|
is awesome32277 Posts
On August 16 2009 17:55 Chezinu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 17:48 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 17:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 16 2009 17:30 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 17:18 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 16 2009 17:02 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 16:57 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 15 2009 23:15 Jusciax wrote:On August 15 2009 22:56 Aegraen wrote:
I still have no idea why people think more Government intervention especially wielding such incredible and unscrupulous power over their life and limb is a good idea. It really does boggle the mind. And what boggles my mind is that you prefer trusting your life and limb to corporations, which sole goal is to earn money to its shareholders (and in this case - signing as many people as possible and dropping them as soon as they get sick). Sure goverment doesn't do its job perfectly but atleast it's priorities are in right place - people. The main purpose for all companies is to provide a service to people. Second is to make a profit (otherwise you couldn't stay in business). Ah, sweet naivety. There, my friend, you are wrong. First and foremost of business is to make a profit. How you do it, is entirely up to you. So if that's what you meant by 'provide a service', then I'm afraid it is merely incidental. No, I'm not wrong. Name a business model that specifically moves to make a profit over providing a service for people. Lol try almost EVERY small business EVER. Also, pretty much all telco's. Most of them you must sign up to a plan, where they more often than not advertise false data rates. They say 'up too' some speed. If the service were their main priority, then they would do their best to make sure their service was the damn best into the future. Instead you see companies milking old technology for everything its got before moving on. Main priority has always been profitability. If it happens to be something they enjoy, then so be it. Also to suggest i could find a business model that could prove that is a red herring. Services and profitability come hand in hand. The difference is, the type of service is incidental. Good services wont survive if they are not profitable. If what you are suggesting were true, then you would see companies coming out with alot crazier products than you see today. It's fear of not being profitable that stifles new technologies. The mountain bike, for example, wasn't created by the major bike manufactures. Nor was it created by one lone genius in his shed. It was created by a bunch of enthusiasts who gathered the parts themselves. I can almost guarantee, on the other hand, that you can't give me a business model that values service over profitability (you must include the whole company, market share and marketing gimmicks don't count). You ramble a lot and don't seem to know what you're talking about. But from I can tell is that you think that things that aren't "profitable" don't sell. The first Mac that used your so common desktop, cost over $10000 to make. So they said find a way to make it cheaper. They wanted to provide a service, and make money because of it (kind of like how the guy who invented, well anything you use in your life is a millionaire now). What you seem to be talking about is a monopoly, which interferes with the invisible hand (and is thus a third variable which we aren't concerning ourselves with). I could have a monopoly on dog shit, but you still wouldn't buy any. LOL invisible hand. Dude. I don't think you quite understand. There is no private company in the world that provides a a service and isn't profitable. There are plenty of companies, on the other hand, which provide a 'bad' service and are profitable. Pretty much most banks, for example. Ok, if a company provides bad services and are profitable then you would think people would boycott that company and switch to a better one. right? Which bank provides bad service, I'm just wondering?
No, because you can't boycott certain things, like health, food, transportation.
Also people are misinformed, by the company or someone else to what they need to buy. Every tv sell product takes advantage of this.
And there's a bunch of random factors too, some of which depend on the service the company offers.
|
United States43187 Posts
On August 16 2009 17:55 Chezinu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 17:48 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 17:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 16 2009 17:30 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 17:18 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 16 2009 17:02 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 16:57 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 15 2009 23:15 Jusciax wrote:On August 15 2009 22:56 Aegraen wrote:
I still have no idea why people think more Government intervention especially wielding such incredible and unscrupulous power over their life and limb is a good idea. It really does boggle the mind. And what boggles my mind is that you prefer trusting your life and limb to corporations, which sole goal is to earn money to its shareholders (and in this case - signing as many people as possible and dropping them as soon as they get sick). Sure goverment doesn't do its job perfectly but atleast it's priorities are in right place - people. The main purpose for all companies is to provide a service to people. Second is to make a profit (otherwise you couldn't stay in business). Ah, sweet naivety. There, my friend, you are wrong. First and foremost of business is to make a profit. How you do it, is entirely up to you. So if that's what you meant by 'provide a service', then I'm afraid it is merely incidental. No, I'm not wrong. Name a business model that specifically moves to make a profit over providing a service for people. Lol try almost EVERY small business EVER. Also, pretty much all telco's. Most of them you must sign up to a plan, where they more often than not advertise false data rates. They say 'up too' some speed. If the service were their main priority, then they would do their best to make sure their service was the damn best into the future. Instead you see companies milking old technology for everything its got before moving on. Main priority has always been profitability. If it happens to be something they enjoy, then so be it. Also to suggest i could find a business model that could prove that is a red herring. Services and profitability come hand in hand. The difference is, the type of service is incidental. Good services wont survive if they are not profitable. If what you are suggesting were true, then you would see companies coming out with alot crazier products than you see today. It's fear of not being profitable that stifles new technologies. The mountain bike, for example, wasn't created by the major bike manufactures. Nor was it created by one lone genius in his shed. It was created by a bunch of enthusiasts who gathered the parts themselves. I can almost guarantee, on the other hand, that you can't give me a business model that values service over profitability (you must include the whole company, market share and marketing gimmicks don't count). You ramble a lot and don't seem to know what you're talking about. But from I can tell is that you think that things that aren't "profitable" don't sell. The first Mac that used your so common desktop, cost over $10000 to make. So they said find a way to make it cheaper. They wanted to provide a service, and make money because of it (kind of like how the guy who invented, well anything you use in your life is a millionaire now). What you seem to be talking about is a monopoly, which interferes with the invisible hand (and is thus a third variable which we aren't concerning ourselves with). I could have a monopoly on dog shit, but you still wouldn't buy any. LOL invisible hand. Dude. I don't think you quite understand. There is no private company in the world that provides a a service and isn't profitable. There are plenty of companies, on the other hand, which provide a 'bad' service and are profitable. Pretty much most banks, for example. Ok, if a company provides bad services and are profitable then you would think people would boycott that company and switch to a better one. right? Which bank provides bad service, I'm just wondering?
HSBC. Also Virgin provides shit internet and cable and every mobile phone operator in the UK gouges you with extortionate fees because they operate a cartel.
Seriously, there are loads of companies which provide shockingly bad service but exploit their market position to survive. Virgin has gotten rid of net neutrality and limits people's downloads at peak times but people still use them because the startup costs of setting up a rival are huge. And the thing is it's not like the technology doesn't exist, they just need to lay ethernet cable. But they don't do it until a lot of people collectively get on their ass about it because while people just put up with their shit they don't see the need to.
|
On August 16 2009 17:59 Tyraz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 17:55 Chezinu wrote:On August 16 2009 17:48 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 17:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 16 2009 17:30 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 17:18 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 16 2009 17:02 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 16:57 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 15 2009 23:15 Jusciax wrote:On August 15 2009 22:56 Aegraen wrote:
I still have no idea why people think more Government intervention especially wielding such incredible and unscrupulous power over their life and limb is a good idea. It really does boggle the mind. And what boggles my mind is that you prefer trusting your life and limb to corporations, which sole goal is to earn money to its shareholders (and in this case - signing as many people as possible and dropping them as soon as they get sick). Sure goverment doesn't do its job perfectly but atleast it's priorities are in right place - people. The main purpose for all companies is to provide a service to people. Second is to make a profit (otherwise you couldn't stay in business). Ah, sweet naivety. There, my friend, you are wrong. First and foremost of business is to make a profit. How you do it, is entirely up to you. So if that's what you meant by 'provide a service', then I'm afraid it is merely incidental. No, I'm not wrong. Name a business model that specifically moves to make a profit over providing a service for people. Lol try almost EVERY small business EVER. Also, pretty much all telco's. Most of them you must sign up to a plan, where they more often than not advertise false data rates. They say 'up too' some speed. If the service were their main priority, then they would do their best to make sure their service was the damn best into the future. Instead you see companies milking old technology for everything its got before moving on. Main priority has always been profitability. If it happens to be something they enjoy, then so be it. Also to suggest i could find a business model that could prove that is a red herring. Services and profitability come hand in hand. The difference is, the type of service is incidental. Good services wont survive if they are not profitable. If what you are suggesting were true, then you would see companies coming out with alot crazier products than you see today. It's fear of not being profitable that stifles new technologies. The mountain bike, for example, wasn't created by the major bike manufactures. Nor was it created by one lone genius in his shed. It was created by a bunch of enthusiasts who gathered the parts themselves. I can almost guarantee, on the other hand, that you can't give me a business model that values service over profitability (you must include the whole company, market share and marketing gimmicks don't count). You ramble a lot and don't seem to know what you're talking about. But from I can tell is that you think that things that aren't "profitable" don't sell. The first Mac that used your so common desktop, cost over $10000 to make. So they said find a way to make it cheaper. They wanted to provide a service, and make money because of it (kind of like how the guy who invented, well anything you use in your life is a millionaire now). What you seem to be talking about is a monopoly, which interferes with the invisible hand (and is thus a third variable which we aren't concerning ourselves with). I could have a monopoly on dog shit, but you still wouldn't buy any. LOL invisible hand. Dude. I don't think you quite understand. There is no private company in the world that provides a a service and isn't profitable. There are plenty of companies, on the other hand, which provide a 'bad' service and are profitable. Pretty much most banks, for example. Ok, if a company provides bad services and are profitable then you would think people would boycott that company and switch to a better one. right? Which bank provides bad service, I'm just wondering? Pretty much all of them sunshine;) Credit card companies wouldn't make money if they wanted to deliver a good service. Before the credit reform bill, they could just ramp up the price whenever they liked, or make massive interest rates without your knowledge. That doesn't sound like good service to me... People can't 'get out' because if they do, they get bad credit and thats going down a VERY bad road.
ok I see your point. When you said bank I wasn't thinking about credit cards.
edit:
No, because you can't boycott certain things, like health, food, transportation.
Also people are misinformed, by the company or someone else to what they need to buy. Every tv sell product takes advantage of this.
And there's a bunch of random factors too, some of which depend on the service the company offers.
companies that provide health, food, and transportation do provide good services. though you could say it could be better. Transportation and food do have competition to improve. You could argue that gas cars have an monopoly but that is only because their isn't an alternative that is as or more efficient. You could blame this on the fact they do not have enough research going into alternative methods because oil companies don't want that to happen blah blah blah. However if someone does discover a better way, it would triumph the market. As for food, we have so much food in the US that it isn't an issue. Health, now this something you can't really boycott. I'll agreed with that (except for the case that you have more than one hospital near you which happens to be the case for me but I'm just going to assume that isn't normal). So we need for the next best thing to happen, competition. So how do you make hospitals compete more in order to produce the best care? How do we get more doctors and nurses into the medical field? This is an issue I really don't have an answer to. I just think the healthcare bill would make it worse from what I read. Does anyone know other ideas on how to fix the healthcare system? Well, I do know they we could save a lot of money by reducing lawsuits on doctors. They have to perform a lot (possibly unnecessary) diagnosis just to be sure they don't get sued. This is a good thing but it can get out of hand sometimes. Same thing could apply to pharmaceutical companies with all the paperwork and regulations they have to meet. Once a again, I believe this is a good thing but it could get out of hand. I'm really not sure what would be the best way to address the problem. I just know I prefer the healthcare system as it is now than what it would be after if the healthcare bill passes. Anyone know of an alternative way to fix the system?
|
On August 16 2009 18:02 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 17:55 Chezinu wrote:On August 16 2009 17:48 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 17:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 16 2009 17:30 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 17:18 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 16 2009 17:02 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 16:57 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 15 2009 23:15 Jusciax wrote:On August 15 2009 22:56 Aegraen wrote:
I still have no idea why people think more Government intervention especially wielding such incredible and unscrupulous power over their life and limb is a good idea. It really does boggle the mind. And what boggles my mind is that you prefer trusting your life and limb to corporations, which sole goal is to earn money to its shareholders (and in this case - signing as many people as possible and dropping them as soon as they get sick). Sure goverment doesn't do its job perfectly but atleast it's priorities are in right place - people. The main purpose for all companies is to provide a service to people. Second is to make a profit (otherwise you couldn't stay in business). Ah, sweet naivety. There, my friend, you are wrong. First and foremost of business is to make a profit. How you do it, is entirely up to you. So if that's what you meant by 'provide a service', then I'm afraid it is merely incidental. No, I'm not wrong. Name a business model that specifically moves to make a profit over providing a service for people. Lol try almost EVERY small business EVER. Also, pretty much all telco's. Most of them you must sign up to a plan, where they more often than not advertise false data rates. They say 'up too' some speed. If the service were their main priority, then they would do their best to make sure their service was the damn best into the future. Instead you see companies milking old technology for everything its got before moving on. Main priority has always been profitability. If it happens to be something they enjoy, then so be it. Also to suggest i could find a business model that could prove that is a red herring. Services and profitability come hand in hand. The difference is, the type of service is incidental. Good services wont survive if they are not profitable. If what you are suggesting were true, then you would see companies coming out with alot crazier products than you see today. It's fear of not being profitable that stifles new technologies. The mountain bike, for example, wasn't created by the major bike manufactures. Nor was it created by one lone genius in his shed. It was created by a bunch of enthusiasts who gathered the parts themselves. I can almost guarantee, on the other hand, that you can't give me a business model that values service over profitability (you must include the whole company, market share and marketing gimmicks don't count). You ramble a lot and don't seem to know what you're talking about. But from I can tell is that you think that things that aren't "profitable" don't sell. The first Mac that used your so common desktop, cost over $10000 to make. So they said find a way to make it cheaper. They wanted to provide a service, and make money because of it (kind of like how the guy who invented, well anything you use in your life is a millionaire now). What you seem to be talking about is a monopoly, which interferes with the invisible hand (and is thus a third variable which we aren't concerning ourselves with). I could have a monopoly on dog shit, but you still wouldn't buy any. LOL invisible hand. Dude. I don't think you quite understand. There is no private company in the world that provides a a service and isn't profitable. There are plenty of companies, on the other hand, which provide a 'bad' service and are profitable. Pretty much most banks, for example. Ok, if a company provides bad services and are profitable then you would think people would boycott that company and switch to a better one. right? Which bank provides bad service, I'm just wondering? HSBC. Also Virgin provides shit internet and cable and every mobile phone operator in the UK gouges you with extortionate fees because they operate a cartel. Seriously, there are loads of companies which provide shockingly bad service but exploit their market position to survive. Virgin has gotten rid of net neutrality and limits people's downloads at peak times but people still use them because the startup costs of setting up a rival are huge. And the thing is it's not like the technology doesn't exist, they just need to lay ethernet cable. But they don't do it until a lot of people collectively get on their ass about it because while people just put up with their shit they don't see the need to.
Notes on cartels. I highly recommend the LVM Institute.
http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae12_1_6.pdf
You should be taking action against Anti-trust laws, and for Americans take note against the Sherman Act.
|
On August 16 2009 18:00 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 17:55 Chezinu wrote:On August 16 2009 17:48 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 17:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 16 2009 17:30 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 17:18 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 16 2009 17:02 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 16:57 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 15 2009 23:15 Jusciax wrote:On August 15 2009 22:56 Aegraen wrote:
I still have no idea why people think more Government intervention especially wielding such incredible and unscrupulous power over their life and limb is a good idea. It really does boggle the mind. And what boggles my mind is that you prefer trusting your life and limb to corporations, which sole goal is to earn money to its shareholders (and in this case - signing as many people as possible and dropping them as soon as they get sick). Sure goverment doesn't do its job perfectly but atleast it's priorities are in right place - people. The main purpose for all companies is to provide a service to people. Second is to make a profit (otherwise you couldn't stay in business). Ah, sweet naivety. There, my friend, you are wrong. First and foremost of business is to make a profit. How you do it, is entirely up to you. So if that's what you meant by 'provide a service', then I'm afraid it is merely incidental. No, I'm not wrong. Name a business model that specifically moves to make a profit over providing a service for people. Lol try almost EVERY small business EVER. Also, pretty much all telco's. Most of them you must sign up to a plan, where they more often than not advertise false data rates. They say 'up too' some speed. If the service were their main priority, then they would do their best to make sure their service was the damn best into the future. Instead you see companies milking old technology for everything its got before moving on. Main priority has always been profitability. If it happens to be something they enjoy, then so be it. Also to suggest i could find a business model that could prove that is a red herring. Services and profitability come hand in hand. The difference is, the type of service is incidental. Good services wont survive if they are not profitable. If what you are suggesting were true, then you would see companies coming out with alot crazier products than you see today. It's fear of not being profitable that stifles new technologies. The mountain bike, for example, wasn't created by the major bike manufactures. Nor was it created by one lone genius in his shed. It was created by a bunch of enthusiasts who gathered the parts themselves. I can almost guarantee, on the other hand, that you can't give me a business model that values service over profitability (you must include the whole company, market share and marketing gimmicks don't count). You ramble a lot and don't seem to know what you're talking about. But from I can tell is that you think that things that aren't "profitable" don't sell. The first Mac that used your so common desktop, cost over $10000 to make. So they said find a way to make it cheaper. They wanted to provide a service, and make money because of it (kind of like how the guy who invented, well anything you use in your life is a millionaire now). What you seem to be talking about is a monopoly, which interferes with the invisible hand (and is thus a third variable which we aren't concerning ourselves with). I could have a monopoly on dog shit, but you still wouldn't buy any. LOL invisible hand. Dude. I don't think you quite understand. There is no private company in the world that provides a a service and isn't profitable. There are plenty of companies, on the other hand, which provide a 'bad' service and are profitable. Pretty much most banks, for example. Ok, if a company provides bad services and are profitable then you would think people would boycott that company and switch to a better one. right? Which bank provides bad service, I'm just wondering? No, because you can't boycott certain things, like health, food, transportation. Also people are misinformed, by the company or someone else to what they need to buy. Every tv sell product takes advantage of this. And there's a bunch of random factors too, some of which depend on the service the company offers.
????
What do you mean by you can't boycott certain things?
Food tastes awful? Buy somewhere else. Got sick because of it? Sue mother fuckers and see how media gangbang them.
I see lots of people forgetting something - people have minds.
They know quality of health care is important. This is enough to stay away from medical firms at all, especially when it's hard to find spare money for that.
1000$ for a 15minute ride to a hospital because dog has bitten you or something? Maybe will happen, most possibly won't.
That means any market as a whole needs to provide something more than commercials to make people pay.
|
On August 16 2009 18:06 Chezinu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 17:59 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 17:55 Chezinu wrote:On August 16 2009 17:48 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 17:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 16 2009 17:30 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 17:18 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 16 2009 17:02 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 16:57 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 15 2009 23:15 Jusciax wrote:
[quote]
And what boggles my mind is that you prefer trusting your life and limb to corporations, which sole goal is to earn money to its shareholders (and in this case - signing as many people as possible and dropping them as soon as they get sick). Sure goverment doesn't do its job perfectly but atleast it's priorities are in right place - people. The main purpose for all companies is to provide a service to people. Second is to make a profit (otherwise you couldn't stay in business). Ah, sweet naivety. There, my friend, you are wrong. First and foremost of business is to make a profit. How you do it, is entirely up to you. So if that's what you meant by 'provide a service', then I'm afraid it is merely incidental. No, I'm not wrong. Name a business model that specifically moves to make a profit over providing a service for people. Lol try almost EVERY small business EVER. Also, pretty much all telco's. Most of them you must sign up to a plan, where they more often than not advertise false data rates. They say 'up too' some speed. If the service were their main priority, then they would do their best to make sure their service was the damn best into the future. Instead you see companies milking old technology for everything its got before moving on. Main priority has always been profitability. If it happens to be something they enjoy, then so be it. Also to suggest i could find a business model that could prove that is a red herring. Services and profitability come hand in hand. The difference is, the type of service is incidental. Good services wont survive if they are not profitable. If what you are suggesting were true, then you would see companies coming out with alot crazier products than you see today. It's fear of not being profitable that stifles new technologies. The mountain bike, for example, wasn't created by the major bike manufactures. Nor was it created by one lone genius in his shed. It was created by a bunch of enthusiasts who gathered the parts themselves. I can almost guarantee, on the other hand, that you can't give me a business model that values service over profitability (you must include the whole company, market share and marketing gimmicks don't count). You ramble a lot and don't seem to know what you're talking about. But from I can tell is that you think that things that aren't "profitable" don't sell. The first Mac that used your so common desktop, cost over $10000 to make. So they said find a way to make it cheaper. They wanted to provide a service, and make money because of it (kind of like how the guy who invented, well anything you use in your life is a millionaire now). What you seem to be talking about is a monopoly, which interferes with the invisible hand (and is thus a third variable which we aren't concerning ourselves with). I could have a monopoly on dog shit, but you still wouldn't buy any. LOL invisible hand. Dude. I don't think you quite understand. There is no private company in the world that provides a a service and isn't profitable. There are plenty of companies, on the other hand, which provide a 'bad' service and are profitable. Pretty much most banks, for example. Ok, if a company provides bad services and are profitable then you would think people would boycott that company and switch to a better one. right? Which bank provides bad service, I'm just wondering? Pretty much all of them sunshine;) Credit card companies wouldn't make money if they wanted to deliver a good service. Before the credit reform bill, they could just ramp up the price whenever they liked, or make massive interest rates without your knowledge. That doesn't sound like good service to me... People can't 'get out' because if they do, they get bad credit and thats going down a VERY bad road. ok I see your point. When you said bank I wasn't thinking about credit cards. edit: Show nested quote +
No, because you can't boycott certain things, like health, food, transportation.
Also people are misinformed, by the company or someone else to what they need to buy. Every tv sell product takes advantage of this.
And there's a bunch of random factors too, some of which depend on the service the company offers.
companies that provide health, food, and transportation do provide good services. though you could say it could be better. Transportation and food do have competition to improve. You could argue that gas cars have an monopoly but that is only because their isn't an alternative that is as or more efficient. You could blame this on the fact they do not have enough research going into alternative methods because oil companies don't want that to happen blah blah blah. However if someone does discover a better way, it would triumph the market. As for food, we have so much food in the US that it isn't an issue. Health, now this something you can't really boycott. I'll agreed with that (except for the case that you have more than one hospital near you which happens to be the case for me but I'm just going to assume that isn't normal). So we need for the next best thing to happen, competition. So how do you make hospitals compete more in order to produce the best care? How do we get more doctors and nurses into the medical field? This is an issue I really don't have an answer to. I just think the healthcare bill would make it worse from what I read. Does anyone know other ideas on how to fix the healthcare system? Well, I do know they we could save a lot of money by reducing lawsuits on doctors. They have to perform a lot (possibly unnecessary) diagnosis just to be sure they don't get sued. This is a good thing but it can get out of hand sometimes. Same thing could apply to pharmaceutical companies with all the paperwork and regulations they have to meet. Once a again, I believe this is a good thing but it could get out of hand. I'm really not sure what would be the best way to address the problem. I just know I prefer the healthcare system as it is now than what it would be after if the healthcare bill passes. Anyone know of an alternative way to fix the system?
Sources provided in this thread I've read were telling about why companies are scared of this project - because most probably it's going to be cheaper.
I think amount of people who will pay for this is real the problem. It will break if it needs more money than it is going to get from premiums... so it will have to be good enough to make people pay too?
|
On August 16 2009 19:13 beetlelisk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 18:06 Chezinu wrote:On August 16 2009 17:59 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 17:55 Chezinu wrote:On August 16 2009 17:48 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 17:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 16 2009 17:30 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 17:18 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 16 2009 17:02 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 16:57 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
[quote]
The main purpose for all companies is to provide a service to people.
Second is to make a profit (otherwise you couldn't stay in business). Ah, sweet naivety. There, my friend, you are wrong. First and foremost of business is to make a profit. How you do it, is entirely up to you. So if that's what you meant by 'provide a service', then I'm afraid it is merely incidental. No, I'm not wrong. Name a business model that specifically moves to make a profit over providing a service for people. Lol try almost EVERY small business EVER. Also, pretty much all telco's. Most of them you must sign up to a plan, where they more often than not advertise false data rates. They say 'up too' some speed. If the service were their main priority, then they would do their best to make sure their service was the damn best into the future. Instead you see companies milking old technology for everything its got before moving on. Main priority has always been profitability. If it happens to be something they enjoy, then so be it. Also to suggest i could find a business model that could prove that is a red herring. Services and profitability come hand in hand. The difference is, the type of service is incidental. Good services wont survive if they are not profitable. If what you are suggesting were true, then you would see companies coming out with alot crazier products than you see today. It's fear of not being profitable that stifles new technologies. The mountain bike, for example, wasn't created by the major bike manufactures. Nor was it created by one lone genius in his shed. It was created by a bunch of enthusiasts who gathered the parts themselves. I can almost guarantee, on the other hand, that you can't give me a business model that values service over profitability (you must include the whole company, market share and marketing gimmicks don't count). You ramble a lot and don't seem to know what you're talking about. But from I can tell is that you think that things that aren't "profitable" don't sell. The first Mac that used your so common desktop, cost over $10000 to make. So they said find a way to make it cheaper. They wanted to provide a service, and make money because of it (kind of like how the guy who invented, well anything you use in your life is a millionaire now). What you seem to be talking about is a monopoly, which interferes with the invisible hand (and is thus a third variable which we aren't concerning ourselves with). I could have a monopoly on dog shit, but you still wouldn't buy any. LOL invisible hand. Dude. I don't think you quite understand. There is no private company in the world that provides a a service and isn't profitable. There are plenty of companies, on the other hand, which provide a 'bad' service and are profitable. Pretty much most banks, for example. Ok, if a company provides bad services and are profitable then you would think people would boycott that company and switch to a better one. right? Which bank provides bad service, I'm just wondering? Pretty much all of them sunshine;) Credit card companies wouldn't make money if they wanted to deliver a good service. Before the credit reform bill, they could just ramp up the price whenever they liked, or make massive interest rates without your knowledge. That doesn't sound like good service to me... People can't 'get out' because if they do, they get bad credit and thats going down a VERY bad road. ok I see your point. When you said bank I wasn't thinking about credit cards. edit:
No, because you can't boycott certain things, like health, food, transportation.
Also people are misinformed, by the company or someone else to what they need to buy. Every tv sell product takes advantage of this.
And there's a bunch of random factors too, some of which depend on the service the company offers.
companies that provide health, food, and transportation do provide good services. though you could say it could be better. Transportation and food do have competition to improve. You could argue that gas cars have an monopoly but that is only because their isn't an alternative that is as or more efficient. You could blame this on the fact they do not have enough research going into alternative methods because oil companies don't want that to happen blah blah blah. However if someone does discover a better way, it would triumph the market. As for food, we have so much food in the US that it isn't an issue. Health, now this something you can't really boycott. I'll agreed with that (except for the case that you have more than one hospital near you which happens to be the case for me but I'm just going to assume that isn't normal). So we need for the next best thing to happen, competition. So how do you make hospitals compete more in order to produce the best care? How do we get more doctors and nurses into the medical field? This is an issue I really don't have an answer to. I just think the healthcare bill would make it worse from what I read. Does anyone know other ideas on how to fix the healthcare system? Well, I do know they we could save a lot of money by reducing lawsuits on doctors. They have to perform a lot (possibly unnecessary) diagnosis just to be sure they don't get sued. This is a good thing but it can get out of hand sometimes. Same thing could apply to pharmaceutical companies with all the paperwork and regulations they have to meet. Once a again, I believe this is a good thing but it could get out of hand. I'm really not sure what would be the best way to address the problem. I just know I prefer the healthcare system as it is now than what it would be after if the healthcare bill passes. Anyone know of an alternative way to fix the system? Sources provided in this thread I've read were telling about why companies are scared of this project - because most probably it's going to be cheaper. I think amount of people who will pay for this is real the problem. It will break if it needs more money than it is going to get from premiums... so it will have to be good enough to make people pay too?
Cheaper? Sigh. I have to go over this again.
Current unfunded liabilities for Medicare alone, the Government ran program is upwards of 30 trillion dollars. Throw in SCHIP, VA, and Medicaid and you are looking at 55 trillion +. This covers 100 million people.
Cato Institute estimates 88 million people will be additionally added onto the Government dole if the bill passes. The Bill does nothing to address fundamental flaws in our current system, but seeks to throw additional people in line that rely on Government subsistence; in other words giving the politburo's a power grab. How do you explain throwing an additional 88 million people a 88% increase will make the system any cheaper? It's going to nearly double the cost to Government, by primarily replacing the payments from private individuals and companies (Which is one fundamental flaw of the system, but at least its not Government run) to the Government. This means one: The Government nationalizes another 10-20% of the Economy, in which it all ready is in control of 40%+ of GDP and two: At least or nearly a doubling of the current unfunded liabilities.
What does this all mean. Cost reduction. How do you suppose this happens? Built into the bill is the power for Government to tell private enterprises (Insurance companies), who they must cover, how they must cover, and a limited form of price control. Secondly, it also controls the prices that Doctors and physicians will be recompensed and the type of care they will be given out on a basis of cost analysis, not on whether the patient needs the care or not. Rationing.
In any sense of the word, this doesn't make the system cheaper, rather puts the burden on Government instead of the private invidividual. This means that taxes will skyrocket, which the amount is being contemplated currently on Capital Hill, with some advocating a VAT of 10% in addition to a 2-5% increase and an unspecified increase in Corporate Tax rates, and other various tax institutions. In many states that top brack taxation will near and exceed 60%.
Ask yourself, once tax rates reach such levels are you working for yourself, or for the Government?
|
United States43187 Posts
Taxes are not the Government stealing your money in a working democracy. They are the people deciding how to spend their own money. You seem to not understand this point. Different political parties offer differing manifestos explaining what they want to achieve and how they want to achieve it (tax included). People then vote on which they want. If you don't want to pay taxes then vote for the other guy. If you did but he lost the election then either believe in democracy and pay them anyway or start bombing places. Either way, they're still not theft.
|
On August 16 2009 19:21 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 19:13 beetlelisk wrote:On August 16 2009 18:06 Chezinu wrote:On August 16 2009 17:59 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 17:55 Chezinu wrote:On August 16 2009 17:48 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 17:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 16 2009 17:30 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 17:18 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 16 2009 17:02 Tyraz wrote:
[quote]
Ah, sweet naivety. There, my friend, you are wrong. First and foremost of business is to make a profit. How you do it, is entirely up to you. So if that's what you meant by 'provide a service', then I'm afraid it is merely incidental. No, I'm not wrong. Name a business model that specifically moves to make a profit over providing a service for people. Lol try almost EVERY small business EVER. Also, pretty much all telco's. Most of them you must sign up to a plan, where they more often than not advertise false data rates. They say 'up too' some speed. If the service were their main priority, then they would do their best to make sure their service was the damn best into the future. Instead you see companies milking old technology for everything its got before moving on. Main priority has always been profitability. If it happens to be something they enjoy, then so be it. Also to suggest i could find a business model that could prove that is a red herring. Services and profitability come hand in hand. The difference is, the type of service is incidental. Good services wont survive if they are not profitable. If what you are suggesting were true, then you would see companies coming out with alot crazier products than you see today. It's fear of not being profitable that stifles new technologies. The mountain bike, for example, wasn't created by the major bike manufactures. Nor was it created by one lone genius in his shed. It was created by a bunch of enthusiasts who gathered the parts themselves. I can almost guarantee, on the other hand, that you can't give me a business model that values service over profitability (you must include the whole company, market share and marketing gimmicks don't count). You ramble a lot and don't seem to know what you're talking about. But from I can tell is that you think that things that aren't "profitable" don't sell. The first Mac that used your so common desktop, cost over $10000 to make. So they said find a way to make it cheaper. They wanted to provide a service, and make money because of it (kind of like how the guy who invented, well anything you use in your life is a millionaire now). What you seem to be talking about is a monopoly, which interferes with the invisible hand (and is thus a third variable which we aren't concerning ourselves with). I could have a monopoly on dog shit, but you still wouldn't buy any. LOL invisible hand. Dude. I don't think you quite understand. There is no private company in the world that provides a a service and isn't profitable. There are plenty of companies, on the other hand, which provide a 'bad' service and are profitable. Pretty much most banks, for example. Ok, if a company provides bad services and are profitable then you would think people would boycott that company and switch to a better one. right? Which bank provides bad service, I'm just wondering? Pretty much all of them sunshine;) Credit card companies wouldn't make money if they wanted to deliver a good service. Before the credit reform bill, they could just ramp up the price whenever they liked, or make massive interest rates without your knowledge. That doesn't sound like good service to me... People can't 'get out' because if they do, they get bad credit and thats going down a VERY bad road. ok I see your point. When you said bank I wasn't thinking about credit cards. edit:
No, because you can't boycott certain things, like health, food, transportation.
Also people are misinformed, by the company or someone else to what they need to buy. Every tv sell product takes advantage of this.
And there's a bunch of random factors too, some of which depend on the service the company offers.
companies that provide health, food, and transportation do provide good services. though you could say it could be better. Transportation and food do have competition to improve. You could argue that gas cars have an monopoly but that is only because their isn't an alternative that is as or more efficient. You could blame this on the fact they do not have enough research going into alternative methods because oil companies don't want that to happen blah blah blah. However if someone does discover a better way, it would triumph the market. As for food, we have so much food in the US that it isn't an issue. Health, now this something you can't really boycott. I'll agreed with that (except for the case that you have more than one hospital near you which happens to be the case for me but I'm just going to assume that isn't normal). So we need for the next best thing to happen, competition. So how do you make hospitals compete more in order to produce the best care? How do we get more doctors and nurses into the medical field? This is an issue I really don't have an answer to. I just think the healthcare bill would make it worse from what I read. Does anyone know other ideas on how to fix the healthcare system? Well, I do know they we could save a lot of money by reducing lawsuits on doctors. They have to perform a lot (possibly unnecessary) diagnosis just to be sure they don't get sued. This is a good thing but it can get out of hand sometimes. Same thing could apply to pharmaceutical companies with all the paperwork and regulations they have to meet. Once a again, I believe this is a good thing but it could get out of hand. I'm really not sure what would be the best way to address the problem. I just know I prefer the healthcare system as it is now than what it would be after if the healthcare bill passes. Anyone know of an alternative way to fix the system? Sources provided in this thread I've read were telling about why companies are scared of this project - because most probably it's going to be cheaper. I think amount of people who will pay for this is real the problem. It will break if it needs more money than it is going to get from premiums... so it will have to be good enough to make people pay too? Cheaper? Sigh. I have to go over this again. Current unfunded liabilities for Medicare alone, the Government ran program is upwards of 30 trillion dollars. Throw in SCHIP, VA, and Medicaid and you are looking at 55 trillion +. This covers 100 million people. Cato Institute estimates 88 million people will be additionally added onto the Government dole if the bill passes. The Bill does nothing to address fundamental flaws in our current system, but seeks to throw additional people in line that rely on Government subsistence; in other words giving the politburo's a power grab. How do you explain throwing an additional 88 million people a 88% increase will make the system any cheaper? It's going to nearly double the cost to Government, by primarily replacing the payments from private individuals and companies (Which is one fundamental flaw of the system, but at least its not Government run) to the Government. This means one: The Government nationalizes another 10-20% of the Economy, in which it all ready is in control of 40%+ of GDP and two: At least or nearly a doubling of the current unfunded liabilities. What does this all mean. Cost reduction. How do you suppose this happens? Built into the bill is the power for Government to tell private enterprises (Insurance companies), who they must cover, how they must cover, and a limited form of price control. Secondly, it also controls the prices that Doctors and physicians will be recompensed and the type of care they will be given out on a basis of cost analysis, not on whether the patient needs the care or not. Rationing. In any sense of the word, this doesn't make the system cheaper, rather puts the burden on Government instead of the private invidividual. This means that taxes will skyrocket, which the amount is being contemplated currently on Capital Hill, with some advocating a VAT of 10% in addition to a 2-5% increase and an unspecified increase in Corporate Tax rates, and other various tax institutions. In many states that top brack taxation will near and exceed 60%. Ask yourself, once tax rates reach such levels are you working for yourself, or for the Government?
I wrote that not knowing numbers. I wouldn't pay 60% bigger taxes to keep this running without any guarantee it's going to work properly and I know there will be even more money needed to just start it.
But 2 things:
1) Why not to steadily cover this 88million people health care over even years?
Who said all of them have to be covered at once? They survived without it for so long, those with smaller needs can survive little longer
edit: I mean when part of people starts paying for it instead of some part pays some part thinks about paying and some part thinks fu it would be easier to cover them all over time.
2) We pay 23% VAT in Poland (: I can't say anyone is happy about that and I know how good it would be for economy to release like 1/4 or 1/3 of it. Too bad budget would break and implode.
|
On August 16 2009 10:46 Liquid`NonY wrote:
If you wouldn't lift a finger to save someone's life who is right in front of you, then I suppose I see no inconsistency in opposing national health insurance on the basis that people should take care of themselves.
This.
On August 16 2009 11:17 ShadowDrgn wrote:
Or you can clean floors, get money for it, and give some to the doctors which they'll use to save your life. Other people can do likewise. Why does the government need to be involved?
You got any idea how much a janitor would have to work to pay medical bills?
On August 16 2009 11:48 Aegraen wrote:
Yeah, that growth rate has nothing to do with Americans having the best standard of living in the world.
Best.. standard... of living..
.. in the world?
Wait what?
Aegraen wrote:
Of course cheap national healthcare is possible, but the quality and access of care would be on the order of magnitudes 50 worse than what we currently have. Isn't the goal to improve the system, not to take 10 steps backwards?
Should I even BOTHER asking where do you have these statistics from?
Caller wrote:
d) It is a fairly obvious statement that people that live unhealthy lifestyles cost more money. With regions such as the south that have large amounts of obese persons and smokers, it's relatively unfair for people that live healthier lifestyles, such as the northeast. Why should I, who lives relatively healthy and exercises a lot, be forced to pay (no matter how small the costs may appear to be or may not appear to be) for others irresponsibility?
Are you honestly saying that you are a vegan who considers your body a temple and all that?
I gotta admit I'm not a big fan of this either. If it was up to me I'd ban smoking globaly and force people to do SOME kind of exercize.
Caller wrote:
e) there is no tort reform, a condition which isn't in Europe/Japan, which is an absolutely huge medical cost from malpractice/insurance that is passed on to the consumer. It's very easy to blame doctors for charging high costs when one can also sue them/their insurance company for 300k + punitives.
Fun fact: Only in America can you sue ANYONE for ANYTHING and win.
Aegraen wrote:
The complete lives system discriminates against older
people. Age-based allocation is ageism. Unlike allocation
by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious
discrimination; every person lives through diff erent life
stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds
receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is
65 years now was previously 25 years.16 Treating 65-yearolds
differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would
be ageist; treating them differently because they have
already had more life-years is not.
I keep hearing this RETARDED argument as to why it's a bad thing. You do realize that as your body gets older it's more DIFFICULT for you to recover from surgery and other things right?
It's almost as stupid as saying the doctors are discriminating against you by not allowing you to choose what blood type you want to be injected with.
Your insane logic could be used to defend child molesters. Clearly human beings at any age, even children are 100% responsible for their own choices, right? It was little Marie's own fault for having sex with that adult, right?
And don't tell ME, a student of psychology about how the mind works.
Aegraen wrote:
I'm not opposed to healthcare reform. I'm opposed to any reform that puts the solution in the hands of Government.
This is the perfect example of logical insanity.
If you use something that's privatized, they're helping you because of personal gain (your money).
If you use something that your government runs, they're helping you for no personal gain.
I don't get why you Americans are so afraid of your government. It's freakking democracy, YOU run it. Maybe China should come liberate you from your government like you did Afghanistan and Iraq.
Savio wrote:
So essentially your argument is that you like that in the UK system, instead of seeing a doctor for something that potentially could be a fatal problem (difficulty breathing in a middle aged man), you "get" to instead call a free hotline and talk to a "qualified advisor" (whatever that means), who will tell you "it's probably nothing".
I don't get why you're so fanaticly stupid about this.
OBVIOUSLY there is also an ER you can go to if your situation is critical.
Aegraen wrote:
I'm a pretty passionate person with strong convictions.
Lemme fix that for you:
Aegraen wrote:
I'm a pretty passionate person with blind convictions.
|
On August 16 2009 19:36 Kwark wrote:
Taxes are not the Government stealing your money in a working democracy. They are the people deciding how to spend their own money. You seem to not understand this point. Different political parties offer differing manifestos explaining what they want to achieve and how they want to achieve it (tax included). People then vote on which they want. If you don't want to pay taxes then vote for the other guy. If you did but he lost the election then either believe in democracy and pay them anyway or start bombing places. Either way, they're still not theft.
Really? The Progressive income taxation seems to disagree with this premise. For one, the majority can vote for a tax on other people and not themselves. This is what I mean when I say time and time again that a Democracy leads to Despotism and in its values Democracy always leads to the majority denying the minority their rights.
USA was founded as a REPUBLIC. Not a Democracy. I'm quite tired of hearing people either imply or directly state that the US is a Democracy. We are not. We are a Constitutional Republic similar to that of early Rome.
You might have a case if there was a Flat tax, or even a Fair tax, however with a Progressive Income Taxation you have no case whatsoever in your first line of thought.
This is the thought prevalent as to why the Civil War was started in the first place. People dileanating economic policy on one set of people which was disadvantageous for them, but advantageous for a seperate group of people.
If not the persons labor is not their fruit, and the person beside you can vote to deny you, your fruit of labor how then can you say that you work for yourself. Should you not then therefore either quit and purposefully seek employment that reduces your tax burden therefore working less, but still getting paid either more or the same by doing a lesser job or less work in general? Is this the incentive we want to instill in society?
|
United States43187 Posts
The way it works over here is you get a tax exemption on the first X, then pay 10% on anything between X and Y, then 22% on anything between Y and Z and 40% on anything over Z. At no point could you possibly save money by quitting or lowering your wage.
|
United States43187 Posts
Oh, and the people had no real power in early Rome. Not a good example of what you stand for.
|
On August 16 2009 20:22 Kwark wrote:
Oh, and the people had no real power in early Rome. Not a good example of what you stand for.
The Founding of the Roman Republic in 509 BC, which layed the groundwork for Republicanism, is not a good example, of a Republic? Cicero, and the like are not good examples of what I stand for? The greatest civilization in the history of mankind, being a Republic.
It was the Roman historian Titus Livius, or Livy (59 B.C.-A.D. 17) who admitted that: "The study of history is the best medicine for a sick mind; for in history you have a record of the infinite variety of human experience plainly set out for all to see; and in that record you can find yourself and your country both examples and warnings; fine things to take as models, base things rotten through and through, to avoid."
With the Etruscan monarchy at an end, the dignity of the Senate and the Curiate Assembly (both created during the Etruscan Confederacy) was restored. However, there was no executive office. Among the most powerful families it was decided that extraordinary powers be given to two men, who would eventually be called consuls. The reason the Romans opted for two executives was an obvious attempt to prevent tyranny. Both consuls possessed the highest military and civil authority in the state. They could only serve for one year at a time. Only much later was it agreed that there be at least a ten year interval between terms so as to prevent "unbridled ambition."
Even before the time of Montisqiue and the forethought of a 3 branched Government Rome pioneered Republicanism and its tenants. Rule of law. Co-Equal branches. The Rule of Law is paramount to a Republic thereby preserving the rights of the minority, which is the function of a Republic. Cicero is an indominable figure of the very beginnings of classical liberalism.
While Rome under Republicanism wasn't the most ideal of situations to carry into modern day, you can see the vast influence on both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, the greatest documents ever conceived.
|
On August 16 2009 20:21 Kwark wrote:
The way it works over here is you get a tax exemption on the first X, then pay 10% on anything between X and Y, then 22% on anything between Y and Z and 40% on anything over Z. At no point could you possibly save money by quitting or lowering your wage.
Yeah, that's how it works here, too. If tax brackets changed the rate at which all your income was taxed, you could actually lose money by getting a raise. That's not the case. The government never touches the very minimal amount of money you earn (what you need to survive, basically). It barely taxes the income you could use to buy simple luxuries. It moderately taxes the money you could invest in retirement. And so on. 'Course the progression isn't entirely progressive in the US. Through a combination of exploited tax loopholes and deliberate tax breaks to the exceptionally wealthy, the top 5% of the nation actually pays a smaller proportion of their income in taxes than does the middle class... They still end up paying most of the total taxes the government takes in... but that'd be true in a flat tax system... and probably most regressive tax systems.
Anyway, this isn't particularly relevant to healthcare. Just blah de blahing.
|
On August 16 2009 20:21 Kwark wrote:
The way it works over here is you get a tax exemption on the first X, then pay 10% on anything between X and Y, then 22% on anything between Y and Z and 40% on anything over Z. At no point could you possibly save money by quitting or lowering your wage.
What do you mean at no point?
Here hypothetical numbers for your tax policy.
Top end figure for 22% taxation is 47,000$. 47,001$ puts you in the 40% tax bracket.
So, if you made, say 50,000$ and paid 40% taxes that means your net income is 30,000$. Now, say you made 43,000$ and you paid 22% taxes. Your net income is ~34,000$. Why would anyone work a job that makes them 47,000 to 60,000? You wouldn't! This is exactly what I'm talking about.
You don't even have the intellectual honesty to be forthright and admit what your system is and does (Progressive Taxation). Unscrupulous lying is becoming so commonplace. No, no, you won't save money by making less money even though the math says you will.
It's even worse in America with higher taxation and with all sorts of other localities, state, property, luxery, etc. taxes. What will happen is you will incentivize people to work less to make more thereby creating a trend in society in which people work less, produce less, reduce and halt progress, and create systemic unemployment due to tax burdens. Ayn Rand put it best in Atlas Shrugged. John Galt will be the order of the day.
|
This notion that 'America has the best x in the world' (health care, education system, work force etc.) both scares and amuses me. If you're gonna make it such a claim and least try to back it up with some data. Ranking 46th on the infant mortality rankings and 45th on life expectancy is, at least to me, not characteristics of 'the worlds best health care system'.
(I'm partly posting this due to having just watched Glenn Becks take on the matter - man's hilarious)
|
On August 16 2009 20:50 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 20:21 Kwark wrote:
The way it works over here is you get a tax exemption on the first X, then pay 10% on anything between X and Y, then 22% on anything between Y and Z and 40% on anything over Z. At no point could you possibly save money by quitting or lowering your wage. What do you mean at no point? Here hypothetical numbers for your tax policy. Top end figure for 22% taxation is 47,000$. 47,001$ puts you in the 40% tax bracket. So, if you made, say 50,000$ and paid 40% taxes that means your net income is 30,000$. Now, say you made 43,000$ and you paid 22% taxes. Your net income is ~34,000$. Why would anyone work a job that makes them 47,000 to 60,000? You wouldn't! This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't even have the intellectual honesty to be forthright and admit what your system is and does (Progressive Taxation). Inscrupulous lying is becoming so commonplace. No, no, you won't save money by making less money even though the math says you will. It's even worse in America with higher taxation and with all sorts of other localities, state, property, luxery, etc. taxes. What will happen is you will incentivize people to work less to make more thereby creating a trend in society in which people work less, produce less, reduce and halt progress, and create systemic unemployment due to tax burdens. Ayn Rand put it best in Atlas Shrugged. John Galt will be the order of the day.
Oh God.
No image macros, please - mods
|
On August 16 2009 20:50 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 20:21 Kwark wrote:
The way it works over here is you get a tax exemption on the first X, then pay 10% on anything between X and Y, then 22% on anything between Y and Z and 40% on anything over Z. At no point could you possibly save money by quitting or lowering your wage. What do you mean at no point? Here hypothetical numbers for your tax policy. Top end figure for 22% taxation is 47,000$. 47,001$ puts you in the 40% tax bracket. So, if you made, say 50,000$ and paid 40% taxes that means your net income is 30,000$. Now, say you made 43,000$ and you paid 22% taxes. Your net income is ~34,000$. Why would anyone work a job that makes them 47,000 to 60,000? You wouldn't! This is exactly what I'm talking about.
Wth, dude? Have you ever payed taxes? Progressive tax works like this: If brackets are:
0% for earnings at or below 10k
10% for earnings between 10,001-20,000
25% for earnings between 20,001-40,000
30% for earnings between 40,001-50,000
and 60% for earnings between 50,001-60,000
Here's how it pans out if you're earning 50k
$50,000 - ($0 + $1000 + 5000 + $3000) = $41,000 take home.
If you get a raise to 60k, here's how it pans out:
$60,000 - ($0 + $1000 + 5000 + $3000 + $6000) = $45,000 take home.
Even if your raise is to $50,001 and you just barely slide into the new tax bracket, your take home is still 41,000.40 which is an increase.
All people, regardless of income are taxed at the same rates in a progressive tax system. Some people just don't earn enough to experience all the layers.
|
On August 16 2009 20:10 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 19:36 Kwark wrote:
Taxes are not the Government stealing your money in a working democracy. They are the people deciding how to spend their own money. You seem to not understand this point. Different political parties offer differing manifestos explaining what they want to achieve and how they want to achieve it (tax included). People then vote on which they want. If you don't want to pay taxes then vote for the other guy. If you did but he lost the election then either believe in democracy and pay them anyway or start bombing places. Either way, they're still not theft. Really? The Progressive income taxation seems to disagree with this premise. For one, the majority can vote for a tax on other people and not themselves. This is what I mean when I say time and time again that a Democracy leads to Despotism and in its values Democracy always leads to the majority denying the minority their rights. USA was founded as a REPUBLIC. Not a Democracy. I'm quite tired of hearing people either imply or directly state that the US is a Democracy. We are not. We are a Constitutional Republic similar to that of early Rome. You might have a case if there was a Flat tax, or even a Fair tax, however with a Progressive Income Taxation you have no case whatsoever in your first line of thought. This is the thought prevalent as to why the Civil War was started in the first place. People dileanating economic policy on one set of people which was disadvantageous for them, but advantageous for a seperate group of people. If not the persons labor is not their fruit, and the person beside you can vote to deny you, your fruit of labor how then can you say that you work for yourself. Should you not then therefore either quit and purposefully seek employment that reduces your tax burden therefore working less, but still getting paid either more or the same by doing a lesser job or less work in general? Is this the incentive we want to instill in society?
Two things:
1) Republics and democracies are not mutually exclusive ideas. A republic has no head of state, democracy is about how you elect those in power. It would be rather impossible to have a democratic Despotism or Monarchy. How else do you suggest you form this 'republic' of yours if not through democratic means?
2) A flat tax is far more socialist than a progressive tax. Pretty much all communist and socialist regimes had a flat tax. Progressive taxes are a very new invention and founded on the principle that since you were getting more from society in the form of cash, then you could afford to give back more to the society which you depend on. In australia company tax is flat 30%, and the highest tax bracket is 45%. But that being said, we also have alot higher minimum and average wages.
For example, in the holidays i earn $50/hour for working on the weekends being a stop-go guy. And thats pretty high for just a team leader of a relatively unskilled trade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
