The main reason why anyone would choose private options over public ones is efficiency. A company has a lot more incentive not to be wasteful than a government. While a system centralised by the government could theoretically be more efficient, it's pretty much never seen in practice.
I take issue with that argument for the following reasons: 1) Private organizations have absolutely no incentive to "do the right thing" if the last decade has been any indication. When left to their own devices, entrenched private organizations like insurance companies, banks, energy companies, etc. will do what the fuck ever in order to make as much profit as possible. This includes raping the public to get cash. Remember Enron? 2) Taking point one into account, they have no incentive not to be wasteful unless it affects them financially. If being difficult and causing waste turns huge profits because there is no real alternative for the customers to turn to, what do you think will happen? Companies that provide a service to the people of a country that is 'necessary' (like energy, banking, mortgages, health care, etc) NEED to be regulated heavily OR have a government option. 3) The "but competition will take care of prices and such!" argument has been proven false by all the massive scandal in the private sector in the above mentioned areas. These private organizations obviously can not, and intentionally do not, self-monitor because it allows them to bilk the public out of trillions of dollars.
I also find it ironic that the insurance companies are going ape shit over the new public option, complaining that it will be too hard to compete with, while at the same time complaining that there is too much regulation which is stifling their 'competitive spirit' and keeping prices high.
1) Private organizations have absolutely no incentive to "do the right thing" if the last decade has been any indication. When left to their own devices, entrenched private organizations like insurance companies, banks, energy companies, etc. will do what the fuck ever in order to make as much profit as possible. This includes raping the public to get cash. Remember Enron? 2) Taking point one into account, they have no incentive not to be wasteful unless it affects them financially. If being difficult and causing waste turns huge profits because there is no real alternative for the customers to turn to, what do you think will happen? Companies that provide a service to the people of a country that is 'necessary' (like energy, banking, mortgages, health care, etc) NEED to be regulated heavily OR have a government option.
And we can't have stiffer regulations why? The Democrats are in power, now is the time to regulate shit. The public will take it a lot better than a public option.
I also find it ironic that the insurance companies are going ape shit over the new public option, complaining that it will be too hard to compete with, while at the same time complaining that there is too much regulation which is stifling their 'competitive spirit' and keeping prices high.
That is amusing. I make it a point not to listen to company PR people.
I take issue with that argument for the following reasons: 1) Private organizations have absolutely no incentive to "do the right thing" if the last decade has been any indication. When left to their own devices, entrenched private organizations like insurance companies, banks, energy companies, etc. will do what the fuck ever in order to make as much profit as possible. This includes raping the public to get cash. Remember Enron? 2) Taking point one into account, they have no incentive not to be wasteful unless it affects them financially. If being difficult and causing waste turns huge profits because there is no real alternative for the customers to turn to, what do you think will happen? Companies that provide a service to the people of a country that is 'necessary' (like energy, banking, mortgages, health care, etc) NEED to be regulated heavily OR have a government option. 3) The "but competition will take care of prices and such!" argument has been proven false by all the massive scandal in the private sector in the above mentioned areas. These private organizations obviously can not, and intentionally do not, self-monitor because it allows them to bilk the public out of trillions of dollars
With point 1 and 2, I've already said myself that government intervention is required. The crucial factor in 2 and 3 is whether or not there is real competition. In the absence of competition, private industries probably turn out worse than government alternatives.
Obama seems to want to encourage competition. A public option could do this, but I must ask this - how does one set the pricing high enough that it is possible for private industries to compete, but low enough to force them to do so? This seems like a very difficult task to me. If it can reasonably be done, the public option is the best choice.
Obama seems to want to encourage competition. A public option could do this, but I must ask this - how does one set the pricing high enough that it is possible for private industries to compete, but low enough to force them to do so? This seems like a very difficult task to me. If it can reasonably be done, the public option is the best choice.
It doesn't have to be about price, it can be about what they offer. Look at the US postal service, its a public option that is far cheaper then sending something via UPS or FedEx, but those companies are able to not only compete but thrive. This is because they offer more options and services then the USPS does. So the public option is likely going to be a basic option, so private options would in turn need to offer more kinds coverage.
Sure, monopolistic competition is to be expected under such circumstances, but if something is to be called "competition" at all, price has to play a role.
Let's say I'm an insurance company, and I can't equal or beat the public basic coverage plan. Sure, I could provide an "advanced" plan at a greater price, but this would be a poor financial decision. Instead, I would provide coverage only for that which isn't covered by the basic plan. In doing so, I am in fact no longer competing with the public plan, though.
how does one set the pricing high enough that it is possible for private industries to compete, but low enough to force them to do so?
Charge based on a person's income. Thus, for anyone but the truly needy, it would cost as much if not more than private insurance. Require health insurance for all, but scale the cost of the public option for the very poor down to a limit of effectively zero as their income approaches the poverty line.
The public option would then compete directly with the private option at the higher incomes, where people are probably more willing to pay more for better care anyway. At the lower incomes, these people could not afford private insurance regardless, so they would need the public option. Additionally, this would open the way for a secondary market of supplemental health insurance for lower-income people. You get the public option, which covers x, y, and z at a substantially reduced and subsidized rate. But, you could purchase certain other kinds of coverage from private companies as you saw fit. If there were a market at that price point, the private sector would jump on it. If there turned out not to be a market, then there's no competition with the government, and thus no problem.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (from Wikipedia):
Marx delineated the specific conditions under which such a creed would be applicable - a society where technology and social organization had substantially eliminated the need for physical labor in the production of things, where "labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want." Marx explained his belief that, in such a society, each person would be motivated to work for the good of society despite the absence of a social mechanism compelling them to work, because work would have become a pleasurable and creative activity. Marx intended the initial part of his slogan, "from each according to his ability" to suggest not merely that each person should work as hard as they can, but that each person should best develop their particular talents.
Claiming themselves to be at a lower stage of communism ("socialism") in line with Marx's arguments, the Soviet Union adapted the formula as: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work (labour investment)".
*I wouldn't say we've yet reached that technological and social plateau where the idea is possible outside of autocracy.
As someone who makes a substantial amount of money, I'm happy to see almost $3,000 a month worth of it going into the fund that pays for the substantial infrastructure and stable society around me.
Even without progressive taxation (which we already employ), the wealthy would pay more total taxes than the poor for nothing more than the amount of money made. Even then, we would not have enough total cash to cover even a limited infrastructure, nevermind provide even basic social safety nets. Does it not make sense to tax based on the relative impact to the person? My $3000 a month doesn't hurt me any more than $400 a month does to someone who makes substantially less money.
Can you provide any example of a stable, prosperous economy which does not rely on some form of progressive taxation?
Do you realise that even the so-called "flat tax" still charges based on a person's income - the amount charged still depends on the amount earned. A flat tax that was actually "flat" would charge everyone $3000, or something like that. Is that fair? If not, what is fair?
The answer to this question is simple - fairness means having the same impact on everyone. If we want to make a tax system based on reason, what we want to find out, as a function of a person's income, how much $1 is worth to that person. The fact, and it's plainly obvious, is that $1 is never worth the same amount to two different people. Now, the "flat tax" assumes that the value of $1 to a person making $20k per year is the same as the value of $100 to a person making $2 million per year. On what basis is that claim made? You've chosen one mathematical function from an infinity (a very big infinity much bigger than the number of numbers ^_~) of functions with no justification whatsoever.
As someone who makes a substantial amount of money, I'm happy to see almost $3,000 a month worth of it going into the fund that pays for the substantial infrastructure and stable society around me.
Even without progressive taxation (which we already employ), the wealthy would pay more total taxes than the poor for nothing more than the amount of money made. Even then, we would not have enough total cash to cover even a limited infrastructure, nevermind provide even basic social safety nets. Does it not make sense to tax based on the relative impact to the person? My $3000 a month doesn't hurt me any more than $400 a month does to someone who makes substantially less money.
Can you provide any example of a stable, prosperous economy which does not rely on some form of progressive taxation?
As I've said before, I'm philosofically opposed to the whole "you make more, you should pay more" system. I don't like paying $3000 a month when it doesn't get me anything better than the person paying $400.
Now, is this realistic? Hell no! Still I only get one vote, which is odd to me when I'm considerably more invested in the system than most people.
As I've said before, I'm philosofically opposed to the whole "you make more, you should pay more" system. I don't like paying $3000 a month when it doesn't get me anything better than the person paying $400.
That being selfish aside, if you have no example of an alternative, and no suggestion for an alternative, what possible rationale can you have for changing the system?
It's easy to claim something is broken, but unless you can offer an alternative that could reasonably work, you're just pointlessly yelling into the wind.
I'm philosofically opposed to the whole "you make more, you should pay more" system.
Okay, sure. Let's say every citizen pays the same amount of tax money. 2.5 trillion in a year = divided by ~300k citizens, that's ~$8000 per person. What if you didn't even make $8000?
If you're supporting the "flat tax", you've chosen that the amount paid should be proportional to the amount earnt - a linear function with an offset of 0. Why?
Now, the "flat tax" assumes that the value of $1 to a person making $20k per year is the same as the value of $100 to a person making $2 million per year. On what basis is that claim made?
On the basis that $1 = $1.
Fixed your misquote. Were you being deliberately misleading, or was that just a complete failure to understand how to communicate with other people?
Anyways, either explain why
$1 to a person making $20k per year is the same as the value of $100 to a person making $2 million per year
and support the idea that everyone should be taxed a fixed percentage of their income, or, based on your $1 = $1, go into further detail about your system where every citizen of the United States is taxed about $8000.
Well, should taxes be considered a fee for what you get from government or the fee for being allowed to exist in society?
Personally, I think it should be a fee for government services. I think it's the fundamental difference between the thinking of the two parties and one of the reasons they will almost always disagree.
That being selfish aside
Again, "selfish" and "fair" are relative. I don't see a problem with me putting in what it costs for me. Would you split up the dinner check based on your respective salaries?
you're just pointlessly yelling into the wind.
AND AS LONG AS I PAY WAY MORE THAN THE AVERAGE AMERICAN I'M GOING TO! I PAYED, I GET TO WHINE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!!! :P
Seriously, I don't have a better system yet, but I'll let you know when I do.
Okay, go into detail about how you're going to tax every citizen of the U.S. $8000. What if I make $8001? Do you take $8000 and leave me with a dollar? Is that fair? Can I decline to pay tax because I don't want "government services?"
Fixed your misquote. Were you being deliberately misleading, or was that just a complete failure to understand how to communicate with other people?
No, I just don't like big block quotes. People are reading the whole thread, they can read your entire post. I can quote the whole damn thing, but it's neater and cleaner just to get to point.
Anyways, either explain my answer, or, based on your $1 = $1, go into further detail about your system where every citizen of the United States is taxed about $8000.
I estimated it at $10K actually.
I'm not arguing that this is realistic, but it's what in my opinion is "fair." Now I also understand that the world is quite unfair.
Okay, go into detail about how you're going to tax every citizen of the U.S. $8000. What if I make $8001? Do you take $8000 and leave me with a dollar? Is that fair? Can I decline to pay tax because I don't want "government services?"
Moreover, if the tax burden was that impossibly high for the lower classes, they would be incapable of purchasing the goods and services that the wealthy supply, esentially bankrupting those companies and reducing the vast majority of the nation to abject poverty with only a few independently wealthy people still maintining any purchasing power. This would eventually lead to an aristocracy as the only way to be wealthy would be to inherit preexisting wealth as consumers can no longer afford to consume. If you like feudal systems, then I guess overburdening the low and middle classes with taxes would be a way to bring that back.
Would you split up the dinner check based on your respective salaries?
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?
No, I just don't like big block quotes. People are reading the whole thread, they can read your entire post. I can quote the whole damn thing, but it's neater and cleaner just to get to point.
First of all, sorry for being overly aggressive with my past few posts. However, I'll give two reasons why your quoting was poor. 1) You didn't actually answer my question. I was taking the "flat tax" as an example, and asking what the justification for it was, whereas you offered justification for a different tax system. I suspect if you had quoted properly you would've realised the mistake and instead said something like "I disagree with the flat tax because it's unfair; I support a system where everyone pays the same amount, not the same percentage" 2) The quoted material isn't enough to give context for my statement. Sure, as you said, people can read the whole thread, but then why quote at all?
Comments
1) Private organizations have absolutely no incentive to "do the right thing" if the last decade has been any indication. When left to their own devices, entrenched private organizations like insurance companies, banks, energy companies, etc. will do what the fuck ever in order to make as much profit as possible. This includes raping the public to get cash. Remember Enron?
2) Taking point one into account, they have no incentive not to be wasteful unless it affects them financially. If being difficult and causing waste turns huge profits because there is no real alternative for the customers to turn to, what do you think will happen? Companies that provide a service to the people of a country that is 'necessary' (like energy, banking, mortgages, health care, etc) NEED to be regulated heavily OR have a government option.
3) The "but competition will take care of prices and such!" argument has been proven false by all the massive scandal in the private sector in the above mentioned areas. These private organizations obviously can not, and intentionally do not, self-monitor because it allows them to bilk the public out of trillions of dollars.
I also find it ironic that the insurance companies are going ape shit over the new public option, complaining that it will be too hard to compete with, while at the same time complaining that there is too much regulation which is stifling their 'competitive spirit' and keeping prices high.
Obama seems to want to encourage competition. A public option could do this, but I must ask this - how does one set the pricing high enough that it is possible for private industries to compete, but low enough to force them to do so? This seems like a very difficult task to me. If it can reasonably be done, the public option is the best choice.
Let's say I'm an insurance company, and I can't equal or beat the public basic coverage plan. Sure, I could provide an "advanced" plan at a greater price, but this would be a poor financial decision. Instead, I would provide coverage only for that which isn't covered by the basic plan. In doing so, I am in fact no longer competing with the public plan, though.
The public option would then compete directly with the private option at the higher incomes, where people are probably more willing to pay more for better care anyway. At the lower incomes, these people could not afford private insurance regardless, so they would need the public option. Additionally, this would open the way for a secondary market of supplemental health insurance for lower-income people. You get the public option, which covers x, y, and z at a substantially reduced and subsidized rate. But, you could purchase certain other kinds of coverage from private companies as you saw fit. If there were a market at that price point, the private sector would jump on it. If there turned out not to be a market, then there's no competition with the government, and thus no problem.
Marx delineated the specific conditions under which such a creed would be applicable - a society where technology and social organization had substantially eliminated the need for physical labor in the production of things, where "labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want." Marx explained his belief that, in such a society, each person would be motivated to work for the good of society despite the absence of a social mechanism compelling them to work, because work would have become a pleasurable and creative activity. Marx intended the initial part of his slogan, "from each according to his ability" to suggest not merely that each person should work as hard as they can, but that each person should best develop their particular talents.
Claiming themselves to be at a lower stage of communism ("socialism") in line with Marx's arguments, the Soviet Union adapted the formula as: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work (labour investment)".
*I wouldn't say we've yet reached that technological and social plateau where the idea is possible outside of autocracy.
Even without progressive taxation (which we already employ), the wealthy would pay more total taxes than the poor for nothing more than the amount of money made. Even then, we would not have enough total cash to cover even a limited infrastructure, nevermind provide even basic social safety nets. Does it not make sense to tax based on the relative impact to the person? My $3000 a month doesn't hurt me any more than $400 a month does to someone who makes substantially less money.
Can you provide any example of a stable, prosperous economy which does not rely on some form of progressive taxation?
The answer to this question is simple - fairness means having the same impact on everyone. If we want to make a tax system based on reason, what we want to find out, as a function of a person's income, how much $1 is worth to that person. The fact, and it's plainly obvious, is that $1 is never worth the same amount to two different people. Now, the "flat tax" assumes that the value of $1 to a person making $20k per year is the same as the value of $100 to a person making $2 million per year. On what basis is that claim made? You've chosen one mathematical function from an infinity (a very big infinity much bigger than the number of numbers ^_~) of functions with no justification whatsoever.
Now, is this realistic? Hell no! Still I only get one vote, which is odd to me when I'm considerably more invested in the system than most people.
It's easy to claim something is broken, but unless you can offer an alternative that could reasonably work, you're just pointlessly yelling into the wind.
If you're supporting the "flat tax", you've chosen that the amount paid should be proportional to the amount earnt - a linear function with an offset of 0. Why?
Anyways, either explain why and support the idea that everyone should be taxed a fixed percentage of their income, or, based on your $1 = $1, go into further detail about your system where every citizen of the United States is taxed about $8000.
Seriously, I don't have a better system yet, but I'll let you know when I do.
I'm not arguing that this is realistic, but it's what in my opinion is "fair." Now I also understand that the world is quite unfair.
If you like feudal systems, then I guess overburdening the low and middle classes with taxes would be a way to bring that back.
( ^_~ )
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?
(^_~)
1) You didn't actually answer my question. I was taking the "flat tax" as an example, and asking what the justification for it was, whereas you offered justification for a different tax system. I suspect if you had quoted properly you would've realised the mistake and instead said something like "I disagree with the flat tax because it's unfair; I support a system where everyone pays the same amount, not the same percentage"
2) The quoted material isn't enough to give context for my statement. Sure, as you said, people can read the whole thread, but then why quote at all?