What Else Will Our Children Pay For?

The children are already paying to much for the current health care system. Sometimes they pay the highest price of all for diseases that could have been prevented if they had been treated proactively.

Death!

A flat tax seems like a fair idea. Until you think about it. A tax of 20% on someone who makes $40,000 a year is far more impactful than the same tax on someone who makes $1,000,000 a year.

I learned this as I learned about the structures of raises at the university I worked for. We would all get say a 3% raise (give or take depending on merit and the legislature) but those whose income was higher of course get a bigger raise as a result, even though it is the same percentage. Of course, you might argue, "well, they have been there longer and had more time for their income to build up ". Which would be true, of course, if all equally qualified professors got paid the same as their colleagues in different departments, which isn't the case. Some positions make more simply because it is harder to coax people to leave the highpaying corporate world for higher education. Their wage has nothing to do with experience or ability.

It is also an issue when a new hire with less experience and qualifications is paid more than someone at the school for years in the same kind of position because they need to be able to attract applicants to the position. This is called salary compression. The raises aren't enough to keep up with the new hire's salary, and one ends up making far less (as in thousands of dollars) than the new hire with less experience.

Just as the practice of awarding raises incorrectly assumes equity in salary, a flat tax assumes that the more money one makes, the harder that person has worked to earn that money. Which simply is not true.

You didn't answer my question. I don't think I would want to live in a flat rate country. Can you name me another industrialized nation that has such a system?

Let's go one step further. Why tax anyone on income. Just set up a tax per person. Old, rich, poor, juviniles, Let's be fair, uh? Let's set it like $3k per person. If you are married and have 10 kids that'l be $36k. If single, $3k. That would be fair, wouldn't it? Why should anyone get a break? Why do I have to pay for other kid's education?

YOu see what I'm getting at? Good luck with your system.

I agree completely. I have been starting to believe this more and more over the last few years. The more the government gets involved the less we need the church and need to be responsible to our neighbor. The more I pay in taxes makes me less likely to tithe that money. The more I HAVE to do something makes me less likely to WANT to do something.

"National wealth" is not a pie, where somebody divvies up the slices and some get more and others get none. That is not how the free market works. However, in our current system, where political candidates are bought by corporate interests, that is what happens. But that is not a free market. That is corporatism, and it is wrong, as you are justly complaining about.

Privatization is an ethical and moral principle because it treats people as stewards ("owners" would be the secular term for it) of the property they have.

"Free market is a proven failure."
What proof? Your comment about Wall Street today is not proof that the market has failed, but that it has succeeded. When a body vomits unwanted "assets" from within, that is not considered a "body failure." Likewise, when the government, central bank, and other toxic assets are introduced into the system, which it has been for the past decade, and even further back, that is not a failure, either.

Why are you making this about class? Why not treat everyone equally, no special treats?

No kidding... imagine that, more people in the country able to keep more of their hard-earned wages.

Cute kid . Thanks Chuck .

"Family" is a loaded word, shorthand used to try to invoke high moral ground. Issues that affect family life both negative and positive go far beyond the "hot button" issues of any limited ideological agenda of either "right" or "left."

It's unfortunate when uneducated people viewing these ads do so through the lens of their prejudice. It's true that this ad over-simplifies the issue, but it's a 30 second ad. What do we expect?

Ultimately, I think this ad is correct to point out a key issue...the fact that Gov't-run health care isn't free. Ultimately, a gov't-run system will be far more expensive even than what we have now...and what we have now is unacceptably expensive, and therefore unavailable for many people.

The best answer to provide health care for the needy is to address the economic issues that caused it to get so expensive in the first place. Our current system is a cross between fascism and socialism. A gov't-run system would push us further in that direction, making our current system's ridiculous inefficiency even more inefficient.

This link explains these ideas very well and succinctly.
http://mises.org/story/3793
.

Maybe I'm missing what is meant by "Free Markets". I take that to mean free from regulation and control by the Government, which I think you also stated above. As in repeal of the Glass-Stegall act during Clintons administration to "free up" the markets. It was being slowly dismantled for many years, but once Phil Graham and whoever else got it removed, it was a beginning to a wide open market which was to no surprised abused (you may disagree with that term) by many, which put us in our current recession. From what I have read, the depression of the 30s was the result of the same loosening of regulations and the creative investments and financing that followed.
You said that "Contrary to popular myth, the free market was not in operation. A free market doesn't provide such absurd incentives for people to be that risky. The source of the problem lies squarely on the central bank and the federal government's price-setting and interventionist policies into the market." Are you saying that the less Government interference the better? because I thought that was what we just had since Glass-Stegall was repealed.

When you look at it from a dollars point of view, obviously you're getting that result. But I'm not looking at it that way. I'm looking at it from a standpoint of, "If we're gonna tax people, how do we treat people equally?" If I were telling people how I was to tax them, a set percentage seems fairest to me.

I don't believe that this has to do with working harder and earning more. Flat tax doesn't assume that at all. It assumes all are equally taxable at an equal rate of taxation.

First of all, do you even read what I respond to? I've never said a flat tax means exact amounts for any person. I'm talking about a flat percentage rate. That means, inherently, that the rich do pay more, but only because they are paying exactly the same percentage of their income as everybody else.

On principle, why do you reject this "system"? Isn't everybody equal? Shouldn't government treat people equally?

You can google the flat tax and find out which countries implement one. Or here is one article on it.

Do you people live your business and political lives out of one pocket of your soul and your religion out of the other pocket? Have you ever thought that that elderly man in the commercial has been paying taxes his whole life to pay for his medicare benefits? Now that he is old and needs an operation, the generation that benefited from his labor during WWII as a teenager and building up the country after the war, until a few years ago, is unwilling to put any cash up for him. Putting aside the care we owe him as Christ, when we give him water, feed and clothe him, don't forget the Law that Moses brought to "Honor your father and mother". Just because you do good in Church, doesn't give you license to steal, cheat, gamble and work people to the bone in the name of business and politics the rest of the week. Justice is God's law in the world, and, God forbid, when plutocrats get too comfortable making laws to protect themselves just because they can, violent revolution breaks out. That fear brought progressive legislation in the 20's and 30's, at the same time Christianity saw its last big surge of social justice activism.

Let me rephrase that last part. You correctly criticize Wall Street. However, what incentives were in place in the market that caused everyone to get greedy? Contrary to popular myth, the free market was not in operation. A free market doesn't provide such absurd incentives for people to be that risky. The source of the problem lies squarely on the central bank and the federal government's price-setting and interventionist policies into the market.

A recession is good for the market because it eliminates wasteful investment. False prosperity leads to a necessary correction... and that's what we're seeing. Had GWB let the economy "suffer" after 9/11/01, and not ask the Fed to inflate the money supply yet again, we may not have seen such horrible speculation and debt accumulation at the expense of "main street."

Your complaints are very valid. You're just pointing it at the wrong source.

It's unfortunate when uneducated people viewing these ads do so through the lens of their prejudice. It's true that this ad over-simplifies the issue, but it's a 30 second ad. What do we expect?

Ultimately, I think this ad is correct to point out a key issue...the fact that Gov't-run health care isn't free. Ultimately, a gov't-run system will be far more expensive even than what we have now...and what we have now is unacceptably expensive, and therefore unavailable for many people.

The best answer to provide health care for the needy is to address the economic issues that caused it to get so expensive in the first place. Our current system is a cross between fascism and socialism. A gov't-run system would push us further in that direction, making our current system's ridiculous inefficiency even more inefficient.

This link explains these ideas very well and succinctly.
http://mises.org/story/3793
.

The FRC ad in question articulates a truth. The costs of the proposed HCR legislation will be horrific and greatly contribute to our nations indebtedness. Rather than attack the FRC, lets figure out a way to fix healthcare in the private sector. The Federal Government can't seem to do anything efficiently. Social Security started out as a trust system and has evolved into a ponzi scheme that is not sustainable. The government has disregarded actuarial data in the administration of the system. Likewise with Medicare. If we establish government run healthcare it will inevitably be underfunded with resultant budget defecits and rationing of healthcare due to limited resources. The short-sighted solution will be to tax the wealthy to a greater extent. When we kill that golden goose it will be very easy for government to justify withholding medical care from those who do not contribute to society or those groups that do not represent a significant voting block.

The charge of Matthew 25 is for us to help the poor... not to vote in a government that will tax the wealthy and help the poor on our behalf thus relieving us of our responsibility. I am afraid a great deal of our activism is really spent trying to get others to be benevolent on our behalf.

The Bush years "exploded" the deficit? I'm not a Bush guy, but deficit-speaking, if Bush's deficits were a single TNT stick, Obama's are an atomic bomb.

And for the record, tax cuts give the government more revenue. Reagan cut taxes from 77% to 28% and gained government revenue every year. The Bush tax cuts gained revenue as well...congress (and Bush) just spent more.

The FRC ad in question articulates a truth. The costs of the proposed HCR legislation will be horrific and greatly contribute to our nations indebtedness. Rather than attack the FRC, lets figure out a way to fix healthcare in the private sector. The Federal Government can't seem to do anything efficiently. Social Security started out as a trust system and has evolved into a ponzi scheme that is not sustainable. The government has disregarded actuarial data in the administration of the system. Likewise with Medicare. If we establish government run healthcare it will inevitably be underfunded with resultant budget defecits and rationing of healthcare due to limited resources. The short-sighted solution will be to tax the wealthy to a greater extent. When we kill that golden goose it will be very easy for government to justify withholding medical care from those who do not contribute to society or those groups that do not represent a significant voting block.

The charge of Matthew 25 is for us to help the poor... not to vote in a government that will tax the wealthy and help the poor on our behalf thus relieving us of our responsibility. I am afraid a great deal of our activism is really spent trying to get others to be benevolent on our behalf.

Quote:"The charge of Matthew 25 is for us to help the poor... not to vote in a government that will tax the wealthy and help the poor on our behalf thus relieving us of our responsibility. I am afraid a great deal of our activism is really spent trying to get others to be benevolent on our behalf."

Isn't that what a lot of churches do- IE "tax" the rich to help the poor? Your last sentence sums it up pretty good!

Now let's get to some more serious points. Do you think it's ok to tax the rich more than the poor? How many yrs has this been policy? Only since Obama has been in office:)? The last 25 yrs? The last 75 yrs? 200 yrs?

What needs to be done when something is underfunded?

If I really believed that the government was going to suddenly become fiscally responsible and reign in the debt if we don't pass health care reform this might be a valid point. But lets face it, the government will just spend the money on something else. Might as well go into debt helping each other since fiscal responsibility isn't really on the table for either party.

I don't understand your church question. I've never been coerced to give to a church. On the contrary, I've been able to give out of a cheerful heart and count it a real blessing. Unfortunately, when I have prospered, the tax system takes a great deal of what I could have given and in many cases uses it to hinder rather than advance the Kingdom of God. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes, but something is wrong when 40-50% of the electorate effectively pays no income taxes and then becomes a permanent voting block to demand goods and services from a government that by their additional demands is funded by a small segment of society. Such policies promote slothfullness, disincentive for hard work and wise living. An unbenevolent rich person's justice will be meted out by the Lord on judgement day. Just about everybody in the USA is rich by the world's standards and we had better seek God's will in this area.
That's the serious points.

My response to your questions are: Excessive progressive tax rates are wrong in my opinion - especially those wherein a large segment of society has no vested interest in how the government is funded. The progressive policy has been around for a long time IKE, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHWB, Clinton, W and O. The rate pendulum has swung both ways over the years. I think that in a free society that professes equality it should swing low where every voter has a vested interest in how the government spends its budget. Our representatives and senators would catch some real heat then and our society might just get better.

My underlying point is that benevolent activity should be done by individuals and churches - not the federal government. The federal government is by nature inefficient, susceptible to corruption and has usurped the constitution in getting into the benevolent sector.

In the beginning of Matthew 25 it is interesting to note that the bridegroom didn't coerce the five wise virgins into giving half of their oil to the foolish virgins. The poor truly need help. Unfortunately the government often gives aid to the foolish.

With that logic we could pay the rich people from the poor and we would be wealthier! Does that sound like it would work? Why not?

That's not "logic", it's merely what happened. http://usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302a

That wouldn't work, presumably, because the poor would get not get enough value in return (that is, the money the rich get wouldn't come back at a ration of "1" or higher).

In a way, the poor do pay the "rich"...if by rich you mean companies. This happens when we purchase products. The fallacy of your argument lies in the money going through the government; which simply isn't able to choose where to spend money the most efficiently.