Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

It is not medicaids overhead that is the problem. It is a horribly inefficient system not because of fixed costs but because it is so vulnerable to fraud by doctors who charge for treatments that they never performed or were not necessary. Its payout system also does nothing to encourage increases in efficiency and decreases in cost. This is where government lacks internal control.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

not really. sounds retarded.



lol.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Back to the original thread topic:

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

How is handing out a universal tax refund a good idea. You are effectively redistributing wealth with no real underlying reason and encouraging the entitlement mentality.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

So, are tax rebates and refunds a social welfare program Brainy?

Yes, I know Brainy. You find things such as well-founded economic reasoning funny, it's why you support child labor!

(Joking, if people didn't pick up on that, since Brainy decided to go the Vagina-route and not argue anything.)

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

There is no "wealth redistribution" of the type you are referring to if citizens aren't being taxed, Ryan. It may exist, but it is a specific case that people on here argue is "Okay" because it is "the cost of doing business".

Plus, I find this argument insane. The US has always, even since the founding fathers, operated on some type of wealth redistribution.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I never argue with you, there's no point.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Yes, we know, you anarchist.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

im not an anarchist.


Now I'm curious as to how you can give away $4,500,000,000,000 or whatever it is a year, plus pay for health care for over 300,000,000 people if no taxes are being collected?

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Y'all can't help but argue, even if it's for the same point.

Joe Perez is the only person besides myself who I want to be President. I can not offhand think of one politician who I want to have the presidency, not one.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I did specify to repeal all personal taxes and instead levy them on businesses.

I mean, people here DO claim there's no reason to tax businesses since people pay them anyways, right?

And people here ALSO claim that taxing businesses is double taxation.

So get rid of the double taxation. Tax one source of income, not two.

Secondly, Ron Paul also is arguing to get rid of Income Tax. Or is he full of crap too, Brainy? I'm on board with him. Get rid of all personal taxes.

Thirdly, I did not argue for 300million people. I was very specific in my arguments (Age of Majority, etc. etc. - in reality, it comes out to less than what the gov't spends today on social programs, while providing better care because there's not a billion ------- administrators making 50k-250k a year doing it.)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

omfg, talk about somoene who wants to ruin america.


I dunno how your plotted remotely close to me in the polotical specturm... you're a loon.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I'm a loon for agreeing with Ron Paul to get rid of the Income Tax, Brainy?

I'm a loon for actually researching public health care systems, and realizing that they are substantially more efficient than our current system?

I'm a loon for arguing "Okay, let's stop double taxation, and just tax one source"?

I'm a loon for arguing, "Okay, so let's get rid of all social programs, and move to something that is demonstrably cheaper"?

I'll be happy to sit here and start posting very specific numbers, but that would require you to believe things that, oh, the GOP or Ron Paul says.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

Holy ----. There is so many things wrong with the comments you made on the last two pages that I have to go with brain and just stop arguing at all. It is pointless. Your views are of someone with good intentions but absolutely no knowledge of how government and taxes really work or the societal effects of the changes you just proposed. You need to read more in depth and technical articles on these subjects to be able to see why your views are so misguided. The changes you just stated are completely impossible to erect and sustain

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

you said erect.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

I would cut spending across the board, especially deep cuts for things like museums, I'd try and put us on a path towards getting rid of social security in favor of people saving for their own goddamn retirement (novel idea, I know), award those in the gov who point out and stop wistful/frivolous spending, take a good hard look at what is going on in Afghanistan and possibly pull out and let Karzai deal with it, cut foreign aid to many countries (not Israel) and make sure the aid that is being given is getting to the correct people, among other things.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

yes. and i will stab you as a cloacked spy next chance i get.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I have. It's a pet argument that is intended explicitly to demonstrate just how poor of an argument several people on here make, Brainy being among them.

As an example, "Health care costs too much!" Well, if it costs too much, we could cut costs by an estimated ~40% within a year by transitioning over to a public health care system. If this is an issue, then it's not about the costs

"But if we tax businesses, they'll just pass it onto people."

"But taxing businesses and people is double taxation!"

"Social welfare is a waste of money!"

Etc. etc.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

Like a *****

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Heh.

Here's the reality. We pay the least taxes of any first world country, we pay the most for health care of any first world country, and we pay the least taxes historically we have ever paid since the US has become a first world country.

However, just as equally, people love to trot out "But healthcare is too expensive!" argument when it's not what they are actually arguing. If it was purely a cost concern, public healthcare would be wildly popular with the fiscally conservative types.