You only get to measure it because you have a stable life where you can live happily. Without our socialist society you’d be living in a 3rd world shithole and would likely die of something as banal as a tooth-root abscess.
I don’t care what you believe. But if you are fairly successful, you owe it to American society for giving you opportunity. I’m not saying you didn’t work hard to maximize what you have. But plenty of less fortunate people work harder than you do. And the feeble amount of government largess that a very poor person gets in America is laughably small compared to the wonders that a well-off person gets to wield as he shapes the opportunity that the government made possible.
You aren’t thinking straight. You are getting many, many times the value back from the money you pay.
Lawyer: 100k after taxes.
Welfare mom: 15k, doesn’t pay taxes.
The taxes Lawyer-Man pays provide in part for Welfare mom. But in return he lives in a society where Welfare-Mom is able to go to school part time. Where she isn’t turning tricks.
In addition the taxes Lawyer-Man pays create the society that allows him to make 100k after taxes. Without the roads and economy those taxes represent, Lawyer-Man is in a trailer right next to Prostitute-Mom.
You can believe what you’d like, but you are factually wrong about health care.
And what does welfare mom pay to keep lawyer-man off the streets as a panhandler or pimp? Oh, that’s right… she doesn’t pay taxes.
And what does welfare mom pay to live in a society where lawyer-man can’t just buy her as his slave and rape her repeatedly. Oh, nevermind… you already said she doesn’t pay taxes.
Damn… she’s getting back more in benefits than what she pays in! She’s stealing from society! Where do I send her the bill?
The fundamental schism between the two sides is whether we believe it is a social obligation to make sure that no one dies because of lack of access to health care. Those who think it is okay for people to die so that they don’t have to pay additional taxes are on one side, the rest of us are on the other. If everyone agreed on this (which they clearly don’t) then we can go ahead and design the most efficient system. But clearly no government funded health care system is going to be acceptable to those with the “I’ve got mine, Jack” attitude.
The reason I pushed for an answer is that I’m really curious as to what the poll numbers for Republicans would look like if the answered the question as honestly as Bricker did.
Welfare-Mom is in less of a position to reap opportunity from society. So I’m okay with her getting her pittance. Lawyer-Man gets far more out of society than she does. Welfare-Mom gets 15k and the slim possibility of upward mobility. Lawyer-Man gets the opportunity to make ten times that.
Remember, without socialist government programs Laywer-Man wouldn’t be making 100k, he’d be a dirt farmer.
All of us (including the liberals) have all answered like Bricker did – at least implicitly – through our actions. We all assign a “cost” to helping people. All of us do it.
You are sitting there at your computer typing your post is consuming electricity that could warm a homeless person on this cold winter’s night. We could certainly tax all citizens more to the point that they can no longer afford to turn their thermostats up as high. Big deal, they can just wear sweaters so that the homeless and poor can stop shivering. We take away a little comfort from the people in heated homes to give warmth to poor folks that have no heat at all. I see no liberals volunteering for such an arrangement. There’s a word for that type of inconsistent behavior: it starts with an “h”.
There are infinite ways we can help society that can be reworded into gotcha questions of selfishness and morality.
For example, we could propose to post guards at all bus stops to prevent child abduction. If someone dares to raise the issue of cost, we can just use the weapon of emotional appeal, “the cost estimations are irrelevant because us moralists on our high-horse believe it is our societal duty to prevent a child from being kidnapped.”
You can use that technique for everything.
Then get together all the like-minded folks and pay for everyone else’s health care. Oh that’s right – that’s not enough, you also want the money from the folks who don’t agree with you.
In my experience, the people that speak loudest about taxes are the ones paying the least. (remember Joe the Plumber?) It generally takes a fair bit of intelligence to get to a point where you are paying more in taxes than you benefit from society. And once at that point, people with that intelligence are generally smart enough to know how they got there.
It takes a lot of money to build and maintain an interconnected highway infrastructure system, patrolled by publicly funded police, and cleared of snow by publicly funded drivers. Those that don’t understand how much it costs often make statements alluding to the fact that they pay more than they receive, making the rest of their comments sound like an angry 17 year old mad at his parents.
Welcome to Earth. On this planet we have societies. These are groups of people who band together for mutual benefit. Even the ones too thick to understand that they are benefiting greatly get help.
Your argument is otherwise so laughable that I’ll just pause for a moment to say that you must get straw men at a discount.
Welfare-mom gets more out of society. She gets to skip 7 years of post-high school education. Good for her as most people do truly hate school. She also gets free medical care (Medicaid). Lawyerman has to pay for his own. She also doesn’t have to work. On the other hand, lawyerman has to set the alarm, get out of bed, commute, and do his time at the office.
Looks like welfare-mom is kickin lawyer-man’s ass. Althogh lawyer-man does have money to buy a sweet car to drive. But then again, many lawyers in New York take public transportation. Welfare-mom wins after all.
Really? And what socialist programs were in place during the medieval time period (about 800 years ago) that allowed barristers (lawyers) to earn high income and respect? Or are you saying they were moonlighting as dirt farmers?
And in my experience, those who cry the most about fairness are people who put nothing into a system from which they continually demand more and more. So much for anecdotes.
It’s gratifying that someone acknowledges that such a point even exists. Perhaps you’ll also do us the favor of telling us what that point may be, and then we can test your hypothesis that only a true smart Scotsman understands why he’s working the first four months of the year for the federal government.
Seriously, how long must I slave 1/3rd of my working hours for others, in your opinion? Would that be my entire life or just until retirement? To fund this grand healthcare scheme, how much more will I have to work? Will that put me up to 5 months or 6? When does it all stop?
Well then I suppose Lawyer-Man should move into a trailer and stop working, since it’s not worth it, right? Your argument is very, very silly.
You wanna take a look at the demographics of 13th century Europe and get back to me?
Also, what did the barristers (and thanks eversomuch for translating that for me :rolleyes:) have to pay back then? And what did they get in return? I’m guessing that people today pay more and get orders of magnitude more services and opportunity from their government.
Oh come on, that’s as ridiculous as suggesting that someone who doesn’t want to pay taxes should go live in Somalia, or should build a self sustaining compound in the woods. As Bricker’s tear-jerking story about Monopoly taught us, we live within the rules set out.
You know, the city where we bought our first house actually has an optional “would you like to pay more in taxes” section on the back of our water bill. I would LOVE to know how many people actually check yes. I always mean to, but all our extra income goes to medical expenses…
The US has been a socialist country for a long, long time. You have what you have because of that, not in spite of it. The point of this thread was to point out that myth.
You would have to work less. This will lower the amount you have to pay in taxes and would cover more people.
Based on your blind ideology (that you somehow bootstrapped yourself up and never got anything from the government) you are against something that is cheaper, more efficient and grants better results.
That’s a fact. Universal Health Care is cheaper, more efficient and provides better results. I’m sorry that fact is difficult for you to accept, but creating a fantasy world where the government is a parasite on your back isn’t a smart way to deal with it.
What I wrote was tongue-in-cheek. Well, maybe not all of it.
You’re a better man than I. I thought barristers made drinks at Starbucks. I got real confused because I didn’t think Starbucks was around in the 13th century.
In any case, there were folks that earned high incomes in medieval times. By your logic, it was not possible for them to do so because there were no socialistic programs in place to enable it.
And why is it ridiculous? Please explain it to me.
Just because we don’t happen to have a rule today that says we take away heated comfort from one home (via higher taxes) to provide to another home (via fuel credits to the poor) has no bearing on its moral substance. Are we wrong as society for letting this happen or not? Current laws or tax codes are not relevant with this hypothetical. Morals are morals. Justify the moral stance of this situation.
I’m sure someone somewhere with worse medical predicament than you could use your extra tax contribution.
Yes, I get a discount for my good looks. :dubious: All I did was post a real number in response to a number that was completely off the mark.
Doctors are able to charge less for cash because there isn’t a paper trail (and the labor behind it). It’s just common sense to shop around for services. That is, by definition, the driving force behind controlling costs in a free market. When governments dictate cost by way of wages then market forces will adjust according to how people perceive the value of their effort.
