Author Topic: Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model  (Read 2784 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model
« Reply #15 on: June 01, 2010, 11:22:06 AM »
Sales taxes are class warfare because the rich can afford to pay them while the poor can't.  They cut into the budgets of those who can least afford the cut.

That's an almost universally acknowledged truth, that sales taxes are most onerous on the poorest citizens - - what on earth is "bullshit" about that?

Sales taxes are the most egalitarian of all taxes because it matters not what race, creed, color, ethnic origin, sexual preference, gender or income, all purchases are taxed the same. They are the complete opposite of the progressive tax which charges different rates for different people.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model
« Reply #16 on: June 01, 2010, 11:41:45 AM »
<<Sales taxes are the most egalitarian of all taxes because it matters not what race, creed, color, ethnic origin, sexual preference, gender or income, all purchases are taxed the same.>>

Not exactly.  Although in theory the effect of the tax is felt regardless of race, creed, color, ethnic origin, sexual preference or gender, it's effect is most severely felt in the lowest income group.

<< . . . all purchases are taxed the same.>>

Exactly.  All purchases.  Since purchases don't have kids to feed, payments to make, rent to pay, the purchase feels nothing in regard to the tax imposed on it.  Only the taxpayer making the purchase feels the pinch, and since it's only the most disadvantaged socioeconomically of the taxpayers that really feels the pinch, fuck 'em.  Who gives a shit about the poor and the disadvantaged?

Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model
« Reply #17 on: June 01, 2010, 11:57:02 AM »
<<how much should the rich be taxed and who is the rich?>>

The rich is anyone earning over $250K per annum.  Raise 'em a few percentage points at the top end and a fraction of a percentage point at the low end, and there'd be plenty for health care.

how much are they already paying?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model
« Reply #18 on: June 01, 2010, 12:09:56 PM »
<<how much are they already paying?>>

Who really knows?  They hide their wealth in off-shore trusts, phony expense accounts and various tax dodges.  I'd guess the official maximum tax rate in Canada would be somewhere between 45 and 50%.  (It used to be 53% but that was a long time ago.)  But the official rate is virtually meaningless with these weasels.  It's basically whatever their accountants can make it to be.

Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model
« Reply #19 on: June 01, 2010, 12:13:36 PM »
<<how much are they already paying?>>

Who really knows?  They hide their wealth in off-shore trusts, phony expense accounts and various tax dodges.  I'd guess the official maximum tax rate in Canada would be somewhere between 45 and 50%.  (It used to be 53% but that was a long time ago.)  But the official rate is virtually meaningless with these weasels.  It's basically whatever their accountants can make it to be.

how much do you pay?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model
« Reply #20 on: June 01, 2010, 12:19:41 PM »
Free Markets: Pro-Rich or Pro-Poor

            Listening to America's liberals, who now prefer to call themselves progressives, one would think that free markets benefit the rich and harm the poor, but little can be further from the truth. First, let's first say what free markets are. Free markets, or laissez-faire capitalism, refer to an economic system where there is no government interference except to outlaw and prosecute fraud and coercion. It ought to be apparent that our economy cannot be described as free market because there is extensive government interference. We have what might be called a mixed economy, one with both free market and socialistic attributes. If one is poor or of modest means, where does he fare better: in the freer and more open sector of our economy or in the controlled and highly regulated sector? Let's look at it.   

            Did Carnegie, Mellon, Rockefeller and Guggenheim start out rich? Andrew Carnegie worked as a bobbin boy, changing spools of thread in a cotton mill 12 hours a day, six days a week, earning $1.20 a week. A young John D. Rockefeller worked as a clerk. Meyer Guggenheim started out as a peddler. Andrew Mellon did have a leg up; his father was a lawyer and banker. Sam Walton milked the family's cows, bottled the milk and delivered it and newspapers to customers. Richard Sears was a railroad station agent. Alvah Roebuck began work as a watchmaker. Together, they founded Sears, Roebuck and Company in 1893. John Cash Penney (founder of JCPenny department stores) worked for a local dry goods merchant.

            It wasn't just whites who went from rags to riches through open markets; there were a few blacks. Madam C.J. Walker, born Sarah Breedlove, just two years after the end of slavery, managed to build an empire from developing and selling hair products. John H. Johnson founded Johnson Publishing Company, which became an international media and cosmetics empire. There are many modern-day black millionaires who, like other millionaires, black and white, found the route to their fortunes mostly through the open, highly competitive and more free market end of our economy.

            Restricted, regulated and monopolized markets are especially handicapping to people who are seen as less preferred, latecomers and people with little political clout. For example, owning and operating a taxi is one way out of poverty. It takes little skills and capital. But in most cities, one has to purchase a license costing tens of thousands of dollars. New York City's taxicab licensing law is particularly egregious, requiring a person, as of May 2007, to pay $600,000 for a license to own and operate one taxicab. Business licensing laws are not racially discriminatory as such, but they have a racially discriminatory effect.

            The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, still on the books today, had a racially discriminatory intent and has a racially discriminatory effect. The Davis-Bacon Act is a federal law that mandates "prevailing wages" be paid on all federally financed or assisted construction projects and as such discriminates against non-unionized black construction contractors and black workers. During the 1931 legislative debate, quite a few congressmen expressed racist motives in their testimony in support of the law, such as Rep. Clayton Allgood, D-Ala., who said, "Reference has been made to a contractor from Alabama who went to New York with bootleg labor. This is a fact. That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country." Today's supporters of the Davis-Bacon Act use different rhetoric, but its racially discriminatory effects are the same.

            The market is a friend in another unappreciated way. In poor black neighborhoods, one might see some nice clothing, some nice food, some nice cars but no nice schools. Why not at least some nice schools? Clothing, food and cars are distributed by the market mechanism while schools are distributed by the political mechanism.

            Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.


Free Market Principles
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model
« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2010, 12:56:20 PM »
Quote
Although in theory the effect of the tax is felt regardless of race, creed, color, ethnic origin, sexual preference or gender, it's effect is most severely felt in the lowest income group.

So?


Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model
« Reply #22 on: June 01, 2010, 01:13:34 PM »
Basic food is not exempt from sales tax, at least not around here.

It is in many parts of the US.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11159
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model
« Reply #23 on: June 01, 2010, 01:32:46 PM »
how much are they already paying?

Kramer....

In the US the Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay about 96.03% of Income Taxes




"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8037
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model
« Reply #24 on: June 01, 2010, 01:35:37 PM »
but what does 50% pay? 100k or 50k?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model
« Reply #25 on: June 01, 2010, 01:58:43 PM »
<<So?>>

So you couldn't ask for a more clearly defined example of the class war in action.

Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model
« Reply #26 on: June 01, 2010, 02:46:51 PM »
Mikey, How much do you pay in taxes each. % and total $?

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8037
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model
« Reply #27 on: June 01, 2010, 04:09:44 PM »
well
here in california food is not taxed but water is. but nobody complains about the cost of water. it`s the maintenence cost that`s the problem . 65%+ of the water bill cost is maintence.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model
« Reply #28 on: June 01, 2010, 05:09:08 PM »
Quote
So you couldn't ask for a more clearly defined example of the class war in action.

If everybody pays the same rate, how is it class warfare? Especially when you consider that food purchase for the poor are supplemented by food stamps and programs like WIC which the middle and upper classes are not eligible for.

Meanwhile your much favored progressive income tax certainly targets one class over another.


Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model
« Reply #29 on: June 01, 2010, 06:39:53 PM »
<<If everybody pays the same rate, how is it class warfare?>>

Maybe if you think of it not as how much everyone pays but what the purchaser has to give up to make the purchase, it might be helpful.  If you take a guy at the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder, he's just getting by, no luxuries, buys nothing but basics, and then he gets hit by the increase in sales tax, he's gotta start making choices between things he can buy and things he can do without.

If you take a rich guy, he'll pay the same tax, but he's got enough income that he can still buy all the basics, he doesn't have to give up any one of them to buy any other of them.