Evil?
None of them should take off work to figure out the tax loop holes this year, I’m not claiming they eat babies or anything.
I just have to come in here and mention my filthy-rich neighbors down the street, who just spent months with full-time workers toiling on their dime-sized front yard putting in a fountain made of boulders, a stained hardwood fence to hide their trash cans, and a giant, bronze fake “Chinese temple” style gate over their sidewalk. They must’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars on a five-foot stretch of their property over that time period… Meanwhile other people (still human, by the way) are dying in the streets. It’s pretty obvious to me. Tax the crap out of them!
And how many workers did all those renovations employ?
That’s the problem with people like you. You think you are entitled to the labor and services the doctor provides. It is not for you to say what the doctor should care about or how he treats his patients as long as it is within the ethical guidelines established by his profession. Do you really care whether someone became a doctor because of the money as long as he is competant?
Maybe instead of being a highly paid engineer or doctor, that same highly intelligent person would be content to work as a bartender. Is society better off?
I got to know, would it be?
That is a dumb example , you just made up. it means nothing.
You’re right you didn’t say “evil” – your exact word in post #36 was that they were being an “asshole” for not seeing patients.
That reminds me, I learned lifeguard rescue procedures when I was in high school. Therefore, I’m also an “asshole” for typing this post instead of parking my ass on some public beach making sure none of the kiddies drown. That I also choose to do white-collar work for more money than the minimum wage of a lifeguard (choosing my wallet for human lives as you’d put it) makes me the poster boy for assholeness of the year.
With your logic, we have quite a few billion “assholes” on this planet. I bow to you and your sainthood.
Ah; it’s not the place of a patient or potential patient to show concern over how patients are treated. Right.
Since if he’s in it just for the money he’s much less trustworthy and much more likely to let his patients die if its profitable; yes, I care. A lack of concern for anything but money undercuts his competence. It undercuts anyone’s competence; such people cannot be trusted.
If he cared that much about money he’d have gone into business or law. Society is heavily dependent on people NOT putting money above everything else. It is largely kept running by people who have motives beyond money.
Who has an average higher standard of life, including access to health care, the average American or the average Canadian?
So just to clarify, is it your position that people aren’t entitled to medical care from any doctor, or just that one doctor?
Doctors are leaving medicine (or heading to more fruitful, less necessary areas of it) due to a diminished earning potential right now. I don’t know where you got this idealized version that doctor’s aren’t human.
We’re heading for a shortage in primary care physicians because the salaries coming out of medical school don’t justify the hours and the debt it takes to get there.
I’m not dissing doctors, just pointing out that they’re just like everyone else. No one uses salary as the only factor, but to say it isn’t a large one is naive.
I love my job as a scientist, but I’d be doing it in a University if it weren’t for the fact that I’m paid much better elsewhere. The trade off is that when I go to a conference I’ll never get the same level of respect as the “real” scientists. I weighed one against the other and made my choice.
Caring about nothing but money is a right wing ideal; not “being human”.
They don’t JUST care about money. You forgot that they ALSO care about the 2nd coat of wax on their BMW.
Huh? There might be some people who’d be better for society as bartenders rather than doctors, true. There are some people who would be happier. People quit high paying jobs all the time for their mental health.
If you think money buys happiness or job satisfaction, how much will buy ultimate satisfaction - how much is enough? I’d say if you’re not spending sleepless nights worrying about money, you are good. (I think this is usually a lot more than $40K a year.) But for many people the needs will increase with salary, and they will be just as unhappy. and just as unmotivated.
Zephuyrs, I find the reasons you cite unthoughtful.
But at those income levels, aren’t you getting diminishing returns?
If incentivizing someone to be productive means I have to give him the opportunity to bid the rest of us out of scarce assets–say, national TV advertising, or publicly offered stock–I’m not sure it’s worth it.
And I have no good reason to incentivize someone’s productivity if his productivity is just about him getting richer. I want those who perform public services to perform them properly; I consider the accrual of private wealth in a few hands irrelevant at best to the country’s economic health.
But the alternative is that 10% of the country blowing money on their stupid shit. So, as far as the country in general is concerned, you don’t have a preferable spending program to compare to–you’re choosing the (possibly stupid, possibly selfish, possibly classist, possibly politically motivated) preferences of 10% over the (possibly stupid, possibly selfish, possibly classist, possibly politically motivated) preferences of the representatives of the 90%.
:smack:
Oh. I get it. That makes sense. The politicians are an even smaller class than the rich.
Until they aren’t. In state & local politics, one business can dictate to a council or government. I’ve seen it happen. I’d rather take the chance on the pols & let the big moneybags know they’re below someone. Whatever its faults, I prefer the primacy of ballot power to the primacy of wallet power.
Your premise is can be redefined as an equalization of wage through taxes.
The numeric value of a wage is a meaningless number. The true value of a wage is the “take home” amount. If that amount is reduced by decree then the recipient will naturally gravitate towards the original figure. If that can’t be done through tax shelters then compensation will be sought elsewhere. If the results of efforts aren’t realized then the incentive to build on success disappears or moves on.
What you’re describing is a line from Karl Marx: From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. The value of extra-ordinary labor is taken for the benefit of those with lesser skills. The result has historically failed and you can see it failing from micro-societies on up. There were many examples in the United States during the 19th century of communes that started out as successful cooperatives but collapsed when those most responsible for production disbanded and moved on. A classic example is the Oneida Commune, which you see today as Oneida Silverware.
For something the size of the Soviet Union to survive it requires physical control of a captive populous.
If money were our only motivation, we would all be mobsters.
I think this misses the real differences (in macroeconomic effect) between those who are merely comfortable, & those with great amounts of income to chase control the means of production itself. I think the economic health of the country may depend more on high-end progressivity than on low-end progressivity. I’d tax higher incomes on a hyperbolic curve.
Our Apollo program was funded in the 1960’s, by a high-tax regime, Sam. And our main competition was the USSR. You’re not helping any simple anti-tax argument with that example. Clearly we need more high-end progressivity, & comparatively lower rates on the engineer/scientist class.
Volatility will affect receipts even in a flat tax regime. The real answer is to raise taxes & horde surpluses in good times so you have a fund to get through the downturns. Also, a high-tax regime may get less overheated, therefore less volatile, than a low-tax regime: lithium for the economy.
I dunno, it happens, though. The first time was in the Book of Genesis. Get some Bible-thumpers in Congress & tell them to emulate Joseph.
Not if you are sovereign over the land.
Is what you do important enough to society that we would miss it if we instead paid you to sit & play Everquest?
And how poorly were they paid due to the lack of demand for their services in an economy with uneven wealth & an unstable consumer base? How long had they been out of work beforehand? 
Since we’re making sweeping generalization-based judgments & all.
You really think that persons that would prefer bartending endure med school just for the money? :rolleyes:
Ah, the old false dilemma. Either we let the wealthy loot as they will; or Communism. Nothing in between. And on top of that heroification of the wealthy; they do not provide “extra-ordinary labor”, nor do those they exploit have “lesser skills”. As far as history goes; plenty of societies ( including our own historically ) have taxed the wealthy far more than we do now and done just fine.
I think it’s foolish to let more and more wealth be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, until ultimately America ends up a nuclear armed version of a Third World kleptocracy. I think that there are more important things than the sacredness of the bank accounts of the wealthy.
Er, hoard surplus. Excuse me. I can too spell!
On preview, I see Der Trihs called out your false dilemma. What he said.
I think it’s foolish to chase away the people who create jobs.
You know, that would explain a lot that’s happened in the last few years!
Soaking the rich acomplishes what exactly? You make a bunch of them a lot less rich and I guess that makes poor people feel good. Does it actually acomplish anything? Does it make the economy run better? Does it provide more services to the poor? Does it give them any more social mobility?
I don’t think anyone is arguing against a progressive tax system where the wealthy tend to pay a higher rate. But does the government really need to tax anyone at rates higher than 40% of their income?
Right, and so how poorly will they be paid when you take away the wealth of the people who would have paid them? This isn’t a sweeping generalization. This is a specific example. Oregon sunshine complained about some rich family spending tens of thousands on renovations as a grotesque display of wealth. Well that grotesque display also provided jobs to dozens of workers. Would those workers have been better off if the money had gone to the government?
How many people would endure medical, law, engineering or business school if the end result were to get paid the same as a bartender?
In terms of individuals working in their profession, yes. You can force someone to be a doctor. You can’t make a doctor take on additional patients. Money is certainly a motivating factor when it comes to selecting your career.