Fahrenheit 9/11

Senor Grommet · Post by **Senor Grommet** » 01 Jul 2004 19:03

Jeremy-

It is really an unequal comparison ( the US tax % and that of other "developed" countries) because those other "developed" countries pay for their citizens' healthcare, etc. The US govmt does not do this for its citizens, hence its taxes can be lower.

HOWEVER, the most fitting comparison would be the tax rate of the US to the tax rate of other "developed" coutries whose govmts also do NOT pay for citizens' healthcare etc.

Does that make sense? Don't say that our taxes are lower- that really is misleading.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 02 Jul 2004 00:23

but that's the whole point of the discussion - a socialist government has high taxes and spends that money on having well funded public services. A capitalist government has low taxes and lets it's people spend their money on whatever they want.

By the way, here is a list of world life expectanices:
http://www.mrdowling.com/800life.html

The US is 41st in the world (if I counted correctly) with a life expectancy of 77.3

Cuba is 49th in the world with a life expectancy of 76.4

Here is list of the worlds average incomes
http://www.mrdowling.com/800gdppercapita.html

The US is 2nd with an average income of $35,831

Cuba is 174th (if I counted correctly) with an average income of $1,717

The US has a capitalist government. Cuba has a socialist government...

(obviously Cuba isn't the best example, since they have a lot of other problems, and probably it would be better to compare Cuba to a country like Haiti - but I think it demonstrates the point)

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 02 Jul 2004 07:18

It's low because of McDonalds

I agree about the comparison. But wouldn't you rather be in charge of your own money. I mean, it's your life and your hard work making the money in the first place. Now you got to share it with everyone.

I am all for guaranteed health care in this country but not at the expense of everyone. I'd rather see a lottery established by the government wherein people can decide to play or not, with the profits going towards healthcare, while some lucky chum gets the jack pot.

Vegas style healthcare

. or not...

max · Post by **max** » 02 Jul 2004 07:28

But wouldn't you rather be in charge of your own money. I mean, it's your life and your hard work making the money in the first place.

yes that's all well and good. This topic has been tossed around here in France concerning retirement funds. I've heard lots of people say things along the lines "These retirement fund organisations [don't know the correct term in English] that I'm FORCED to pay up to on a monthly basis only invest in weak financial products, I should be allowed to manage this money how I see fit as I'm sure I'd do a better job investing it and thus getting a better retirement in the long run".

Basicly maybe you see yourself as responsible enough to do the right thing, to put money aside for retirement, healthcare and the like, but what about your average Joe? Do you really think he'll think twice between blowing all the money on a case of beer and drugs rather than putting it aside for retirement? And then when they retire and they have nothing to live off what happens? The government just says "ah well see that's your problem... you should have thought about that before" ???

I just don't think that you can exepect everyone to manage their money in a responsible way. Sure some can, but to say that everyone can is absurd.

hope this isn't too offtopic.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 02 Jul 2004 08:39

The english word is Superannuation - sometimes just called super. In Australia it's complusorary for bosses to pay some of everyone's wage into their (the workers) super fund.

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 02 Jul 2004 09:03

Looks like Luxembourg is the place to be

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 02 Jul 2004 10:46

I don't really expect anyone to be that responsible as it can be frustrating and confusing at the same time to manage your own finances let alone healthcare.

I just don't want to pay for it

.

I'd rather those that need it pay for it. Like health insurance is suppose to be.
Example:
I want government healthcare so I pay government premiums. If I am on government assistance then I reap those benefits without having to pay the premiums.

That way those who want to support it (damn liberals - I'm kidding) can pay for it and leave the rest of us (upper elite conservatives with money - again I'm kidding) alone.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 02 Jul 2004 10:58

You are already paying for it

They just aren't using the money to the best of it's abilities. Imagine if we didn't fight this Iraq war for bogus reasons. That would free up $3000/per tax payer for other fund. With the type of cash we blow on war, we could have the best schools and a national healthcare system ...
Instead we have thrown $3000/person down the drain, and will reap no benefits from it.

This war was a way to take a lot of money away out of the economy to further repress the people while increases the gap between the wealthy and the other 90% of the country.

I think taxes should have boxes where you can designate where you want your money to go.
15% to the schools
25% to alternative energy grants
40% to healthcare
10% to space exploration.
10% to college education funds.

Basically make the government programs strength reflect the will of the people. If you can't get the people to mark their money to your special interest, then it dies and with it the people can regain controll over the government.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 02 Jul 2004 11:26

Can we all agree at least that both candidates would make horrible presidents (yes I do not like bush).....

"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodoss."

10% to space exploration.

Word to the space program. Lets send our money to Saturn, or see if NASA can make some pretty rings for our little planet, like the Planet Footbag logo.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 02 Jul 2004 12:22

"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodoss."

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 03 Jul 2004 00:36

Yes , National healthcare would be great.

When Bill Gates and Rush Limbaugh turn 65, YOU will have to pay for their expensive prescription drugs.
-n

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 03 Jul 2004 00:40

that may be so, but considering the millions of $$ of tax money that they are paying for your knee surgery (or whatever), I think things probably balance out quiet well for the average person.

ShredNJ · Post by **ShredNJ** » 04 Jul 2004 06:15

People have been handing out voter registration forms at movie theaters.

At least 50% of our population did not vote last election. Please vote.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 04 Jul 2004 07:00

I heard is was more like 70% didn't vote... Does anyone know the actual number?

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 04 Jul 2004 15:29

i thought it was like 45% voted

Tommy · Post by **Tommy** » 06 Jul 2004 12:45

i saw it last night and it just gave me more reason to hate bush, it was deffinatly shocking to see that our president could do such a horrible thing.

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 06 Jul 2004 20:23

which thing? play golf?

Tommy · Post by **Tommy** » 06 Jul 2004 20:27

no not golf, what he did wrong was he had inocent people killed in iraq and started a war for no reason other than to get oil.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » 06 Jul 2004 21:18

If it's blood for oil don't you think gas prices would be down because of an influx in supply? Assumptions make an ass out of you.

SpaceMonkey · Post by **SpaceMonkey** » 06 Jul 2004 22:43

and me