[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[PMZ]

[youtube]Ax-2i71bqGw[/youtube]

This is the vision government and media have of the American people. They want us all just like this.

Who would benefit if we were "just like this"?

 

[itfitzme]

"Under such a system, prices on goods and services will drop drastically over night, strengthening the purchasing power of our hard earned wages."

No it wouldn't.

 

[bripat9643]

Ha! I was at a dinner party with one of the coaches of the US ski team. He was from Norway I think. He claimed that their health care system beat the one here hands down. And it's not because their government is more capable or less corrupt than ours. The profit motive isn't there to pump up costs and the economies of scale allow efficiencies in service and price negotiations with medical suppliers.

The profit motive is what keeps costs down. It doesn't "pump them up." The lack of it is why government programs are always bloated and cost 3 times as much as an equivalent private sector program. "Economies of scale" don't really apply to industries that a labor intensive like medicine. A doctor can only see so many patients or perform so many surgeries in a day. For these reasons I think your coach is full of shit. His anectdotal evidence is worthless in any case.

Then there's the postal system. They're still my go-to source for shipment mainly because I don't have to shlep halfway across the city to find an office. They're cheaper than UPS or Fed Ex too.

By law, FEDEX and UPS are not allowed to compete with the Post Office in the delivery of First Class mail. They can only deliver packages or letters for a price above a certain minimum. There's a reason the Postal Carrier's Union spends millions lobbying Congress every time a bill comes up to abolish the postal monopoly: stark terror.

" The lack of it is why government programs are always bloated and cost 3 times as much as an equivalent private sector program."

Can't wait to see the evidence of this. Can't wait to see even the evidence that the government is competing with business. In what market?

True, the government generally doesn't allow any competition with itself. Its customers also have no choice about paying for the wares government is offering. It's hard to compete with a "business" of that nature.

 

[PMZ]

The profit motive is what keeps costs down. It doesn't "pump them up." The lack of it is why government programs are always bloated and cost 3 times as much as an equivalent private sector program. "Economies of scale" don't really apply to industries that a labor intensive like medicine. A doctor can only see so many patients or perform so many surgeries in a day. For these reasons I think your coach is full of shit. His anectdotal evidence is worthless in any case.



By law, FEDEX and UPS are not allowed to compete with the Post Office in the delivery of First Class mail. They can only deliver packages or letters for a price above a certain minimum. There's a reason the Postal Carrier's Union spends millions lobbying Congress every time a bill comes up to abolish the postal monopoly: stark terror.

" The lack of it is why government programs are always bloated and cost 3 times as much as an equivalent private sector program."

Can't wait to see the evidence of this. Can't wait to see even the evidence that the government is competing with business. In what market?

True, the government generally doesn't allow any competition with itself. Its customers also have no choice about paying for the wares government is offering. It's hard to compete with a "business" of that nature.

That's why it only provides services where competition is impossible or impractical. Markets where capitalism will not work due to the lack of competition.

 

[Gadawg73]

Easy to be generous through government using the money of others.

 

[PMZ]

Easy to be generous through government using the money of others.

It's money of, by, and for Americans.

 

[dcraelin]

The US is a Democracy/Republic despite the views of some of the Framers.

Apparently you have not read our Constitution which guarantees us a "Republican form of Government".

It is amazing to me the number of windbags who say that the US is a Republic because the Consitution guarantees such. Then some even post article 4 which they have apparently not read. It guarantees the STATES a republican form of government. It says NOTHING about the federal government being one. READ.

Now I do believe we are a Republic tho not a pure one. A pure one, as Jefferson in his day said, could only exist in a small area where all citizens could decide on laws.

And just what did our Founding Fathers think of “democracy”? Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to “democracy” they
…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

Madison was inconsistent, later joining Jefferson in his opposition to the rest of the framer's federalists. Republicanism was actually a rallying point of those OPPOSED to the consitution such as PATRICK HENRY. I notice you dont give the whole context either. Madison qualified his definition of Republic, winding up with a definition that no one else shared. You can sense the defensiveness.

And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate "the evils we experience," saying that those "evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."

NO one knows for sure what was said at the convention because members were sworn to secrecy. Madsion did later say that some wanted a king.....we didnt get one did we.

Read Federalist #9 to see what Hamilton thought of historys Republics, he equated them with Democracys, as did most of the peopulation of the day.

Franklin wanted a one house legislature and no president.

Democracys/Republics require knowing the will of the people, which requires voting. Mobs dont vote. Some of the framers tho not all may have had an irrational fear of the comon man being involved in politics. They were wrong.

 

[dcraelin]

Many people like to recall the sides of the debate rather than the negotiated decision documented by the Constitution.
A major decision was to avoid what turned out to be a big problem in Europe. Small states with no Union. Europe is still wrestling with that.
The old Confederacy too.

What "negotiated decision"?.....small states are a problem?....I dont think that was the problem

I, mistakenly obviously, assumed that you had some knowledge of the Constitutional Convention.

One of the biggest negotiation was between Federalists, who wanted a strong country, and those who distrusted other colonies who wanted to be free of their influence. The European tradition of independent small countries as compared to a strong European Union, for instance.

Federalists won the debate and wrote it into the Constitution.

I do have some knowledge of the convention tho members were sworn to secrecy. Most of the members could be classified as supportive of a national government i.e. federalists and the negotiation on that part was decidely one-sided.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Easy to be generous through government using the money of others.

It's money of, by, and for Americans.

My money is of, by, and for me and my family.

 

[PMZ]

The US is a Democracy/Republic despite the views of some of the Framers.

Apparently you have not read our Constitution which guarantees us a "Republican form of Government".

It is amazing to me the number of windbags who say that the US is a Republic because the Consitution guarantees such. Then some even post article 4 which they have apparently not read. It guarantees the STATES a republican form of government. It says NOTHING about the federal government being one. READ.

Now I do believe we are a Republic tho not a pure one. A pure one, as Jefferson in his day said, could only exist in a small area where all citizens could decide on laws.

And just what did our Founding Fathers think of “democracy”? Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to “democracy” they
…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

Madison was inconsistent, later joining Jefferson in his opposition to the rest of the framer's federalists. Republicanism was actually a rallying pint of those OPPOSED to the consitution such as PATRICK HENRY.

And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate "the evils we experience," saying that those "evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."

NO one knows for sure what was said at the convention because members were sworn to secrecy. Madsion did later say that some wanted a king.....we didnt get one did we.

Read Federalist #9 to see what Hamilton thought of historys Republics, he equated them with Democracys, as did most of the peopulation of the day.

Franklin wanted a one house legislature and no president.

Democracys/Republics require knowing the will of the people, which requires voting. Mobs dont vote. Some of the framers tho not all may have had an irrational fear of the comon man being involved in politics. They were wrong.

Words have meaning. The word republic is defined as a country not ruled by a monarch. Exactly what the Constitution says when it guarantees the STATES a republican form of government. One without a monarch.

The Founders, following the fashion of their day, did not trust the "common man", and certainly not any women or any slaves.

While they left voting qualifications up to each state, they knew that states would create an aristocracy.

It took 150 years approximately before we, the people, insisted on universal suffrage in the election of our representatives. Of course, up to then, Congress and the Supreme Court made decisions democratically, but once we could all vote in elections we became indisputably a democracy.

 

[PMZ]

Easy to be generous through government using the money of others.

It's money of, by, and for Americans.

My money is of, by, and for me and my family.

Only if you and your family are not Americans.

 

[bripat9643]

So britpat, do you have that misbehaving child's parents' permission to splash his face all over the internet? Do you abuse your own children in this way? Or do you keep that kind of behavior quiet so the authorities don't find out?

His face was already all over the internet before I used his photo for my avatar. Where do you think I got the photo?

Your flailing savagely in your attempts to induce guilt in me.

 

[dcraelin]

Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.

You have used that word ignorant before and it boomeranged on you. We know the constitution has a few words to say about one minority, something about being counted as 3/5ths of a person I believe.

 

[bripat9643]

Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.

The Constitution also clear tells the government what it must do. Collecting taxes is one example.

The Constitution authorized the federal government to collect taxes. It doesn't compel it to collect taxes.

Wrong again.

 

[PMZ]

Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.

The Constitution also clear tells the government what it must do. Collecting taxes is one example.

The Constitution authorized the federal government to collect taxes. It doesn't compel it to collect taxes.

Wrong again.

Only if it spends money.

 

[bripat9643]

Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.

And what it has to do.

What it can't do is legislate the areas of life defined by the Bill of Rights. And it hasn't. There are also a few things reserved for state government. Other than that, there aren't many limitations.

That's wrong. It's the opposite of what the Framers intended. The Constitution enumerates the powers of the government. What's the point of listing the powers of the federal government if the document gives it license to do whatever it wants unless expressly prohibited? That would essentially make the Bill of Rights the entire Constitution. The rest of it would be superfluous.

 

[bripat9643]

" The lack of it is why government programs are always bloated and cost 3 times as much as an equivalent private sector program."

Can't wait to see the evidence of this. Can't wait to see even the evidence that the government is competing with business. In what market?

True, the government generally doesn't allow any competition with itself. Its customers also have no choice about paying for the wares government is offering. It's hard to compete with a "business" of that nature.

That's why it only provides services where competition is impossible or impractical. Markets where capitalism will not work due to the lack of competition.

ROFL! It hardly limits itself to that. Of course, there's not much competition when it comes to the "service" of extracting money from other people at gunpoint to pay for your pet causes.

 

[bripat9643]

Easy to be generous through government using the money of others.

It's money of, by, and for Americans.

Wrong. The deductions from my paycheck are my money. You played no part in earning it. You're entitled to nothing from me.

 

[itfitzme]

The profit motive is what keeps costs down. It doesn't "pump them up." The lack of it is why government programs are always bloated and cost 3 times as much as an equivalent private sector program. "Economies of scale" don't really apply to industries that a labor intensive like medicine. A doctor can only see so many patients or perform so many surgeries in a day. For these reasons I think your coach is full of shit. His anectdotal evidence is worthless in any case.

....

Incorrect.

The profit motive may increase prices just as much as it may reduce them. That is the whole idea of profit maximization, isn't it? It all depends on the details of the market. Then there are market imperfections, which all markets have, which results in market leverage and therefor profits.

Saying "the profit motive is what keeps costs down" is rather absurd on the face of it. Selling at cost is zero profit. Up the supply chain, one markets cost is another markets prices. Increasing price with respect to cost increases profit. Down stream, that price is another companies costs.

And, prices are based on willingness to pay on the demand side, not on supply side costs.

Indeed, the very nature of profits demonstrates the market imperfections. Perfectly competitive markets, the simple micro economic model, results in zero profits. The reason is because where profits exists, competition comes in and drives down prices. So, if there are profits, it indicates that it isn't the ideal model.

Economies of scale absolutely function in health care. It is particularly at play with insurance companies. It is at play in education of healthcare professionals. It is at play in drugs and equipment manufacturing. It is at play in information intensive processes, such as patient records.

Service quantity also opens up the viability of alternative service structure. It opens up the option of specialization that didn't previously exist. Technicians and nurses pick up work that was previously restricted to the doctor. Capital equipment, such as MRI machines, become fully utilized. Reusable syringes make way to disposable syringes due to volume.

There is a reason that HMO's exist. Kiaser and other health organizations are able to provide more care at less cost than the equivalent number of associated private practice doctors. There are all sorts of ways that economies of scale are in affect in medicine.

 

[bripat9643]

The Constitution also clear tells the government what it must do. Collecting taxes is one example.

The Constitution authorized the federal government to collect taxes. It doesn't compel it to collect taxes.

Wrong again.

Only if it spends money.

Nope, it still isn't compelled to collect taxes. The recent behavior of Congress should be sufficient proof of that.