================== Nope. She can seek out medical care wherever and whenever she likes. All she has to do is find a provider willing to provide the care for what she can (or cannot) pay in return. That she can't walk into her corner hospital and *demand* service is not important. What's important is that she can choose freely from among tens of thousands of hospitals and hundreds of thousands to millions of doctors and specialty clinics and obtain immediate treatment from any who are willing to serve her. In Canada, she isn't allowed to even seek out a hospital or surgeon willing to treat her, perhaps pro bono, because her position in the queue is dictated by the government. =============== Like I said, her "freedom" is illusionary. And, wrong again, her position in the queue is NOT dictated by the government but, rather, by her condition. And that, Scott, is determined by the physicians. BTW, you have yet to dentify for me who this government bureaucrat is; who do you think determines her priority? frtzw906 |
Scott asserts:
============== If there is such a guy, please give me his title. Where does he reside in the bureaucracy? Is he federal? Provincial? Local? Well, there's the hospital Admissions Director, to begin with. ================ Is this a title or position in CO hospitals? frtzw906 |
Scott:
============= Also an abysmal failure, which is why Bush wants to let ME keep MY money and put it away MYSELF for MY retirement. ============ As someone - perhaps in this forum - so astutely observed; "the average American can't even find Europe on a map, and now Bush expects them to be able to manage a stock portfolio..." Interesting.... BTW, you must be under 55 then, eh Scott. As I understand it (perhaps incorrectly), the Bush proposal affects only those currebtly under 55. frtzw906 |
Scott:
============== Mill levies are set based on the "assessed value" which does factor in both use and comparative property values along with parcel size, but while the mill levy is set each year, the assessment is changed only about every five years. There is no direct link between the income the property generates from year to year and the assessable value of the property, so no, the renters don't pay their "fair share" of the school taxes =============== Semantics. frtzw906 |
KMAN:
=============== It would seem so. Property owners pay property taxes. Landlords are property owners that must cover the cost of their property taxes through the rents they charge to tenants. Tenants pay rent which includes the portion of revenues the landlord must pay in property taxes. If the renters aren't paying their "fair share" that can only be the case if landlords are not paying sufficient taxes, which is clearly not the problem or responsibility of the renters. ================= Brilliant, Holmes! I couldn't have said it better myself. Watson |
Frederick Burroughs wrote:
wrote: I mean, consider this: the author asserts that Canadians pay (on average) 48% of their income in taxes, "partly for health care". Does anyone know what sources are being used to provide these statistics? Canada, being a modern country with a national, single-payer health care system, is able to generate impressive and comprehensive health care statistics; See: http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/splash.html There's nothing on that website that supports the claim that Canadians pay 48% of their income in taxes. Primarily because it's not true. |
sgallag... says:
=============== There's nothing on that website that supports the claim that Canadians pay 48% of their income in taxes. Primarily because it's not true. ============== Well.... I suppose, if we add up ALL the taxes we pay (PST, GST, property tax, water tax, garbage collection tax, sewer tax, drivers licence fee, hidden "taxes" like fishing licences, etc, etc...) it might come close to 48%, don't you think? I'm not sure, so I'll leave it to the accountants to figure out. frtzw906 |
On 28-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: In Canada, however, compensation for nurses and doctors outside of private practices, particularly surgeons, is government controlled, Exactly what percentage of doctors in Canada are not in private practice? Mike |
On 28-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Well, there's the hospital Admissions Director, to begin with... And your proof that this person actually sets individual patient priorities is...? Mike |
===============
There's nothing on that website that supports the claim that Canadians pay 48% of their income in taxes. Primarily because it's not true. ============== Well.... I suppose, if we add up ALL the taxes we pay (PST, GST, property tax, water tax, garbage collection tax, sewer tax, drivers licence fee, hidden "taxes" like fishing licences, etc, etc...) it might come close to 48%, don't you think? I still don't think it's that high. Of course, if you did do that, then you'd have to do a calculation of ALL taxes on both sides of the border to do a comparison. Canada's income taxes are higher in comparison to US income taxes. But in Canada, CPP and EI (payroll taxes) are lower than the US's FICA and Medicare contributions, which evens it out some. You'd also have to include whatever amounts are being paid in health insurance premiums by people in the US. When all is added together the difference in taxes between Canada and the higher taxed US states is not as wide as what many people believe. |
sgallag surmises:
============== I still don't think it's that high. Of course, if you did do that, then you'd have to do a calculation of ALL taxes on both sides of the border to do a comparison. Canada's income taxes are higher in comparison to US income taxes. But in Canada, CPP and EI (payroll taxes) are lower than the US's FICA and Medicare contributions, which evens it out some. You'd also have to include whatever amounts are being paid in health insurance premiums by people in the US. When all is added together the difference in taxes between Canada and the higher taxed US states is not as wide as what many people believe. ============ I think you may be right. One way or another, the piper wants to be paid. frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott thinks: ================ In Canada, however, compensation for nurses and doctors outside of private practices, particularly surgeons, is government controlled, so there is little motivation to become a surgeon or a nurse. This leads to more shortages, which leads to inadequate staffing, which leads to empty beds because there's no one to care for patients. ============== Sorry Scotty, in Canada the compensation for doctors and nurses is governed by a bargaining process between, for example, the nurses union and various local/regional health boards. Here, in the Vancouver area, for example, the doctor's union/association will bargain with, among others, the board representing the Catholic hospitals in the region. The doctor's association bargains for the pay schedule amounts which determines doctors' pay. Hmmmm.... bargaining.... what a unique concept.... And the ultimate upshot is that the government (through the health boards) controls how much doctors and nurses get paid, and the boards get their funding through the government, which controls the aggregate amount available for health care in any locale. Thus, if there is X amount available, and the demands of doctors and nurses equals X+1, something gets cut. Either they cut the number of personnel, or they take the money from some other part of the budget to compensate. That's why hospital administrators are constantly facing cuts and shortages of basic equipment and supplies I would imagine. It doesn't do any good to have a full staff if there are no supplies or equipment to serve patients. That's the nature of socialized medicine. The total amount available for everybody's free medical services is set by the legislature, and however it's parceled out, whether as compensation for staff or for facilities, equipment and supplies, there's only X available, and once it's gone, everybody has to put up with the shortages. Down here, a hospital can have exactly as much equipment and as many supplies, doctors and nurses as it can afford, based on its competitive advantage in the free market. As to med schools responding to market conditions.... well, I'm from Missouri... are you telling me there's no collusion between the AMA (that is the doc's association, right) and the med schools? What sort of collusion are you alluding to? If you mean price-fixing, no, because that would be a violation of federal law. If you mean a conspiracy to limit med school admissions to keep the number of doctors artificially low, I seriously doubt it, because that would probably be illegal, but if not, it would certainly outrage everyone if it came to light. More importantly, med schools are in competition with each other for students, so it's extremely unlikely that they would shoot their own feet just to pander to the AMA. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott asserts without knowing the facts: ================ Difference is that if she doesn't like the priority given to her based on her income, she can seek out another service provider willing to put her higher on the list. Canadians can't. ============== Not quite correct. When my father-in-law didn't like the coronary surgery options available to him in his smaller community, he asked his GP to refer him to one of the surgeons in the preemminent heart hospital in a larger city. No problem. And, when it came time for the surgery, he was helicoptered onto the roof of the city hospital from his island community. [damned good service if you ask me]. In this case, HE chose his surgeon and HE chose the hospital and he got his wishes. Only because at that moment, the capacity was available and his heart condition jumped him up the queue. The problem with you, Scotty, is that you make up what goes on in Canada and/or you comb the internet for one-off bad examples. Yet those of us who live here and have experience (BCITORGB, KMAN, Michael, etc) with the system know that what you insist is true is, in fact, a fantasy. And I say that you are living in a fantasy world and are in denial about the crumbling state of your health care system. Your anecdotes of success are not necessarily indicative of either the overall experience, the overall solidity of the system, or the long-term prospects. Socialize medicine often works fine at first, while the blush is still on the rose and funding is available because the demand for health care hasn't caught up with or exceeded capacity. But in the long run, it's always a failure and people suffer and die as a result because socialized medicine presumes that the individual is of lesser value than the interests of the society as a whole, so it's easy for the system to abuse individuals while touting it's egalitarian principles. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott fails to get the point: ================== Nope. She can seek out medical care wherever and whenever she likes. All she has to do is find a provider willing to provide the care for what she can (or cannot) pay in return. That she can't walk into her corner hospital and *demand* service is not important. What's important is that she can choose freely from among tens of thousands of hospitals and hundreds of thousands to millions of doctors and specialty clinics and obtain immediate treatment from any who are willing to serve her. In Canada, she isn't allowed to even seek out a hospital or surgeon willing to treat her, perhaps pro bono, because her position in the queue is dictated by the government. =============== Like I said, her "freedom" is illusionary. As I said earlier, you confuse equality of outcome with equality of opportunity. And, wrong again, her position in the queue is NOT dictated by the government but, rather, by her condition. And that, Scott, is determined by the physicians. Nope. It's determined by the government, which decides what conditions take priority and dictates to doctors what patients can be jumped in the queue. That is undeniably the case because your entire system depends utterly upon such "triage." Somebody in government says "An acute MI patient has a higher priority than a teenager with a torn ACL, so the MI gets a bed while the ACL gets a pair of crutches." That decision cannot be made by the individual patient's doctors because one doctor cannot possibly know what the current demand/availability list looks like, so they have to submit their *opinions8 about the relative urgency of their patient's condition to some government arbitrator who decides who gets priority based on what services are available. There is simply no other way for your socialized system to work, by its very nature. And when there's an acute MI and a chronic arteriosclerosis patient vying for the same bed and surgeon, the government dictates which one gets the care. And if there are too many MI's and too many clogged arteries for the system to accommodate, the government dictates who gets served and in what order. Those decisions are NOT made by the doctor. They cannot be made by "the doctor" because there are many doctors with many patients all vying for the same bed and surgeon, so SOMEBODY has to set the priorities, and in Canada's case, it's government bureaucrats. You can claim that the doctors make these decisions, but it's only true insofar as they make the classification of the individual patient. But the categories, and the priority list, is kept by the government, necessarily, so that it can dole out care according to need and availability. To suggest otherwise merely shows willful ignorance on your part. BTW, you have yet to dentify for me who this government bureaucrat is; who do you think determines her priority? Ultimately, whomever is in charge of setting up the treatment priority list. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott asserts: ============== If there is such a guy, please give me his title. Where does he reside in the bureaucracy? Is he federal? Provincial? Local? Well, there's the hospital Admissions Director, to begin with. ================ Is this a title or position in CO hospitals? Probably, but down here they don't operate under government guidelines or restrictions for the admission of patients. They decide based on their own criteria in a free market system. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott: ============= Also an abysmal failure, which is why Bush wants to let ME keep MY money and put it away MYSELF for MY retirement. ============ As someone - perhaps in this forum - so astutely observed; "the average American can't even find Europe on a map, and now Bush expects them to be able to manage a stock portfolio..." Whether they are able to do so or not is far less important than allowing them to try. The whole problem with the Social Security system is that it presumes that NOBODY is smart enough to save their own money, and that only the government is smart enough to manage retirement funds. Self-evidently, the government is utterly incapable of properly managing people's retirement funds, which is why Social Security will be bankrupt in a relatively short time. Sure, some people may screw up their own accounts, but once again, that's THEIR problem, and the government needs to trust its own citizens and allow them to make decisions, good or bad, about their retirement. Interesting.... BTW, you must be under 55 then, eh Scott. As I understand it (perhaps incorrectly), the Bush proposal affects only those currebtly under 55. Yup. But then again, I don't ever expect to see a dime from Social Security, and never have. In fact, I don't even qualify for Social Security. I opted out a long, long time ago, and I'm perfectly happy with that decision. I provide for my own economic future, or not, and I don't expect the government to bail me out or support me in my dotage. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott: ============== Mill levies are set based on the "assessed value" which does factor in both use and comparative property values along with parcel size, but while the mill levy is set each year, the assessment is changed only about every five years. There is no direct link between the income the property generates from year to year and the assessable value of the property, so no, the renters don't pay their "fair share" of the school taxes =============== Semantics. No, reality. It's mathematical reality that non-property-owners pay a tiny fraction of school taxes imposed on property owners and always have. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , BCITORGB at wrote on 3/28/05 7:09 PM: Scott: ============== Mill levies are set based on the "assessed value" which does factor in both use and comparative property values along with parcel size, but while the mill levy is set each year, the assessment is changed only about every five years. There is no direct link between the income the property generates from year to year and the assessable value of the property, so no, the renters don't pay their "fair share" of the school taxes =============== Semantics. frtzw906 It would seem so. Property owners pay property taxes. Landlords are property owners that must cover the cost of their property taxes through the rents they charge to tenants. Tenants pay rent which includes the portion of revenues the landlord must pay in property taxes. If the renters aren't paying their "fair share" that can only be the case if landlords are not paying sufficient taxes, which is clearly not the problem or responsibility of the renters. It is indeed inherent in the manner in which property taxes are assessed and collected, and you're quite right that to be fair, renters should be paying more for schools. To say it's not the problem or responsibility of the renters is sophistry, however, because they have just as much of an obligation to support the schools as the property owner. That's why a national sales tax on consumer goods to fund education for children is a much more fair way of doing things. By doing so the costs are paid based on the ability to pay. Rich consumers buy more luxury goods and thus pay a larger portion of the school costs than poor consumers. There's nothing wrong with this because consumption is voluntary, and any rich consumer who doesn't want to fund schools need only stop consuming. Take that money and dole it out to the STUDENT (not the school district), to be used to pay for private schooling, and you have a much better, more effective, efficient and financially sound school system. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
KMAN: =============== It would seem so. Property owners pay property taxes. Landlords are property owners that must cover the cost of their property taxes through the rents they charge to tenants. Tenants pay rent which includes the portion of revenues the landlord must pay in property taxes. If the renters aren't paying their "fair share" that can only be the case if landlords are not paying sufficient taxes, which is clearly not the problem or responsibility of the renters. ================= Brilliant, Holmes! I couldn't have said it better myself. What happened to your socialistic, egalitarian "share the pain" zeal? Or do you just like the idea of sticking it to landowners because they are somehow immoral for presuming to own something you can't afford? That's not very consistent. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 28-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: In Canada, however, compensation for nurses and doctors outside of private practices, particularly surgeons, is government controlled, Exactly what percentage of doctors in Canada are not in private practice? Doesn't matter. What's government controlled is the compensation provided by the national health service for in-hospital care and surgery, irrespective of whether the doctor is a government employee or a private contractor. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 28-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Well, there's the hospital Admissions Director, to begin with... And your proof that this person actually sets individual patient priorities is...? Oh, he/she is merely a cog in the rationed health care machine that's the whole basis of socialized medicine. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
Scott submits:
============== In this case, HE chose his surgeon and HE chose the hospital and he got his wishes. Only because at that moment, the capacity was available and his heart condition jumped him up the queue. ===================== Which is what I've been saying all along: it is medical condition which determines priority. But please note also: there is no "national" priority list. In some (most) cases, each doctor will have his/her own waiting list. If you're holding out for the surgeon with the best reputation, you can take your chances on his waiting list. You are NOT obliged to take the first surgeon who comes available. In fact, you are free to shop around for a surgeon whoes list is shorter (or nonexistent). So, once more, Scotty, there is no monolithic, socialist, bureaucracy which determines when and where your surgery is done. That the best surgeons have waiting lists ought not to come as a surprise. I'm willing to bet that you'll also wait to get to be seen by the top surgeon in Boulder. Surely that's not some socialist conspiracy. That's the market. No different that in BC. What's curious, Scott, is that you suggest anecdotal evidence of success is irrelevant because you, Mr. Weiser in CO, have concluded that the system doesn't work. Come on up and give us a try. frtzw906 |
Scott:
============ Like I said, her "freedom" is illusionary. As I said earlier, you confuse equality of outcome with equality of opportunity. ================== In this case, again a matter of semantics. What good is equality of opportunity if I can't really exercise it? It just makes cynics of those you promise it to. frtzw906 |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , BCITORGB at wrote on 3/28/05 7:09 PM: Scott: ============== Mill levies are set based on the "assessed value" which does factor in both use and comparative property values along with parcel size, but while the mill levy is set each year, the assessment is changed only about every five years. There is no direct link between the income the property generates from year to year and the assessable value of the property, so no, the renters don't pay their "fair share" of the school taxes =============== Semantics. frtzw906 It would seem so. Property owners pay property taxes. Landlords are property owners that must cover the cost of their property taxes through the rents they charge to tenants. Tenants pay rent which includes the portion of revenues the landlord must pay in property taxes. If the renters aren't paying their "fair share" that can only be the case if landlords are not paying sufficient taxes, which is clearly not the problem or responsibility of the renters. It is indeed inherent in the manner in which property taxes are assessed and collected, and you're quite right that to be fair, renters should be paying more for schools. To say it's not the problem or responsibility of the renters is sophistry, however, because they have just as much of an obligation to support the schools as the property owner. Not at all. Taxes are paid on the property. The owner of the property pays them. End of story. That's why a national sales tax on consumer goods to fund education for children is a much more fair way of doing things. By doing so the costs are paid based on the ability to pay. Rich consumers buy more luxury goods and thus pay a larger portion of the school costs than poor consumers. There's nothing wrong with this because consumption is voluntary, and any rich consumer who doesn't want to fund schools need only stop consuming. So are you only taxing luxury goods? Take that money and dole it out to the STUDENT (not the school district), to be used to pay for private schooling, and you have a much better, more effective, efficient and financially sound school system. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott submits: ============== In this case, HE chose his surgeon and HE chose the hospital and he got his wishes. Only because at that moment, the capacity was available and his heart condition jumped him up the queue. ===================== Which is what I've been saying all along: it is medical condition which determines priority. Indeed. If your medical condition is not high on the priority list, you can't get a room or have surgery. But please note also: there is no "national" priority list. But there is a national system of classifying medical conditions by priority is there not? If doctors are free to admit whomever they please whenever they please and do surgery on them, how is the system "socialized?" If things are as you imply, it's a free market economy. Obviously, it's not, because many people are complaining about their inability to get served because the government won't allow them to see a doctor or go to a hospital. Can you explain this evident dichotomy between reality and your perceptions? In some (most) cases, each doctor will have his/her own waiting list. If you're holding out for the surgeon with the best reputation, you can take your chances on his waiting list. You are NOT obliged to take the first surgeon who comes available. In fact, you are free to shop around for a surgeon whoes list is shorter (or nonexistent). Evidently not. Why does a teenager who need knee surgery have to wait three years if she can "shop around" for a surgeon? So, once more, Scotty, there is no monolithic, socialist, bureaucracy which determines when and where your surgery is done. It sure sounds that way, given the long delays for surgery people have to endure. That the best surgeons have waiting lists ought not to come as a surprise. I'm willing to bet that the teenager with the bad knee would take just about any surgeon. Care to explain why she can't get surgery? I'm willing to bet that you'll also wait to get to be seen by the top surgeon in Boulder. Surely that's not some socialist conspiracy. That's the market. No different that in BC. It's either a free market system or it's socialized. It can't be both. Which is it? What's curious, Scott, is that you suggest anecdotal evidence of success is irrelevant because you, Mr. Weiser in CO, have concluded that the system doesn't work. Come on up and give us a try. Actually, I'm merely echoing the huge number of complaints and criticisms I've seen in the press and on the Web put forward by experts. If your system works so well, why can't the teenager get knee surgery and why are so many people complaining? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott: ============ Like I said, her "freedom" is illusionary. As I said earlier, you confuse equality of outcome with equality of opportunity. ================== In this case, again a matter of semantics. What good is equality of opportunity if I can't really exercise it? It's called "freedom" and "personal responsibility." You can exercise it any time you want to. All you need is the gumption to go out and seize it. If society just gives gifts to anyone who wants them, there is no incentive to excel and no motivation to succeed. Freedom is not an easy or comfortable thing. It requires hard work, personal sacrifice and occasionally your blood to achieve and maintain, but it's all the more valuable for that investment. Chain a dog up long enough and you break its spirit, so that when you unchain it, it is unable to comprehend freedom and cannot seize it. It will continue to pace around and around in the same circle it did when it was chained. Entitlements and welfare have much the same effect on humans, and it's worse because it's often a generational debility. It's better to suffer in freedom that to be mired in comfortable slavery. Entitlements inevitably lead to obesity of the spirit that chains people to their poverty. It just makes cynics of those you promise it to. Then they don't understand the nature of freedom. That's not my problem. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... sgallag surmises: ============== I still don't think it's that high. Of course, if you did do that, then you'd have to do a calculation of ALL taxes on both sides of the border to do a comparison. Canada's income taxes are higher in comparison to US income taxes. But in Canada, CPP and EI (payroll taxes) are lower than the US's FICA and Medicare contributions, which evens it out some. You'd also have to include whatever amounts are being paid in health insurance premiums by people in the US. When all is added together the difference in taxes between Canada and the higher taxed US states is not as wide as what many people believe. ============ I think you may be right. One way or another, the piper wants to be paid. frtzw906 Wants to be paid? ---Demands to be paid! Not paying taxes will usually get you locked up faster than many items. Just ask organised crime. More of them go down to taxes than anything. At least the ones at the top. They did not get to the top being stupid. They can carefully cover most law breaking but showing wealth as legitimate and properly taxed is where they tend to get tripped up. Ken |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , BCITORGB at wrote on 3/28/05 7:09 PM: Scott: ============== Mill levies are set based on the "assessed value" which does factor in both use and comparative property values along with parcel size, but while the mill levy is set each year, the assessment is changed only about every five years. There is no direct link between the income the property generates from year to year and the assessable value of the property, so no, the renters don't pay their "fair share" of the school taxes =============== Semantics. frtzw906 It would seem so. Property owners pay property taxes. Landlords are property owners that must cover the cost of their property taxes through the rents they charge to tenants. Tenants pay rent which includes the portion of revenues the landlord must pay in property taxes. If the renters aren't paying their "fair share" that can only be the case if landlords are not paying sufficient taxes, which is clearly not the problem or responsibility of the renters. It is indeed inherent in the manner in which property taxes are assessed and collected, and you're quite right that to be fair, renters should be paying more for schools. To say it's not the problem or responsibility of the renters is sophistry, however, because they have just as much of an obligation to support the schools as the property owner. Not at all. Taxes are paid on the property. The owner of the property pays them. End of story. Not quite. It's interesting to see your inconsistency however. You want everyone to pay for health care in proportion to their income, while you want landowners to pay more, proportionally, than renters for education. Why is that? That's why a national sales tax on consumer goods to fund education for children is a much more fair way of doing things. By doing so the costs are paid based on the ability to pay. Rich consumers buy more luxury goods and thus pay a larger portion of the school costs than poor consumers. There's nothing wrong with this because consumption is voluntary, and any rich consumer who doesn't want to fund schools need only stop consuming. So are you only taxing luxury goods? "Consumer goods" is the usual term used. It applies to "luxury" goods in that "luxury" goods are generally defined as items that are for recreation, pleasure or quality-of-life enhancement. It excludes necessities such as food, most clothing, heating and electrical costs and other suchlike necessities. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , BCITORGB at wrote on 3/28/05 7:09 PM: Scott: ============== Mill levies are set based on the "assessed value" which does factor in both use and comparative property values along with parcel size, but while the mill levy is set each year, the assessment is changed only about every five years. There is no direct link between the income the property generates from year to year and the assessable value of the property, so no, the renters don't pay their "fair share" of the school taxes =============== Semantics. frtzw906 It would seem so. Property owners pay property taxes. Landlords are property owners that must cover the cost of their property taxes through the rents they charge to tenants. Tenants pay rent which includes the portion of revenues the landlord must pay in property taxes. If the renters aren't paying their "fair share" that can only be the case if landlords are not paying sufficient taxes, which is clearly not the problem or responsibility of the renters. It is indeed inherent in the manner in which property taxes are assessed and collected, and you're quite right that to be fair, renters should be paying more for schools. To say it's not the problem or responsibility of the renters is sophistry, however, because they have just as much of an obligation to support the schools as the property owner. Not at all. Taxes are paid on the property. The owner of the property pays them. End of story. Not quite. It's interesting to see your inconsistency however. You want everyone to pay for health care in proportion to their income, while you want landowners to pay more, proportionally, than renters for education. Why is that? Uh. The landlord will charge the rent he needs to generate the profit margin he wants, and one of his expenses will be taxes. As long as the property tax paid by the landlord is appropriate, then so is the share the tenants are paying through their rent. That's why a national sales tax on consumer goods to fund education for children is a much more fair way of doing things. By doing so the costs are paid based on the ability to pay. Rich consumers buy more luxury goods and thus pay a larger portion of the school costs than poor consumers. There's nothing wrong with this because consumption is voluntary, and any rich consumer who doesn't want to fund schools need only stop consuming. So are you only taxing luxury goods? "Consumer goods" is the usual term used. It applies to "luxury" goods in that "luxury" goods are generally defined as items that are for recreation, pleasure or quality-of-life enhancement. It excludes necessities such as food, most clothing, heating and electrical costs and other suchlike necessities. I have a feeling it won't be a very popular idea, and I think Wal-Mart is going to fight you pretty hard to make sure as many goods as possible aren't in your luxury class. |
Scott asks:
============== But there is a national system of classifying medical conditions by priority is there not? If doctors are free to admit whomever they please whenever they please and do surgery on them, how is the system "socialized?" =============== Just think about that for a moment will you. A "national" system, I mean. This is a HUGE country. How do you suppose that would work?! Suppose I need heart surgery in Vancouver, and a surgeon happens to be free in Toronto. Do you suppose that somehow a government bureaucrat orders or directs me to Toronto to be serviced by this available surgeon. Of course NOT! The whole notion of a "national" directory or system or whatever for establishing medical priorities is ludicrous. That's something even Stalin would not have tried. You're guessing about what happens in Canada, and in this case your guess is so impractical no central-planning communist would even dream of trying it. The experience of my father-in-law shows that he made the choice to be operated on by a surgeon with a good reputation in a hospital which specializes in heart surgeries. This meant he had to travel (including taking a ferry) for his examinations and, eventually, for his surgery. He could also have had it done in his local hospital. We have no way of knowing what the differences in the relative waiting lists may have been. Suffice to say, the surgeon he chose established the severity and hence the priority of his case, and called him in, by helicopter, when he could fit him in. Again, I suspect this is not different than for surgeons in high demand in the USA. Waiting, I mean. And, Scott, it is YOU who calls our system "socialized", not us. We talk about universal (insurance) coverage. What that means is, when my father-in-law arrived at the hospital, he handed over his medical card (like a cerdit card), it was swiped, the data was entered, and the "billing" was taken care of, and he put the card back into his wallet. End of story! frtzw906 |
Scott:
============= What happened to your socialistic, egalitarian "share the pain" zeal? Or do you just like the idea of sticking it to landowners because they are somehow immoral for presuming to own something you can't afford? That's not very consistent. =============== Who said anything about "sticking it to the landowners"? As KMAN pointed out, the landlord is taxed, and we can rest assured he'll approtion his tax bill to all his tenants so they'll "share" the tax burden. As to property taxes being an appropriate means of funding education, I've never said that. That happens to be the way much of it is funded, but I'll agree with you, that doesn't make it right or the correct way to do it. Income tax works for me just as well (better!). frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , BCITORGB at wrote on 3/28/05 7:09 PM: Scott: ============== Mill levies are set based on the "assessed value" which does factor in both use and comparative property values along with parcel size, but while the mill levy is set each year, the assessment is changed only about every five years. There is no direct link between the income the property generates from year to year and the assessable value of the property, so no, the renters don't pay their "fair share" of the school taxes =============== Semantics. frtzw906 It would seem so. Property owners pay property taxes. Landlords are property owners that must cover the cost of their property taxes through the rents they charge to tenants. Tenants pay rent which includes the portion of revenues the landlord must pay in property taxes. If the renters aren't paying their "fair share" that can only be the case if landlords are not paying sufficient taxes, which is clearly not the problem or responsibility of the renters. It is indeed inherent in the manner in which property taxes are assessed and collected, and you're quite right that to be fair, renters should be paying more for schools. To say it's not the problem or responsibility of the renters is sophistry, however, because they have just as much of an obligation to support the schools as the property owner. Not at all. Taxes are paid on the property. The owner of the property pays them. End of story. Not quite. It's interesting to see your inconsistency however. You want everyone to pay for health care in proportion to their income, while you want landowners to pay more, proportionally, than renters for education. Why is that? Uh. The landlord will charge the rent he needs to generate the profit margin he wants, and one of his expenses will be taxes. As long as the property tax paid by the landlord is appropriate, then so is the share the tenants are paying through their rent. Profit margin is not the point. The point is whether each citizen is paying an equal share of the funding required for schools. Fact is that renters are not paying an equal share, they are paying far less per capita than landowners, which happens to include people who own homes and land upon which NO profit is made. Thus, the single home owner pays more than the renter as well. I'm not surprised at your inconsistent approach to funding medical care and schools, given the fact that it's landowners who get soaked for schools, and socialists don't like landowners because they are mostly "have nots" who are jealous of the "haves" of society and are willing to do anything to bring others down to their own level. That's what socialism is all about. That's why a national sales tax on consumer goods to fund education for children is a much more fair way of doing things. By doing so the costs are paid based on the ability to pay. Rich consumers buy more luxury goods and thus pay a larger portion of the school costs than poor consumers. There's nothing wrong with this because consumption is voluntary, and any rich consumer who doesn't want to fund schools need only stop consuming. So are you only taxing luxury goods? "Consumer goods" is the usual term used. It applies to "luxury" goods in that "luxury" goods are generally defined as items that are for recreation, pleasure or quality-of-life enhancement. It excludes necessities such as food, most clothing, heating and electrical costs and other suchlike necessities. I have a feeling it won't be a very popular idea, Probably not, since the majority of people are not landowners and they, like you, are happy to stick it to landowners out of jealousy. If everybody in the country had ethics, we wouldn't need much by way of law. and I think Wal-Mart is going to fight you pretty hard to make sure as many goods as possible aren't in your luxury class. Nah. They don't care about the taxes, they don't pay them, the consumer does. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/30/05 1:25 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , BCITORGB at wrote on 3/28/05 7:09 PM: Scott: ============== Mill levies are set based on the "assessed value" which does factor in both use and comparative property values along with parcel size, but while the mill levy is set each year, the assessment is changed only about every five years. There is no direct link between the income the property generates from year to year and the assessable value of the property, so no, the renters don't pay their "fair share" of the school taxes =============== Semantics. frtzw906 It would seem so. Property owners pay property taxes. Landlords are property owners that must cover the cost of their property taxes through the rents they charge to tenants. Tenants pay rent which includes the portion of revenues the landlord must pay in property taxes. If the renters aren't paying their "fair share" that can only be the case if landlords are not paying sufficient taxes, which is clearly not the problem or responsibility of the renters. It is indeed inherent in the manner in which property taxes are assessed and collected, and you're quite right that to be fair, renters should be paying more for schools. To say it's not the problem or responsibility of the renters is sophistry, however, because they have just as much of an obligation to support the schools as the property owner. Not at all. Taxes are paid on the property. The owner of the property pays them. End of story. Not quite. It's interesting to see your inconsistency however. You want everyone to pay for health care in proportion to their income, while you want landowners to pay more, proportionally, than renters for education. Why is that? Uh. The landlord will charge the rent he needs to generate the profit margin he wants, and one of his expenses will be taxes. As long as the property tax paid by the landlord is appropriate, then so is the share the tenants are paying through their rent. Profit margin is not the point. The point is whether each citizen is paying an equal share of the funding required for schools. Fact is that renters are not paying an equal share, they are paying far less per capita than landowners, which happens to include people who own homes and land upon which NO profit is made. Thus, the single home owner pays more than the renter as well. Your beef would seem to be with how properties are assessed. This has nothing to do with the poor guy paying his rent. If the property is taxed appropriately, the landlord is going to charge the renter and collect the revenues need to pay the property taxes. I'm not surprised at your inconsistent approach to funding medical care and schools, given the fact that it's landowners who get soaked for schools, and socialists don't like landowners because they are mostly "have nots" who are jealous of the "haves" of society and are willing to do anything to bring others down to their own level. That's what socialism is all about. I'm a landowner. I'm not a socialist. I'm also not a selfish jerk. That's why a national sales tax on consumer goods to fund education for children is a much more fair way of doing things. By doing so the costs are paid based on the ability to pay. Rich consumers buy more luxury goods and thus pay a larger portion of the school costs than poor consumers. There's nothing wrong with this because consumption is voluntary, and any rich consumer who doesn't want to fund schools need only stop consuming. So are you only taxing luxury goods? "Consumer goods" is the usual term used. It applies to "luxury" goods in that "luxury" goods are generally defined as items that are for recreation, pleasure or quality-of-life enhancement. It excludes necessities such as food, most clothing, heating and electrical costs and other suchlike necessities. I have a feeling it won't be a very popular idea, Probably not, since the majority of people are not landowners and they, like you, are happy to stick it to landowners out of jealousy. I'm a landowner. I am not interested in "sticking it to landowners." If everybody in the country had ethics, we wouldn't need much by way of law. Let me know when you get some. Advocating vociferously for your own selfish needs is not what I would call ethics. and I think Wal-Mart is going to fight you pretty hard to make sure as many goods as possible aren't in your luxury class. Nah. They don't care about the taxes, they don't pay them, the consumer does. LOL. You might want to find out a little more about how taxes affect spending, which affects the bottom line of business. |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott asks: ============== But there is a national system of classifying medical conditions by priority is there not? If doctors are free to admit whomever they please whenever they please and do surgery on them, how is the system "socialized?" =============== Just think about that for a moment will you. A "national" system, I mean. This is a HUGE country. How do you suppose that would work?! Same way it works everywhere else...not very well at all. Suppose I need heart surgery in Vancouver, and a surgeon happens to be free in Toronto. Do you suppose that somehow a government bureaucrat orders or directs me to Toronto to be serviced by this available surgeon. Of course NOT! No, he just tells you you can't have heart surgery in Vancouver till a bunch of other people get surgery first. Nor can YOU simply board a bus and go to Toronto and walk in to a hospital and be admitted, because Toronto has its own government-mandated priority list, and you're not on it. The whole notion of a "national" directory or system or whatever for establishing medical priorities is ludicrous. No, it's a necessary component of a "national health system." If it's not controlled by the government, it can't be "nationalized." The government MUST set priorities in such systems through policy directives binding on government health care employees and contractors. That's why teenagers with bad knees can't get surgery...they are too low on the priority list, the one that's created by the government, and have to wait. That's something even Stalin would not have tried. Stalin did try it, although he disposed of a lot of excess patients the easy way...he sent them to the Gulags. You're guessing about what happens in Canada, and in this case your guess is so impractical no central-planning communist would even dream of trying it. Funny, that's *exactly* what "central-planning communists" do. The experience of my father-in-law shows that he made the choice to be operated on by a surgeon with a good reputation in a hospital which specializes in heart surgeries. This meant he had to travel (including taking a ferry) for his examinations and, eventually, for his surgery. He could also have had it done in his local hospital. We have no way of knowing what the differences in the relative waiting lists may have been. Suffice to say, the surgeon he chose established the severity and hence the priority of his case, and called him in, by helicopter, when he could fit him in. And the surgeon was operating under directives and guidelines promulgated by the central planning bureaucracy. If your father had had bad knees, he'd likely still be waiting. Again, I suspect this is not different than for surgeons in high demand in the USA. Waiting, I mean. The difference is that unlike your father, I can go to any other hospital in the nation at will and seek service. And, Scott, it is YOU who calls our system "socialized", not us. We talk about universal (insurance) coverage. What that means is, when my father-in-law arrived at the hospital, he handed over his medical card (like a cerdit card), it was swiped, the data was entered, and the "billing" was taken care of, and he put the card back into his wallet. End of story! Not quite. His access to hospitalization and surgery was controlled by government policy. He got lucky because he had a "critical" illness. The teenager with a bad knee isn't quite so lucky, is she? Care to explain how it is that she can't just walk in and have surgery and swipe a card? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott: ============= What happened to your socialistic, egalitarian "share the pain" zeal? Or do you just like the idea of sticking it to landowners because they are somehow immoral for presuming to own something you can't afford? That's not very consistent. =============== Who said anything about "sticking it to the landowners"? As KMAN pointed out, the landlord is taxed, and we can rest assured he'll approtion his tax bill to all his tenants so they'll "share" the tax burden. Not equally. If landlord A pays Y in property taxes, and has 100 tenants, each tenant will pay Y/100 towards public schools. Now, if property owner B pays 1/2Y on his private residence, where he has no tenants and generates no income, he is paying 50 times more than each of the tenants of A. How is it fair that each of the 100 tenants of A get to pay 1/50th of what B pays for public schools? As to property taxes being an appropriate means of funding education, I've never said that. That happens to be the way much of it is funded, but I'll agree with you, that doesn't make it right or the correct way to do it. Income tax works for me just as well (better!). That's all I'm saying. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
Scott:
============ As to property taxes being an appropriate means of funding education, I've never said that. That happens to be the way much of it is funded, but I'll agree with you, that doesn't make it right or the correct way to do it. Income tax works for me just as well (better!). That's all I'm saying. ================= And I've never said otherwise, except to disspell the notion that tenants pay "no" tax toward schools. Property taxes are in more than a few ways, very "odd" taxes. For example, here, where they're based on assessed market value, they penalize those who take care of and maintain their property. And, as you say Scott, they are a poor reflection of actual usage of the services they're supposed to pay for (sewage, water, garbage collection, or whatever). For many of these things, I'm over on your side Scott. Put a meter on my water (which my municipality is doing this summer), charge me per garbage can, etc. On these things, I'm very much a "user pay" advocate (including, if you'll recall and earler thread, agriculture, which you seem to want to support). [Aside: all bets are off if the city tries to sell the water reservoirs and distribution rights to private, for-profit, firms -- water belongs to the PEOPLE.] frtzw906 |
Scott objects:
============= No, he just tells you you can't have heart surgery in Vancouver till a bunch of other people get surgery first. Nor can YOU simply board a bus and go to Toronto and walk in to a hospital and be admitted, because Toronto has its own government-mandated priority list, and you're not on it. =============== OK, Scott, you need to decide, is it a "national" waiting list, or a "city" list (obviously, in your mind, the provinces play no role in this: or do they? What say you?)? And, in Toronto, this "government-mandated" priority list: which government are we talking about? From your analysis, could I, however, walk from one hospital in Toronto to another to improve my position? Further, within one hospital, once I'm there, can I walk from one surgeon's office to another to try to improve my position or exercise some choice over who actually does my surgery? We need answers Scott. These are very real, practical, dilemmas. frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
Uh. The landlord will charge the rent he needs to generate the profit margin he wants, and one of his expenses will be taxes. As long as the property tax paid by the landlord is appropriate, then so is the share the tenants are paying through their rent. Profit margin is not the point. The point is whether each citizen is paying an equal share of the funding required for schools. Fact is that renters are not paying an equal share, they are paying far less per capita than landowners, which happens to include people who own homes and land upon which NO profit is made. Thus, the single home owner pays more than the renter as well. Your beef would seem to be with how properties are assessed. In part. This has nothing to do with the poor guy paying his rent. If the property is taxed appropriately, the landlord is going to charge the renter and collect the revenues need to pay the property taxes. Once again, the issue is the fairness and equitability of school funding assessments. I'm merely pointing out that in most places in the US, schools are disproportionately funded by landowners, and that there are many "free riders" who get substantial discounts on their "fair share." I'm not surprised at your inconsistent approach to funding medical care and schools, given the fact that it's landowners who get soaked for schools, and socialists don't like landowners because they are mostly "have nots" who are jealous of the "haves" of society and are willing to do anything to bring others down to their own level. That's what socialism is all about. I'm a landowner. I'm not a socialist. I'm also not a selfish jerk. So why the inconsistency in your positions in re health care and school funding? "Consumer goods" is the usual term used. It applies to "luxury" goods in that "luxury" goods are generally defined as items that are for recreation, pleasure or quality-of-life enhancement. It excludes necessities such as food, most clothing, heating and electrical costs and other suchlike necessities. I have a feeling it won't be a very popular idea, Probably not, since the majority of people are not landowners and they, like you, are happy to stick it to landowners out of jealousy. I'm a landowner. I am not interested in "sticking it to landowners." You don't argue very effectively for not doing so. If everybody in the country had ethics, we wouldn't need much by way of law. Let me know when you get some. Advocating vociferously for your own selfish needs is not what I would call ethics. That's because you confuse socialist dogma with ethics. It's hardly unethical to advocate fairness and personal responsibility. and I think Wal-Mart is going to fight you pretty hard to make sure as many goods as possible aren't in your luxury class. Nah. They don't care about the taxes, they don't pay them, the consumer does. LOL. You might want to find out a little more about how taxes affect spending, which affects the bottom line of business. Only when the business is marginal. Wal-Mart doesn't give a damn what the local taxes are because they have a tremendous market dominance and know that the higher the taxes, and the less discretionary funds that a family has available, the MORE LIKELY they are to shop at Wal-Mart. It's a key component of their business model. This is why while elites don't like Wal-Mart, it's exceeding rare for a Wal-Mart store to fail. You see, Wal-Mart's customers are the middle and lower income brackets who *need* to save money on consumer goods and don't have the luxury of being able to spend more on better quality goods. "If you build it, they will come." is the catchphrase of Wal-Mart...because they do. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com