The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » So what's the best income tax rate? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..6..9..12..15~16~17~18~19..21~22~23 [Next]
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 15:32, LobowolfXXX wrote:
If a person doesn't buy health insurance when he or she is healthy, then gets sick and wants to sign up, and you want to force the insurance company (or the government) to cover him, that's not health insurance; it's welfare.


Or a regulated industry.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4861 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 15:32, LobowolfXXX wrote:
If a person doesn't buy health insurance when he or she is healthy, then gets sick and wants to sign up, and you want to force the insurance company (or the government) to cover him, that's not health insurance; it's welfare.

Yes, and it will lead to people not signing up for insurance until they are sick, which will drive the cost up significantly.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 13:31, Woland wrote:
Balducci,

"Social Security" is a Ponzi scheme that would have landed its perpetrators in jail, had they been other than Federal officials. It is a colossal rip-off of the working man. Think about it: the government takes your money for years, and if you die before you retire, the government keeps all of it!

Medicare is bankrupt and will bankrupt the entire government if it is not reformed.

Both of these programs had "good intentions" but are failures.

I appreciate and salute you for at least being consistent on your opinion of these programs.

Actually, though, the problem with Social Security is not that it is a scam in any way, shape, or form, but rather that it has been mismanaged by your politicians. Social Security is a form of PAYGO system, and these systems have worked and do work very nicely in countries that manage them competently. Anyway, that is my opinion on that. I'm pretty sure you will disagree. Smile

Medicare, really, I have no opinion on it whatsoever.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
HerbLarry
View Profile
Special user
Poof!
731 Posts

Profile of HerbLarry
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 11:23, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 10:46, HerbLarry wrote:
A Right doesn't take liberty or property from another citizen.


Then you have no right to be protected from criminals.


The is no Right to be protected from criminals. People have gone to court on that and lost every time, "The Police were late getting here & I was robbed/injured." You are responsible for your own safety.
You know why don't act naive.
HerbLarry
View Profile
Special user
Poof!
731 Posts

Profile of HerbLarry
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 12:24, balducci wrote:
Woland, HerbLarry, are you also opposed to Medicare and Social Security?

If you are opposed to them, that's fine.

If you are not opposed, then how do you justify the existence of those mandatory programs?


I am opposed to Medicare, and S.S. is a ponzi scheme. So yes on that one too.
How could I not be opposed to a "program" that requires me to pay into it yet does not have to pay me a red dime if it so chooses?
You know why don't act naive.
kcg5
View Profile
Inner circle
who wants four fried chickens and a coke
1868 Posts

Profile of kcg5
All this stuff makes you so mad... so move.
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!!!!



"History will be kind to me, as I intend to write it"- Sir Winston Churchill
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 15:36, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 15:32, LobowolfXXX wrote:
If a person doesn't buy health insurance when he or she is healthy, then gets sick and wants to sign up, and you want to force the insurance company (or the government) to cover him, that's not health insurance; it's welfare.

Yes, and it will lead to people not signing up for insurance until they are sick, which will drive the cost up significantly.
Except, ideally, the penalty for not signing up should be around the cost of one of the cheaper plans.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 16:40, HerbLarry wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 12:24, balducci wrote:
Woland, HerbLarry, are you also opposed to Medicare and Social Security?

If you are opposed to them, that's fine.

If you are not opposed, then how do you justify the existence of those mandatory programs?


I am opposed to Medicare, and S.S. is a ponzi scheme. So yes on that one too.
How could I not be opposed to a "program" that requires me to pay into it yet does not have to pay me a red dime if it so chooses?
Tying in to the martial arts thread- I'd rather pay social security and give all those seniors practicing Tai Chi in the park a regular cash income, than not pay and have them, out of desparation, form a ninja gang that goes around and robs people blind.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4861 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 16:51, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 15:36, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 15:32, LobowolfXXX wrote:
If a person doesn't buy health insurance when he or she is healthy, then gets sick and wants to sign up, and you want to force the insurance company (or the government) to cover him, that's not health insurance; it's welfare.

Yes, and it will lead to people not signing up for insurance until they are sick, which will drive the cost up significantly.
Except, ideally, the penalty for not signing up should be around the cost of one of the cheaper plans.


Except that it's NOT. In fact the penalty as it is makes it a rather good deal to not buy the insurance, at least not for a few years.

Even if it was not, that still is ignoring the fact that the government is literally forcing people to buy something. Should the government force you to buy a phone?

Seeing that a lot of people are not receiving appropriate health care, and attempting to "solve" this by forcing them to buy insurance is just as absurd as trying to help the homeless by passing a law that says everybody has to buy a house. Hey, that's a GREAT idea, it will also stimulate the economy because there will be all these jobs for people to BUILD these houses. They need to get on this as a new bill right away.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 17:07, gdw wrote:
Even if it was not, that still is ignoring the fact that the government is literally forcing people to buy something. Should the government force you to buy a phone?


You have inadvertantly put your finger on the central issue. Is access to health care (we'll worry about the details of this another time) more closely analogous to access to consumer goods such as telephones or to instruments of justice such as neutral courts of law? Or is it something else altogether?

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 16:37, HerbLarry wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 11:23, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 10:46, HerbLarry wrote:
A Right doesn't take liberty or property from another citizen.


Then you have no right to be protected from criminals.


The is no Right to be protected from criminals. People have gone to court on that and lost every time, "The Police were late getting here & I was robbed/injured." You are responsible for your own safety.


Then it's OK to close all of the prisons and release repeat offenders back into society? Nobody should be punished for any crimes because that could be a potential deterrent, and we can't have that.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
Steve_Mollett
View Profile
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
3006 Posts

Profile of Steve_Mollett
"Do we reeeeaalllly want to have people in prisons? It costs monnneeeyyy...!" Smile
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4861 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 17:47, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 17:07, gdw wrote:
Even if it was not, that still is ignoring the fact that the government is literally forcing people to buy something. Should the government force you to buy a phone?


You have inadvertantly put your finger on the central issue. Is access to health care (we'll worry about the details of this another time) more closely analogous to access to consumer goods such as telephones or to instruments of justice such as neutral courts of law? Or is it something else altogether?

John


I wouldn't say that was inadvertent. Also, why do you differentiate between "consumer goods" and "instruments of justice?"
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4861 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 18:36, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 16:37, HerbLarry wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 11:23, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 10:46, HerbLarry wrote:
A Right doesn't take liberty or property from another citizen.


Then you have no right to be protected from criminals.


The is no Right to be protected from criminals. People have gone to court on that and lost every time, "The Police were late getting here & I was robbed/injured." You are responsible for your own safety.


Then it's OK to close all of the prisons and release repeat offenders back into society? Nobody should be punished for any crimes because that could be a potential deterrent, and we can't have that.


There's a BIG problem with what you are implying. You are saying that the conclusion of the premise that you do not have a right to the labors of another is that others DO have a right to your body and your property. At least that is what would be being said by "nobody should be punished" as an extension of this.

The point is that you do not have a right to the services of another. That does not mean they can not provide those services, should they agree to, similarly, you can pay/trade for those services, should you agree to.

In no way does this mean that others have a right to assault you. That is a violation of your rights. You have every right to defend yourself, including seeking services from others to protect you and your property.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 18:47, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 18:36, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 16:37, HerbLarry wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 11:23, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 10:46, HerbLarry wrote:
A Right doesn't take liberty or property from another citizen.


Then you have no right to be protected from criminals.


The is no Right to be protected from criminals. People have gone to court on that and lost every time, "The Police were late getting here & I was robbed/injured." You are responsible for your own safety.


Then it's OK to close all of the prisons and release repeat offenders back into society? Nobody should be punished for any crimes because that could be a potential deterrent, and we can't have that.


There's a BIG problem with what you are implying. You are saying that the conclusion of the premise that you do not have a right to the labors of another is that others DO have a right to your body and your property. At least that is what would be being said by "nobody should be punished" as an extension of this.


Yeah, that was my point. I was being quasi-fish-fesces. Herb Larry was the one that said that you have no right to be protected. If you have no right to be protected then prisons have no reason to exist.
I disagree with the assertion that law-abiding people have no right to be protected from violent sex-offenders and other "likely to re-offend" types.

Re: Your idea of exchange for the service, that's what the tax is. If you don't pay the tax then you have no right to the service. Which means, don't come crying to us when you get raped and murdered by a 20 time offender.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4861 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 19:12, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 18:47, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 18:36, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 16:37, HerbLarry wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 11:23, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 10:46, HerbLarry wrote:
A Right doesn't take liberty or property from another citizen.


Then you have no right to be protected from criminals.


The is no Right to be protected from criminals. People have gone to court on that and lost every time, "The Police were late getting here & I was robbed/injured." You are responsible for your own safety.


Then it's OK to close all of the prisons and release repeat offenders back into society? Nobody should be punished for any crimes because that could be a potential deterrent, and we can't have that.


There's a BIG problem with what you are implying. You are saying that the conclusion of the premise that you do not have a right to the labors of another is that others DO have a right to your body and your property. At least that is what would be being said by "nobody should be punished" as an extension of this.


Yeah, that was my point. I was being quasi-fish-fesces. Herb Larry was the one that said that you have no right to be protected. If you have no right to be protected then prisons have no reason to exist.
I disagree with the assertion that law-abiding people have no right to be protected from violent sex-offenders and other "likely to re-offend" types.

Re: Your idea of exchange for the service, that's what the tax is. If you don't pay the tax then you have no right to the service. Which means, don't come crying to us when you get raped and murdered by a 20 time offender.


I agree with HerbLarry though. We have no right to be protected. That does NOT mean others have a "right" to harm us. Nor does it mean there should not be justice served.

As for the exchange for services, I get that's what taxes are for, except that eliminates the whole "choice" aspect. You don't exactly get the choice to "not" pay, and only just not receive the service. You don't pay the "protection fee" and they come and throw you in a cage. Similarly, as there is no choice in paying, there is no inherent motivation for those providing the service to continue to improve on said service. If there is no chance that they won't have "customers" there is nothing to give them incentive. Their "clientele" is guaranteed because if they don't want to subscribe to their service then the police get to lock you up.

Hmm, you don't want our "protection" then you might not like what happens. What's that sound like?
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
1) You have the right to protect yourself. Therefore, you can delegate a portion of that right to a government, which can provide an army and a police force to protect you.

2) A tax is not a fair exchange for a service. In the words of Chief Justice John Marshall, the power to tax is the power to destroy.

Woland
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 18:42, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 17:47, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 17:07, gdw wrote:
Even if it was not, that still is ignoring the fact that the government is literally forcing people to buy something. Should the government force you to buy a phone?


You have inadvertantly put your finger on the central issue. Is access to health care (we'll worry about the details of this another time) more closely analogous to access to consumer goods such as telephones or to instruments of justice such as neutral courts of law? Or is it something else altogether?

John


I wouldn't say that was inadvertent. Also, why do you differentiate between "consumer goods" and "instruments of justice?"


I'd have been disappointed if you hadn't brought this up. If you have to ask, I don't think you'd appreciate the answer.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4861 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 21:45, Woland wrote:
1) You have the right to protect yourself. Therefore, you can delegate a portion of that right to a government, which can provide an army and a police force to protect you.
. . .
Woland


Yes, absolutely. The question is, can someone else delegate that right for you?
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4861 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 21:55, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 18:42, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 17:47, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 17:07, gdw wrote:
Even if it was not, that still is ignoring the fact that the government is literally forcing people to buy something. Should the government force you to buy a phone?


You have inadvertantly put your finger on the central issue. Is access to health care (we'll worry about the details of this another time) more closely analogous to access to consumer goods such as telephones or to instruments of justice such as neutral courts of law? Or is it something else altogether?

John


I wouldn't say that was inadvertent. Also, why do you differentiate between "consumer goods" and "instruments of justice?"


I'd have been disappointed if you hadn't brought this up. If you have to ask, I don't think you'd appreciate the answer.


You'd be disappointed if I hadn't asked, but then you seem dismissive about answering.

It's not a matter of appreciating the answer, it's a matter of whether or not it can be backed up.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » So what's the best income tax rate? (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..6..9..12..15~16~17~18~19..21~22~23 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.06 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL