From: Carbon on
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:27:12 -0800, Dinosaur_Sr wrote:
> On Feb 18, 6:16 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:18:15 +0000, assimilate wrote:
>>> On 17-Feb-2010, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously, that totally misses the point. The point would be the
>>>>>> systemic corruption that makes such gross overbilling an everyday
>>>>>> event.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop whining.
>>>>
>>>> I should just allow myself to be raped like all you ideologues,
>>>> huh?
>>>
>>> Better that than I get raped by your Universal Healthcare.
>>
>> Please find any country on the planet with universal healthcare that
>> has higher per capita healthcare costs than the United States. Go
>> ahead, we'll wait.
>
> The govt dictates costs and service levels in those countries. In the
> US people can choose from a free market.

In a free market there would be competition and therefore prices at
least somewhat in line with the cost of production. I hope you're not
going to try to argue that either is the case with big healthcare in the
US.
From: Howard Brazee on
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:45:03 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr
<frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote:

>> Say this actually happens. Will you still be sharing your smug little
>> stories about the survival of the fittest? What if you're the one on the
>> losing end?
>
>This will happen at some point, as it did the the UK in the early to
>mid 20th century.

Were the people in the UK better off a century ago or are they better
off now?

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
From: Howard Brazee on
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:04:02 -0600, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote:

>>>What would be best would be for the money to come out of sales taxes.
>>>That way even the slackers have to participate.
>>
>>There are a lot of good reasons to replace income tax with sales tax.
>
>Name them.

Here's three.

A subsidiary company owned by a foreign company can't benefit its
owner by lowering its profit (by being charged more by the parent
company for products).

Sales value is simple and direct. Net profits is not. We spend a
lot on lawyers to define business expenses to lower taxes.

Progressive taxes is implemented by excluding food and medicine, not
by income bracketing.



--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
From: John B. on
On Feb 21, 6:36 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:04:02 -0600, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote:
> >>>What would be best would be for the money to come out of sales taxes.
> >>>That way even the slackers have to participate.
>
> >>There are a lot of good reasons to replace income tax with sales tax.
>
> >Name them.
>
> Here's three.
>
> A subsidiary company owned by a foreign company can't benefit its
> owner by lowering its profit (by being charged more by the parent
> company for products).    
>
> Sales value is simple and direct.   Net profits is not.   We spend a
> lot on lawyers to define business expenses to lower taxes.
>
> Progressive taxes is implemented by excluding food and medicine, not
> by income bracketing.
>
> --
> "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
> than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
> to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
>
> - James Madison

Excluding food and medicine does not make for a progressive tax.
From: BAR on
In article <mub3o51s96r7a7hkq5pq6dcs687sfkrlaq(a)4ax.com>, donsno2
@charter.net says...
>
> In an absolute sense, perhaps, but in the real world not so much. Not
> everyone who donates does from the heart or the tax codes wouldn't be
> so full of deductions and special cuts, nor would churches have
> imposed taxes (pew rent and tithes) on their parishioners in former
> times, not is it true that the government *does* take taxes at the
> point of a gun--that's as much an exaggeration as that everyone who
> donates does it altruistically.

The government has enacted laws to collect the taxes by force if you do
not pay them.

> The Founders obviously felt that tax-provided services and
> conveniences (roads, postal services, education, poor houses,
> hospitals) were important to the goal of providing a more perfect
> union. Sorry if you feel otherwise.

How much of your property are you willing to give to the government each
year?