"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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.

He should lose an additional point for his inane arguement. Hell even the
Russians have figured out that a flat tax is best.

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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.

He should lose an additional point for his inane arguement. Hell even the
Russians have figured out that a flat tax is best.

Give it time. Once the class warfare has had it's chance to sway public
opinion, they'll start redistributing the wealth through a "progressive" tax
too.