| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#311
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
#312
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#313
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#315
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#316
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#317
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#318
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#319
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#320
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT Bush propaganda against Kerry | General | |||
| Bush fiddles while health care burns | General | |||
| OT- Ode to Immigration | General | |||
| OT-Think government-controlled health coverage will work? Think again! | General | |||
Linear Mode
