Sorry for the dodges. I wasn't intentional.

The majority, by empowering a government who passes laws to tax accordingly.

Partly this is a drawback to the system, and partly this is reality. Not all wealthy people give back.

I don't know what makes them the best. But it's become their job, for good or ill, and the population is happy with it. The people seem to have decided that it's the government's job, as they continually empower them to do so. I don't see a problem there.

k, the UK's not the best example. I should really have said Scandinavia, as that's what I'm thinking about. But the UK is also in a somewhat unique position inside the EU, being a founder member and holding more sway.

I don't know the answers to these questions. I haven't become an expert in this topic, so it would be foolish for me to attempt. What I do know is that way the government taxes the population has been agreeable with people. There are new suggestions I've read about (see the Nyberg model) that sound somewhat similar to your FairTax. (And again, I'm not arguing with your FairTax, it sounds quite fair for you.)

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. My question was whether people have to pay afterwards. Here's my real problem with US health care. My friend was in a bad skateboarding accident, almost died, and medial bills were like 500,000$. Who can possibly pay that, or have hoped to have saved that much money in advance?

Because they have proven over time that they do good things with tax money. People in Finland are ridiculously educated because the government provides. As I've said before there are benefits for all sorts of things; people can see their tax money being put to good use. I'd challenge you to find a Canadian who says his government's putting tax money to good use.

Here's a question for you Dave.  What would your government need to do, in order to win your trust?

This is crazy talk alex, populism nonsense.  America the big evil.  I'll be first to say I am not one of them.  Greed is a global problem its not just in America. You have defo been watching to much tv or movies and are believing the hype.  The heart of America isn't some greed filled society wanting all the money in the world and all the bling they can handle man, most families here are just trying to live life, raise a family, and follow a few dreams, and if they don't solve the world problems they get blamed for it. 

haha I just realized that I really don't care enough to keep debating... yet I can't help myself.

A few final points:


I've got two responses here.

1) The wealthy who don't give to the community have several choices, they can invest the money in the stock market so it will grow, they can invest it in their businesses or they can let it sit in an bank and collect interest. If they invest it in the stock market, they provide other companies with capital to grow their businesses and in turn create more jobs, that's giving back to the economy and helping the poor out of poverty. If they invest in their own businesses, same thing. If they let that money sit in a bank, the bank loans it out to people who are starting businesses or expanding them and thus... does the same thing. Or... it could go to build your home. Heck, even if they spend it, that goes to businesses and gives them capital to create more jobs. Anything selfish thing the wealthy does with their money benefits the economy and thus the people in poverty.

2) Here's a New York Times article from 1991, right after we had some huge tax increases. The result is that the amount of money the wealthy were able to give dropped significantly.



Well, it's foolish for you to assume that they should if you don't know why they should. Just because the majority of the population likes it doesn't make it right. Heck, the majority of the population here believes abortion is wrong and it's legal here.

In the US, the top 50% of wage earners pay over 96% of the taxes and people are still screaming that the rich aren't taxed enough. Even more amazing, the top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%. Here's the data directly from the Treasury Department. Even with Bush's tax cuts "for the wealthy" they are still paying over 32% of the total taxes for the country.

Is this acceptable?


They're supposed to, but that doesn't mean that they do or that there are consequences for them if they don't. Politicians here have a way of hearing a sob story and then defending a debeat payer who could pay as though they shouldn't have to. It's all about votes.


That same surgery probably would have cost much less in the US. Seriously. What had to be done?


Do you think the people of Finland could manage their retirement accounts if the government got out of that business now? (A snide remark I know.)


Brandon can correct me on this, but he told me just the other week that pretty much the only people who are defending the Canadian system are the ones who can afford to cross the boarder into the US to have their medical needs taken care of.


Start following and actually applying the 10th Amendment.


I'm currently wondering how programs like Social Security pass the 10th Amendment test. From what I can tell, the amendment's power was limited after FDR packed the Supreme Court. More proof that he was one of the best and worst presidents we've ever had. 

Let's move to Canada, let's leave today, Canada oh Canada, I've seen the way. - Five Iron Frenzy.

Regarding the surgery. He wasn't a pro-skateboarder so he didn't have an insurance policy accordingly, he was just screwing around on some steps. He fell, cracked his head on the corner of a step, starting losing blood and spinal fluid out his ears, had to be airlifted to hospital and the fire department had to hose down the street afterwards. It was pretty horrific. And it was in the US.

Anyway, this debate's been enjoyable. I am challenged by you all, so that's cool. I for one know I don't have it all figured out. But I'm happy to be traveling the world and seeing it from different people's perspective, and experiencing different takes on social responsibility, political economics, and appropriate government involvement.

This is going to sound really harsh,but i don't mean it to sound this way: why not?  where does it say in the constitution everyone in America has a right to own a home? 

I say this from experience: because of lagging business for years now I'm losing my home.  In a perfect world that would never happen,but this isn't a perfect world, and I don't expect someone who makes more money than i do to pick up the slack for me.