heretic on 5/9/2008 at 22:24
Quote Posted by paloalto90
lnsurance through taxation with very little choice about the matter or how much I am going to pay.
Or even who you are paying for, for that matter.
heretic on 5/9/2008 at 22:31
Quote Posted by Starrfall
And I don't really know much about taxes in the 90's but I don't think trickle-down economics works in reverse any more than it works in drive so no I don't really see how the suggestion that we'll all see our prices rise is anything more than rank speculation, especially when you apparently have 1992-2000 as an example of a similar tax plan and as far as I recall none of that doom and gloom came to pass.
The fact that the rich, (or the oft-struggling small business owners considered to be rich) will offset higher taxes by raising the costs of goods and services is common sense, not just untested theory.
In the best case scenarios these hikes will amount to lower wages, worse benefits and higher rent for the rank and file employees who's taxes have remained roughly the same.
In the worst case scenarios small buisness will be forced to close their doors, or conduct lay-offs. Many of the recently unemployed workers will seek out lower paying jobs with the large corporations who have created entire industries out of paying as little tax as possible, since they will be the only ones who can still afford to hire anyone.
When properly entrenched these corporations can actually attain some benefit from these hikes because it's a sure way to stamp out even the most stubborn competition. I don't know about you, but I try to avoid shopping at Walmart. Hopefully I'll still have a choice for at least a couple more years.
In the end, once again..less competition ends in higher prices on one end and lower quality goods (mostly imported) on the other.
In short - Tax rate increases up high weaken the middle class, while tax
cuts or consistencies across the board can actually serve to
increase tax revenue.
This is all simple basic stuff, but it seems to get swept under the rug whenever tax issues come up.
paloalto90 on 5/9/2008 at 22:40
And the trend is for more big fisted corporate capitalism and less competition which means more dollars fleeing your local communities and less of a more true free market system which would invite competition.
heretic on 5/9/2008 at 22:44
Precisely
paloalto90 on 5/9/2008 at 22:47
Quote:
Or even who you are paying for, for that matter.
Right.If I invest my private money in healthy food and don't smoke and limit my bungie jumping should I pay as much as a two pack a day smokeing parachutist?
It sounds like I will have less choice with a govt funded plan.
SD on 5/9/2008 at 22:59
Quote Posted by paloalto90
Right. If I invest my private money in healthy food and don't smoke and limit my bungie jumping should I pay as much as a two pack a day smokeing parachutist?
You'll pay whatever is deemed appropriate for your income level. And surely you live a healthy, low-risk lifestyle because it's healthier and lower-risk, not because you want lower insurance premiums?
Quote Posted by paloalto90
It sounds like I will have less choice with a govt funded plan.
Less choice is a small price to pay for people not dying through easily preventable disease.
jay pettitt on 5/9/2008 at 23:00
Quote Posted by heretic
The fact that the rich, (or the oft-struggling small business owners considered to be rich) will offset higher taxes by raising the costs of goods and services is common sense, not just untested theory.
No it isn't. Businesses (I run a small gardening business and am a company director of a charitable trust in my spare time) have plenty of options for responding to all sorts of stuff life throws its way - adaption and innovation included.
Common sense is mass abandonment of reason if favor of prejudice. Don't trust it.
theBlackman on 5/9/2008 at 23:08
Quote Posted by SD
[...]
Less choice is a small price to pay for people not dying through easily preventable disease.
Education on cleanliness and hygiene is the easiest way to combat preventable disease.
Insurance or the lack thereof is not a factor.
If you mean easily curable, you may have, and may is the operative, an arguement. But the fact remains that if you are so "humanity" minded, you could purchase a health policy for some poor, deserving person on the streets of your own city.
But you won't. You will adopt a system that lets you have the happy feelie situation of benefiting your "neighbor" without actually involving your own time and energy.
You espouse "Help the peeeples", but don't put your time and energy where your mouth is by involving YOURSELF in public assistance, mentoring, Big Brother, Meals on Wheels, etc.
In the vernacular of the day, you "Talk the talk, but don't walk the walk."
Starrfall on 5/9/2008 at 23:19
Quote Posted by heretic
doomsday
Did all of that happen between 1992 and 2000? If it's common sense then a real life example would demonstrate the effects you're worried about.
You're still just making stuff up regarding small businesses. It's fair to ask whether a tax plan will have negative effects but not to assume it will. (Again, especially since one thing we know about Obama's plan is that he wants to eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses.)
And the solution to exploitation of tax loopholes is to increase enforcement and close those loopholes.
paloalto90 on 5/9/2008 at 23:31
Quote:
No it isn't. Businesses (I run a small gardening business and am a company director of a charitable trust in my spare time) have plenty of options for responding to all sorts of stuff life throws its way - adaption and innovation included.
Can you give me a real world example of this please?I would imagine it would depend on the business.I can only see increasing the volume of your business which depending how the tax code is written may mean even more taxes for you.Certainly not lowering the wages of your staff if your business is that large.
Quote:
You'll pay whatever is deemed appropriate for your income level.
With no consideration for my lifestyle.Again I am paying to eat healthy which in most cases cost more.I'm not wasting money on cigarettes.Some diseases you mention are caused by the lifestyle choices of others.
Am I accepting the responsiblity of someone elses life choices.Under universal health care I am.And unfortunately people do make healthy choices to live a healthier lifestyle and to keep down their medical and life insurance costs.Which means they have the choice to take the money they save and give it to charity if they want to.
You might consider universal health care altruistic I don't.
Quote:
You espouse "Help the peeeples", but don't put your time and energy where your mouth is by involving YOURSELF in public assistance, mentoring, Big Brother, Meals on Wheels, etc.
How do you know he doesn't do this?
