Hiku said:
Snoopy said:
Whenever you cut taxes, wealthiest will always benefit because they pay the most taxes by far. It isn't even close. Second, there is a reason why thousands of people a DAY move from California to Texas. It is cheaper and gives you a lot of opportunities to grow yourself and take care of yourself. There is no state taxes or high cost of living like California unless you choose to live in a rich area. Which gives us opportunities to grow and save up for rainy days. Lastly, social programs should be removed. It is obvious whether or not we tax a lot or not, there isn't enough money to keep programs like social security alive. Medicare has also artificially made health care more expensive than it needs to be. If you notice, any sector that the government puts a lot of regulations on gets a lot more expensive. Look how expensive education and health care gotten when the government got their big noses in it. When we let the private sector take over, things become a lot cheaper and consumers have more choices. Look how over the years entertainment industry and cars have gotten cheaper for the average consumer when the government doesn't have nearly as many regulations and more importantly isn't FORCED.
|
It's not just one single tax, nor a flat figure that blankets everyone. Nor is it just about income. And it does not have to disproportionately benefit the wealthiest. The tax reform that Republicans passed affect many different taxes, such as the estate tax. In 2016, only 5,200 estates were so valuable that they qualified to pay for the estate tax. Needless to say, this is not a tax that affected common people. But rather the more wealthy people only.
The reason for it's existence was so that the super rich could not get away with unfettered accumulation of untaxed wealth. By turning their assets into estates and stock, they could avoid being taxed on it, before this tax was implemented. That's why Republicans fought hard to repeal it. And they succeeded.
Their strategy to get support for these tax reforms is to give roughly 10% of the benefits to the low and middle class, and 90% to the most wealthy, who do not need it. So the secretary who was happy about her extra $1.50/week is their target demographic, while their executive donors get an extra yacht and mansion.
As for social programs should be removed, people with the sink or swim attitude tend to be drawn to Republican policies. But there are people in our society who need to be taken care of. And I'm sure you don't bring your own roads to drive on.
Though your conclusion about what makes healthcare expensive is demonstrably wrong. Every other developed nation on the planet has socialized healthcare. And every single one of them spend less per capita on healthcare than USA does. In fact, it's so bad in the US that the same US manufactured medicine can be bought cheaper in Canada. You know things are messed up when it's cheaper to drive to Canada to buy US manufactured medicine. The reason for that is also one of the only things that separate USA from every other country. In 2002 Republicans (surprise surprise) passed a law that prevents the government from negotiating drug prices. That is not a thing anywhere else in the industrialized world. And as a direct result of this, your healthcare costs just keep rising. Because pharmaceutical companies can, and do, charge essentially whatever they want.
If you want an example of just how expensive it can get when they are allowed to do whatever they want with people's health, remember Pharma bro? He raised the price of an HIV drug from US$13.5 to $750 per pill. That drug could be manufactured for ~$2 per pill by the way.
Also, before education became a right, only the rich were able to get their children an education.
Theoretically, it could get just as bad if the government is in charge. However, the big difference here is that we can hold our elected officials accountable with our votes if they betray us. Private insurance companies answer to no one but their investors.
So given the choice, we want it in the hands of those that represent our votes. Not the ones who give them the most money. Which unfortunately applies to corporate politicians, which includes Democrats, who do take corporate donations (bribes). But that's what we're trying to change by getting money out of politics. This current election saw a large number of new and mostly young politicians become elected officials who don't take corporate or PAC money.
People like Bernie Sanders, Beto O'rourke and Alexandra Ocasio Cortez have shown that they can raise just as much money as their corporate sponsored opponents, if not more, by going door to door and getting single small donations from their constituents. Which means they work for them. Not for the pharmaceutical industry, or the fossil fuel industry, or the NRA, etc.
|
First point, again the rich pay for the majority of our stuff. If you tax them to death, they'll end up leaving this country and do their business somewhere else. Which will mean less money for us. These tax laws are for everyone, not just the rich. Businesses and communities could easily pay for the roads. It's not like 300 million people will be like "Geez, I wish we had a road" and do nothing about it. Also, the federal government only spends about 1% on infrastructure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj7wuHFn6pI
Second, we have a bunch of charities and institutions who can take care of people that are nonprofit organizations. Sorry, but just because you're born in a rich country doesn't mean you're entitled to anything. I rather have a face attached to these charities, then to just hand out money to someone through a faceless government. This way people can get a clear understanding that the money is coming from someone. Also, there isn't enough money to keep running these social programs. Hell, Sanders medicare for everyone plan has been proven impossible. And again health care, in general, has been expensive because the government has gotten involved.
Pharma bro, would've been forced to lower prices to actually sell the pills, or else go bankrupt if the government stop interfering with health care. It's very similar to the reason why college has gotten more expensive.
Federal government: We will give student loans out for any degree they want and won't deny them.
Colleges: LOL okay, we will charge 5x the price because young folks won't know any better and take out 70k+ loans for gender studies.
The point you made regarding this "Also, before education became a right, only the rich were able to get their children an education."
My great grandparents were dirt poor and still got a traditional education. I can understand maybe kids not getting an education if they have to work all day on the family farm, which back then is an education all on itself (life was way different back then). However, if they wanted to go to school, nothing was stopping them when they get older except themselves.
Lastly, elected officials will betray you because you need the vast majority to not be corrupt. Sorry to say, but most elected officials have gotten this far in their career thanks to money from corporations or interest groups. The Catholic church isn't a corporation, but they have an agenda. People like George Soros is not a company but has an agenda.
Last edited by Snoopy - on 16 November 2018
