Posted by kylenn on August 8, 2006, at 20:56:08
In reply to Re: cost of drugs, posted by Estella on August 8, 2006, at 9:44:49
Again, you took me out of context.
I realize you put my "exact words" above your response, but you left some other paragraphs/ideas out.
I am not talking about the super-rich, anyway, but I DID say (look again) that LUXURIES should be SUPER-TAXED!!! That is the closest we can get to fairness in my world view as far as taxes go.
I am still thinking about the fining process in Finland, and I think I agree with it.
If it is money (and not time in jail) they are talking about, then the punishment should hurt everyone equally, (in order to be fair), so I agree that if an 18 year old minimum wage student has to chunk out 1/2 a paycheck for a fine for speeding, then so should the 22 year old heir of a billion dollar fortune.
If the 18 year old makes $500 every two weeks, and has to pay $250 for a fine then if the heir makes (or gets, because he may not work for it)
$50,000 every two weeks, then he should have to pay $25,000 for the same crime in my view.
And when they buy that 10,000 square foot home with a tennis court and a pool.
I said luxuries, excesses--should be taxed at what did I say? 20-25%? And sins even higher.
That would effectivley tax ONLY the super rich.
I wouldn't mind if they taxed luxuries like 40% and sins 50 or 60%!
whatever! and that would, as I said, tax ONLY the super-rich.
As I said (I am repeating here)
essentials like food, water, electricity, health care, shelter should not be taxed at all; houses over say 1500 square feet per person should be considered luxury houses and the square footage over what would be essential could be taxed as non-essentials.
Cars over say $25,000 should be taxed as luxury cars the same way.
I am a fair minded person.
As I have said.
But I will stand my ground when I say that hard work and ambition should NOT be taxed; at least the tax should not be HIGHER for a bigger paycheck.
If a person works for the money, it should be his money.
It is when he spends it on non-essentials that the government could step in and take a chunk of it.
As I said.
And criminals, who make a lot more money than you or I, all income tax free, well, they REALLY like to spend that money, don't they? The big, fancy cars with all the non-essential silly rims and lights and stereos, the hotel suites, the pretentious jewelry, the fancy high dollar restaurants (yes, eating out is a non-essential)
Then, it would be fair. The super-rich, the criminal element, all would pay for their excesses with high taxes, and it would be so much more fair.
I really, really, really do not understand why anyone disagrees with this.
Especially a grad student that has worked so hard to get where she is. When you are finally out there getting a paycheck of say, $65,000/yr, you'll know what I am talking about when you see what Uncle Sam has in store for you.
And when he takes $22,000, and then you have your $750/month student loan payment (mine is over $1500 and from what I understand, that is just the interest--I owe about $165K which is about average for med school grads) and you have your $500-$1000/month rent (depending on where you live, could be more, might be less) and your$200/month gas bill, $200/month light bill, $350/month car note, $125/month car insurance, $100/mo phone bill, $65/month cable, (an non-essential, I shall admit, but I bet you have it),
$50/month cell phone bill, and $400/month food bill, you might start to realize that if you had an extra $22,000, you might be able to save for retirement. As it is, you won't. And do you think the government is REALLY going to keep up the welfare state that we already have? The Elderly SHOULD NOT have to worry about food, shelter, water, lights, transportation, and health care ESPECIALLY when they have spent their life working and EVEN if they haven't. I sincerely believe that after the age of 65-70, these worries should be behind you.
But, I would bet you money that Social Security, (which doesn't take away these worries by a long shot now) will NOT be there when I retire (I'm 44) and it WON'T be there when my daughter retires (she's 23) or my son (he's 21) or my youngest (he's 11). And I am not able to save ANY money for retirement at this point in my life; alot of that has to do with having had this depression to deal with.
When income tax was first put into action, there were approximately 15 workers paying into the system for every 1 person unable to work.
The same with social security.
Now, the ratio is about 3:1, and that was as of 5 years ago, I believe.
We are NOT making 5X more than our predecessors (inflation adjusted income) were making, check it out. Can people not see this is a disaster waiting to happen? The baby boomer generation is retiring. That is going to mean EVEN LESS workers to contribute. The ratio may go to 2:1.
It WILL NOT be possible to put enough income tax on the people to support the welfare state we have now.
I am certainly CERTAINLY not suggesting FOR A SECOND that the elderly and the disabled should all go to work!
I am saying INCOME TAX is not going to sustain it, and it is unfair, anyway.
People with more disposable income SPEND MORE, don't they???? And how much do you think they SPEND ON NECESSITIES? Not much more than you or I.
The rest is all cream, baby.
And THAT should be where we get the money for the disabled. THAT IS WHERE we should get the money for the elderly.
SIN TAXES like a 50% or higher tax on cigarettes and alcohol and gambling wins should be AUTOMATICALLY put towards HEALTH CARE.
LUXURY TAXES should be towards paying for the necessities of those who cannot afford them and are elderly or disabled.
Maybe LUXURY TAXES on things like VACATIONS IN ST TROPEZ (is there such a place?) should be earmarked for MENTAL HEALTH CARE for those of us who cannot afford to unwind on the white sands of the Caribbean!!
Taxes on luxury automobiles and first class plane tickets and cruises could pay for transportation for the elderly and disabled (notice I do not like to use the word needy, because to me there is a BIG difference between someone who is "needy" and someone who is elderly or disabled OR DIAGNOSED WITH SOME KIND OF HORRIBLE DISEASE THAT IS EITHER INCURABLE OR IS GOING TO BE PROHIBITIVLEY EXPENSIVE TO TREAT.
And you know what? I would even GO FOR a nationalized health care system if AND ONLY IF, they would do away with the income tax.
And, while I am spelling out my wish list, do away with all these stupid and pointless laws like HIPPA and these stupid DRGs that MEDICARE and other insurance companies use to pay for certain things like hospital stays (like if you get diagnosed with chest pain, the DRG says you can only stay for 24 hours max and then you have to be discharged, or medicare won't pay.) and HIPPA is a law that added OMIGOD so much paperwork to medical care for SUCH a stupid reason (THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT BENEFIT FROM THE HIPPA LAW AREN'T PEOPLE AT ALL: THEY ARE INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!)
All that paperwork they make you sign now at the doctor's office and at the hospital saying you have recieved the HIPPA paperwork which basically spells out your "RIGHTS" as a patient when it comes to your health care information.
GUESS WHAT? the HIPPA law made it ILLEGAL for a doctor to tell ANYONE IN YOUR FAMILY ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE INFORMATION AND THAT INCLUDES HUSBANDS/WIVES, ADULT CHILDREN/PARENTS, PARENTS/ADULT CHILDREN, SIGNIFICANT OTHERS, SISTERS/BROTHERS BUT GUESS WHO HAS TOTAL AND COMPLETE ACCESS TO YOUR HEALTH INFORMATION (AND SOMETIMES MISINFORMATION?) THAT'S RIGHT, YOUR FRIEND AND MINE, THE INSURANCE COMPANIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO YOUR HEALTH CARE INFORMATION IF YOU APPLY FOR INSURANCE.!!!!!! That's what the big money insurance companies spent most of their lobby funds in Washington on during the Clinton years. Think about it. UNLESS you give your doc specific WRITTEN permission to tell your wife, your daughter, your mother, your brother, your partner about your health (even if you are in a coma as a result of an accident, they can NOT, BY LAW, tell you what is wrong with your loved one if written permission was not obtained prior.
BUt, you can be if your son gets DDAVP for bedwetting at age 8 and then applies for insurance (not group insurance, right now that is a loophole. if you have group insurance HANG ONTO IT) applies for insurance on his own at age 24 after he opens his own auto-body shop, guess what? The insurance companies will jack up his premiums and AND refuse to cover ANYTHING THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE URINARY SYSTEM. And so that means, just because your son had a little bedwetting at age 8, if he develops, say diabetes at age 28 and then develops kidney problems from it at say, 38, he is SOL! The insurance companies knew what they were doing. So did congress. (I am really putting a BIG ASSUMPTION) on that one. BUT guess who did not have a clue??
That's right, you and me, bub.
I didn't just wake up one morning with all these opinions. I used to be a liberal democrat. then I was a repulblican. NOW, I am neither, because they are all FOS.
I thought about fairness long and hard.
It IS right and fair that the one of the big functions of govt (since we cannot do without it)
should be to look out for those unable to look out for themselves (UNABLE)
BUT, it SHOULD NOT PUNISH people who believed in the "AMERICAN DREAM" and worked their A##es off to attain their goals of breaking out of poverty (which, y'all, that is how I grew up).
Income tax should be done away with. ANd if it cannot be (and I truly do not know why it couldn't be) then it should be a FLAT TAX.
BUt I think that the Federal Sales Tax would be even better, bring even more money to the federal coffers, and truly be a fair tax, that the disadvantaged would be totally unaffected by.
Even if they work their a99 off for a few weeks of overtime, all the money they make, they keep.
And maybe Christmas won't be so sad this year!
Maybe people really can start saving for a "rainy day".
And the SUPER RICH and the CRIMINALS would finally do their part.
See, the thing about the Finnish system of paying a fine is fair.
Yes, the rich pay more because it is a punishment and the way it makes a person feel about their crime should be equal for the crime committed.
If a rich man pays a $200 fine, it is pocket change, I can see that.
Make it a percentage of a months pay or something, that is fair.
But DON"T make the same assumption about GOOD DEEDs and HARD WORK!!! THESE things should be REWARDED!! and they usually are, with higher wages. BUt, when the gov't nullifies that reward by just taking that much more in taxes, percentage wise, it FEELS like and is the EQUIVALENT of, a PUNISHMENT.
My employees all worked about 10 hours of overtime a few weeks ago. I was excited for them and they were excited. Guess how much more their average paycheck was? Less than $30 more than if they had worked NO OVERTIME. They were essentially paid LESS THAN MINIMUM WAGE for their overtime hours. WHY? BECAUSE THE STUPID INCOME TAXES TOOK SO MUCH MORE OF A PERCENTAGE SINCE FOR THAT TWO WEEKS THEIR INCOME GOT BUMPED UP A BIT.
noW, who thinks that is fair???????
I know they did NOT.
poster:kylenn
thread:674781
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060610/msgs/675034.html