#41 Posted on 8.5.03 0814.03 Reposted on: 8.5.10 0818.12
Originally posted by godkingHealth care is a public right, not a fringe benefit.
So let me get this straight. Everybody has a "right" to health care in the form of government funded coverage. But nobody has a "right" to a majority of the money they earn by paying lower taxes?
Originally posted by godkingFine. Here's a link detailing the Big Mac Index in full and why it's a reliable measure used by economists the world over as an indicator of purchasing power and tool for determining the accuracy of exchange rates.
I wasn't disupting that it was a good reference. But it is not infallible.
#42 Posted on 8.5.03 0956.06 Reposted on: 8.5.10 0958.58
You still don't seem to understand the most basic reason of all: Person X is not entitled to have person Y pay for his health care in America.
"Person X" also has "Person Y" pay for his national defense, kids education, garbage pickup, road maintenance, and numerous other things.
This country, like all others, has decided that there are certain things you are entitled to by virtue of being an American, and other things you are not. The stuff we decide Americans are entitled to (police, fire, education, defense, etc.) society at large picks up the tab for. You're always going to have some "Person A" paying for some other "Person B," and that's OK. I don't think (I hope) that anyone advocates, for instance, having to give the firefighters $100 bucks when they come before they put out your fire.
I happen to think we've got some strange priorities when it comes to this. I think guaranteeing health care is more important than guaranteeing a 12th-grade education, or guaranteeing money to run for President, for that matter. I think matters of life and death (fire, defense, police, and health care for instance) are the FIRST things that society at large should cover.
I think Person X SHOULD be entitled to have Person Y pay for his care, if want to put it like that, as well as a lot of other stuff that currently isn't covered now. I don't think Person X should be entitled to have Person Y pay to keep their business afloat, and a lot of other stuff that is covered now. It's just a matter of priorities.
Since last post: 3962 days Last activity: 3028 days
#43 Posted on 8.5.03 1619.41 Reposted on: 8.5.10 1621.50
Article 1, Section 8 lists the issues that the federal government is allowed to have control over by virtue of taxation. And yes, I think federal involvement in education is unconstitutional as well, and I think education would be far better off if it was privatized.
#44 Posted on 8.5.03 2019.17 Reposted on: 8.5.10 2023.09
Well, in Canada, our taxation system runs as follows: -everyone pays federal taxes -everyone pays provincial taxes -everyone pays municipal taxes -unless you live in Alberta or B.C., I think, you pay GST [7%; Goods & Services Tax] and HST/PST [5-8% depending which province, Harmonized or Provincial Sales Tax]
-The GST & PST money goes to the feds, as do a portion of the provincial taxation funds [I think]. Since Alberta, Ontario & B.C. have the highest average incomes [and have more active economies], most of the government's money is gotten from those three provinces. The grand thing is that Alberta & B.C. typically don't elect the majority government [The Liberal Party], thus don't get to enjoy the fruits of their own labors because typically the Feds spend the money they got from the West on the Eastern provinces.
Needless to say, some Westerners aren't exactly keen on the sytem...but it ain't gonna change anytime soon.
NOTE: If I'm wrong, correct my high school educated ass.