User Name: Password:
New User Registration
Moderator: Vikings 
 Politics

Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.


All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..

As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.

Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!


*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."


Messages per page:
List of discussion boards
You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn.
Mode: Everyone can post
Search in posts:  

26. January 2011, 18:56:10
Übergeek 바둑이 
Subject: You get what you pay for
I find it interesting to see people go on about income and corporate taxes. Having visited and lived in a few countries I can say that when it comes to taxes, people get what they pay for. If you pay little, you get little. If you pay a lot, you get a lot more.

Case 1: Guatemala
This is where I was born and lived during my childhood. Guatemala is considerd a "tax shelter" meaning that the taxation rate is so low that opening bank accounts and businesses in that country is an "advantage" against the higher taxation rates paid in North America and Europe. The average Guatemalan citizen pays about 6% income tax. Of course, the rich and powerful can exploit local corruption to avoid paying taxes at all. That is the case with most large foreign coprorations in the country. In exchange for the 6% income tax, people get next to no helath care and next to no education. As a result, about 70% of the population is illiterate (although the literacy rate has improved in recent years.) Publicly run hospitals are understaffed, underequipped and they don't have the money or medicines to take care of their patients. In Guatemala is you are rich you can pay for private schools and private universities. You can pay for private clinics and get top of the line health care. If you are poor you are desined to be illeterate and to die of some torpical disease that could have been prevented or cured with adequate medicines or vaccines.

Case 2: Austria
Not so differnt from Germany and other European countries. My ex and my son live there. Most Austrian citizens pay between 21% and 50% income tax. On the average, the rate runs about 41%. That means that 41 cents of every Euro people make is going into the government's hands. What do people get as a result? Free healthcare. I was there when my son had this minor nose operation. In most places he would have gone in and out of the hospital for a few hours. Instead they kept him 3 days. The hospital nurse came with a menu like in a restaurant. My ex had a bed assigned to her because they did not want my son to stay alone at night. The place was like a hotel more than a hospital, and this was the "shabby, old hospital" rather than the newer, more modern one. Education is free through gymnasium (roughly high school), and university is heavily subsidized, with people paying on the average 366 Euros per term (about US $500). Not only that, but if a student completes a degree on the alloted time, the fees are waived and university becomes free. Compare that with the thousands it costs to get an education in North America.

We can say that Austria and Guatemala sit in opposite sides of the coin. High and low taxes. A lot of services versus no services. People get what they pay for.

The interesting thing is perception. Many Austrians dislike the high taxes, and government and business are contantly at odds over taxation. Guatemalans hate having to pay even the 6%. Guatemalans also complain constantly about taxes. Very often it is not what people pay, but the perception they have of how the government spends taxes.

Guatemalans would be only too happy to get free education and free healthcare, but they would never accept reforming the taxation system and raising taxes steeply. Austrians would love to have their taxes reduced to 6%, but they would never accept losing the services they get.

Ultimately, who lives better? Austrians certainly do. So what is better? A more "socialist" or a more "capitalist" government? Up to a point, countries with low taxation rates seem generally worse off than those countries with higher taxation rates. Taxes have to be high enough to allow the government to operate and to invest in the economy, but not so high that the business sector get choked to death. It is a difficult balance to maintain.

26. January 2011, 20:09:16
rod03801 
Subject: Re: You get what you pay for
Übergeek 바둑이: I must say that I would not be happy with Case #2 either! There is no reason for government to pay for a hotel like hospital stay with gourmet menus! And a 3 day stay sounds a bit extensive. Of course being pushed out too soon, is not appealing either. But that sounds a bit wasteful.

If someone can personally afford that sort of care, fine! Let them pay for it. But no, I would not like my tax money being wasted to that extent.

Less Govt. Less Govt. Less Govt!!!

26. January 2011, 20:29:54
Übergeek 바둑이 
Subject: Re: You get what you pay for
rod03801:

> Less Govt!

What exactly does that mean? Less people employed by the government? If so, in what areas? Where is it more important to cut?

What would you rather have? Less health care? Less education? Less military? Less intelligence? Less of everything?

One thing is certain? Given the choice between less health care and less military, what is more important? Should tax dollars be used to build hospitals or military bases? Schools? Roads and railways?

I suppose perception is a big thing too. Propaganda and fear play a big factor in what people see as more or less important.

If the government is bad at running things, who should do it? The private sector? What guarantee is there that somebody running things for profit will do it better, or more cheaply? Historically, privatization has not always been the best solution. Sometimes privatization has only made running things more expensive, because those who do it for profit want more money rather than more efficiency.

26. January 2011, 20:56:56
rod03801 
Subject: Re: You get what you pay for
Übergeek 바둑이: Yes! All of it! It is all done so inefficiently! I could deal with compromise!
I don't expect to not pay any taxes. I work hard (as do most people) and I don't want my money squandered.
There are SO many things that the US govt has their hands in, where it just doesn't belong. Some things could certainly be done on a more local level. (State/County/City)

Obviously that wouldn't include military. That NEEDS to be federal. It's one of the parts that bothers me least, personally.

I'm just disgusted by the waste. That infuriates me. If I waste my own money, I pay for it dearly. But that's just it. I personally wasted it. Someone else wasting my money? No thanks.

Personally, I'm fine with how healthcare always has been, for the most part. There are things that need looking at, of course! But for the government to basically take it over? No no! It's going to become a mess. And DEFINITELY if it means gourmet menus in hospitals, free room and board for relatives in there, and 3 day stays for relatively minor procedures!

And you say historically, privatization has not always been the best solution. Well, I'd say government bureaucracy has been the best solution even less. (Hmm, really bad sentence)

26. January 2011, 21:20:16
SL-Mark 
Subject: Re: You get what you pay for
Übergeek 바둑이: Interesting choice of countries to use to demonstrate your point!

In Guatemala, if they raised the tax rate, do you think things would be any better. See Tax System Explained In Beer for the answer. You are also mixing corruption and taxation in you arguement. So is corruption to blame or taxation for the country's poverty?

Austria is not like Germany as you claim. Germany has perhaps the best health care in the world. It is privately run. The UK has one of the worst health care systems in the world. It is state run. It is expensive. It is wasteful. It is the single biggest employer in the world and consumes about 10% of the UK working population!!!

26. January 2011, 21:27:32
Mort 
Subject: Re: The UK has one of the worst health care systems in the world. It is state run. It is expensive.
SL-Mark: Not as expensive as the USA system and that leaves 40 million uncovered. It costs, but no-one has to worry about paying for a life saving op or waking upto a big bill that the health company has rejected due to small print.

26. January 2011, 21:34:38
SL-Mark 
Subject: Re: The UK has one of the worst health care systems in the world. It is state run. It is expensive.
(V): Life saving op? You are more likely to die from a life saving op in the UK than actually be saved. Either that or you catch MRSA on your way out!

26. January 2011, 21:38:36
Mort 
Subject: Re: Life saving op? You are more likely to die from a life saving op in the UK than actually be saved. Either that or you catch MRSA on your way out!
SL-Mark: So says the Daily Mail so it must be true. zzzzzzzzzzzz

26. January 2011, 22:22:23
SL-Mark 
Subject: Re: Life saving op? You are more likely to die from a life saving op in the UK than actually be saved. Either that or you catch MRSA on your way out!
(V): OMG are you saying our MPs are corrupt? That is libel and happens to be a criminal offence in this country, unless of course, you have evidence “beyond reasonable doubt.”

On the beer, I'm not going to spell it out for you. I think the point of capital flight was very clear.

Regarding your "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz," I didn't realise you suffered from somnipathy. Hopefully you don't also experience the related disorders of nocturia or worse still enuresis. Hopefully the “death squad” that we have in the UK will be able to provide you with the most effective prescriptions. Sadly, for many, the “death squad” leaves many little alternative, other than just dying. And you want to defend this!

27. January 2011, 18:47:59
Mort 
Subject: Re: OMG are you saying our MPs are corrupt? That is libel and happens to be a criminal offence in this country, unless of course, you have evidence “beyond reasonable doubt.”
SL-Mark: Yeah right... They'd have to prove they are all squeaky clean first.

The beer explains some of how our system of taxation works, but not all. Or how some wealth creators are not rich but just have a good idea.

"Hopefully the “death squad” that we have in the UK will be able to provide you with the most effective prescriptions."

Your not that MEP working for Fox are you?
No system is perfect, yet the claims of "death squads" is more descriptive of USA health companies. As to MRSA.. I'll let you into a little secret... The NHS trusts cut down on cleaning staff on wards, they were (well in the instances I know of) having 2 cleaners per ward and cut to one. That loss of one 'unskilled worker' led to less time to do the job properly with shortfalls in staffing (as the remaining staff went elsewhere) leaving the jobs being filled by agency staff who often were recent immigrants and could not half the time communicate let alone have the passion to do the job properly. In the end any organisation is reliant on efficient and good quality staffing. ..... plus how a private company hired by the NHS to prepare surgery kits kept making mistakes causing the cancellation of operations. Costing the NHS time and money.

If you wanna concentrate on the 0.1% then by all means. But over simplification of problems seems to be a thing of yours. Be careful you don't miss the rest of the wood in the process!!

27. January 2011, 20:11:41
SL-Mark 
Subject: Re: OMG are you saying our MPs are corrupt? That is libel and happens to be a criminal offence in this country, unless of course, you have evidence “beyond reasonable doubt.”
(V): >"They'd have to prove they are all squeaky clean first."
That will be pretty hard to do! Guess you are safe from a libel charge then

Yes, like Einstein, I believe it leads to a deeper understanding to "make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

28. January 2011, 00:19:43
Mort 
Subject: Re: OMG are you saying our MPs are corrupt? That is libel and happens to be a criminal offence in this country, unless of course, you have evidence “beyond reasonable doubt.”
SL-Mark: And as such then you'll know it's not just about dirty hospitals re MRSA, the overuse of antibiotics is part to blame, the lack of investment and research into new antibiotics for decades has a part in the problem. There maybe a link to a certain stomach worm that was eradicated (it was harmless) that may have had given for it's food certain health benefits linking to the overuse of antibiotics nowadays.

You'll also know that rates of deaths from the likes of MRSA are dropping. That simple things like visitors using alcohol cleaner on their hands...

... and yes.. the cuts to fully employed long term cleaning staff... "unskilled" workers who's work saves lives.

Now do you think they don't deserve a decent pay?

28. January 2011, 01:49:58
SL-Mark 
Subject: Re: OMG are you saying our MPs are corrupt? That is libel and happens to be a criminal offence in this country, unless of course, you have evidence “beyond reasonable doubt.”
(V): They save lives, true, but so do doctors, nurses, paramedics, firemen etc, etc. Are you suggesting they should all be paid the same because they save lives?

It is your beloved socialist leaders that got us in to this mess. The health service is overflowing with bureaucrats, making these life saving services unafforable. Idea, what about raising taxes even more?

You are no doubt aware, that only 40% of the UK working population are wealth creators (private sector) who provide for the other 60% (public sector) as well as the infirm, elderly, unemployed and young. How is this funded? Ah tax (and only tax from the private sector can be counted), and our budget deficit, increasing to the trillions we already owe. This at the expense of future generations, just so you can live up to your socialist ideals today.

And when those #10 beer drinkers leave, then what are you going to do? Borrow more, well the bond yield curve is already rising. The BoE will no longer have control over interest rates, the market is already adjusting the rates.

28. January 2011, 13:32:24
Pedro Martínez 
Subject: Re: OMG are you saying our MPs are corrupt? That is libel and happens to be a criminal offence in this country, unless of course, you have evidence “beyond reasonable doubt.”
SL-Mark: It seems you like talking to a brick wall…

28. January 2011, 13:42:43
SL-Mark 
Subject: Re: OMG are you saying our MPs are corrupt? That is libel and happens to be a criminal offence in this country, unless of course, you have evidence “beyond reasonable doubt.”
Pedro Martínez: My dad once told me when I had a headache as a child, that I should bang my head against a wall. He added, that when you stop, you will then feel much better!

I'm sure he was trying to tell me something too

28. January 2011, 16:48:53
Mort 
Subject: Re: OMG are you saying our MPs are corrupt? That is libel and happens to be a criminal offence in this country, unless of course, you have evidence “beyond reasonable doubt.”
Pedro Martínez: Whose? Many here!!

28. January 2011, 18:51:45
Justaminute 
Subject: Re: OMG are you saying our MPs are corrupt? That is libel and happens to be a criminal offence in this country, unless of course, you have evidence “beyond reasonable doubt.”
(V): Libel would be a civil offence not a criminal offence.

29. January 2011, 17:17:57
Mort 
Subject: Re: Libel would be a civil offence not a criminal offence.
Justaminute: I'd say about 95% of the time you'd be right. In some cases it might start as a libel act and through such as perjury goto to a criminal case.

It's a bit like trespassing, you cannot be prosecuted for it unless other factors come into play, but they are the likes of criminal damage and maybe loss of earnings. Then it gets to get complicated.

28. January 2011, 16:48:20
Mort 
Subject: Re: who provide for the other 60% (public sector)
SL-Mark: Is that like essential services such as road maintenance, bin collections (both often tendered out to private companies) ... or straight forward council and government workers.

"It is your beloved socialist leaders that got us in to this mess. The health service is overflowing with bureaucrats, making these life saving services unaffordable"

I think you'll find that the current bureaucratic mess dates back to the Thatcher years. I hardly call her socialist

"40% of the UK working population are wealth creators (private sector) who provide for the other 60% (public sector) as well as the infirm, elderly, unemployed and young."

40%+60%+ how much do the infirm and unemployed working age people account for?

"Ah tax (and only tax from the private sector can be counted),"

Nope. Taxes come from many sources... even your council workers pay taxes as do all government workers. Plus in the case of the NHS much of the budget goes on buying equipment from private companies. I know... I've worked for a company providing hospitals with artificial joint kits.

28. January 2011, 23:06:46
SL-Mark 
Subject: Re: who provide for the other 60% (public sector)
(V): "40%+60%+ how much do the infirm and unemployed working age people account for?"

I might have missed a class or two as well
The current unemployment rate is about 8% (we'll assume it includes the infirm), so we now have a worse situation where 32% of the working population provide for the 60% in public sector and services + 8% unemployed.

In other words, only about 11% of the total population are wealth creators!

29. January 2011, 17:25:43
Mort 
Subject: Re: who provide for the other 60% (public sector)
SL-Mark:

"): The 60% (actually I think it is nearer 65%) includes all those who are funded from the public purse. So yes, it includes many other services, all of whom consume wealth."

Well.. the office for national statistics says the figure of public v private employment is 20% working in the public sector and 80% working in the private.

... ie at the moment your whole argument seems to based bad data and therefore your whole point is pointless.

Sorry I took time to check your data.. saved you alot of pointless defending of untrue statements.

As to "No, you can only include tax from the private sector in the determination"

Are you God personified??

27. January 2011, 17:04:58
Übergeek 바둑이 
Subject: Re: You get what you pay for
Modified by Übergeek 바둑이 (27. January 2011, 17:05:33)
SL-Mark:
> Austria is not like Germany as you claim. Germany has perhaps the best health care in the world. It is privately run

There is one aspect of the health care system in Germany thqt is different from Austria:

"All salaried employees must have a public health insurance. Only public officers, self-employed people and employees with a large income above c. €50,000 (adjusted yearly) may join the private system."

"A person that opts out of the public health insurance system and gets private health insurance can not go back later to the public system, even if income drops below the level required for private selection. Since private health insurance is usually more expensive than public health insurance one will be required to pay the higher premiums with less income."

The Germans have done it right. If you think you are rich enough to pay for private insurance, then there is no going back later. If you are rich and you lose your money, you are screwed because you cannot go back to the public system. If you are rich, you better stay rich!

Date and time
Friends online
Favourite boards
Fellowships
Tip of the day
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved.
Back to the top