Don't forget that the vast majority of his income didn't actually come from any meaningful addition to our society.
You realize the capital gains tax rate was set to encourage investment in the market to help American business start-up and grow, right? Investment and the income from it shouldn't be viewed as non-meaningful. Romney's money probably keeps lots of people employed by providing a financial base for the companies they work for. He earns income based on the amount he has invested.
This is actually the exact reason why it's legit for his tax rate to be so low. It didn't come from wages, which are the part of your income subject to the regular graduated income tax rates everyone knows.
If your parents give you a check for $1000 does the government take a chunk out for taxes? NO. Because even though it is income, it is classified as a gift, which has a different tax rate than wages.
Changing the amount of taxes that people who make shitloads of money in wages pay will not impact people like Romney at all. The capital gains tax scheme has to be changed. Sure, the investment bankers are going to lobby against that. Well, rise up like you did for SOPA/PIPA and tell your representatives exactly why they should ignore those lobbyists.
I am sick of people bitching about rich people who get their income through perfectly legit means. It is comparable to bitching about the 40% of people who don't pay any income tax (because they don't fucking make enough money for it to be taxable under the current tax scheme). If you don't like the system, get politically active about changing it instead of vilifying those who are simply working within it.
Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.
I'm surprised this one made it into the speech. While Buffett pays less as a percentage of his income in taxes he pays a higher dollar amount than his secretary.
Percentage is what matters, not the dollar amount. Most Americans believe in a progressive tax rate, you don't, that's fine, but right now most people believe the rich should be paying more.
If Tick's quote is exact, then I agree with him in at least that the wording of that sentence should not have made it into the speech because it's saying something slightly differently than what should be said. Sure, it's an extremely minor quibble, and the difference is obvious to anyone that cares... but it's still bad form.
That assumes you believe most people didn't know he was referring to the tax percentage. I don't believe that's the case, especially since tax percentage rates have been the talk in the country for the last few months.
That assumes you believe most people didn't know he was referring to the tax percentage. I don't believe that's the case, especially since tax percentage rates have been the talk in the country for the last few months.
No, I didn't assume that "most" people don't know he was referring to percentage. I was assuming that "not everyone" knows he was referring to percentage. He's the public figure. It's a minor responsibility, but he should make such statements accurate when it's perfectly reasonable and doesn't detract from anything.
That assumes you believe most people didn't know he was referring to the tax percentage. I don't believe that's the case, especially since tax percentage rates have been the talk in the country for the last few months.
No, I didn't assume that "most" people don't know he was referring to percentage. I was assuming that "not everyone" knows he was referring to percentage. He's the public figure. It's a minor responsibility, but he should make such statements accurate when it's perfectly reasonable and doesn't detract from anything.
I would argue that anyone that cared enough to watch the SOTU knew what he was talking about.
I would argue that anyone that cared enough to watch the SOTU knew what he was talking about.
I would argue that you have no way to ever back that up.
Proving the mindset of millions of Americans is of course impossible but considering the political zeitgeist of the times I'd say the circumstantial evidence is strong.
I would argue that anyone that cared enough to watch the SOTU knew what he was talking about.
I would argue that you have no way to ever back that up.
Proving the mindset of millions of Americans is of course impossible but considering the political zeitgeist of the times I'd say the circumstantial evidence is strong.
You mean strongly in support of your assumption being incorrect, right? And, even if I gave you that, I would still feel it's an obligation (albeit incredibly minor) for someone in that position giving that sort of speech to be exacting. That someone might even pick at the point as Tick did is sufficient for me. The cost of fixing it is less than the cost of this discussion.
First off, I forgot about the secondary business impact on Ford regarding the auto bailouts so I'll drop that one.
Second, the Buffett tax thing has been understood by people other than me to mean that his secretary paid more in taxes (dollars not percent) than Buffett did. In fact, on NPR's Marketplace show tonight I heard the following:
Damian: Well it doesn't make any sense that Warren Buffett's secretary pays more taxes than he does. I mean, come on! But I don't really necessarily believe that the rich should pay more taxes. I believe everybody should pay the same thing.
Great... Because Obama misspoke (or miswrote or whatever) in his speech we now have people thinking that Buffett's secretary pays more in taxes than he does!
Third, it was late when I typed up that big post and I was somewhat tired. In retrospect I may have picked a poor portion to quote as a false dichotomy. Let me provide a more clear example:
Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else –- like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t do both.
How about entitlement reform? How about getting rid of the income cap on FICA taxes? Unless you are hanging off a cliff and someone says, "you better grab my hand before you fall to your death," more than likely any black and white, this or that choice is going to be a false dichotomy.
Steve, I'm sorry that you're so hung up on the secretary thing. But I can't help but wonder at the shallowness of your understanding of the issue if you honestly thought Obama was comparing tax contributions dollar-for-dollar for a low-income, menial, untrained, hourly service position versus those of a nouveau riche politician millionaire.
Close your eyes. Envision a secretary. Imagine her lifestyle, how she gets to work, the department store where she shops for clothes. Now imagine the world's third wealthiest man. Think about how many cars he owns. Think about what he must spend monthly on just clothing or petty cash. Think how much the man spends on servants without even thinking about it. This is a man who has an annual budget for helicopters, Steve, a budget for ice sculptures.
If you can hold those images in your mind simultaneously and still tell me you thought Obama's comparison was apples-for-apples dollars, then you have some serious issues.
The depths of your cognitive dissonance in this matter are staggering. Obama didn't misspeak. He assumed you could use context and just a smidgen of common sense. Do you often hear politicians discuss taxes in terms of flat contribution levels, or do they perhaps talk about percentage rates?
As for your NPR reference, Damian's statements call into question his understanding of basic economics if he believes in a flat tax and his ethical development if he does not believe that the fantastically rich have a greater social obligation than the impoverished class.
As for your "dichotomy" again -- considering the dry well that is federal funding, the new quote you have posted is also not a dichotomy. Continued tax cuts for the privileged class have directly ended entitlement programs, cut construction efforts, and sliced into education. In Ohio, the department of transportation recently defunded $50 billion in transit programs because of under-performing tax revenues. The legislature has also reduced LGF monies to public school districts by 17 percent in the past three years because they cannot afford to meet federal mandates with the reduced federal disbursements from taxes.
Steve: There is not enough money.
You understand this, right? There are people who deserve to be helped, who have mental illnesses, who have been raped, who have fought wars and come back to the US with no place to live. This week I covered the opening of a homeless shelter for veterans. It will house 30 men, leaving hundreds more on the streets and huddling under bridges here. There are teachers who are being laid off for no reason other than a lack of money. There are the undereducated, the beaten, the elderly. There are those who for whatever reason cannot afford health insurance.
There is no money, Steve. If you reduce income, there is less to spend. There is a direct correlation.
But that doesn't bother Mitt Romney et al. The business lobbyists who pull the political strings want their 13.9 percent tax rates and the want their corporate tax shelters and loopholes, by god.
Do you not see the injustice inherent in this situation?
Let's also examine whether tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans actually do provide the trickle-down economic effect that Republican lobbyists claim. If that is true, they should be hailing Obama for signing Congressional tax cuts -- but instead, they decry him for it. The one percent want to have their cake and eat it too, claiming that he can't create jobs at the same time they accept his hand-outs... to create jobs.
You do understand the math behind taxes, right? When you are fighting an inflationary pressure, you can't cut your way out of a receding tax burden by eliminating services. I mean, theoretically you could shut down the entire government, but the net effect on the economy and jobs and poverty always rise past the status quo. You can combo it -- cutting entitlements while raising the tax base -- but in this case, refusing money against inflation during a time of high unemployment and defaulted property loans isn't doing anyone any favors.
What really gets me incensed are the comments of Romney and the like who claim that paying as little in taxes as possible is a moral obligation. Romney said this week that he's proud that he pays as little as his lawyers can manage, implying that contributing any more than the bare minimum to government is bad. Where is the Mormonism in that? Where is the humanism? Where is any sort of brand of ethical community-mindedness?
What really gets me incensed are the comments of Romney and the like who claim that paying as little in taxes as possible is a moral obligation. Romney said this week that he's proud that he pays as little as his lawyers can manage, implying that contributing any more than the bare minimum to government is bad. Where is the Mormonism in that? Where is the humanism? Where is any sort of brand of ethical community-mindedness?
But you don't understand! We're all rugged, independent, self-made men! We don't need your stinking government to protect their property or provide them vital utilities and services! All the government does is take our money and give it to poor people so that they can live in luxury and not work a day in their lives!
Where is the Mormonism? How about in his charitable donations?
My point about the secretary is that Obama did not say what you think he meant. That was a fuck up on his part, why can't you see that? Other people on here and in the world at large see that.
Romney and Buffett are wealthy, big woop. Unless they cheated on their taxes they paid the higher rates when they first earned the money they used as a basis to start their investing. While I would like to see more wealthy folks follow in the footsteps of Bill Gates I won't stoop to the politics of greed or envy by supporting those who want to take from private citizens what they legally earned while using cries of economic fairness as a way to legitimize the taking.
If the likes of Buffett and Obama truly believe the words they speak then why don't they lead by example? They can fork over all of their "extra" wealth to the treasury and be done with it. Actions do speak louder than words.
My point about the secretary is that Obama did not say what you think he meant. That was a fuck up on his part, why can't you see that? Other people on here and in the world at large see that.
Oh my god the POTUS made a mistake in a speech! Stop ALL the presses! Seriously, having Presidents misspeak is so common it's barely even worth attacking him for - as misrepresentations go, this one is incredibly mild. It's fairly evident to politically aware viewers what he meant (I'm pretty sure Damian in your quote is just using that as an excuse to attack him) and less-aware viewers will either be corrected or not care.
Romney and Buffett are wealthy, big woop. Unless they cheated on their taxes they paid the higher rates when they first earned the money they used as a basis to start their investing. While I would like to see more wealthy folks follow in the footsteps of Bill Gates I won't stoop to the politics of greed or envy by supporting those who want to take from private citizens what they legally earned while using cries of economic fairness as a way to legitimize the taking.
Mitt Romney's father was an executive and governor of Michigan. Warren Buffett's father was in the House of Representatives. So they had significant sources of unearned funding from their parents, and were safe in that if their investments failed, they could always live off their parents until another opportunity arose. Buffett worked as an investment banker before he started investing his own money, which I'll admit is actually hard work, whereas Romney partnered in an investment firm that specializes in buying up companies, making massive layoffs, reorganizing them while collecting massive consulting fees, then selling the gutted company for full-on profit. Long story short - Mitt Romney came from money and then made even more by being a top-class, grade-A asshole and ruining thousands of employees' lives. And now he can just sit on his pile of money and watch it generate enough money to support a few hundred normal families per year.
The depths of your cognitive dissonance in this matter are staggering. Obama didn't misspeak. He assumed you could use context and just a smidgen of common sense. Do you often hear politicians discuss taxes in terms of flat contribution levels, or do they perhaps talk about percentage rates?
My point about the secretary is that Obama did not say what you think he meant. That was a fuck up on his part, why can't you see that? Other people on here and in the world at large see that.
Context? Yes, if you follow politics you can easily figure out the point he was trying to make but if you don't?
I know the context, that's why I pointed it out as a strange mistake to make in a SOTU speech.
In the past, when speaking about this Obama has talked about tax rates and how she paid a higher tax rate than him.
He might have purposefully used that exact verbage expecting those who do follow politics to know the context and assume he meant tax rates while knowing that those who don't would think he meant dollars.
It's naive to think that non profits could ever take the place of well run government programs. No one would ever donate enough money to keep enough teachers employed, or streets clean, or national parks open. We've had this discussion in this thread before.
It's naive to think that non profits could ever take the place of well run government programs. No one would ever donate enough money to keep enough teachers employed, or streets clean, or national parks open. We've had this discussion in this thread before.
Or similarly to provide health care to those who otherwise can't afford it. I think history has demonstrated this to be the case.
It's naive to think that non profits could ever take the place of well run government programs. No one would ever donate enough money to keep enough teachers employed, or streets clean, or national parks open. We've had this discussion in this thread before.
Or similarly to provide health care to those who otherwise can't afford it. I think history has demonstrated this to be the case.
The members of my family who believe in lowering taxes and are basically tea party-ists believe that privatizing schools would make them run more efficiently. They think that private schools are the model we should look to for education, and that public schools should basically be shut down with the saved money used to lower taxes.
As well, they also do not believe that medical costs are too high as the market dictates the prices, and think that insurance is a waste of money. Instead, they save money in a bank account to pay for unexpected medical issues.
When I hear this, I have a hard time making good arguments against it because it's just an astounding viewpoint to hear.
As well, they also do not believe that medical costs are too high as the market dictates the prices, and think that insurance is a waste of money. Instead, they save money in a bank account to pay for unexpected medical issues.
When I hear this, I have a hard time making good arguments against it because it's just an astounding viewpoint to hear.
Get some data on what an average serious medical emergency actually costs and throw it in their faces. One major illness or injury would alone probably bankrupt them, savings or no.
In this country? A visit to the ER will cost you several thousand dollars out-of-pocket.
Of course, there are a host of factors going into that - ridiculously high malpractice insurance premiums, hospitals operating for-profit, overcharging to insurance companies, rampant claim denial, and various other factors.
As well, they also do not believe that medical costs are too high as the market dictates the prices, and think that insurance is a waste of money. Instead, they save money in a bank account to pay for unexpected medical issues.
When I hear this, I have a hard time making good arguments against it because it's just an astounding viewpoint to hear.
Get some data on what an average serious medical emergency actually costs and throw it in their faces. One major illness or injury would alone probably bankrupt them, savings or no.
I actually tried that. The problem is that they are independently wealthy, with around a million in assorted real estate holdings, so they're assuming they could sell those off to pay for medical expenses. They also don't go to the doctor for almost anything, and are assured that they can be incredibly careful and not get sick.
...of course, the husband smokes and drinks a lot. So it might be cognitive dissonance.
I actually tried that. The problem is that they are independently wealthy, with around a million in assorted real estate holdings, so they're assuming they could sell those off to pay for medical expenses. They also don't go to the doctor for almost anything, and are assured that they can be incredibly careful and not get sick.
...of course, the husband smokes and drinks a lot. So it might be cognitive dissonance.
Well, if they're wealthy, then they don't have to worry, I suppose. I keep thinking back to a hospital stay I had a couple years ago which would've cost me around $32k if I didn't have insurance... Of course, if you're as wealthy as these folks seem to be, I guess $32k isn't that big a deal.
The problem isn't with the wealthy, though -- they're all set whether or not they get insurance. It's with the working stiffs who can't afford insurance or who aren't offered it through their jobs.
It seems like these folks are pretty myopic -- they seem to think that everyone else's situation mirror's theirs. Either that or their some sort of Social Darwinists who think that anyone who can't afford health care should just die.
Going back to their thing on private vs. public schools -- who's going to pay for those who can't afford private schools to get educated? Even if the public schools are shut down, hypothetically speaking, you can't just return all the tax money used on them to lower the rates. You probably would use at least some of it to subsidize those who can't afford to pay out-of-pocket for private schooling. Or do they think those who can't afford private schooling shouldn't be educated?
Going back to their thing on private vs. public schools -- who's going to pay for those who can't afford private schools to get educated? Even if the public schools are shut down, hypothetically speaking, you can't just return all the tax money used on them to lower the rates. You probably would use at least some of it to subsidize those who can't afford to pay out-of-pocket for private schooling. Or do they think those who can't afford private schooling shouldn't be educated?
Most of the time I think they just haven't thought about it much, and assume that there would be cheap private schools who would offer education at lower prices than current private schools. Of course, they don't realize just how bad these schools would have to be in order to save that much money.
The ones who have thought about have probably decided that people who are too poor to be educated and not smart enough to get scholarships might as well be uneducated. These people ought to be shot into the sun.
Yep, pretty much. They think that if you're not smart enough to save enough money to be able to cover health costs you shouldn't be doing anything to get hurt or should pretty much just die.
In the bare talks I've had with them about the schooling thing, they do seem to assume that the free market would provide low-end schools to those who can't afford nice private schools. I don't think they don't realize how bad those schools would have to be, they just don't care. They think that if you can't afford to send your kid to a nicer school, you've done something wrong with your life and should work harder.
I thought we, as a society, had already agreed on the merits of a public educational system, back in the late 18th century and early 19th (See: Thomas Jefferson and, later, Horace Mann). If we're going to honestly debate this issue, let's go back to discussing the merits of slavery and universal sufferage.
(I was going to make a joke about states' rights and the separation of church and state, but those are two issues we still haven't put behind us, even after fighting fucking wars.)
While I would like to see more wealthy folks follow in the footsteps of Bill Gates I won't stoop to the politics of greed or envy by supporting those who want to take from private citizens what they legally earned while using cries of economic fairness as a way to legitimize the taking.
So, are you honestly arguing against taxation? A country cannot survive on charity alone.
I thought we, as a society, had already agreed on the merits of a public educational system, back in the late 18th century and early 19th (See: Thomas Jefferson and, later, Horace Mann). If we're going to honestly debate this issue, let's go back to discussing the merits of slavery and universal sufferage.
(I was going to make a joke about states' rights and the separation of church and state, but those are two issues we still haven't put behind us, even after fighting fucking wars.)
While I would like to see more wealthy folks follow in the footsteps of Bill Gates I won't stoop to the politics of greed or envy by supporting those who want to take from private citizens what they legally earned while using cries of economic fairness as a way to legitimize the taking.
So, are you honestly arguing against taxation? A country cannot survive on charity alone. I don't think Tick really thought about what he was writing. I think he probably meant that he doesn't want us to go back to 90% tax rates as it can be seen as penalizing "successful" people. Imprecise language.
If you'll notice, he spouted the line that they should just donate their money to the government, as if that settles the argument. It's just a cliche line that has been argued before, and based on his logic previously I don't think he really means that. He has seemed more reasonable than that. And by reasonable, I mean listening to reason.
Comments
This is actually the exact reason why it's legit for his tax rate to be so low. It didn't come from wages, which are the part of your income subject to the regular graduated income tax rates everyone knows.
If your parents give you a check for $1000 does the government take a chunk out for taxes? NO. Because even though it is income, it is classified as a gift, which has a different tax rate than wages.
Changing the amount of taxes that people who make shitloads of money in wages pay will not impact people like Romney at all. The capital gains tax scheme has to be changed. Sure, the investment bankers are going to lobby against that. Well, rise up like you did for SOPA/PIPA and tell your representatives exactly why they should ignore those lobbyists.
I am sick of people bitching about rich people who get their income through perfectly legit means. It is comparable to bitching about the 40% of people who don't pay any income tax (because they don't fucking make enough money for it to be taxable under the current tax scheme). If you don't like the system, get politically active about changing it instead of vilifying those who are simply working within it.
Second, the Buffett tax thing has been understood by people other than me to mean that his secretary paid more in taxes (dollars not percent) than Buffett did. In fact, on NPR's Marketplace show tonight I heard the following: Great... Because Obama misspoke (or miswrote or whatever) in his speech we now have people thinking that Buffett's secretary pays more in taxes than he does!
Third, it was late when I typed up that big post and I was somewhat tired. In retrospect I may have picked a poor portion to quote as a false dichotomy. Let me provide a more clear example: How about entitlement reform? How about getting rid of the income cap on FICA taxes? Unless you are hanging off a cliff and someone says, "you better grab my hand before you fall to your death," more than likely any black and white, this or that choice is going to be a false dichotomy.
Close your eyes. Envision a secretary. Imagine her lifestyle, how she gets to work, the department store where she shops for clothes. Now imagine the world's third wealthiest man. Think about how many cars he owns. Think about what he must spend monthly on just clothing or petty cash. Think how much the man spends on servants without even thinking about it. This is a man who has an annual budget for helicopters, Steve, a budget for ice sculptures.
If you can hold those images in your mind simultaneously and still tell me you thought Obama's comparison was apples-for-apples dollars, then you have some serious issues.
The depths of your cognitive dissonance in this matter are staggering. Obama didn't misspeak. He assumed you could use context and just a smidgen of common sense. Do you often hear politicians discuss taxes in terms of flat contribution levels, or do they perhaps talk about percentage rates?
As for your NPR reference, Damian's statements call into question his understanding of basic economics if he believes in a flat tax and his ethical development if he does not believe that the fantastically rich have a greater social obligation than the impoverished class.
As for your "dichotomy" again -- considering the dry well that is federal funding, the new quote you have posted is also not a dichotomy. Continued tax cuts for the privileged class have directly ended entitlement programs, cut construction efforts, and sliced into education. In Ohio, the department of transportation recently defunded $50 billion in transit programs because of under-performing tax revenues. The legislature has also reduced LGF monies to public school districts by 17 percent in the past three years because they cannot afford to meet federal mandates with the reduced federal disbursements from taxes.
Steve: There is not enough money.
You understand this, right? There are people who deserve to be helped, who have mental illnesses, who have been raped, who have fought wars and come back to the US with no place to live. This week I covered the opening of a homeless shelter for veterans. It will house 30 men, leaving hundreds more on the streets and huddling under bridges here. There are teachers who are being laid off for no reason other than a lack of money. There are the undereducated, the beaten, the elderly. There are those who for whatever reason cannot afford health insurance.
There is no money, Steve. If you reduce income, there is less to spend. There is a direct correlation.
But that doesn't bother Mitt Romney et al. The business lobbyists who pull the political strings want their 13.9 percent tax rates and the want their corporate tax shelters and loopholes, by god.
Do you not see the injustice inherent in this situation?
Let's also examine whether tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans actually do provide the trickle-down economic effect that Republican lobbyists claim. If that is true, they should be hailing Obama for signing Congressional tax cuts -- but instead, they decry him for it. The one percent want to have their cake and eat it too, claiming that he can't create jobs at the same time they accept his hand-outs... to create jobs.
You do understand the math behind taxes, right? When you are fighting an inflationary pressure, you can't cut your way out of a receding tax burden by eliminating services. I mean, theoretically you could shut down the entire government, but the net effect on the economy and jobs and poverty always rise past the status quo. You can combo it -- cutting entitlements while raising the tax base -- but in this case, refusing money against inflation during a time of high unemployment and defaulted property loans isn't doing anyone any favors.
What really gets me incensed are the comments of Romney and the like who claim that paying as little in taxes as possible is a moral obligation. Romney said this week that he's proud that he pays as little as his lawyers can manage, implying that contributing any more than the bare minimum to government is bad. Where is the Mormonism in that? Where is the humanism? Where is any sort of brand of ethical community-mindedness?
My point about the secretary is that Obama did not say what you think he meant. That was a fuck up on his part, why can't you see that? Other people on here and in the world at large see that.
Romney and Buffett are wealthy, big woop. Unless they cheated on their taxes they paid the higher rates when they first earned the money they used as a basis to start their investing. While I would like to see more wealthy folks follow in the footsteps of Bill Gates I won't stoop to the politics of greed or envy by supporting those who want to take from private citizens what they legally earned while using cries of economic fairness as a way to legitimize the taking.
If the likes of Buffett and Obama truly believe the words they speak then why don't they lead by example? They can fork over all of their "extra" wealth to the treasury and be done with it. Actions do speak louder than words.
Seriously, having Presidents misspeak is so common it's barely even worth attacking him for - as misrepresentations go, this one is incredibly mild. It's fairly evident to politically aware viewers what he meant (I'm pretty sure Damian in your quote is just using that as an excuse to attack him) and less-aware viewers will either be corrected or not care. Mitt Romney's father was an executive and governor of Michigan. Warren Buffett's father was in the House of Representatives. So they had significant sources of unearned funding from their parents, and were safe in that if their investments failed, they could always live off their parents until another opportunity arose. Buffett worked as an investment banker before he started investing his own money, which I'll admit is actually hard work, whereas Romney partnered in an investment firm that specializes in buying up companies, making massive layoffs, reorganizing them while collecting massive consulting fees, then selling the gutted company for full-on profit. Long story short - Mitt Romney came from money and then made even more by being a top-class, grade-A asshole and ruining thousands of employees' lives. And now he can just sit on his pile of money and watch it generate enough money to support a few hundred normal families per year.
I know the context, that's why I pointed it out as a strange mistake to make in a SOTU speech.
In the past, when speaking about this Obama has talked about tax rates and how she paid a higher tax rate than him.
He might have purposefully used that exact verbage expecting those who do follow politics to know the context and assume he meant tax rates while knowing that those who don't would think he meant dollars.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html
As well, they also do not believe that medical costs are too high as the market dictates the prices, and think that insurance is a waste of money. Instead, they save money in a bank account to pay for unexpected medical issues.
When I hear this, I have a hard time making good arguments against it because it's just an astounding viewpoint to hear.
Of course, there are a host of factors going into that - ridiculously high malpractice insurance premiums, hospitals operating for-profit, overcharging to insurance companies, rampant claim denial, and various other factors.
Yeah, it's fucking broken.
...of course, the husband smokes and drinks a lot. So it might be cognitive dissonance.
The problem isn't with the wealthy, though -- they're all set whether or not they get insurance. It's with the working stiffs who can't afford insurance or who aren't offered it through their jobs.
It seems like these folks are pretty myopic -- they seem to think that everyone else's situation mirror's theirs. Either that or their some sort of Social Darwinists who think that anyone who can't afford health care should just die.
Going back to their thing on private vs. public schools -- who's going to pay for those who can't afford private schools to get educated? Even if the public schools are shut down, hypothetically speaking, you can't just return all the tax money used on them to lower the rates. You probably would use at least some of it to subsidize those who can't afford to pay out-of-pocket for private schooling. Or do they think those who can't afford private schooling shouldn't be educated?
The ones who have thought about have probably decided that people who are too poor to be educated and not smart enough to get scholarships might as well be uneducated. These people ought to be shot into the sun.
In the bare talks I've had with them about the schooling thing, they do seem to assume that the free market would provide low-end schools to those who can't afford nice private schools. I don't think they don't realize how bad those schools would have to be, they just don't care. They think that if you can't afford to send your kid to a nicer school, you've done something wrong with your life and should work harder.
(I was going to make a joke about states' rights and the separation of church and state, but those are two issues we still haven't put behind us, even after fighting fucking wars.) So, are you honestly arguing against taxation? A country cannot survive on charity alone.
I don't think Tick really thought about what he was writing. I think he probably meant that he doesn't want us to go back to 90% tax rates as it can be seen as penalizing "successful" people. Imprecise language.
If you'll notice, he spouted the line that they should just donate their money to the government, as if that settles the argument. It's just a cliche line that has been argued before, and based on his logic previously I don't think he really means that. He has seemed more reasonable than that. And by reasonable, I mean listening to reason.