Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
BoFox! Ocre! iRollo!
Quote:Ben, you say you think Trump is a populist, but consider this:

It's not what I think, it is what every educated political pundit- right or left wing- agrees upon.

Quote:- he has been trying to take away healthcare from the poorest Americans


Polarization issue- a flat out lie. The poorest Americans are covered under government subsidies as they were before- the only exception being the homeless who weren't covered under Obamacare anyway. This is a silly little polarization talking point- not true.

Quote:- he has made tax cuts which disproportionately benefit the rich


/facepalm

The rich pay almost all the taxes, you could eliminate 100% of the tax burden from the middle class and trim 5% off of the top bracket and the rich would 'benefit more'. Show me a tax cut in history that didn't benefit the rich more then the other classes- any tax cut.

Quote:- he is pro gun


He has been talking that way lately, nothing he has done has backed that up, but he is delivering that rhetoric which is actually a 'right wing' issue, I can spot you that one.

Quote:- he is a social conservative


...... what....? Not even a little bit, not in any way that I have ever witnessed- what has he done or said that made you think he was a social conservative? The man comes off as a run of the mill atheist businessman- not saying there is anything particularly wrong with that, just it is not, in any way, socially conservative. Heard him talk about his son in law? The man gushes about him like he's the greatest thing since sliced bread- the Jewish man that married his gentile daughter. 

Quote:- he sympathizes with white nationalists


Bullshit. Prove it. Show me anything that he has done that supports this.

Just so you know the level you need to go to- Barrack Obama gave a touching eulogy for a man who was a ranking member of the KKK earlier in his life- while he was President. Show me how Trump has exceeded that level of white nationalist support.

Furthermore- nationalism isn't a right wing ideal- the most murderous nationalist in history was Stalin- poster boy for the extreme left. Nationalism and racism hasn't been a left/right issue since the right freed the slaves.

Quote:- he is pro military


As were FDR and JFK, although at least in the modern sense this has become a right issue so I can spot you that one- at least on a rhetoric basis.

Quote:- his education minister is essentially trying to privatize public education nation wide


Flat out lie- and this is one I would actually want to be true. 

You know what she did do though? She made changes that push colleges to allow legitimate trials for people accused of violations of their code instead of summary judgement based on preponderance of evidence. The liberal mouthpiece in the US-

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/opinion/betsy-devos-title-iv.html

So I have he talks to gain the NRA support- although he hasn't done anything to prove that yet- and he talks up the military- although again, no actual actions.

Not very right wing.

Quote:Are you a Trump supporter?


Fuck no, the man is a walking caricature of everything wrong with politicians. He is detestable, a mockery of anything a leader should be. The man cares more about his Twitter feed then any actual accomplishments. Total tool. 

With that said, the polarization issue is one we need to deal with. These things just keep getting worse and until they green light us flying KKK/Antifa/NeoNazis onto a deserted island and letting them kill each other, I think we should be working towards dialogue and not demagoguery. 
Reply
My faith in humanity and Skywalker restored.

Agreed, the politics of divisiveness serve no one but the media hacks who sell the drama.
Reply
Well Ben, and this goes for the rest of you Americans on here, I admit I can't really hold a candle to any of you when it comes to US politics. You are all more informed than I am on the issues there. However I do feel that I provide a different perspective. I will try to respond to your latest post, Ben. First of all on healthcare. So fine, what you say is true. However the fact remains that Trump has been trying to *repeal* Obamacare and replace it with new legislation that would insure *less* people for *more* money. If that doesn't scream of right wing partisanship, I really don't know what does. Healthcare in the USA has become a 100% partisan issue. And Trump has been one of the most extreme politicians in the USA on this issue. He even has a lot of people in his own party against him on this issue, notably John McCain.

You say my comment about the education system is bullshit, however it is a fact that Trump's education minister wants charter schools nation wide. Basically parents would be given vouchers to pay a private school for their children's education. So I stand by my comment that she wants to privatize public education in the USA. Perhaps one could argue that it would create a "hybrid" system, but I disagree and I don't think this is a good thing for public education. As Canadians it's nice because we can all watch and learn from what you guys are doing. However if I had kids in the US system right now I would be terrified by what is about to happen. It could go either way and I foresee it ending badly.

As for the tax cuts, from what I understand he has disproportionately benefitted the rich, as a percentage. You are correct that the rich pay more in terms of an absolute sum. But to see them get more tax breaks than people in lower brackets really bothers me, and it should bother 99% of Americans also.

You seem to somewhat agree with me on the other issues. I stand by my belief that Trump is right wing. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. You guys see him as a populist, I see him as a radical on many levels and in many ways. Disagree if you like, it's just how I see it.

My opinion for what it's worth, and this goes for both the USA and Canada, and the rest of the free world for that matter. CEO salaries need to be capped or else they should be taxed to death. Offshore tax evasion needs to be eliminated completely, with serious jail time for those who try to continue doing it. Those two changes alone are the two biggest social justice issues in terms of the tax code, IMO. I'm still waiting for someone to actually do it. Unfortunately the only people talking about it are on the extreme left of the political spectrum. I would love to see someone moderate have a go at it. I would vote for them.
Reply
Ummm...you do know Trump hasn't really "done" much of anything right SB?

No tax changes, no repeal.

And that CEO salaries are a tiny percentage of most company's labor costs and capping them would do about nothing?

Trump a wolf in sheep's clothing? You think he's cagey enough to hide anything? He posts his intentions to the world.
Reply
Quote:And that CEO salaries are a tiny percentage of most company's labor costs and capping them would do about nothing?

Cool! If it is just a tiny percentage of labor costs that means you can take the difference between any cap and what the CEO used to be paid and distribute it amongst the companies other workers. Something tells me they wouldn't regard the resulting bump to their pay packet as "almost nothing".....
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
(10-26-2017, 06:01 AM)gstanford Wrote:
Quote:And that CEO salaries are a tiny percentage of most company's labor costs and capping them would do about nothing?

Cool! If it is just a tiny percentage of labor costs that means you can take the difference between any cap and what the CEO used to be paid and distribute it amongst the companies other workers.  Something tells me they wouldn't regard the resulting bump to their pay packet as "almost nothing".....

Should there be a pay cap for athletes, actors, and pop stars as well?

How about guys that work at the tech service center? You can probably spare $5/hour, should they take it and give it to someone else?
Reply
I'd set it at $50K myself. Any earnings above and beyond that are just largesse.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
(10-27-2017, 09:44 AM)gstanford Wrote: I'd set it at $50K myself.  Any earnings above and beyond that are just largesse.

Well, that would change life on Earth.
Reply
$50K per annum is $1923 per fortnight or $961 per week.

If you can't manage to live on that there is something seriously wrong and I'd suggest some economic counselling/budget planning advice would be in order.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
Good luck paying for one of those $1 million dollar Australian homes with a $50k salary. I think $50k is way too low. Maybe try $500k and see what happens. That way the doctors and the lawyers would not be affected. There has to be some motivation to become financially successful.
Reply
(10-29-2017, 06:40 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Good luck paying for one of those $1 million dollar Australian homes with a $50k salary. I think $50k is way too low. Maybe try $500k and see what happens. That way the doctors and the lawyers would not be affected. There has to be some motivation to become financially successful.

It is actually well above average for a lot of Australians.  If you have two people earning that wage in  a household the mortgage can be paid. Nobody forces anyone to live in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane, we are a large continent with plenty of land outside of our big cities.

Our minimum wage is $36K, most earn around that, some earn more.  Most ordinary people don't earn more than $72K, the vast majority earn well below that and yet we survive.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
What if you don't have two people? Single folks aren't allowed to be homeowners?
Reply
(10-29-2017, 06:40 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Good luck paying for one of those $1 million dollar Australian homes with a $50k salary. I think $50k is way too low. Maybe try $500k and see what happens. That way the doctors and the lawyers would not be affected. There has to be some motivation to become financially successful.

You mean people won't do the years at universities, buy malpractice insurance,etc to earn $50k?!

Shocking!

You are correct, people need motivation to work hard, and take financial risk.
Reply
Actually plenty of people in Australia have done the years at universities (we have had free or low cost uni education, for many years, now you incur a HECS debt),to the point where there is a glut of graduates and a degree is just another piece of paper for a lot of professions and government is looking at telling universities not to offer certain courses due to there being vastly more graduates than positions available.  That's what happens when everyone chases something like a university education.  It loses the edge it once gave people and simply becomes another large debt to rack up for no good reason.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
(10-29-2017, 06:56 PM)gstanford Wrote: Actually plenty of people in Australia have done the years at universities (we have had free or low cost uni education, for many years, now you incur a HECS debt),to the point where there is a glut of graduates and a degree is just another piece of paper for a lot of professions and government is looking at telling universities not to offer certain courses due to there being vastly more graduates than positions available.  That's what happens when everyone chases something like a university education.  It loses the edge it once gave people and simply becomes another large debt to rack up for no good reason.
Well, I think a cap of $500k and maybe even a CEO salary cap of $1 million would make a big enough difference. Like I said, try it and see what happens. I would exempt pro athletes though. Some leagues already offer a salary cap, and they deserve to be well paid considering the revenue they are generating for the owners. There are probably some other exemptions that would need to be made also.

I read an article that said once you earn a $75k salary, money beyond that is almost inconsequential. Sure, you can buy nicer things, but it means you'll drive a Mercedes instead of a full loaded Honda Accord. Not exactly life changing. I would say that beyond $500k it becomes even more frivolous. You can live a very luxurious lifestyle on a $500k salary.
Reply
$50K per person is plenty. Thats $100K per couple. A quarter again more than the $75K you mentioned.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
(10-29-2017, 07:37 PM)gstanford Wrote: $50K per person is plenty.  Thats $100K per couple.  A quarter again more than the $75K you mentioned.

Well the article I read was based on a $75k personal income, not total household income.

I will tell you, my household income is a lot more than $75k and we live a decent life, however we don't have anything extravagant or luxurious. Houses and daycare are extremely expensive here. If we made less we would have no savings. We would have no money to travel and we would go in debt every time we had to fix our house or car. I honestly don't know how people survive on less here.

Sure, we could live very well if we lived in a smaller city, but then it would be harder to find jobs and we would earn a lot less. It's all relative.

Perhaps in your part of Tasmania $50k is plenty. Here where I'm living, that wouldn't cover daycare costs for two kids plus a mortgage. We would starve. Or we would be forced to live in a basement apartment or something. Not exactly a lifestyle people would sacrifice and strive for.

Honestly, I think this is all that needs to be done:

- eliminate offshore tax havens
- eliminate all the loopholes in the tax code for rich people
- cap CEO salaries or tax them to death after a certain point
- create a new tax bracket beyond $500k of income where the government takes a large portion

I really think those four things alone would give the government enough money to really make a difference and make our societies more equitable.
Reply
I wouldn't say 50K is "plenty" I would say it is "enough".

Enough for a basic house, a basic car, a basic lifestyle. You won't be slumming it, you won't be living it up either, but you can have everything you need and be comfortable (note "comfortable" doesn't mean "wallowing in luxury").
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
Yeah but why should we be living so modestly when our countries are rich? The GDP per capita is something like $46k. Capping us at 50k would basically be like communism. It would never work.
Reply
Well, moving up to 70K would allow for a small taste of luxury, but 50K is sufficient to get by reasonably well.

Until the rich are forced to start sharing their wealth with the rest of the population you will never get much better than communism for the 99%. The American dream is just that - a dream, for most.

And we have had the 70K discussion before as I'm sure Rollo will happily remind us.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
My apologies, slammed with work lately, been doing a lot of traveling.

Legit thanks for your reply SB, an honest discussion is far more productive, even if we don't agree on a single thing in the end, if we can better understand each other's points, it eliminates the vitriol and emotional rhetoric.

Quote:You say my comment about the education system is bullshit, however it is a fact that Trump's education minister wants charter schools nation wide.

This is true.

Quote:Basically parents would be given vouchers to pay a private school for their children's education.


Not exactly how it works- and an important distinction- the parents are given a voucher for *less* than the public schools in the area charge. Said another way- public education per pupil dollars go *up* when charter schools are introduced into the system.

Quote:However if I had kids in the US system right now I would be terrified by what is about to happen.


True story- in the area I live in the local government controls its' own budget. When we have surpluses in the budget, a town meeting is held to vote on what to do with the extra money. One of the smaller towns near where I lived ended up with a surplus of a couple hundred thousand dollars one year- the town voted to give all of that money to the top teachers in the district as a bonus- absolutely no strings attached- lump sum cash.

The teachers union legally blocked it.

Not one cent was being taken from their members to pay for it- and they used union dues to finance lawyers to block it in court. Instead the town ended up reducing the next years tax bill for all of its property owners. This is what the US system is actually like right now. The unions are actively doing everything they can to force good teachers out and into private schools. There are about 7,000 charter schools in the US right now- 37,000 traditional high schools(26K public, 11K private). Out of the top 100 schools in the US- charters have about a third, traditional private about the same, with public having the last third. 

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-hi...l-rankings

Four of the top five are from a chain of charter schools in Arizona.

That is simply a generalized look at things. The unions here protect abhorrently bad teachers and refuse to allow good teachers to be paid more- in some cases significantly more- even when people are willing to give it to them. That sound like a good policy decision to you? I'm sure you know, there are teachers who give it their all, and *deserve* a big fat pay check, and others who just want an easy job with summers off. I am not saying teaching is easy per se, I'm saying any job that allows you to suck without repercussion is easy.

That is part of it. Now we need to get into what I personally think was- *BY FAR* the worst thing Obama did to this country. Core.

 http://stopcommoncoreinmichigan.com/2014...president/

A mathematician that actually designed the curriculum talking about how bad it is-

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/12/2...-core-math

Now this last one is an article defending it, you are an educator, judge for yourself-

https://www.salon.com/2015/11/28/youre_w...you_think/

This is what Obama's policy and public education is doing to our children. Now supposedly this way of learning math is supposed to help people when they reach calculus in high school(or college for some). It has been a long time since I've done calc- not much use for it in my field- so I had three of my teenagers take a crack at how a third graders homework made any sense. With the four of us sitting at the table we were in the 700 aggregate IQ range- the three teens all having completed calc and my daughter doing higher levels and O chem course load for her major at that time- we couldn't figure it out. 

This is elementary math. We weren't capable of completing it because they are teaching kids the wrong method of doing it. I say that because it is math- getting the correct answer is what matters(for the examples shown in that article, associative properties of multiplication are still a thing- even for liberals).

So, we have this horrific curriculum being force fed to our students in public schools by increasingly the poorest teachers available. Both of these elements, the abhorrent lessons themselves, and the way in which teaching is compensated, are 100% the lefts way of dealing with it. It has been an abject failure- and it isn't a borderline situation. Given the choice between sentencing a child to public schools or being offered a chance to send them to a charter school, it isn't a hard choice. 

Quote:As for the tax cuts, from what I understand he has disproportionately benefitted the rich, as a percentage.

So this gets fairly complicated, but I'm going to give you the straight down the middle version of what is happening.

Right now, the US has a minimum line of income that is 'tax free' after which point you pay a percentage of each dollar graduating to a higher percentage for the more you make. 

People pay state taxes also, which state you live in largely fluctuates how much you are going to pay- but the amount you pay to the state comes off of your total federal tax bill(not direct 1:1, but a heavy influence).

There are a staggering amount of deductions that can be taken also, leading to a massively huge amount of complexity in the US tax code.

The new plan removes almost all of those deductions and also removes the ability to deduct your state taxes while roughly doubling the amount of money you can make tax free(this plan works *very* well for low and middle class people in 'red' states).

Now here is where people get really angry. California votes for a state government that has staggering spending levels and huge taxes- that is what they vote for- all the power to them- but then they want to deduct that off of their federal tax bill and make the 'red' states pay proportionally more- this is how things are currently done. The new tax structure would make them actually pay their full federal taxes, and their state taxes that they vote for would be in addition to that amount. 

You want to do the math on how that's going to work out for the uber rich? You know the stories about millionaires paying nothing with all the loop holes they use? Those days would pretty much be over. The people paying out straight up what they are supposed to that happen to be rich, yeah, they will probably come out quite a bit ahead.

In the end- what do you call it? I would seriously need to see the tax documents for an individual to be able to tell you if this new plan is a tax cut or not, particularly for the rich.

Quote:You guys see him as a populist, I see him as a radical on many levels and in many ways.


Hitler and Bernie Sanders were both populists too. Populist is a different sort of thing then right/left. Outside of those who revel in populist rhetoric, he has no support base. He *IS* radical- he just isn't 'right'.

Quote:CEO salaries need to be capped or else they should be taxed to death.


Real world scenario that hits close to home for you SB- RIM/Blackberry. A decade ago they were a dominant powerhouse in the global economy having a net worth in the nine figure range employing ~20K people at what was likely ~$75K a year average salary. Now they are a punchline to jokes, employ about ~5K people and could be bought from the quarterly profits of real tech companies.

That's ~$750 Million a year out of the Canadian economy- almost entirely the middle class- because of their moron CEO- you don't think a $20 million a year salary would have been money *VERY* well spent? 

This is not abstract, you know this actually happened. If you could go back in a time machine and hire a competent CEO for RIM and had to pay him $20 million a year- knowing he would save those jobs- you wouldn't? 

I could bring up *FAR* larger examples on a numerical basis- but I figured I'd throw that out as it is a very real life example relevant to you of what CEO salaries can or can not get you.

Quote:Offshore tax evasion needs to be eliminated completely, with serious jail time for those who try to continue doing it.

Honest question, do you know what this actually is? I ask that as you benefit from this, a lot. 

Right now because of all the free trade agreements business operate on an international level and have several ways to account for their profits. A big example of this would be GM- I'll use them because they are important to all of our economies. If GM makes $500 million in profit selling cars in Canada they can keep that money in Canada and pay Canadian corporate taxes on it- at a *SIGNIFICANTLY* lower rate then in the US. If they take this profit in Ontario, they pay $132.5 Million between federal and provincial taxes. If they count that as profit for the US, they pay $195.5 million on that same money. They leave the profit in Canada- pay Canadian taxes, that is off shored money.

Still want to send people to jail for this?

Quote:Those two changes alone are the two biggest social justice issues in terms of the tax code, IMO.


I'd be curious as to your answers for my two questions regarding those two points before I go further with them, just trying to make sure I understand exactly where you are coming from.
Reply
You have no guarantee whatsoever that a replacement CEO paid $20 million could save the company. That is just rubbish. I could mention another CEO of a Canadian company - Dave Orton - who did nothing to save his company, but did sell it off to AMD and floated away himself on a very large golden parachute!
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
Ben you're comparing corporations to people who are buying stocks from brokers on the island of Mann and keeping the money there so that they don't have to pay capital gains tax. Big difference. Those are the people I have a big problem with.

As for the CEOs, if their salaries are capped or if they are heavily taxed beyond a certain point, it levels the playing field and your argument becomes largely moot.
Reply
Quote:Ben you're comparing corporations to people who are buying stocks from brokers on the island of Mann and keeping the money there so that they don't have to pay capital gains tax.

I'm bringing up where the overwhelming majority of off shored money actually is. The personal transactions are rounding errors, the hundred billion dollar companies paying their taxes in corporate friendly countries to avoid paying higher taxes is where the vast majority of off shoring comes from in terms of financial numbers. When you read reports about the trillions of dollars in off shored money- that is from corporations- not individuals. You mentioned these being major social issues- if you are saying that tens of millions in lost revenue is a major social issue, I guess that is your right. Hundreds of billions of dollars, which I consider a much bigger issue, is something very different.

Your actual example is a minuscule rounding error, it is not a significant factor for any major nation.

Quote:As for the CEOs, if their salaries are capped or if they are heavily taxed beyond a certain point, it levels the playing field and your argument becomes largely moot.


No, it absolutely doesn't. 

You have stated you think some roid freak who plays games all his life is worth that kind of money- but someone who helps the economy hold onto a billion dollars a years is somehow not.....?

I have a fundamental problem with slavery of any form, so what is your idea to prevent every company from complete collapse when no one will take those jobs? Day trading is a cake walk compared to a CEO, and you can make *WAY* more money then what you are talking about.
Reply
(11-01-2017, 12:51 PM)BenSkywalker Wrote:
Quote:Ben you're comparing corporations to people who are buying stocks from brokers on the island of Mann and keeping the money there so that they don't have to pay capital gains tax.

I'm bringing up where the overwhelming majority of off shored money actually is. The personal transactions are rounding errors, the hundred billion dollar companies paying their taxes in corporate friendly countries to avoid paying higher taxes is where the vast majority of off shoring comes from in terms of financial numbers. When you read reports about the trillions of dollars in off shored money- that is from corporations- not individuals. You mentioned these being major social issues- if you are saying that tens of millions in lost revenue is a major social issue, I guess that is your right. Hundreds of billions of dollars, which I consider a much bigger issue, is something very different.

Your actual example is a minuscule rounding error, it is not a significant factor for any major nation.

Quote:As for the CEOs, if their salaries are capped or if they are heavily taxed beyond a certain point, it levels the playing field and your argument becomes largely moot.


No, it absolutely doesn't. 

You have stated you think some roid freak who plays games all his life is worth that kind of money- but someone who helps the economy hold onto a billion dollars a years is somehow not.....?

I have a fundamental problem with slavery of any form, so what is your idea to prevent every company from complete collapse when no one will take those jobs? Day trading is a cake walk compared to a CEO, and you can make *WAY* more money then what you are talking about.
I'm saying cap the CEO salaries to a reasonable level. Right now we're seeing CEOs make hundreds or even thousands of times as much as the average worker makes in the company. Make it relative tied to the net worth of the company. Bigger companies can pay their CEOs more. The way it's working now is absurd. I agree that a good CEO is worth a lot, and there is a lot of merit to what they do, as you are saying. The issue I have with it is that their salaries are way out of control.

As for the offshore money, I have a feeling that the amount involved is a lot higher than you think. You are correct that it pales in comparison to the offshore corporate money, but really, it's not fair at all that these extremely wealthy people are paying *nothing* in terms of income tax on all that money.

If you are worried about offshore corporate money, perhaps you should lobby your government to lower the corporate tax rate. Despite all our socialism here in Canada, we have much lower corporate taxes, as you have mentioned. I'm sure it has attracted a lot of American corporations to set up shop here.

Canada does a lot of things right. Bernie Sanders was just here analyzing our health care system. We pay half as much per capita on health care here compared to the USA and everyone is covered. It blows my mind that you guys aren't all lobbying your politicians to essentially implement our system down there. It would be way better for you. The FUD you hear about our system is not true. We receive excellent care overall. Prescription drugs are much cheaper here also.

The big problem with US politics is all the partisanship and blind ideology. For example, Trump Jr. taking away his young daughter's Halloween candy to teach her about "socialism". People like that are the reason why you guys will never have nice things like universal healthcare. Too many trolls that can't see beyond their own nose or their own backyard.
Reply
Quote:Right now we're seeing CEOs make hundreds or even thousands of times as much as the average worker makes in the company.

How much does someone playing in the minors make compared to Sidney Crosby? How about a small town stage actor compared to an A list Hollywood star? I could keep going over and over with comparable examples, but the top tier of talent normally makes thousands of times more then the lowest tier in all sorts of fields, why should the one field that actually matters to the masses be different? That's an honest question, I don't understand the logic behind your train of thought, am genuinely curious.

Quote:Make it relative tied to the net worth of the company.


Shutting down first world factories and moving them to south east Asia is the fastest way for most companies to up their valuation, do we really want to encourage more of that?

Quote:As for the offshore money, I have a feeling that the amount involved is a lot higher than you think. You are correct that it pales in comparison to the offshore corporate money, but really, it's not fair at all that these extremely wealthy people are paying *nothing* in terms of income tax on all that money.


In 1952 corporate taxes paid 32% of the US budget, today that is around 10%-

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/corporate-tax-avoidance/478293/

During that time corporate profits have absolutely exploded.

Quote:If you are worried about offshore corporate money, perhaps you should lobby your government to lower the corporate tax rate.


You are *FAR* to my right on this one. I'd rather corporations pay a higher share then people. I think the US doesn't tax corporations enough, but with global trading they keep their money in the far right countries. Individuals pay eight times what corporations pay in the US already- claiming to be progressive while suggesting we favor corporations even more seems a bit of a stretch to me. 

Quote:It blows my mind that you guys aren't all lobbying your politicians to essentially implement our system down there.


The US pays a hugely disproportionate percentage of global medical R&D, if we implement your system, we hurt our children. If we take trillions out of the medical industry, where do you think it's going to come from? Now I'd like to see all countries pitch in a fair amount so we don't have to carry the burden, but I'm not OK with R&D levels plummeting for all of humanity to save a couple of bucks. 

Quote:The FUD you hear about our system is not true.


Most of my mother's side of the family lives in Canada, I don't particularly consider funerals FUD, and I've had to go to a few that were caused by the 'quality' of health care in Canada. If you have unlimited money, you come to the US if you get really sick. Yes, I understand that prices some people out of the market, and there are certainly things we could do that would help lessen the gap, but if the only way to do that is to lose the top end- that just doesn't make sense. The hyper expensive treatments only the rich can afford today, in ten years regular people will be able to afford, in twenty years even Canada will have it. Simply removing the top tier of care doesn't, in any way, make us better.

Quote:For example, Trump Jr. taking away his young daughter's Halloween candy to teach her about "socialism".


That was a joke..... I'm honestly stupefied that people took that seriously Smile

Quote:People like that are the reason why you guys will never have nice things like universal healthcare.


If the rest of the world did things our way we'd probably have cancer cured by now.
Reply
Actors are ridiculously overpaid and should be subjected to salary caps as well.  Same with athletes and sports people.

Charge businesses a 5000% tax penalty for closing factories without replacing them with a new factory that produces at least as much output as the old (unless the entire business is closing down), charge a 500% import tax on goods produced in overseas factories that replaced domestic factories.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
Ben I'm talking about universal health care for 1/2 the cost of the broken system the USA has currently where not everyone is covered. It is not going to affect medical research at all if you guys implement the Canadian system in the USA. That's related to the pharmaceutical industry. I'm assuming you are referring to the generic drugs we use here. It's a completely different and separate issue.

As for your comments on our system here, I'm telling you your family is very unlucky to have had an experience like that. Our system is great and I never hear anyone here complaining about it, nor have I heard of anyone dying because of a long wait for care. I also feel that the health care we receive here is pretty top notch.

Like I said, universal health care is a partisan issue and anyone on the right of the spectrum there will vote against it vehemently based on their own principles and steadfast beliefs. These people will not waver or listen to any sort of reason.

Anyhow, what I have taken from our discussion is that the USA needs to somehow overhaul or revamp the way money is spent on social programs. With such a massive country and population it's going to take some real creativity to solve the problem. For you guys to spend more than we do here and have less to show for it tells me there is some type of corruption in the system down there. Too many palms getting greased.
Reply
Quote:It is not going to affect medical research at all if you guys implement the Canadian system in the USA.

Do you honestly believe that? On so many levels, that isn't true.

First off- Doctor salaries in the US dwarf what they are anywhere else in the world. We attract top minds because of this, minds we could and would very easily lose to the tech, legal or financial industries if the pay structures were to change. On average Drs here make about $60K per year *more* than in Canada. Second- Medical equipment- all of the latest technology in terms of financing for high price machines be they the latest in imaging/scoping or scanning- are funded by the enormous price tag they have which the US system pays for. Major advancements in medical research aren't just from the pharmaceutical industry, although that is a big part of it, many facets including treatment and diagnostic equipment also get a *large* financial boost from our money. 

For the record I'm not saying you are cheap, in most metrics you guys spend the second most in the world behind us.

Quote:That's related to the pharmaceutical industry. I'm assuming you are referring to the generic drugs we use here. It's a completely different and separate issue.

Not really a separate issue, we have generic drugs here too, and they represent the majority of medication prescribed(probably not in dollar amount, but by a large margin in numbers of pills). The government artificially limiting spending in certain sectors results in less R&D in those sectors. That is an absolute. The only way to offset this is for the government to fund things itself, but as you have noted- government spending doesn't tend to be terribly efficient. 

Quote:Like I said, universal health care is a partisan issue and anyone on the right of the spectrum there will vote against it vehemently based on their own principles and steadfast beliefs. These people will not waver or listen to any sort of reason.


If I were to read a legit financial breakdown of how such a system could be done without sacrificing long term I'd be all ears. This is much like defense spending unfortunately- if all the other countries would do their part, we could dramatically lower our defense spending, but they aren't willing to and for the good of the human race, we do it(I personally think we should drop that one and let the world deal with destabilization because of their lack of military spending personally, but I'm in the minority). I have yet to see a singular proposal from anyone that has shown how we could approach the level of effectiveness we have today at the high end while implementing a nationalized system. For me I'm a hard line pragmatist. Show me how it is actually going to work better, not in a touchy feely way, but actually produce superior results, and I'm all for it.

Quote:Anyhow, what I have taken from our discussion is that the USA needs to somehow overhaul or revamp the way money is spent on social programs.


Trump was called a right wing nutjob for proposing we only spend 44% more then you normalized for GDP. I absolutely agree with what you are saying, I'm just pointing out the level of partisanship there is in this country. The welfare state that has been built up is an abject failure in terms of getting results for the money we are spending, any proposals to adjust it are met with shrill cries of lunatic zealots from both wings.

I am not a Republican, you can go way back and check, I haven't supported a R candidate for a long time, I am very much a pragmatist and someone obsessed with the economic truth 'The only way for a body of people to increase their standard of living is to increase their productivity'. That is my problem with most leftist ideals, they don't even try and pretend that is what they are doing. Show me some government programs that are an effective use of money, I'll gladly give them my support.
Reply
Well, as I have already pointed out, the universal health care system in Canada is a government program here in Canada that covers more people than the private system in the USA, for half the cost. It's pretty cut and dry. Perhaps some government programs are inefficient however this is a clear example of a government system being more effective and efficient than the private sector.

I have seen other examples where *unionized* public sector employees were just as effective as private sector companies, for the same net cost. It's not as simple as just saying that the government is inefficient. It is my personal belief that our public utilities and infrastructure should all be publicly funded and owned. In terms of electricity in particular I have seen time and time again where privatized systems cost ratepayers way more per month compared to publicly owned utilities. If you want to see a good example of this, look at Quebec here in Canada. They probably have the cheapest electricity rates in North America. Their system is well designed, well built, government owned, and completely clean and carbon free.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)