Prev: Nikon D700x another Nikon upgrade?
Next: What am I looking at, moneywise, to get into photography?
From: Ray Fischer on 20 Sep 2009 15:03
Neil Harrington <not(a)home.today> wrote:
>"Rol_Lei Nut" <Speleo_Karstlenscap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> Interestingly, in all these polical threads, I don't recall a single post
>> from someone living in a country with state-regulated health
>> insurance/care complaining about it.
>> Many, including myself, posted that it works quite well and costs a
>> fraction of the U.S. system.
>Canadian doctors say their health care system is "imploding" -
Rightard dishonesty. In fact a FEW doctors are concerned because
expenses and income are mismatched.
>president of the Canadian Medical Association says the country's health care
>system is sick and needs to be cured.
And doctors in the US say that the US health care system isn't just
sick, it is BROKEN.
>That doesn't sound as if "it works quite well."
A damn sight better than what's in the US.
From: SMS on 20 Sep 2009 15:05
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Miles Bader <miles(a)gnu.org> wrote:
>> rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>> The very welathy can actually pay a LOWER tax rate because their
>>> income is not always in the form of salaries.
>> Ah.. that must be why the repubs are forever trying to get rid of
>> capital gains taxes...
> And inheritence taxes. The very taxes that most affect the idle rich.
No Ray, you're supposed to call it a "Death Tax" like the rightards.
From: Bill Graham on 20 Sep 2009 15:15
"John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:50:19 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
>>"John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:22:30 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
>>>>"John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 01:05:44 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
>>>>>><stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> mikey4 wrote:
>>>>>>>> People are pissed because "they" have finely woke up to the fact
>>>>>>>> "government" is out of control and has been for a very long time.
>>>>>>> Well I was pissed watching GWB spending BILLIONS on a war while
>>>>>>> MASSIVE tax breaks to the wealthy. I was pissed watching him do
>>>>>>> other than watching the economy fail. Were you? Some of us didn't
>>>>>>> "wake up" because a republican wasn't in the white house. If Obama
>>>>>>> been handed a healthy country and done this, I'd be pissed right
>>>>>>> with ya, but that isn't what happened.
>>>>>>I still don't understand about these, "massive tax cuts to the
>>>>>>last time I checked, the more money you make, the greater percentage
>>>>>>have to pay, .....that's what the tax tables in the form 1040 tell
>>>>> The rates were reduced. What's to understand?
>>>>THE MORE YOU MAKE THE GREATER PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME THAT YOU HAVE TO
>>>>PAY. That's regressive taxation in anyone's book. When the government
>>>>protects a high income person, does their Army work harder for them? -
>>>>but still, they not only pay more in taxes....They pay a GREATER
>>>>OF THEIR INCOME. What's so hard about that to understand?
>>> You said you didn't understand the tax cuts. The fact that we have a
>>> graduated rate system has no bearing on whether there were cuts in the
>>> rates in that system.
>>There may be cuts in the rates, but the system still taxes the rich at a
>>greater percentage of their income than those who are poorer than they
>>so it is still regressive. Don't you understand that this depresses the
>>incentive to invest money in business and try to become rich? And these
>>small businesses are where most of the employment in this country comes
>>from? Right now, we are looking at unemployment rates that are upwards of
>>10%. - (They are already over 12% here in Oregon.) It is going to take a
>>long time for this to correct itself, mainly because of the regressive tax
>>system that "sticks it to the rich".
> Trust me, the actual taxes paid by high-income folk are not reflected
> accurately in the nominal tax rates.
......Because there are some who can figure out some way to wriggle out of
them, probably by registering their businesses overseas. And, by raising the
rates, how is this going to help? - It isn't. All it will do is hurt the
ones who are honest and trying to live within the system....The crooks who
are registering their businesses overseas are still going to do so, so they
will still circumvent the system, IOW, you are just going to hurt the honest
people, and not going to impact the dishonest ones at all......The real
answer is to back off, and give the honest ones a break. You should be
putting pressure on the foreign governments to stop the other ones.....
From: Bill Graham on 20 Sep 2009 15:24
"Rol_Lei Nut" <Speleo_Karstlenscap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Interestingly, in all these polical threads, I don't recall a single post
> from someone living in a country with state-regulated health
> insurance/care complaining about it.
> Many, including myself, posted that it works quite well and costs a
> fraction of the U.S. system.
> But no real user posted anything against.
That's because they are all dead......The only ones still alive are those
who never had to use their system......:^)
From: Bill Graham on 20 Sep 2009 15:32
"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>> THE MORE YOU MAKE THE GREATER PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME THAT YOU HAVE TO
>>> PAY. That's regressive taxation in anyone's book.
>> As usual, graham is wrong on both counts.
>> A "regressive" tax structure charges more for LOWER incomes.
>> The very welathy can actually pay a LOWER tax rate because their
>> income is not always in the form of salaries.
> Sales tax, and the horribly misnamed "FairTax" are the most regressive
> because lower income people spend a far greater portion of their income on
> taxable goods than rich people.
> For a national retail tax to generate the same amount of money as the
> current income tax it would need to be set at about 25%, and that assumes
> that consumption (legal consumption) remains at the current levels, which
> it won't.
> Sales taxes are bad from another perspective, they encourage tax evasion,
> as occurs now with many on-line sales, and hurts local businesses. Also
> you can't deduct sales tax from income tax so a state like Oregon with an
> income tax high property taxes but no sales tax sends less tax money to
> the federal government than California with a high sales tax but
> relatively low property tax.
I agree with all of the above. We have no sales taxes here in Oregon, and I
campaign to keep it that way all the time. In California they were 8% and it
was a royal PITA, as well as being very expensive to purchase any big ticket
items such as an automobile.....I purchases all my cars and motorcycles up
here in Oregon. In California, they even were charging the sales tax on some
foods......All, "fast foods| had to pay the tax. So they were even using the
sales taxes to control morality, assuming it is "immoral" to eat fast food.
To me, this was carrying "big brotherism" to a ridiculous extreme, and it is
one of the chief reasons why I left that state as soon as I possibly could.