Jump to: Board index
May 6th, 2010, 8:13 am
May 6th, 2010, 11:41 am
Scott wrote:There are plenty of non-socialist countries where education is a right. Why is health care different than education in that respect?
Regardless, I don't see what health care being considered a right has to do with the topic of this thread. Meleagar, if the government even in a non-socialist is going to be spending money on health care, do you want unhealthy behaviors like purchasing cigarettes, alcohol and soda to be taxed to help pay for ensuing health care costs? If not, then where do you suggest we get the revenue to pay for the extra health care costs caused by some people's unhealthy choices?
Meleagar, if the government is going to get the same total amount of revenue either way, would you prefer taxes on unhealthy behaviors like purchasing cigarettes, alcohol or soda to be increased and have taxes on income and property to be decreased or not? In other words, would you rather discourage and punish through taxation unhealthy behaviors like cigarette smoking or discourage and punish people for earning more money at their job?
In an ideal society maybe nobody would be taxed at all. But right now in are unideal society governments all over the world are spending money. Someone and something has to be taxed to pay for that. Do we tax income and property solely, or do we at least get some of the tax revenue from taxing unhealthy behaviors so that income and property taxes don't have to be so high?
May 6th, 2010, 4:03 pm
Scott wrote:What you say to one who argues, when education is considered a right, then the country cannot become anything other than a completely socialistic country? What if they claimed, if government provides everyone with education, then it has the responsibility to regulate anything and everything that impacts the cost of that education; that includes virtually every aspect of the US economy?
In this thread, I'm not saying I support the government spending money to subsidize health care. If a government is spending money on health care, then I would prefer that that government at least in part tax unhealthy behaviors like smoking cigarettes to pay for that spending than solely tax things income and property; wouldn't you?
Scott wrote:Meleagar, if the government is going to get the same total amount of revenue either way, would you prefer taxes on unhealthy behaviors like purchasing cigarettes, alcohol or soda to be increased and have taxes on income and property to be decreased or not?
May 7th, 2010, 2:47 pm
Scott wrote:But I don't see anything inherently simpler about an income tax than a sales tax.
Scott wrote:If the government is going to spend money on health care namely in a single payer universal health care system paid for through taxes, it clearly seems to me much fairer to charge more to the people who choose to engage in unnecessary activities that increase the average cost of insuring them, which we can easily and simply do by charging a sales tax on such activities or the purchase of things used in such activities.
May 25th, 2010, 7:38 am
Belinda wrote:I think you are right, Dewey. But we cannot make up our collective mind until we know the facts. Alethia is right, and we should all cook and bake helathy food, therefore cookery and household management should be taught to all.Therefore, the powers of the multinationals should be curbed by central government because the multinationals are often detrimental to our health and the sustaining environment.The Nanny State need to exist in proportion to the dangers to those many citizens ill-equipped to deal with the dangers to health in modern living.
The Nanny State is easy to legislate for, quantify and qualify, but the dangers to gullible citizens have to be quantified and qualified too and this is not so simple especially when the multinationals and nationals do such efficient lying for PR.I hardly have to provide examples of lies, seductiveness,suggestiveness, and exaggerations within current advertisements do I?