I do this quite often with my group of friends. If we get food somewhere, and someone is a bit skint, they pay way less. And those who can afford it pay more. This way we all get to eat out together (nobody excluded) in a much nicer place than if we only went where the poorest friend could afford.
Members of the FRC spot each other when one can't pay. Didn't everyone learn to share in Kindergarten?
Yes, "only" was a word too much in my post. Though the thing I was talking about feeling obliged to pay taxes was not to say that rich people should feel more obliged, but they should just feel obliged because apparently as evident by the constant cries for tax cuts or changes in the taxation system they don't seem to.
Summary: "quit your bitching, you should be happy you get to pay taxes."
So we're supposed to pay the majority of the taxes and have no say in the matter?
Indeed, I think chaosof99's justification is rather poor. Without starting at a philosophy like "we want to have equal adverse impact on each member of society" (I don't know of a term for this; it isn't quite egalitarianism) or "we want to have minimal adverse impact on society as a whole" (negative utilitarianism), you aren't going to get anywhere.
Note: this question of philosophy is essentially the same as a concept of fairness. The former idea is that which has already been previously mentioned in this thread, while I think I've shown that gedavids' philosophy is fundamentally flawed. Applying the case with $1 seems abstract, but the fact is that paying $8000 when you earn $8000 is fundamentally different to paying $8000 when you earn $1 million.
@gedavids: Now that we've gotten to "terms that aren't so fucking relative," continue the discussion. Pick a moral philosophy (though it could be relativistic ^_~) and give us an argument justifying the philosophy and how it applies to taxation. Mind you, I don't think anyone has done a decent job of that so far in this thread (though we've only switched the topic over over to tax recently). That includes me - mostly I've just been trying to demonstrate how your philosophy fails. I haven't even demonstrated the existence of a better one yet, at least not to a sufficient standard.
@gedavids: Now that we've gotten to "terms that aren't so fucking relative," continue the discussion. Pick a moral philosophy (though it could be relativistic ^_~) and give us an argument justifying the philosophy and how it applies to taxation. Mind you, I don't think anyone has done a decent job of that so far in this thread (though we've only switched the topic over over to tax recently). That includes me - mostly I've just been trying to demonstrate how your philosophy fails. I haven't even demonstrated the existence of a better one yet, at least not to a sufficient standard.
I said I was wrong already, leave me alone! *cowers in the corner*
Heh, I feel like I was taking HungryJoe's place, only with more substance and style and less personal attack. Can I have an official Buzz Aldrining point? In any case, unlike a religious fanatic, you've shown the ability to accept a rational argument. However, that just serves to put us in the more interesting part of the discussion where we can look at ethics and apply it to taxation. We can't let you escape now.
If individual citizens only paid for the specific government services they used, then all services would be prohibitively expensive, and thus cease to exist. Should I pay for fire departments if my house isn't on fire? Should I only pay if my house actually catches on fire?
In the case of the former, there would be no money to maintain fire departments when large numbers of houses weren't on fire, and thus no fire departments at all when houses actually caught on fire. (See, for example, Carthage's lack of a standing army, or Athens' lack of a standing navy. Worked out super well for all involved, right?).
In the case of the latter, if your house actually catches on fire, you would have to pay the full, total cost of a fire response, which would run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more. The vast majority of people would have no recourse, and we effectively wouldn't have fire departments except for the richest of the rich. (See, for example, Rome, where private fire brigades would stand outside of your burning home and extort you for as much money as they could before fighting the fire).
How, good sir, would you handle fire response in a society without progressive taxation?
Insurance is they key to issues of risk-management. The problem with historical examples, like Rome, is that they didn't have the level of economic flexibility needed for insurance to work.
If losing a house will leave you bankrupt, insure it. If you can't afford to insure it, you're living beyond your means.
As for how insurance would work with a theoretical service-based fire brigade, we can discuss that too. Basically, your agreement with your insurer is that they will pay for the fire brigade service of their choice as soon as a fire occurs (If later investigation reveals, say, that you caused the fire, you'll probably be forced to pay most of it back, though). The fire brigade service works because they are guaranteed payment. The insurance company works because they are charging more than the expected cost (crudely, probability * cost). If they're insuring a sufficient number of people, they're not risking too much, either.
Becoming a Canadian citizen is difficult, from what I understand, because you have to have a job waiting for you (which a Canadian worker cannot fill), or a shit ton of money just to move there. I don't know about the UK, but I would imagine it's pretty difficult as well.
So, now that indicators show the private option is pretty much dead in the water, does anyone still think Obama can make a meaningful change to the health care system? How can he get all those uninsured onto health care, without the private option, and still keep costs even remotely reasonable? What reforms do you think can still be passed that would have a significant impact.
My outlook for the future is that he, at the least, puts forward some new regulations to prevent health care providers from profit seeking by dropping covered people for questionable reasons. Ideally, by stating that a health care provider can't drop a client unless it can be shown in court that some sort of fraud was committed.
I also think that Obama will try to put forward a rebate program to help low income people to purchase private health care. A huge boon for the private industry, probably a good reason to invest now... This will end up being exorbitantly expensive, with fraud occurring where private insurers milk the government for very expensive coverage that is not needed. No one will go to jail of course, and future presidents will need to deal with the issue.
Basically, I think Americans gonna end up with more of the same, a little gain in some areas, but loses in others. Reform only goes well if you are willing to screw people over. Since it is very likely people with vested interest in the present system exist. If nobody loses, nobody wins.
Edit: What I'm really surprised with is that there wasn't a huge campaign from private companies for the public option. If private industry could remove itself from health care that would be an incredible benefit.
How difficult is it to become a Canadian or UK citizen? I am not being flippant. I genuinely want to know.
I did the Canadian point thing and did some initial attempts a few years back when I was offered a job there, I quite easily passed and then they kept on harassing me via email as to when and if I would be moving and reminding me that I qualified easily.
UK isn't that bad from an Australian point of view, shouldn't be from an American one either. Basically secure a full time job and after 2 or it may be 3 years now, you can apply for the citizenship exam which is dead easy. However with the UK you can use the NHS to your hearts content and still be a citizen of another country. You get fully signed up and on the system within a few weeks of finishing 2 forms and you can be seen by a doctor for free. My medication was even cheaper under the UK NHS than the Australian Medicare system (the latter took into account that I have an income in excess of a certain thresholded and so I get charged the full cost of the drug).
I have no illusions about any proposal for health care reform put forth by the government. Public option or not, it won't be perfect. Whatever is put into place now will need revision and tweaking down the line, so it's going to be a gradual process to get it to truly work. Public option or not, it may not be truly functional in my lifetime. That doesn't mean we don't need to start it, and that doesn't mean that not getting it solidly built in the next 4 years dooms us to never have it at all.
You can project and plan to a certain point, but eventually, you just have to run the experiment and deal with the results.
I'm not pleased about the public option being allegedly DOA (is it confirmed anywhere yet?), but I've maintained that any true reform of the system is going to take a lot of time and a lot of work. Short of a revolution, there's no way to institute sweeping changes on that scale. Progress is progress, and even a tiny step forward is a step forward. That's how refine complex systems and learn their inner workings.
I have a question for you, Kilarney. Are you pleased at this result, or are you just pleased that you were right? If you're a fan of the public option, why gloat? If you're not a fan, what would you rather see in place?
Pete is right. Legislation like this evolves over time. Whatever we get now will need to be revised. The most important thing in the climate we have today is to get anything done at all. As Pete said, progress is progress. Keeping in mind the well-financed opposition dutifully served by the crazy teabaggers protesting against their own self interests, anything is better than nothing. Once a foundation is laid, and people can no longer be frightened by the conservatives that Obama wants to kill Granma, then more can be done.
However, it's interesting to note the language used in the video. Sibelius and Gibbs said that the public option is only part of what's being considered. Obama said that the public option is a tiny sliver of what's being considered. Maddow berated the Democrats for being spineless (they've been spineless for about 30 years, so that's not really news), and said that the public option is "apparently off the table", that Obama has "apparently changed his mind", and asked why does the public option appear to be dying. The video can hardly be said to be optimistic, but no one specifically said that anything is dead or that anything is off the table. It doesn't look good, but getting some sort of plan in place still looks better now than it has in more than fourteen or so years.
Giving oneself "points" for some sort of "prediction" regarding this has already been commented on by many people to be the depth of poor taste and highly indicative of a lack of success in one's personal life. There might very well not be a public option. If there is not, I think we'll all be -10, so it's not really a thing to celebrate. If one is inclined to give oneself "points" for "predicting" that American politics is full of compromise that is often disappointing, then I'll make a similarly radical prediction: Tomorrow will be September 3, 2009. Does anyone expect I'll deserve a +1 point when that prediction turns out to be true?
I have a question for you, Kilarney. Are you pleased at this result, or are you just pleased that you wereright? If you're a fan of the public option, why gloat? If you're not a fan, what would you rather see in place?
Why gloat? Because everyone goes to such great lengths to discredit me. I got it right despite receiving significant criticism for the basis of my opinion. Nobody here is so thin skinned that they should be offended by my pointing out the accuracy of my prediction. Frankly, this was laughably easy to predict. Refer to my prior comments about negotiation skills. There is no way top administration officials would suggest elimination of a public option if they were serious about keeping it in a health care reform bill. It's scary that people failed to comprehend this. Too many smart people here let emotion get the better of them. I'm not happy that I was right. I knew I was. I'm happy that I had the conviction to stand by my well reasoned, logical opinion in the face of adversity.
I don't claim to have all of the answers when it comes to health care. A public option that is efficient and competitive is a good thing. A public option that offsets any profit savings by a bloated bureaucracy is not a good thing. I have no problem with increased competition, even if one of the elements is a public enterprise. Look at the USPS and UPS. I suspect that the existence of both increases the level of service provided. I also suspect that the USPS would be LESS efficient if there were no private competition.
Insomuch as there is less choice, I'm not happy with the result. My earlier comments said that advocates for a public option needed to mobilize. This was met by a chorus of "Don't worry! Top administration officials don't mean anything!"
When it comes to ignoring my advice I am reminded of a saying. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Don't get fooled again by ignoring my astute predictions. For a while I thought that the public option had a chance to make a comeback, but I pegged the end result.
And, yes. The fat lady hasn't sung. However, she is about to take center stage.
Pete is right. Legislation like this evolves over time. Whatever we get now will need to be revised. The most important thing in the climate we have today is to get anything done at all. As Pete said, progress is progress.
The problem is that without any kind of public option, I truly believe that any real, lasting, and meaningful reform will continue at its glacial pace. We need the precedent now so that it can be bettered and possibly expanded in the future. Also, the political climate we have today is the best we can hope for - the Democrats are in power now. If they lack the courage of their convictions, then I doubt it will take long before the Republicans are in control. Moreover, if the Democratic Party is so unwilling to use the power it has, then what good are they?
Also, the political climate we have today is the best we can hope for - the Democrats are in powernow. If they lack the courage of their convictions, then I doubt it will take long before the Republicans are in control. Moreover, if the Democratic Party is so unwilling to use the power it has, then what good are they?
Comments
Note: this question of philosophy is essentially the same as a concept of fairness. The former idea is that which has already been previously mentioned in this thread, while I think I've shown that gedavids' philosophy is fundamentally flawed. Applying the case with $1 seems abstract, but the fact is that paying $8000 when you earn $8000 is fundamentally different to paying $8000 when you earn $1 million.
@gedavids: Now that we've gotten to "terms that aren't so fucking relative," continue the discussion. Pick a moral philosophy (though it could be relativistic ^_~) and give us an argument justifying the philosophy and how it applies to taxation. Mind you, I don't think anyone has done a decent job of that so far in this thread (though we've only switched the topic over over to tax recently). That includes me - mostly I've just been trying to demonstrate how your philosophy fails. I haven't even demonstrated the existence of a better one yet, at least not to a sufficient standard.
In any case, unlike a religious fanatic, you've shown the ability to accept a rational argument. However, that just serves to put us in the more interesting part of the discussion where we can look at ethics and apply it to taxation. We can't let you escape now.
If losing a house will leave you bankrupt, insure it. If you can't afford to insure it, you're living beyond your means.
As for how insurance would work with a theoretical service-based fire brigade, we can discuss that too. Basically, your agreement with your insurer is that they will pay for the fire brigade service of their choice as soon as a fire occurs (If later investigation reveals, say, that you caused the fire, you'll probably be forced to pay most of it back, though). The fire brigade service works because they are guaranteed payment. The insurance company works because they are charging more than the expected cost (crudely, probability * cost). If they're insuring a sufficient number of people, they're not risking too much, either.
EDIT: The answer is that they can't afford not to, or they're stupid, or they're fraudulent.
Apparently, this is the case. I can't confirm the veracity of it as I haven't been able to follow the news lately.
And Hungry Joe thought I was just Chicken Little.
Kilarney +1.
I easily qualify.
My outlook for the future is that he, at the least, puts forward some new regulations to prevent health care providers from profit seeking by dropping covered people for questionable reasons. Ideally, by stating that a health care provider can't drop a client unless it can be shown in court that some sort of fraud was committed.
I also think that Obama will try to put forward a rebate program to help low income people to purchase private health care. A huge boon for the private industry, probably a good reason to invest now... This will end up being exorbitantly expensive, with fraud occurring where private insurers milk the government for very expensive coverage that is not needed. No one will go to jail of course, and future presidents will need to deal with the issue.
Basically, I think Americans gonna end up with more of the same, a little gain in some areas, but loses in others. Reform only goes well if you are willing to screw people over. Since it is very likely people with vested interest in the present system exist. If nobody loses, nobody wins.
Edit: What I'm really surprised with is that there wasn't a huge campaign from private companies for the public option. If private industry could remove itself from health care that would be an incredible benefit.
UK isn't that bad from an Australian point of view, shouldn't be from an American one either. Basically secure a full time job and after 2 or it may be 3 years now, you can apply for the citizenship exam which is dead easy. However with the UK you can use the NHS to your hearts content and still be a citizen of another country. You get fully signed up and on the system within a few weeks of finishing 2 forms and you can be seen by a doctor for free. My medication was even cheaper under the UK NHS than the Australian Medicare system (the latter took into account that I have an income in excess of a certain thresholded and so I get charged the full cost of the drug).
I have a question for you, Kilarney. Are you pleased at this result, or are you just pleased that you were right? If you're a fan of the public option, why gloat? If you're not a fan, what would you rather see in place?
However, it's interesting to note the language used in the video. Sibelius and Gibbs said that the public option is only part of what's being considered. Obama said that the public option is a tiny sliver of what's being considered. Maddow berated the Democrats for being spineless (they've been spineless for about 30 years, so that's not really news), and said that the public option is "apparently off the table", that Obama has "apparently changed his mind", and asked why does the public option appear to be dying. The video can hardly be said to be optimistic, but no one specifically said that anything is dead or that anything is off the table. It doesn't look good, but getting some sort of plan in place still looks better now than it has in more than fourteen or so years.
Giving oneself "points" for some sort of "prediction" regarding this has already been commented on by many people to be the depth of poor taste and highly indicative of a lack of success in one's personal life. There might very well not be a public option. If there is not, I think we'll all be -10, so it's not really a thing to celebrate. If one is inclined to give oneself "points" for "predicting" that American politics is full of compromise that is often disappointing, then I'll make a similarly radical prediction: Tomorrow will be September 3, 2009. Does anyone expect I'll deserve a +1 point when that prediction turns out to be true?
I don't claim to have all of the answers when it comes to health care. A public option that is efficient and competitive is a good thing. A public option that offsets any profit savings by a bloated bureaucracy is not a good thing. I have no problem with increased competition, even if one of the elements is a public enterprise. Look at the USPS and UPS. I suspect that the existence of both increases the level of service provided. I also suspect that the USPS would be LESS efficient if there were no private competition.
Insomuch as there is less choice, I'm not happy with the result. My earlier comments said that advocates for a public option needed to mobilize. This was met by a chorus of "Don't worry! Top administration officials don't mean anything!"
When it comes to ignoring my advice I am reminded of a saying. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Don't get fooled again by ignoring my astute predictions. For a while I thought that the public option had a chance to make a comeback, but I pegged the end result.
And, yes. The fat lady hasn't sung. However, she is about to take center stage.