i live in the UK not the US for which im eternaly greatfull

Those are not basic rights. Basic rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

life meaning no one has the right to take it away from me, liberty meaning no one has the right to indenture me, and the pursuit of happiness, meaning I have the freedom to do whatever I like, provided it does not infringe on others rights.

It's a little deeper then that, but for this argument, that's good enough.

So you have your list and I have mine. Let's say tomorrow, everyone just stops working. for a year, no one does anything productive.

How do I get healthcare? How do I get educated? If those are rights, they should be inherent. If no one works, those services (not rights) go away. The rights I laid out are still there, because they are rights.

Heathcare is not a right.

the more we can do and give to our fellow man, the more we should

Broncos724 said: SciFiBoy said: Broncos724 said: SciFiBoy said: Broncos724 said: SciFiBoy said: coolestguyever said: SciFiBoy said: use Progressive Taxation to raise more money, then make a NHS in the US, afterall healthcare is a basic human right   Progressive taxation: Punishing people for working hard - rewarding the poor   wrong, statistics show someone on the average wage works the same hours as someone in a multi-million dollar hedge fund   The number of hours one works is not the sole determiner of how "hard" someone works.  And yes, progressive taxation is a dis-incentive to working harder, how could it NOT be?   because a banker who earns 500k a year and failed there employer works alot harder than a nurse on 20-30k year who makes people feel better, somehow i dont think so, progressive taxation is fair as you pay what you can afford to pay rather than making the poor pay more than 600k a year financial sector workers I never claimed salary was the indicator of how hard someone works, either.  But I agree with you, in terms of physical and mental labor, those with lower salaries or who are low on the "ladder" work harder, so they can rise.  But how do you think the 100K+ bankers got where they are?  Hard work of course!  Not sure what "making people feel better" has to do with this argument though? Fair to me is paying the same percentage of your income to taxes as everyone else.  And it still means the poorer you are, the less you pay, so what's unfair about that?     so anyone who dosent earn enough to get private healthcare just isnt working hard enough and deserves to die from cureable diseases, thats good to know, besides how can you define hard work? surely a low paid nurse works harder than a programmer but the nurse is payed much less and may like her job and be happy to stay in it, we do need nurses afterall, if everyone got promoted, no-one would do low paid jobs that are essential to any nation, also like i said you should pay in tax what you can afford to pay in tax, thats fair, and that will help thoose less fortunate then you to get healthcare and an education.   If the nurse is happy to stay at her job then she can't complain about low wages, duh!  Perhaps the nurse does work harder than a programmer, but that's not what determines a salary.  What determines a salary is how rare a skillset is, and you simply cannot argue that more people could excel at being a nurse than excel at being a programmer.  That's why a programmer makes so much money.  And there will ALWAYS be people to the entry-level, low paying jobs, simply because ANYBODY can do them.   "You should pay in tax what you can afford to pay in tax" ????????  Are you serious?  That is so backwards and against the principles of the founding of America it's unbelievable.  You're saying everything that people earn beyond "living wage" should be surrendered to the government?  Wow

i live in the UK not the US for which im eternaly greatfull, anyway its often still more than a living wage.

example:

someone earning up to 10k a year pays 0% tax
10-20k pays 5%
20-50k pays 10%
50-100k pays 25%
100-1m pays 50%
1m+ pays 75%

so if you earn 50k you pay 5k in tax (45k after tax salary), if you earn 500k you pay 150k in tax (at you earn 350k) if you earn 2m you pay 1.5m in tax (500k at salary) seems reasonable enough to me

I am grateful you live in the UK too. I assume if you lived here, you would expect me to pay for you to live.

Let me put this into perspective... I pay over 35% in taxes, and I work for a living (I am not rich).

That means if the government took there share first, I would have to work January, and give it all to them. Then work February, and give it all to them. Then work March, and give it all to them. Then work April, and give it all to them. After a few days in May, I can start keeping what I make.

If I was in the lower 30% income earners, I would start keeping what I make January 1.

Somehow, I think I do ok by the poor. Asking me to do more is a little crazy.

That's the first thing you have said that I agree with. But what you want is to take from your fellow man, in order to give to others. That's not the same thing.

I agree everyone should feel the duty to give to there fellow man. Taking it from someone I feel as strongly against.

SciFiBoy said: Broncos724 said: SciFiBoy said: Broncos724 said: SciFiBoy said: Broncos724 said: SciFiBoy said: coolestguyever said: SciFiBoy said: use Progressive Taxation to raise more money, then make a NHS in the US, afterall healthcare is a basic human right   Progressive taxation: Punishing people for working hard - rewarding the poor   wrong, statistics show someone on the average wage works the same hours as someone in a multi-million dollar hedge fund   The number of hours one works is not the sole determiner of how "hard" someone works.  And yes, progressive taxation is a dis-incentive to working harder, how could it NOT be?   because a banker who earns 500k a year and failed there employer works alot harder than a nurse on 20-30k year who makes people feel better, somehow i dont think so, progressive taxation is fair as you pay what you can afford to pay rather than making the poor pay more than 600k a year financial sector workers I never claimed salary was the indicator of how hard someone works, either.  But I agree with you, in terms of physical and mental labor, those with lower salaries or who are low on the "ladder" work harder, so they can rise.  But how do you think the 100K+ bankers got where they are?  Hard work of course!  Not sure what "making people feel better" has to do with this argument though? Fair to me is paying the same percentage of your income to taxes as everyone else.  And it still means the poorer you are, the less you pay, so what's unfair about that?     so anyone who dosent earn enough to get private healthcare just isnt working hard enough and deserves to die from cureable diseases, thats good to know, besides how can you define hard work? surely a low paid nurse works harder than a programmer but the nurse is payed much less and may like her job and be happy to stay in it, we do need nurses afterall, if everyone got promoted, no-one would do low paid jobs that are essential to any nation, also like i said you should pay in tax what you can afford to pay in tax, thats fair, and that will help thoose less fortunate then you to get healthcare and an education.   If the nurse is happy to stay at her job then she can't complain about low wages, duh!  Perhaps the nurse does work harder than a programmer, but that's not what determines a salary.  What determines a salary is how rare a skillset is, and you simply cannot argue that more people could excel at being a nurse than excel at being a programmer.  That's why a programmer makes so much money.  And there will ALWAYS be people to the entry-level, low paying jobs, simply because ANYBODY can do them.   "You should pay in tax what you can afford to pay in tax" ????????  Are you serious?  That is so backwards and against the principles of the founding of America it's unbelievable.  You're saying everything that people earn beyond "living wage" should be surrendered to the government?  Wow i live in the UK not the US for which im eternaly greatfull, anyway its often still more than a living wage. example: someone earning up to 10k a year pays 0% tax 10-20k pays 5% 20-50k pays 10% 50-100k pays 25% 100-1m pays 50% 1m+ pays 75% so if you earn 50k you pay 5k in tax (45k after tax salary), if you earn 500k you pay 150k in tax (at you earn 350k) if you earn 2m you pay 1.5m in tax (500k at salary) seems reasonable enough to me

It doesn't seem reasonable to me.  What you earn should be yours to do with whatever you want (outside of whatever equal % of taxes you pay as everybody else), it's nobody else's business what you do with that money even if others believe it's more money than necessary for one person.  I just can't justify taking someone's money from them, that person that earned that money through work, and handing it to another person who didn't work for that money at all.

On top of that, like I said having a progressive tax is a dis-incentive to working harder.  We'll say working harder here means contributing more to GDP.  If people don't have an incentive to working harder (increasing GDP), then eventually you get what happen in the Soviet Union.

aint my country a bitch? free healthcare and a better education system than your nations, yeah dont we suck? we also help the less fortunate in our society, really evil aint it?

you dont seem to understand taxation, taxes pay for public services, taxes pay for your military

May I ask why you think your country has a better education system than Americas?

Also, your country does not give to the less fortunate in your society like we do. Your fellow British citizens gave 8.9 billion pounds in 2005/2006 to charity. We gave well over 150 billion pounds in the same timeframe.

Who's the caring country, again?