Why not incorporate both systems? This way people have a choice.
That's fine - you can have a government option as well as a free-market option. BUT, that means that those not receiving the government service aren't forced to pay the extra taxes in order to receive the benefits.
One must pay to receive the service, and must not be forced to pay if they don't want it.
You'll have to stop thinking of ideal worlds. Someone needs to make sacrifices in these types of situations.
Why the assertion "someone needs to make sacrifices"?
If you can have X or Y, but you know Y is better than X, then you should have Y.
And secondly, you're not holding government to the same standard as the people in this instance. The government would be forcing someone to pay taxes to support the system. This is not an "option," is it? How is this incorporating both systems, if you're not holding government to the same standards as you hold businesses, artificially lowering the cost by making people involuntarily pay for a service they will never receive?
Well the way I see it is, usually it's only rich people who would use the private system because it's affordable to them. Everyone else would most likely use the universal coverage for the sake of conveince. So, really it's only the rich who are being charged. To me, that's fair. They can afford it.
But that doesn't mean that it's the best - because the "rich" also have positive effects on society that will never occur if this program is implemented, such as the employment of workers, the building of buildings, etc. You're simply displacing wealth away from those that would have earned it as a result of those never-seen actions.
But that doesn't mean that it's the best - because the "rich" also have positive effects on society that will never occur if this program is implemented, such as the employment of workers, the building of buildings, etc. You're simply displacing wealth away from those that would have earned it as a result of those never-seen actions.
If you'd be so kind to show me a point in history in which the "trickle down" theory actually worked I would be obliged to concede the point to you.
If the money and services are given to the poor there's a good chance they will spend the money, giving them what the need, and the money will return to the wealthy.
There will all always be rich guys not handing out money. But the 80% that do help out economies. Just look at all businesses. That's how the trickle down theory is active.
But the 80% that do help out economies. Just look at all businesses. That's how the trickle down theory is active.
Our economy went to **** after Bush cut taxes to the rich, unemployment spiked. Clearly that is not the only reason, debt was a massive player, but it did have an effect. I'm not asking them to hand out money, I'm asking them to actually invest in jobs with the extra money they are left with; if not they must be taxed more, there's nothing else to it.
You're simply displacing wealth away from those that would have earned it as a result of those never-seen actions.
I some how have no sympathy for someone so rich they waste their money on their own whims.
I'm not asking them to hand out money, I'm asking them to actually invest in jobs with the extra money they are left with; if not they must be taxed more, there's nothing else to it.
This is why I like you Samy, you're more concise than I.
I'm asking them to actually invest in jobs with the extra money they are left with; if not they must be taxed more, there's nothing else to it.
If they choose to save their money, they're only increasing the value of all the rest of the money in circulation, since you have not altered the amount of goods being produced...
Einfach, that would lead to inflation without any increase in jobs. It would also have no effect on wages, which, if remained stagnant, would suffer from higher prices.
So yeah. Trickling down doesn't work unless forced. Most rich people have a net worth, an amount of cash in the bank they claim for party business. Which is fine, they're rich. Yet if that amount keeps growing and they won't invest in more jobs then why the hell are we letting them be rich, they're of no use to society and everyone should be of use to society -- that's the point of taxes!
Einfach, that would lead to inflation without any increase in jobs. It would also have no effect on wages, which, if remained stagnant, would suffer from higher prices.
Actually, saving money, for the reasons described, leads to the exact opposite - deflation. Which is exactly why it's not necessarily a negative influence. The same amount of goods remains in circulation.
