taxes on businesses is on profit, now take the extreme example of if we are going to tax away ALL corporate profit next year, do you think companies will invest in their company as an expense, or let the government take it...
You forgot the 3rd option, go overseas.
but for a less extreme example it makes far more economic sense to reduce taxes on the average worker then to reduce business taxes, especially now when corporations are just hoarding cash and consumers aren't buying, it's a dangerous game, we need consumers to be able to buy and the stagnate wages over the last 10+ years have not help nor has the shrinking middle class over the last few decades
I guess we could raise pay to encourage job creation and domestic business.... Oh wait....
yeah the republicans just voted to continue subsidizing the oil companies.....
Yeah, I'm pretty much against subsidies all together..
well yes, the republicans cried and cried until the richest people got tax breaks even though that alone would have done a great deal towards reducing our deficit.
Again, I feel that there needs to be many budget cuts. That, to me must happen before tax breaks
no it doesn't, that is a horrible oversimplification, we cannot exist as islands of ourselves, healthcare for example needs a large risk pool, you can't just pay in when you need it, that won't work. Also having some safety net does not equal total government control nor should it ever be the governments job to take care of everything, what the government SHOULD do is step in when the private sector cannot fulfill the needs of the population, and in this case the private industry has completely utterly failed to provide a decent healthcare solution.
having a private solution in theory sounds great, but over decades now the private healthcare industry has routinely failed and their biggest push for saving it is "malpractice reform" which in the republican bill may as well have been called the "medical industry immunity from everything act" as it essentially would have banned all lawsuits regardless of any merit. Even still, the cost reductions would be very minor we already pay 30% more per capita than other developed countries, and we exclude about 1/6 !!! of our population from medical care PLUS we don't even live as long as a society, how in your book do you label this a win for us and a loss for them? If they paid as much as we did they would blow us out of the water in terms of quality, so don't go with the argument "people come to the U.S. well yes because we spend so much and provide so little to so few we should be far better then we are.
That last section has alot of stuff going on so I will just try to leave it at this:
If we are going to subsidize the existance of others, then those recieving the subsidies should really need it. Now, how do you determine that? IMO if they can afford fancy cellphones, more than $5k car, cable, and maybe other things I am leaving out, then they do not really need it. Or are those "[I]rights"[I]" also?
If that was our policy I believe that amazingly, the number of those in "need" would drastically drop.
Oh, and by the way I do not align myself with the republican party...
That last section has alot of stuff going on so I will just try to leave it at this:
If we are going to subsidize the existance of others, then those recieving the subsidies should really need it. Now, how do you determine that? IMO if they can afford fancy cellphones, more than $5k car, cable, and maybe other things I am leaving out, then they do not really need it. Or are those "[I]rights"[I]" also?
If that was our policy I believe that amazingly, the number of those in "need" would drastically drop.
Oh, and by the way I do not align myself with the republican party...
1.) they won't go overseas at a corporate level as the executives will then have to pay much much higher taxes on their income plus if it became a huge issue we would see tariffs
2.) the low pay was stating a bigger issue, that trickle down is not working so people went towards borrowing money and they borrowed heavily from their homes.
3.) for healthcare it is NOT about subsidization, it's about everyone having reliable healthcare, I went to school and have a good career, but there is no option I can get to have reliable healthcare that would say cover me if I lost my job, if that happens I am on my own as privately bought insurance is crap in america (and even then you will be denied coverage or denied entirely for the smallest of reasons [I was]). So don't tell me it is subsidizing others, we already subsidize the poor, now we are just talking about giving the average worker a fair deal.
3.) for healthcare it is NOT about subsidization, it's about everyone having reliable healthcare, I went to school and have a good career, but there is no option I can get to have reliable healthcare that would say cover me if I lost my job, if that happens I am on my own as privately bought insurance is crap in america (and even then you will be denied coverage or denied entirely for the smallest of reasons [I was]). So don't tell me it is subsidizing others, we already subsidize the poor, now we are just talking about giving the average worker a fair deal.
I apologize for not being more clear. I thought about editing the post.
What I meant was to address more than just healthcare. It was meant to address the countries finances in general and unnecessary expenses. I DO believe that there needs to be a hard look at healthcare and how to deal with it. I do not have an answer for it. I do know that the government is not very good/efficient with these types of things.
There are countries with government run healthcare and at first glance they appear to be great. Oftentimes if you look at the objective points of them you will find they are quite flawed for one reason or another (depends on the exact system).
I will also say, I do not have a cure-all answer for the healthcare issue. I do not intend to change the topic of this thread.
When I worked for NAVFAC the byword was what do the specifications and drawings say, with respect to the government the byword should be what does the constitution say.
I apologize for not being more clear. I thought about editing the post.
What I meant was to address more than just healthcare. It was meant to address the countries finances in general and unnecessary expenses. I DO believe that there needs to be a hard look at healthcare and how to deal with it. I do not have an answer for it. I do know that the government is not very good/efficient with these types of things.
There are countries with government run healthcare and at first glance they appear to be great. Oftentimes if you look at the objective points of them you will find they are quite flawed for one reason or another (depends on the exact system).
I will also say, I do not have a cure-all answer for the healthcare issue. I do not intend to change the topic of this thread.
Flawed yes, but the overall objective is to cover all people, whereas here in America, if you can't afford health insurance, then you loose your home if you own one, and everything else you own, if you become ill, and if you own nothing, then someone else pays for your care! The Europian system still is better in so many ways, especially if you happen to be one of those who have a chronic illness.
Every state has insurance regulators and due to differences in regulations insurance is not readily transportable across state lines so competition is quenched. Regulations require funds for emergencies so insurance companies must form that safety fund along with profit and payouts for claims. The net result has been stated as 85% being paid in claims. One problem with claims is that clients generally have no idea in advance what services really cost and no means to shop for them.
The government proposes to make the system more efficient yet it's the government that caused the medicare inefficiencies and fraud. Would the government have us to believe that it has somehow healed itself and that it can now promulgate efficiency? Let's not kid ourselves this is just a government not letting a crisis go to waste.
The government will grow and future administrations will use yet another crisis to grow some more. Any attempt to downsize the government immediately riles up the turf-defenders (I well remember my own situation in being forced to raise my budget to defend my grade and turf).
Every state has insurance regulators and due to differences in regulations insurance is not readily transportable across state lines so competition is quenched.
here is the overwhelming problem with selling across state lines, every state governs healthcare as they want, meaning some states will have different regulations and requirements. so state A requires mental health coverage and state B does not, so state B's insurance will be cheaper and people will buy that UNLESS they need mental health coverage specifically, but since everyone who did not want mental health coverage bought elsewhere the insurance in state A will have to assume everyone buying needs mental health coverage (since otherwise they would have bought state B's cheaper coverage)and since there is no risk pool the premium will become outrageous and defeats the whole point of insurance. It will create a race to the bottom competition wise since they will have to drop down to the state with the lowest consumer protections and lowest required coverage and minimum amount of coverage for illnesses by design of the regulation. now if you said health care laws would be regulated at the federal level and then allowing cross state selling then fine, oh and every attempt to allow cross-state selling has SPECIFICALLY included that coverage will be based on the SELLING state, not where the customer lives, so there will be no regulation a state can do and will lose insurance companies in their state, they will be at the mercy of the other states unless they "race to the bottom" with their laws and regulations as well. And that is really what this is about, it's not about helping people, it's about creating an environment where insurance companies can pay out far less and keep more profits, nothing more.... there is a reason they were lobbying for it, you know....
not to mention the ease in changing regulations as lobbying only has to occur in a few states that have really consumer unfriendly laws since that is where all insurance companies will have to move to (just like the credit card companies did)
This was all done before and was a huge failure for consumer rights with credit cards, there was a lot of abuse, but that was with an optional system that people could say no to, but people need healthcare and allowing a race to the bottom is not only wrong it's downright evil.
but there is no option I can get to have reliable healthcare that would say cover me if I lost my job, if that happens I am on my own as privately bought insurance is crap in america (and even then you will be denied coverage or denied entirely for the smallest of reasons [I was]).
COBRA is a joke. It covers you paying full freight.
I do get confused reading words like "entitlements". They were applied here to cast them in a bad light. People forget we're a part of the larger Western Culture that has long tried to place a safety net beneath it's citizens. It's also the way God asked us to live with mercy for the helpless.We could step over those dying in gutters like India does or build our civilization on higher principles.
I've never regretted a penny paid in taxes or an alm given in charity. Greed is the elevation of possession to the point the person doing so loses sight of actual values.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Linear Mode
