Warning - ramble alert It is almos dawn here and I've not been to bed yet
jopperm2 wrote:btw @ Xandax. If you have time I would encourage you to post anything that you consider to refute things I have posted.<snip>
Actually - I wouldn't really know where to begin, and my purpose here isn't to change peoples opinion. I just find your views disturbing and lacking of foundation in reality. However - I know this is often the case for people on other sides of the fences, and I know your views are not even that "extreeme" compared to many others.
Anyways - I'll take a wack at some of it.
Personally - my perspective is that I'm a liberal libertarian to use American political terms (liberal in Europe means something totally different then it does in the US, but in this reference it is used in US term). This might seem like a contradiction in terms, but from European - or at least Danish - viewpoint it is quite possible (after all - we do have about 8-10 parties, where normally 2-3 form government).
Anyways - this means that I generally view less interfering from the government into peoples lives as good, however - I recognize and accept that there are areas which is best left up to government to govern. Healthcare, education, children and elderly, unemployment, environment and many such things. These things are far to important to be left up to any sort of private interest and needs a somewhat impartial body to govern.
I'm enough of a capitalist (thanks to when I studied economics for free due to the social system in Denmark) to know that any corporation is in business to maximize profits. This means with for instance insurance companies that they are in it to make money. Thus I don't believe their best interest matches thoese of individuals (other then shareholders/owners - logical conclusion). This again means - that I would never trust to get the best medical attention if relying solely on insurance companies, because the best at many times also means more expensive, and thus - not in the interest of the corporation. The same goes with most other of the areas I’ve mentioned.
<snip>I also support a flat tax where the few will not be exploited for the benefit of the many. I was one of those people who rooted for the sheriff in Robin Hood. I realise that many times the rich have taken advantage of people to get the money that they have, but I don't think that justifies overtaxation to those with high incomes. If they have done something wrong then they should be made to pay restitution. Leave those who got their money legitimately alone. <snip>
Flat taxation would mean that the people with lower income pay relative much more then those with higher income for the same benefits. 25% of 50.000 are relatively speaking much more then 25% of 500.000 when you need to sustain a living for the amount of money.
<snip>
As for other countries paying more taxes than us, I realise this. I think it's rediculous. What benifit did those people who paid 100%+ taxes get? None likely
<snip>
Well – we have a health system that allows for treatment of illness in a government run health facility. If people wish they can pay to get treatment on private facilities, but even then some of the money follows the patient. So everybody is almost guaranteed treatment, even the people that can’t afford it themselves. I’ve personally utilized the facilities some times, as well has most of my family and friends etc. Now – we have payed over our taxes, so we don’t need to take out a private insurance policy – with all that can go wrong with those policies - to make sure that we can afford treatment.
Now – you personally – might not have needed medical care, and thus you are happy you don’t have to pay for a medical system over taxes. However – some people have insurance instead or get it covered from their workplace or pay per use(don’t know which category you fit in).
However – all these situations are basically the same as paying over the taxes with a few notable differences.
When paying over taxes, your money goes into a large pool of money, so to speak, that get spend on people in need – it might be oneself or it might not, however somebody is benefiting from this money by getting healthcare.
When paying an insurance company, the money goes into the company trying to maximize profit, and thus basically only benefits the shareholders until the day oneself need help. If receiving the healthcare coverage from a workplace, then it is basically a part of your salary. Thus you likely have a lower income then would have been possible without healthcare. This means you earn less money (to pay taxes from – remember the relative example from earlier), the company earns more benefiting the shareholders.
Pay per use is a dangerous method, because the price of treatment can go up drastically. Thus you might have saved money over taxes for a period of time, however – you might suddenly be positioned with a huge deficit because you can’t pay for treatment now. Thus benefiting nobody in the long run.
Now call me sappy or what else – but I would preferer that money I put into the system benefits people that needs it.
And this also extends to educational facilities. I’ve been able to study at the university – which I would never have been able to afford if not due to taxation and government spending. Then I was allowed to change my mind and start another education, still free of charge, and now I’m working a good job earning an okay living with which I’m paying taxes to pay back what I “used” when studying.
Now – instead of having to pay upfront for my educations, I actually “loaned” money from the government and could repay later solely due to taxation. And now – the money I pay in taxes can give somebody else the chance to educate themselves, just like I got the chance from other peoples taxes. Sure you could loan the money for real, but at what cost with huge interest, because of the uncertainty of the loan; or one can smooch of the parents if they could afford it.
Basically educational systems paid for over taxes gives people who have the skills, but not the financial means, a chance to educate themselves, instead of only providing those with the financial means the chance.
Future more –taxation also goes to the environment. The introducing of alternative energy for instance, which isn’t really profitable yet, and this means that private corporations have less inclination to invest in them, if not for some benefits. A government has more inclination to invest in it. Thus my taxes also goes to investing in alternative energy in Denmark – the placement of windmills, research in natural gasses, solar power and what not. And with the state of the environment today and the dwindling resources of fossil fuels, it is an important issue, and what is worse? Paying some money now and then perhaps improving environment or keeping it for oneself, and creating a dead world for ones grandchildren? Sure you could use the money you save on taxes to support Greenpeace or something else, but realistically – where would the money be best spend? With all the others investing in the same technology? Or spread out across smaller private organisations? Of course, if one don’t care or believe that the environment is going down hill, then such money is thrown away.
And I could continue all day (well - night actually) on this, but I think I've given enough examples. Even if I don't receive a benefit immediately from paying taxes, then others might receive a benefit from it as compared to nobody or a limited few. And when the time comes – I can receive the aid I need (unless of course the economical and political system has removed them), without going broke.
<snip>
All services I don't want to use.
<snip>
You may not want to use them now.
But instead of having a reduced salary; or paying an insurance company each month; or risk going broke when you do need them, wouldn’t it be more logical to pay a little each month over taxes, and let others that do need the services, get the chance to do so?
What if that guaranteed you that your family could go to school and get an education, guaranteed that they would receive care if becoming seriously ill and needing expensive treatment, could be allowed to keep your house if you lost your job. You might not want to use them, but your daughter might – but she doesn’t have the choice anymore.
You might not want to use them now – but as said in an earlier post – I find that attitude rather arrogant, because it is basically saying that you know best and you know best now. Things change in the blink of an eye, and with the current socio-economical climate in the world it is very likely that many things will change over the next decade.
<snip>
Some of those things may be nice, but they are all achievable without being forced into it by the government.
<snip>
Fable has already touched upon this topic. So I see little reason to focus on this.
However it is naïve to think that a decent educational system would be possible without government control, that general medical treatment would be possible for people in need and so on.
It would only be for the wealthy, and then we have a modern day aristocracy, where people are born to their place in the world.
<snip>
As it stands now, I have no retirement. I get little vacation, I've been broke before, homeless even, but those are my options
<snip>
And it takes so little for your life to be turned upside down, for instance loosing ones job or becoming incapable of working; and then with no security system it isn't only you that suffers, but your entier family.