Michael Moore and socialized medicine

[karlwig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Oh believe me, I thought about it. And I would have answered if it was an intellegent question. As it is clearly not, I made some assumptions and gave you an answer based on that.

What amount of money people in a society have the right to get paid for their jobs is not an easy issue. It's not what we're discussing though.

I made a comment where i said that i think it's fair that people with a higher income pay more in tax.
this has nothing to with what people should earn for their jobs in the first place. it's not a thing i have a strong opinion about, nor is it something that has been debated here. you just asked me a question from the clear blue sky, which has abselutely no relevance.

let me ask you: should some bussiness guy earn $30000 or $50000 a year?
Now look at how stupid this question is. It has nothing to do with politics. People get paid what they get paid.

Taxes on that income is, of course, a completely different thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to push you any further since you clearly won't answer. I don't blame you. You knew you were about to get owned hard.

I can answer your question. I would much rather have $50,000 vs. $30,000 provided all other things are equal.

I would also prefer to live in a society B, provided all other things were equal.

Anything you don't want to answer is a stupid question. Actually its not. You stated that inequality was a bad thing. I'm just asking how bad you think it is in a concrete way. Socialists are great when you talk about feelings and vague things, but any time you actually have to make a stand with some numbers that prove the rediculousness of your ideas, you either have to answer in a way that makes no sense, but supports your ideas, or give up on your ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I got owned there buddy. MUST GIVE UP MY IDEAS.

But actually I can answer your question. If all other things are equal, everybody has the same jobs, works the same hours, have the same education and experience etc., of course the right answer would be that everybody should earn the same. So, I choose A.

Take care.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Oh believe me, I thought about it. And I would have answered if it was an intellegent question. As it is clearly not, I made some assumptions and gave you an answer based on that.

What amount of money people in a society have the right to get paid for their jobs is not an easy issue. It's not what we're discussing though.

I made a comment where i said that i think it's fair that people with a higher income pay more in tax.
this has nothing to with what people should earn for their jobs in the first place. it's not a thing i have a strong opinion about, nor is it something that has been debated here. you just asked me a question from the clear blue sky, which has abselutely no relevance.

let me ask you: should some bussiness guy earn $30000 or $50000 a year?
Now look at how stupid this question is. It has nothing to do with politics. People get paid what they get paid.

Taxes on that income is, of course, a completely different thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to push you any further since you clearly won't answer. I don't blame you. You knew you were about to get owned hard.

I can answer your question. I would much rather have $50,000 vs. $30,000 provided all other things are equal.

I would also prefer to live in a society B, provided all other things were equal.

Anything you don't want to answer is a stupid question. Actually its not. You stated that inequality was a bad thing. I'm just asking how bad you think it is in a concrete way. Socialists are great when you talk about feelings and vague things, but any time you actually have to make a stand with some numbers that prove the rediculousness of your ideas, you either have to answer in a way that makes no sense, but supports your ideas, or give up on your ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I got owned there buddy. MUST GIVE UP MY IDEAS.

But actually I can answer your question. If all other things are equal, everybody has the same jobs, works the same hours, have the same education and experience etc., of course the right answer would be that everybody should earn the same. So, I choose A.

Take care.

[/ QUOTE ]

All things are equal between the TWO situations, not each person is equal. Jesus, I can't tell if you are being difficult intentionally or just have reading comprehension problems.

Since you clearly did not understand the question, I guess I'll give you a chance. I'll explain it better since the free schools clearly didn't teach you very well.

You have two societies. The ONLY thing you know about them is in society A, people make $30,000. Every single one of them. In society B, 90% of the people make $29,500. 10% make $300,000. Even assume those who make $300,000 do it randomly through some lottery that decides they get to make more. They each have the same number of people working hard, being lazy, naturally gifted or ungifted. You can choose a society to live in. Which one would you rather live in?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Then why do you keep using free? Its the opposite of free, as I am actually paying more and recieving less than if I did not have the "free" health care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true at all. if instead of (i thinkn senator ted stevens senator alaska) pork project "road to nowhere" , your millions of tax dollars were spent on something you or anyone else actually used, well I guess you would be paying the same but obviously receiving more. I mean, do you protest the corporate welfare that some company got to build a majjor highway in alaska that goes nowhere and that noone uses and noone will ever use? Or do you think it was a waste of funds and the money should have just been directly given to the companies lol.

[karlwig]

[ QUOTE ]

You have two societies. The ONLY thing you know about them is in society A, people make $30,000. Every single one of them. In society B, 90% of the people make $29,500. 10% make $300,000. Even assume those who make $300,000 do it randomly through some lottery that decides they get to make more. They each have the same number of people working hard, being lazy, naturally gifted or ungifted. You can choose a society to live in. Which one would you rather live in?


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for explaining. I'd choose B because the sum of all the money is greater than in A. It would be a wealthier society overall. So taking a shot in that society (9-1 og getting $300000) would be +EV, since difference in A and the 90% of B is only $500. Hopefully those rich ones would share a little, if not by giving away, then creating more jobs since they have an economic edge.

But the question would be better if the sum of the money is the same. You have to compare apples to apples. After all, socialist reforms doesn't make money just go away. If you're rich and pay more tax, that tax goes somewhere.

So I'd rather look at two societies where the OVERALL money each have is the same.

For example:

A: All gets $100000
B 50% gets $50000, the other 50% get $150000.

In this case my answer would be A.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You have two societies. The ONLY thing you know about them is in society A, people make $30,000. Every single one of them. In society B, 90% of the people make $29,500. 10% make $300,000. Even assume those who make $300,000 do it randomly through some lottery that decides they get to make more. They each have the same number of people working hard, being lazy, naturally gifted or ungifted. You can choose a society to live in. Which one would you rather live in?


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for explaining. I'd choose B because the sum of all the money is greater than in A. It would be a wealthier society overall. So taking a shot in that society (9-1 og getting $300000) would be +EV, since difference in A and the 90% of B is only $500. Hopefully those rich ones would share a little, if not by giving away, then creating more jobs since they have an economic edge.

But the question would be better if the sum of the money is the same. You have to compare apples to apples. After all, socialist reforms doesn't make money just go away. If you're rich and pay more tax, that tax goes somewhere.

So I'd rather look at two societies where the OVERALL money each have is the same.

For example:

A: All gets $100000
B 50% gets $50000, the other 50% get $150000.

In this case my answer would be A.

[/ QUOTE ]


So the overall amount of money is the key?

If 99.9% of people had $1, and .1% had $1,000,000,000,000 - this would be better?

I would disagree here.

But at least you admitted you don't really have a problem with inequality.

You think Socialist reforms don't make money go away? When you take from the productive and give to the unproductive, that is EXACTLY what you are doing. There is not a fixed amount of wealth a society can have. Economics is NOT a zero sum game.

[Nonfiction]

[ QUOTE ]

Not true at all. if instead of (i thinkn senator ted stevens senator alaska) pork project "road to nowhere" , your millions of tax dollars were spent on something you or anyone else actually used, well I guess you would be paying the same but obviously receiving more.

[/ QUOTE ]...You just agreed with me but said its "not true at all"? Not paying taxes and instead buyin health care of my choice > Paying taxes and government providing me with "free" health care of lower quality

[karlwig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then why do you keep using free? Its the opposite of free, as I am actually paying more and recieving less than if I did not have the "free" health care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true at all. if instead of (i thinkn senator ted stevens senator alaska) pork project "road to nowhere" , your millions of tax dollars were spent on something you or anyone else actually used, well I guess you would be paying the same but obviously receiving more. I mean, do you protest the corporate welfare that some company got to build a majjor highway in alaska that goes nowhere and that noone uses and noone will ever use? Or do you think it was a waste of funds and the money should have just been directly given to the companies lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

very good point here. more welfare systems like public health care does not mean you have to pay more in tax. it's how the tax money is used too.
now, the goverment in the us uses 1/3 of the tax money on military (correct me if i'm wrong here, but i think this number is pretty correct).

now if some of that money could be used on good welfare systems like health care, you would pay the same in tax and the average citizen would probably recieve a lot more for their money.

[Nonfiction]

[ QUOTE ]

very good point here. more welfare systems like public health care does not mean you have to pay more in tax. it's how the tax money is used too.
now, the goverment in the us uses 1/3 of the tax money on military (correct me if i'm wrong here, but i think this number is pretty correct).

now if some of that money could be used on good welfare systems like health care, you would pay the same in tax and the average citizen would probably recieve a lot more for their money.

[/ QUOTE ]
This would be a great argument if I believed that we should be taxed at all, except I don't.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

BALANCE. You need both. We need capitalism, we need the free market and the freedom. I would never give away that.

In my opinion it's good to have SOME degree of welfare for all though, which the goverment should be responsible for. For example police, military, schools (in addition to privat ones of course), and health care, among other things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that you want a mixed economy, and I know you've stated you think it works better with some degree of both. What is the reason for this belief, because its pretty contradictory at its core. People understand that a free market produces better goods at lower prices. It does this because that's what consumers demand. It does this in such a way and at such efficiency that nearly everyone eventually concedes that the majority of goods are far better produced by the market. Advocating monopoly control (or even monopoly sponsorship) of services logically leads to lower quality services and higher prices, so the system you are advocating is going to end up, in the long run, hurting lower the lower economic classes, and in both the long and short run hurt the middle and upper classes as well.

[ QUOTE ]

In my opinion it's good to have SOME degree of welfare for all though

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree as well that some degree is good. However the government again is a poor choice of a way to provide welfare. It has no compulsion against enlarging itself at the expense of others and has no qualm about outlawing things that people love, want and desire. HOw can this be a good solution?

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]

now, the goverment in the us uses 1/3 of the tax money on military (correct me if i'm wrong here, but i think this number is pretty correct).


[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong. Its half that- 17%.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._us_fy2007.png