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.

Speaking of taxes... here's a FUN set of charts about how the US spends it's taxes.

BTW, glad you bought that book! Let me know what you think.

I have no problem with lagging business causing a business owner some financial difficulties.  That's the nature of being in business.  I've experienced it myself as a business owner.  But, medical bills are a different story.  If it weren't for medical bills, I'd be almost debt free (finishing a car loan and my mortgage--no credit card debt, no student loans [ever], own my motorcycle outright [paid cash]).  I've never even had a credit card other than a Sears card, which I no longer have, and a Kay Jewelers card, which I purchased my wife's ring with so I could spread the payments out at 0% interest.  If it had not been for the 0% interest, I would not have even done that.  In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have anyways, but my wife is worth it.  Plain & short: I've lived my life on the principle of 'if you don't have the money to buy it then don't', with a few exeptions (i.e. car & house, which were primarily for my family, not me).  Yet, because our healthcare system is so screwed up (speaking as an expert medical coding consultant with over 10 years experience, primarily dealing with Medicare and BC/BS [thieves I tell you]), I'm still in debt about as much as most other Americans who bought everything they own on credit.  And, because I'm a hard working American who is self-employed I don't qualify for any of the gov't programs--point blank they are designed to help those who won't help themselves, not those who are trying.  I owe more money to a Christian-run non-profit hospital owned & operated by the same denomination I belong to than I ever intended to owe anybody at any point in my life.  And it's all because some nurses and doctors thought that my baby girl might have had an infection that she turned out not to have.  If she were a car, I wouldn't have to pay the mechanic for not fixing something that wasn't actually wrong.  But since she's a human, I'm supposed to pay them for their bad medical judgment.  That's the part that's the most screwed up about our health system.

Listen, I see this sort of thing happen a lot: A doctor wants to screen a patient by getting an expensive set of tests done to establish a baseline so there is something to compare test results in the future to if that patient ever develops problems in certain areas.  The patient has no symptoms, though, so most of the insurances companies are not going to cover those tests.  But the doctor is a good sales person and knows all he/she has to do is convince the patient that their health, and therefore their lives or at least quality of living (i.e. their future), is at stake.  The patient agrees because he/she doesn't want to face a future of cancer that might have been avoided or some other debilitating disease that supposedly could be better treated or more quickly identified by these tests.  The doctor does the tests, bills the insurance who of course denies the claim.  The doctor then bills the patient, who of course can't pay the bill (no one ever told the patient these tests would end up costing them more than their car, which they could only afford by taking out a 5-6 year loan).  So, the doctor reports the patient to the credit agencies for non-payment and sells the account to a collection agency as bad debt.  The collection agency then hassles the patient non-stop for months until finally giving up.  In the meantime, the patient can't buy a house because their credit sucks because some doctor wanted to make a few extra bucks.  And don't try to tell me that this scenario doesn't happen all the time in our healthcare system, because I'm the guy that audits those records so I'm talking from first hand knowledge, not some video I saw on youtube or some media-driven propaganda in an election year.  And I'll be the first to tell you there is nothing right about what that doctor did, who by the way is probably driving to his/her office to run another such scam on some patient while enjoying the comfort of a new Lexus sipping on some coffee that costs more than my meals for the day.  Sorry for the rant . . .

Do these dangers mean all education and health care should be free? I don't think so. These problems can be curtailed in other measures.
But I think this is one of the inherent risks in a capitalist system. (Note I said risks... these again can be curtailed with the right endevours.)
When people come to be viewed solely as vehicles for further capital, capitalism is surely at it's worst.