It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Universal healthcare and education

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: tanstaafl
I prefer an idea more like in Starship troopers. You can exempt yourself, but you lose the right to vote. You cannot vote again until you pay for a period of one presidential cycle, or four years.

I love this idea (and Heinlein)!

Also, anyone who receives any public assistance (private charitable assistance not included) should also lose their privilege of voting (it is a privilege, contrary to what the demwits would have you believe - no one has the natural Right to vote to steal anything from their fellow citizens).
edit on 11-2-2020 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
I think US taxpayers deserve the same health insurance the senators and representatives receive at taxpayers expense.


Are they actually going to work for those benefits or just get them? The military works for theirs as we can assume senators and representatives do too.



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Good question, but I disagree with your premise, which suggests that old brain-dead demwit talking point of 'fair share'.

The Revenue Act of 1913 imposed a one percent tax on incomes above $3,000, with a top tax rate of six percent on those earning more than $500,000 per year.

So, anyone earning under $3k was totally exempt.

$1 in 1913 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $26 in 2020.

So. I'll change my suggestion that anyone with an income under $78, not $50k, should be 100%, totally exempt from any kind of income taxation.

Imagine the stimulus to the economy if this was to happen.


I don't think people realize that flat tax actually is a much lower percentage needed. I'm in the 25% club, but I paid about 10% after figuring my taxes and getting child tax credit and a little credit for college for one of my kids. Why not just charge everyone in the 80% or higher 6%, 50% to 79% 3%, 1% to 49% 1%. Government was a hell of a lot cheaper back then that everyone needs to pay and should. In 1913 Government expense was 8% of GDP and today it is 36%, so everyone needs to pay.


edit on 11-2-2020 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I don't think people realize that flat tax actually is a much lower percentage needed. I'm in the 25% club, but I paid about 10% after figuring my taxes and getting child tax credit and a little credit for college for one of my kids. Why not just charge everyone in the 80% or higher 6%, 50% to 79% 3%, 1% to 49% 1%. Government was a hell of a lot cheaper back then that everyone needs to pay and should. In 1913 Government expense was 8% of GDP and today it is 36%, so everyone needs to pay.

I am adamantly opposed to a graduated tax of any kind. That is the most unfair of all.

With a flat tax, higher earners are already paying more, as I exhibited.

Looked at another way (from my Dad decades ago)...

"Why should I (he was an airline pilot (Captain with Delta), made good money) have to pay $5 for a loaf of bread, when someone else only has to pay $3?"



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

I am adamantly opposed to a graduated tax of any kind. That is the most unfair of all.

With a flat tax, higher earners are already paying more, as I exhibited.

Looked at another way (from my Dad decades ago)...

"Why should I (he was an airline pilot (Captain with Delta), made good money) have to pay $5 for a loaf of bread, when someone else only has to pay $3?"


I agree, but at some point there is a limit in what one can pay and still maintain a living wage. I have asked before what is the cost of being an American? Why should one person pay 100k and another pay nothing? What if my lifestyle needs 500k a year to live it? Who is the person to suggest I don't need that lifestyle and so I need to give more to the Government. I could suggest that a poorer person lifestyle is too grand too because they only have 3 people in their apartment and not 10.

I also feel that taxation should be at a point it is not painful for anyone and so sometimes to do that there needs to be a scale. I'm sure a $5 loaf of beard means nothing to me as it would be a big deal to someone in the low income range. Also remember that 60k is upper class, not middle class.



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
"Free"

It's sad they are so brainwashed they think the govt taking their money and then 100% owning their decisions for them is "free".


It is free at point of delivery. This means that no one will die because the cannot afford treatment and no one goes bankrupt or loses everything because of medical bills. I could be a tramp on the streets without a pot to piss in yet can guarantee decent quality of care regardless of my illness without ever putting my hand in my pocket.

The government doesn't make the mediical decisions. Doctors do based on clinical need rather than financial position.

The US government forks out over $9000 of taxpayers money per head per year on healthcare, yet still expects you to pay for insurance on top. The UK government spends about $3600 per head, with all levels of care being free at point of delivery. There is also the option to pay for private healthcare if you want a quicker service. Most don't pay for it though as the NHS is plenty good enough. for them.
edit on 11 2 2020 by PaddyInf because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: tanstaafl
I prefer an idea more like in Starship troopers. You can exempt yourself, but you lose the right to vote. You cannot vote again until you pay for a period of one presidential cycle, or four years.

I love this idea (and Heinlein)!

Also, anyone who receives any public assistance (private charitable assistance not included) should also lose their privilege of voting (it is a privilege, contrary to what the demwits would have you believe - no one has the natural Right to vote to steal anything from their fellow citizens).


So basically, every single retiree in America, including veterans as well as the disabled.

I think that's a poor solution.



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: Skeletonized

About 80% of America get their health insurance through employers.



About 58% of Americans under 65 get insurance through their employers. 30% are privately paid. 8.5% have no insurance. The rest are through other methods like the military etc.



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd
"originally posted by: tanstaafl
Also, anyone who receives any public assistance (private charitable assistance not included) should also lose their privilege of voting (it is a privilege, contrary to what the demwits would have you believe - no one has the natural Right to vote to steal anything from their fellow citizens)."

So basically, every single retiree in America, including veterans as well as the disabled.

I think that's a poor solution.

Sorry. I don't.

Anyone who partakes of the tit of the Citizen Taxpayer (meaning, anyone receiving government 'assistance' - especially those whose sole means of existence is from said tit - should never, ever have a say in whether, or how much, said government should be able to steal from said Citizen to provide said 'assistance'.

That said - I can see an argument for an exception for veterans who served in combat and whose disability is directly related to said service.



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Byrd
"originally posted by: tanstaafl
Also, anyone who receives any public assistance (private charitable assistance not included) should also lose their privilege of voting (it is a privilege, contrary to what the demwits would have you believe - no one has the natural Right to vote to steal anything from their fellow citizens)."

So basically, every single retiree in America, including veterans as well as the disabled.

I think that's a poor solution.

Sorry. I don't.

Anyone who partakes of the tit of the Citizen Taxpayer (meaning, anyone receiving government 'assistance' - especially those whose sole means of existence is from said tit - should never, ever have a say in whether, or how much, said government should be able to steal from said Citizen to provide said 'assistance'.

That said - I can see an argument for an exception for veterans who served in combat and whose disability is directly related to said service.


But not for the widows with minor children, eh? And not for senior citizens who have retired? No votes for us after a lifetime of working? We suddenly don't have the privilege to vote?

What about farmers who use government assistance programs? No votes for them? No votes for those who were injured on the job and can't work any more? No votes for the coal miners with black lung and COPD?


edit on 11-2-2020 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2020 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Receiving public assistance and public free education creates conflicts of interests 😁



posted on Feb, 12 2020 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
What if my lifestyle needs 500k a year to live it?

Fine - as long as you are able to earn what you need to fulfill your needs.


Who is the person to suggest I don't need that lifestyle and so I need to give more to the Government.

No one... again, as long as you are the one providing it.


I could suggest that a poorer person lifestyle is too grand too because they only have 3 people in their apartment and not 10.

That would be your opinion. A stupid one, but you are free to your opinions.


I also feel that taxation should be at a point it is not painful for anyone and so sometimes to do that there needs to be a scale.

I believe that everyone should recognize taxation for what it is - THEFT - and a necessary evil, to the extent that is required to fulfill the duties and obligations of the government.

Providing public charity is not a Constitutionally delegated power, duty or obligation of the federal government.


I'm sure a $5 loaf of beard means nothing to me as it would be a big deal to someone in the low income range.

Irrelevant. The price for bread is the price for bread. It is (or should be) the same for everyone. There is no rational way for it to anything else.


Also remember that 60k is upper class, not middle class.

Another opinion. I have quite a few too.



posted on Feb, 12 2020 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: LuxFer

Well, in the United States we are comparatively over-taxed, it is true, but in part because we have sworn to keep a large enough military to defend Europe, if needed, unfortunately, among other far flung areas of the planet.



posted on Feb, 12 2020 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Another opinion. I have quite a few too.


Actually it is not my opinion...its statistics.



posted on Feb, 12 2020 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: LuxFer
Since this forum seems to be populated by americans, I would like to know why in the USA there is still an argument against such a system.

Our government needs all the money it can get to maintain its historically incredible and massive military. Your country probably doesn't have to do that since we're doing it, so it has extra money to spend on frivolous things like healthcare and education.
edit on 12-2-2020 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2020 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Actually it is not my opinion...its statistics.

And whoever penned those stats just arbitrarily picked a number and declared it so.

That is what you call opinion, son.



posted on Feb, 13 2020 @ 10:01 AM
link   
I’m an American. I’ve worked in military hospitals which are socialized, and are as good as any private hospitals I’ve worked in. And likely cost less too. As far as education, the best school In Louisiana where I’m from is Ben Franklin. A public magnet school. Also, my wife taught at Dutch town high in Baton Rouge, which is public and also one of the top schools in the state. As was Baton Rouge high, also a public magnet school. The problem is that, contrary to any evidence, the American people have been conditioned to think that government sucks at all things. There are no comparisons or statistics to defend their stance, but they’ve bought it wholeheartedly, most likely due to massive programming from all the privately owned corporate media conglomerates, and the think tanks and analytics groups.



posted on Feb, 13 2020 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd
But not for the widows with minor children, eh?

Nope. They should just be happy with what they get.


And not for senior citizens who have retired? No votes for us after a lifetime of working?

Nope. They should just be happy with what they get.


We suddenly don't have the privilege to vote?

That's right.


What about farmers who use government assistance programs?

The government should not be in the farming business.


No votes for them?

Thats right.


No votes for those who were injured on the job and can't work any more? No votes for the coal miners with black lung and COPD?

Thats right.

Sounds harsh, doesn't it? It isn't, really. It certainly doesn't mean they will be left top starve. The USA is one of the most generous countries in the world when it comes to helping people who need help.

All this does is it stops disguising charity as an entitlement.
edit on 13-2-2020 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2020 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2020 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Sorry, no. The USA is not the most charitable nation for those in need. But it’s a good sales pitch!

And I’m tired of Americans entitlement. They feel entitled to ignore international law. They feel entitled to lie, cheat, assassinate, torture. They feel entitled to cut other nations off from food and medicine. To starve their children. To unilaterally coerce other nations to do our bidding. To steal resources and murder civilians around the globe.



posted on Feb, 13 2020 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421
I’m an American. I’ve worked in military hospitals which are socialized, and are as good as any private hospitals I’ve worked in.

My experience was not the same. I had a simple, classic migraine once and the military doctors couldn't figure it out, so they gave me a spinal tap to check for meningitis. Ouch. It eventually led me to being out of the military.




top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join