• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Winding the Wicking of Discovery

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Interesting how many starting points get back to the same questions:

- who will pay?
- will the rich stick around if we ask them to pay more taxes?

Of course the ultra-rich don't want to pay more taxes, but they will. For the most part they don't have anywhere else to go. No matter where they go, they will need financially secure consumers, that's the only way an economic system can sustain itself in the long run. And we can think back to 60 years ago when taxes on the rich in the US were quite high, and the economy was booming and the rich didn't leave.
 

Shadow Link

Active Member
Interesting how many starting points get back to the same questions:

- who will pay?
- will the rich stick around if we ask them to pay more taxes?

Of course the ultra-rich don't want to pay more taxes, but they will. For the most part they don't have anywhere else to go. No matter where they go, they will need financially secure consumers, that's the only way an economic system can sustain itself in the long run. And we can think back to 60 years ago when taxes on the rich in the US were quite high, and the economy was booming and the rich didn't leave.
I don't believe they had the options back then as they do today.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Either way it will hit the middle class the hardest.
Speaking as a member of the middle class, it could end up being a net benefit. Let's say a person pays $800 per month in health insurance premiums. After a new health care law is passed, his federal taxes go up by $300 per month. Now of course those on the right would scream and yell about how much his taxes have gone up. However, if he no longer has to pay insurance premiums, his take-home pay has actually increased by $500 per month. And I'd bet my last dollar that those on the right screaming about the increase in taxes would never make note of the net savings.

Because apparently among many on the right it's preferable to pay lots of money to a large corporation than to pay less to the federal government.
 

Shadow Link

Active Member
Speaking as a member of the middle class, it could end up being a net benefit. Let's say a person pays $800 per month in health insurance premiums. After a new health care law is passed, his federal taxes go up by $300 per month. Now of course those on the right would scream and yell about how much his taxes have gone up. However, if he no longer has to pay insurance premiums, his take-home pay has actually increased by $500 per month. And I'd bet my last dollar that those on the right screaming about the increase in taxes would never make note of the net savings.

Because apparently among many on the right it's preferable to pay lots of money to a large corporation than to pay less to the federal government.
That increase in take-home pay, if true, will just be used to pay for everything that's been inflated, because the rich that left their monies in the system are trying to get it back.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
I don't believe they had the options back then as they do today.

You mean the options to leave? That could be. But corporations need safe societies, good infrastructure, good access to raw materials, well educated employees, and a financially sound middle class. Let's say a company who's market is primarily US consumers, decides to go elsewhere - in that case they still need our consumers and we could just put tariffs on their imports. In the long run, there's no place for them to go that's better than the good old US. (Of course I understand that some corps. will find short term benefits, but not sustainable ones.)
 

Shadow Link

Active Member
You mean the options to leave? That could be. But corporations need safe societies, good infrastructure, good access to raw materials, well educated employees, and a financially sound middle class. Let's say a company who's market is primarily US consumers, decides to go elsewhere - in that case they still need our consumers and we could just put tariffs on their imports. In the long run, there's no place for them to go that's better than the good old US. (Of course I understand that some corps. will find short term benefits, but not sustainable ones.)
You have more faith in legalized theft then I do.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Let's not neglect the fact that the rich are covering the poor.
To some degree, but remember....the rich aren't the only ones who pay federal taxes. I pay federal taxes and I'm certainly not rich. Further, don't assume that this would be exclusively funded by income taxes. It may very well involve a separate tax.

But it's interesting how your latest point is merely ideological rather than practical. And that's what I've found with many of the conservatives I've discussed this with. When you get right down to it, this isn't about cost of various proposals or who pays for them, it's simply about the concept of a publicly-funded healthcare system. Like I said, it seems many would prefer to pay lots of money to large corporations than less money to the government for the same thing.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
You have more faith in legalized theft then I do.
That's what I suspected. For you this isn't about cost, practicality, or effectiveness; it's simply your ideological opposition to federal programs.

And that makes me wonder....are you ideologically opposed to all federal programs?
 

Shadow Link

Active Member
To some degree, but remember....the rich aren't the only ones who pay federal taxes. I pay federal taxes and I'm certainly not rich. Further, don't assume that this would be exclusively funded by income taxes. It may very well involve a separate tax.

But it's interesting how your latest point is merely ideological rather than practical. And that's what I've found with many of the conservatives I've discussed this with. When you get right down to it, this isn't about cost or who pays for them, it's simply about the concept of a publicly-funded healthcare system. Like I said, it seems many would prefer to pay lots of money to large corporations than less money to the government for the same thing.
Because government has a proven record of screwing things up, I'll have to disagree.
 

Shadow Link

Active Member
That's what I suspected. For you this isn't about cost, practicality, or effectiveness; it's simply your ideological opposition to federal programs.

And that makes me wonder....are you ideologically opposed to all federal programs?
No. We need security. They're gaining to much power. And the paid puppets are all over the place.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Because government has a proven record of screwing things up, I'll have to disagree.
So I take it you're opposed to the military, won't be utilizing Medicare, don't trust Trump's government to build a wall, don't fly on planes, don't drive on interstate highways, or utilize anything that the federal government is involved in?
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
No. We need security. They're gaining to much power. And the paid puppets are all over the place.
Like I said, I figured that's what was going on here. This isn't so much about healthcare as it is your ideology of "taxes are theft and government is bad".
 

Shadow Link

Active Member
So I take it you're opposed to the military, won't be utilizing Medicare, don't trust Trump's government to build a wall, don't fly on planes, don't drive on interstate highways, or utilize anything that the federal government is involved in?
I'm saying enough is enough with government control. They don't need any more.
 
Top