Does this belief you have extend to resenting the armed forces?
Enough money to live on (not a great life, but survivable), and housing benefit so that my rent was paid.
I’ve got no problem with the armed forces to defend the U.S. Wars of overseas agression, however, I’m not particularly fond of.
GorillaManI believe those things would be paid for by disability insurance here. While I’ve looked into it, I have not bought it because I don’t think the benefits are worth the cost. I do have an “insurance policy” that would provide coverage of mortgage and allow me to live for a while in the form of a savings account, however.
Free to not get medical cover and risk either bankruptcy when you get sick or not getting medical help and suffering the consequences. Nice choice.
Here’s a example coincidently from today. I threw my back out the other day. I went to the doctor and got anti-inflammatory and some valium to help me sleep. Earlier today I went and had x-rays and a scan to see was there any damage. Total cost €200. Of which the majority is covered by my work insurance but even if I didn’t have that the cost would be just that. After spending something like €50 on prescription drugs in one month you get all the costs above that reimbursed by the state.
Once you’re a tax payer you get yearly dental checks and a decent refund off for glasses etc.
Oh, I forgot - when I got ill, I was at university. Does the average student have such cover?
I should note that unlike the strange Canadian system in most Euro countries that have a welfare state you are free to go private and pay for it as well if you have the means/insurance to cover it.
Freedom means that sometimes you have the freedom to make risky decisions.
However, it doesn’t really have to be this way. The only reason many face this choice is due to government interference in the market. Starting in the 1940’s, companies could provide health care tax-free to employees and they started offering it as a way to get around wage controls. This tax-free nature of insurance was in effect a government subsidy of employer-sponsored insurance and it has led to our system today, where health insurance is unlike any othe rinsurance out there.
There is no reason for it to be different than any other insurance. Car insurance, for example, does not pay for routine car care needs. Health insurance, on the other hand, pays for pretty much all health expenses. It would make much more sense to have health insurance actually be insurance instead a way to make a third-party pay for health care.
We are moving that way a little bit in the U.S. with health savings accounts, where people purchase high-deductible coverage for catastrophic events and then are able to save a certain amount of money tax-free to pay other medical expenses. It’s a much more affordable way to get insurance, you keep more of your own money instead of sending it away to an insurance company, and you make better medical choices because you – not some third-party – are paying for medical care.
Probably not, although the average student is still probably covered by his/her parent’s health care. Furthermore, the average student probably does not pay for his/her housing anyway or, if he/she does, then it is through loans.
Since most young people are pretty healthy and insurance is expensive, quite a few go without (I did). It’s a choice that makes a lot of economic sense.
Actually, I was contrasting American jurisprudence with European continental, not the English system, from which American law was born. I have much respect for the English system of common law.
We don’t see the freedom to starve as a freedom worth prizing. Any beggar’s got that.
And we don’t see a selfish, greedy I’ll-take-care-of-me-and-mine-and-screw-everyone-else society as progressive, either.
The rhetorical point that I am making is that your principle, to wit: “Your freedom should not come at the expense of others’ freedom” - which I interpret as you claiming that paying money for the good of society is detrimental to the freedom of the taxpayer - is actually compromised when it comes to this point.
Now understand that the vast majority of those of us with universal healthcare feel the same way about it as you do about the armed forces: we want it, because we feel that not allowing the weakest in society to go without medical care is worth paying a relatively small amount of tax for, in the same way that you don’t resent paying a relatively small amount of tax to defend your borders.
In my opinion it’s a liberation, not a burden.
Freedom to choose one’s parents?
…if you’re not one of the unlucky ones.
Here I disagree. The entire feudal period of European history, from the fall of the Roman Empire to about the 15th century, was characterized by weak or nonexistant states.
That’s a ridiculous statement. Everyone, no matter how rich, has a freedom to starve. Look at Kate Bosworth. She’s got plenty of money and yet it looks like she’s starving.
Reducing the government’s burden on individuals gives people the freedom to succeed. I know that not everyone will succeed, but you make it much more likely to succeed if you don’t place governmental roadblocks in their way.
So you vote in politicians who forcibly take money from one segment of the population and give it to another. That sort of coercion is progressive? I see having the freedom to be left alone – as long as you don’t hurt anyone else – as pretty progressive. I see forcing people to do what you want as hearkening back to pre-Enlightenment times.
Yes, but feudalism was a form of government. The people paid taxes to the lord, rendered military service to the lord, and were forced to buy his products. He, in turn, sent money/military service up the chain until the King got his cut.
jjim, I understand your point, but I don’t think it’s quite a fair comparison that defending your country from agression is comparable to providing free health care to citizens. Paying for a common defense is ensuring that no one violates your liberty. Forcing one group of people to pay for the health care of others is simply taking money from one group and giving it to another. The principles are not the same.
I interpreted your statements to say that taxing something for the good of the entire society is eroding one’s freedom. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)
The way I see it is that you have in fact decided what you’re prepared to pay for in taxation for the benefit of the state. I have also decided what I’m prepared to pay for. We draw the line somewhere differently, but it’s not immobile.
Anyway, I’ve read on this board (with cite but wouldn’t know where to find it) that the total personal tax burden on US and UK citizens is roughly the same, despite the fact we have universal healthcare.
There is general agreement here that those who can well afford to pay more tax should be required to do so, to help those who aren’t smart enough, or educated enough, to achieve a decent living standard.
I don’t quite believe that. I believe that taxes are theft, but also that they are a necessary evil. I think that it’s immoral to tax people to pay for a government that goes beyond its duties of protecting life, liberty, and property.
I don’t believe in paying taxes to “benefit the state.” I believe that taxes are the only way to pay for government, but that government should only protect life, liberty, and property.
No, taxes are a decision by one group (legislators) about what another group or groups will pay. No one decides what level of taxation he or she pays. Usually one group decides to band together and elect politicians to take money from another group.
Interesting cite!
Yesbut- Hong Kong is weird- they have no military expenses, so their taxes are low. But they have no military expenses as they are “protected” by the Mainland Chinese army. However- HK has no protection from that army, which could roll over them in 10 seconds, and no one could do anything about it. Sure- right now, the Chinese government is mostly sane, and they have good reasons for letting HK be free. Note that China itself ranks 111th, and really, HK is just a special economic zone of China. So, HK doesn’t count. If the USA made PR a special economic zone, we could get those kinds of numbers there, too.
Putting HK aside, there is very little difference between the top 18. You could say that those nations are -for most intents and purposes- tied. The USA is in that top 18. Some things are a little bit better, some things are a little bit worse, and what you choose to weigh is likely more important than the tenth of a 5 point between the scores. For example, the score between UK and USA ranks USA only a 2.0 for Foriegn Investment (UK=1.0) apparently as the uSA bans investment in a handful of nations- none of which are very important- economically. Is the inabilty to buy Cuban cigars really a *significant * reduction in econonmic freedom? :dubious: And, even though the USA scores a tiny bit better than Canadan, I’d say again that the scores are really tied.
That being said- kudos to Ireland!
Note that Cuba ranks almost last @150th- which puts the lie to many liberal dopers who claim Cuba is such a wonderful paradise. Mexico scores in at 60.
Romania is likely the lowest rated nation that most of us would call “European”, and it comes in at only 92, still better than 65 others. France is the lowest Western Eu nation at 44.
And, let’s not hijack this into just a debate on what sort of Health care is best. True, it’s part of "backward’, perhaps, but it’s more of a GD topic, eh?
Oh, and I say- smoking. Espeically compared to CA!
On a less weighty matter, how about high definition TV? We’ve had digital over-the-air TV since the late nineties, but it has been used to provide more standard definition channels rather than a smaller number of HDTV channels. Maybe in part because European standard definition is higher than North American, at 575 visible lines vs. what, 480? Though at the cost of a lower frame rate.
HD has only recently becoming available on satellite here, and over-the-air HDTV is still a few years away.
Smoking. Here in CA, you can’t smoke in restaurants, and it’s probably easier to get a nonsmoking hotel room than a smoking one. Unless I go out to talk to one of the smokers while they’re in their outdoor hangout at work, I generally don’t come into contact with anyone who is smoking a cigarette in my daily life. That’s not true when I go to visit Europe.
Eating organ meats and other offal.
Private bathrooms in hotels. Hotel rooms without a private bathroom are unheard of here, even in really cheap motels (B&Bs may be an exception), but it’s not that uncommon there to find a hotel room without a private bathroom.
Hotel hot water heaters. In many hotels I’ve stayed in in Europe, they run out of hot water midway through my shower. I’ve never had that happen at a hotel in the States, even at a cheap motel.
Stores being open late.
Automatic transmissions in cars. That’s the default here, but it doesn’t seem to be in Europe.
But aren’t people enrolled in the state church by default at birth, and you have to do something to get unenrolled? I know that’s the case in at least some countries with a state church. Here, unless you claim your donations to your church as tax deductions, the government doesn’t even necessarily know what church you belong to.