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.
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.
First point, the rich do not get taxed to death. They're still rich. And the Estate tax is not for everyone. Like I said, in 2016 only 5,200 estates in the country were qualified expensive enough to pay that tax. I'm sure you're aware of this, but rich people constantly try to look for loopholes so that they can pay less than they're supposed to. Turning their assets into estate and stock was one of those. Repealing the estate tax only benefited a small portion of the country who had estate worth that much.
Regarding leaving the country, there are several reasons for why that can be difficult for them. Economically, the US is the ONLY country which has citizenship based taxation, which means relinquishing or renouncing US citizenship if you are wealthy and want to leave with your money. When it comes to renunciation, the US government has defined ‘wealthy' as a person who triggers either one or both of the tests set out in IRS 8854 ( https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i8854.pdf ). Individuals who trigger these tests are called ‘Covered Expatriates. It is only Covered Expatriates who trigger a capital gains deemed disposition. This capital gains event is the same that would occur upon sale or death, with the same rules, exemptions and rates applying. It is often referred to as an ‘Exit Tax’.
Aside from the Exit Tax, rich people just like everyone else want to live where they like living. They want to be near their friends. Near their relatives. Where they grew up. In the place they like to be. Once you have a lot of money, the marginal benefit from having more diminishes.
And a community building a road is the principle behind pooling our money (taxes) together to benefit our society. But when you ignore what the majority want, and instead leave everything to the whim of individuals who may have wildly different priorities and ideas about what they want, much in our society just wouldn't function.
Second, in spite of charities there are around 40 000 people who die every year in the US because they can't afford healthcare. If people rely on charities such as the ones you are referring to, they are at the mercy of which cause those charities happen to benefit. For reference, that number is 0 in every other developed nation on the planet. And that's just one example of how private charities are not designed to reach or identify specific problems.
What do you mean by "Pharma Bro would have been forced to lower prices or go bankrupt if the government stop interfering with health care?" You'll have to explain that one. I just explained earlier that the US government is unable to negotiate drug prices. Which makes your own drugs cheaper to buy from Canada in some instances.
As for your great grandparents, I was referring to a time further back than that. Universal public education law was first passed in one state in 1885. Not until 1918 did all states have this law enacted. But my point was that there was a time when a general education, even at elementary level, was something for privileged rich kids. Until people stood up for themselves and said their kids deserve an education as well.
Lastly, you are right about the importance of having the majority of elected officials not be corrupt. But in order to get there, we have to support more and more representatives who make it a point not to take corporate or PAC money, to the point where those contributions are legally defined as bribes. While some will find loopholes, making it more and more difficult for them to be financially corrupt will weed out more and more bad players, who will pursue different venues instead like Wall Street. That way more of our elected officials are actually there to represent their constituents, rather than prioritize their wallets. And refusing corporate and PAC money is growing a lot in popularity in recent years. I think largely because of Bernie Sander's campaign in 2016. And you saw what the establishment Democrats thought of that. They didn't like that an independent was more popular than their corporate funded candidate, and rigged the primaries against him.
Until then, we look at the donation records of our elected officials, and how they voted. And we vote them out. Speaking of which, I like the fact that Nancy Pelosi currently does not have the votes to become speaker of the house. And this is largely because of the new group of independent Democrats who just got elected. They even had a protest (about a different matter) in her office before they have even been sworn in.
It's not even Day 1 and they're already at it. I like where this is going.
1. Yes, they do get taxed a lot and they pay a lot more than any of us. It isn't even close. We shouldn't be taxing them this much. So what if they are rich? We are not entitled to their money. Also, those "loopholes" are tax laws that are available for anyone who falls in the category. Also, seems that particular "loophole" protects them from a discriminatory tax code that hurts a specific group. Giving money to poor people won't solve anything. If you don't know how to manage money, it won't do anything. That is why a lot of lottery winners or professional athletes who were poor before end up being poor again.
Companies should keep the money so they can invest money in the next product. If I split 10 billion dollars for example to everyone in the United States, that might pay their cell phone bill for the month. If I let a company or investor keep it, they can make the next big product which will lead to more jobs and create more income for the United States.
2. Doesn't matter if it's difficult, which it isn't since you are rich you have a lot of resources. You can always find a way to visit the United States or move your family with you. Also, there are many ways to store your money in other countries without leaving the country. I don't think I have to go to much into that.
3. With the government subsidizing or paying someone's health care completely with Medicaid, companies have no incentive to lower prices for anything health care related. Again, look at my College example, it is very similar. Companies can charge a lot more and they know they will get the money because the government will just pay it and bill us.
4. Regarding the 40,000 people who die, that is a small fraction and their fault most of the time. Hospitals will not turn away someone and again Medicaid should cover it. Also, I'm not sure the 40,000 is an accurate number.
"The question is hotly contested, and approximations range from 0 to 45,000 people per year. The latter figure is obviously what most progressives prefer to cite,"
According to Fraser Institue, Canada has a similar problem.
Increases in wait times for medically necessary care in Canada between 1993 and 2009 may have resulted in between 25,456 and 63,090 (with a middle value of 44,273) additional deaths among females.
Keep in mind that the United States population is almost 9 times bigger than Canada.
Life in 1885 was so way different, that traditional education wasn't as important for everyone. Kids still have to work to support their family and stay alive.Their work didn't call for a higher education. Around the 1920's, the nature of work was changing significantly which require higher learning. This was one of the reasons for the law. Also, you can get a higher education when you are older in 1885. America is about creating your own adventure.
The government should step away from education allow the private sector to take over. Privatized education is much better than public schools.
Lastly, we need to downsize the feder government and give power back to state and local so the last issue won't be a problem.
