This isn't my world. I don't make the rules. — BitconnectCarlos

Since the discussion is about whether the rules should be changed, your back-stepping doesn't make much sense in the context of this thread.

I'm entirely aware. I'm just a single guy with no kids in a medium cost of living area. I'm entirely familiar with my monthly expenses. Obviously if you're a single mom with 3-4 kids it's a completely different ball game. Children can absolutely drive someone into poverty; they're massively expensive. — BitconnectCarlos

First of all, your math still wouldn't add up to less than millions for the security you're talking about.

But that aside, it's striking to me that your idea of "freedom" comes with such a narrow view of how one ought to live. If your version of freedom is that one has to do shape one's life in this predetermined way, make all these specific lifestyle choices, and invest money such and such particulars... That doesn't sound much like freedom to me. In fact, it sounds to me like even the people living in the DDR had more freedom than you do.

You might talk about how sure, one can take other risks, yada yada, but then you fall back on the "right" choices people have to make in order to survive in your world.

You want to know why you should pay taxes for others? Well, why should the majority pay private companies through the nose and suffer nevertheless because their personal circumstances don't match your bachelorhood ideal of life?

You don't need to be a billionaire. Think much, much smaller. You don't even need a million to start feeling the effects. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not sure you have a good grasp on how long money will stretch in this economy...

With enough money you don't need to rely on an employer. — BitconnectCarlos

Oh, right, I forgot that being an instant billionaire is a choice everyone just has to make. How does that work? Pray at night and then wake up in a mansion or are you old-fashioned and play the lottery?

IMO. I favor placing my own financial future first and foremost into my own hands as opposed to hoping the government with its services can provide for me. — BitconnectCarlos

You mean in the hands of your employer, the market, and the corporations from which you buy the goods for your "freedom and security."

Thinking it's all in your own hands and only yours is pretty naive, no matter which system you choose.

I know people with cancer that visited the USA for treatment as a last ditch effort, because it was the absolute best available. — Benkei

There are for specific types of cancer better resources here than elsewhere, I'll grant us that. Of course, providing you can pay for it all. Other specific cancers have better outcomes in other countries.

I used to live in a socialist democracy myself. So it was really a rude awakening moving here and suddenly hear people discuss not just the medical need to visit the ER in some situations, but whether they could afford it.

Initiated the discussion in good faith, exited with a shrug. — frank

Ciao!

I think part of the problem is drug abuse and environmental toxins. IOW it's problems that exist upstream of pregnancy — frank

So of course drug users and their babies deserve bad health outcomes. S/

Medicaid is pretty generous and it starts as soon as a woman knows she's pregnant. Why do say "lack of access"? — frank

Here's one explanation.

There's a difference between the quality of healthcare available and the number of people that can afford it. If people don't take out insurance and can't afford healthcare out of pocket then that's not my problem. That the majority of americans make stupid choices by not getting insurance, or waiting with it until they have a pre-existing condition, doesn't mean I should pay for those bad decisions; your statistics are therefore meaningless. I might pay more for my insurance but I have access to the best healthcare the world has to offer. — Benkei

Nope, you do not. For example, part of the reason for such dismal maternal health outcomes is lack of access, yes. But, even when you take that out of the equation, women in America die at higher rates as do their babies, and have general more health risks. Part of this is due to a capitalistic healthcare system. For example, Doctors being much more willing to conduct costly surgeries like c-sections often when they are unnecessary and pose a greater risk to the mother and baby than a natural birth would.

But even if it were true that you could in theory have the best healthcare in the world if you were just rich enough... your family income of 100k does not put you in the "just rich enough" category. Your insurance has specific providers that are in and out of network and very likely, if you decide to go out of network for a better doctor or treatment, the insurance will not cover it. If you need brain surgery, you could easily pay an entire year of your salary--which is many times more than the dismal savings you have.

Even IF you stay in network, you still have to pay a deductible and the co-pays and whatever the insurance company kind of willie-nillie decides is "elective." Like if your doc tells you your best survival/chance of not being permanently disabled is guaranteed with surgery X and the company decides that actually surgery Y is all they are okay with... or surgery X is okay, but minus elements a, b, and c.

So then, not only have you been paying through the nose all these years for this "wonderful" private insurance, but they won't cover everything you need, you still go into debt, AND they're trying to dictate your medical care to you. Absolutely none of this is rationally "in your interest."

That really depends on what metric. Most high tech? USA. Most patents filed? USA. — Benkei

The overall metric shows Sweden and Switzerland win. And they have higher standards of living! What good is being third in innovation, or even first, if we're not even in the top 10 for overall quality of life?

https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp

Having money is absolutely an end in itself. Money can provide security and freedom. Any working adult should be able to recognize this. — BitconnectCarlos

If money is good because of the other things it provides, it's not an end in itself, first of all.

Second, the freedom and security of any working adult should be inherently guaranteed and not be dependent on their relative wealth.

These are all insurable events that don't require government involvement. I've got insurance except for becoming jobless but with my skill set that will be when hell freezes over. Why should I pay taxes for those people who go destitute because they failed to take out insurance? Where's the fairness in that?

1. If the trickle-down effect worked at all (which is what I think your first idea there is alluding to) then America would already have solved poverty and have a flourishing middle class, because we do have most of the money globally. While wages have gone up for the 1% however and they have received countless tax cuts, for decades the wages of workers have been stagnant and their costs of living have gone up.
— Artemis

Imagine how much worse things would be if a lot of money would've been wasted on taxes and ineffectual government programs? That wages are stagnant are a reality of supply and demand. With the loose immigration, sanctuary cities and whatnot it is no wonder that workers wages are stagnating as supply continues to increase. Close the borders, stop doling out green cards and this will solve itself.

But then there's also just the average day math. You have health insurance, but how much does it cost you over a year or a lifetime? How much would you have to pay in taxes for the same thing but better (because you'd be guaranteed coverage)? You'll pay less overall with universal healthcare, because you're not paying the salaries of millionaire and billionaire corporate execs.
— Artemis

No country covers all types of care, or care at any price. So guaranteed coverage is really a lie. Government tends to be far less efficient in allocating resources and the US litigious society makes healthcare expensive due to insurance cost and administrative overhead.

Furthermore, the best healthcare in the world is available in the US, because hospitals compete with each other driving up quality. Countries with universal healthcare have fixed maximum rates for medical personnel because otherwise their system would be as expensive as the USA and this stifles innovation. — Benkei

If you pay private insurance, you're paying more than you would with taxes with less coverage. You can get covered for everything I mentioned and more for less $$$ overall when you choose a socialized system.

Actually, America has a much poorer healthcare system than other countries with socialized healthcare systems. We rank 55th globally for maternal health outcomes.... Behind Russia! Our sworn mortal enemy! (Jk)

America likes to pretend it and its basically unfettered capitalism with almost zero social safety net are the holy grail for innovation, but in reality, we're really scrambling to stay in the world leadership for that.

The top two are Switzerland and Sweden, which both have heavily socialist democratic governments.

Your money goes somewhere, certainly, but someone else gets to decide exactly where. For all you know you could be funding children in cages. — NOS4A2

You're funding the total of it.

Theoretically, it would matter to someone who wants to know what sorts of things her hard-earned dollars are funding. — NOS4A2

Interesting to note, when you pay for private insurance (or really anything in the private sector) you get even less information.

Also interesting to note, if you did want that info available, you'd have to be willing to pay the higher taxes for such a complicated demand.

Theoretically, it would matter to someone who wants to know what sorts of things her hard-earned dollars are funding. — NOS4A2

You're contributing to the total.

This may be true but I doubt you can track your own dollars to their final destination, for instance whether you are funding healthcare or the droning of children oversees. — NOS4A2

I don't really see why or how in the world the destination of the total versus the individual dollars makes a difference.

But absent any sort of audit of where the tax money goes — NOS4A2

Which do currently exist and are open and available to the public, just fyi.

OK. I'm curious so I'll try to play devil's advocate to the best of my ability — Benkei

:wink: let the games begin

Let's say I think lower corporate taxes will benefit the economy because it will mean shareholders will invest profits to increase productivity and therefore employment. I also think lower income taxes should be passed. I don't really care how that's financed. As far as I'm concerned those can be financed through debt, printing money, slashing healthcare or lowering defense spending. My personal situation can be assumed to be as follows: I have a mortgage on my house with a fixed rate for the next 5 years that my wife and I can easily pay for an amount of about 65% of the value of my house, 100k USD income, a decent pension scheme, 8000 USD in savings and health insurance. — Benkei

1. If the trickle-down effect worked at all (which is what I think your first idea there is alluding to) then America would already have solved poverty and have a flourishing middle class, because we do have most of the money globally. While wages have gone up for the 1% however and they have received countless tax cuts, for decades the wages of workers have been stagnant and their costs of living have gone up.

2. Your scenario sounds cushy on the face of it. But bam, your wife gets pregnant with a special needs child and/or you get a permanent, costly, and disabling disease and/or the market crashes and/or you simply get fired because of down-sizing/you were replaced by a robot/you were replaced by someone younger.... Etc etc etc. None of these things are entirely in your control, and all of them mean you're just one step away from financial hardship or even ruin. The social safety net is there to make sure that even if tragedy happens to you, you won't become destitute. Only if you're so rich that you can afford any and all of those disasters, would it make sense to say taxes aren't in your interest.

But then there's also just the average day math. You have health insurance, but how much does it cost you over a year or a lifetime? How much would you have to pay in taxes for the same thing but better (because you'd be guaranteed coverage)? You'll pay less overall with universal healthcare, because you're not paying the salaries of millionaire and billionaire corporate execs.

But this is a blatant straw man. I — NOS4A2

Sorry you feel that way.

Still waiting for an actual argument.

So you're sticking with "because I just don't wanna."

Well, when you have an argument, get back to me.

Why won’t you lay out why X is not in my best interest but Y is? Are you opting out of the conversation, and thus a lost cause? — NOS4A2

To continue the conversation I asked what your reason for X is. You haven't offered me anything aside from versions of "because I don't wanna."

There are some reasonably irreducible claims, but "I don't want to pay taxes" is not one of them.

So, if that's your entire reasoning, I rest my case on the irrationality of your position.

Because you cannot defend your claim. — NOS4A2

Defend against what? :rofl:

That’s not true. I just don’t get how it is against my interests to vote for lower taxes when I am interested in paying less taxes. — NOS4A2

Still waiting for a good reason on your end.

Because it’s my money, not theirs. — NOS4A2

And right there you've shown you don't even understand what taxes and the government are and what their purpose is.

Because.....?

I don’t get how it is against my interests to vote for lower taxes when I am interested in paying less taxes — NOS4A2

Depends why you want lower taxes.

If hh could magically change Hitler into a good person, would you be destroying the previous Hitler, and would that be right — Echarmion

Yes. :rofl:

wer taxes are better, not just wrong but also irrational? — Benkei

Being pro-life is generally a whole, consistent worldview.

Being against taxes and healthcare tends to run into inconsistencies and contradictions the moment you look closely at it.

Just to check : can someone be wrong and still be considered rational? — Benkei

Yes.

I'd probably stop caring about healthcare around 100 kUSD as well. — Benkei

If you were a single person household.

The point remains that you will fundamentally misunderstand, and in the process alienate, the people you so desparately want to convince to prioritise other (mutual) interests. — Benkei

Understanding why someone is voting for something and understanding that this vote is irrational are not only not incompatible, they necessarily go together. It is because I understand why people are against taxes that I know it's against their own interests and irrational.

I think calling people to their faces irrational might alienate them and be just undiplomatic all around. But I don't think laying out why X is not in their best interest but Y is does or should alienate anyone. People who do feel alienated by that (i.e., by a rational presentation of the other view) are opting out of the conversation from the get-go and thus lost causes.

Why is it irrational? If I make 1 million USD a year then social security isn't an issue and it isn't irrational. — Benkei

No one is saying that millionaires would be voting against their own interests by voting against healthcare.

they don't think it's as important as wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade. It's not ignorant, stupid or irrational to do so. — Benkei

No, I understood your argument fully. I'm saying that it only applies to certain issues, and that you listed one in which it is a rational decision, and one in which it isn't.

Just because they believe lower taxes are better for them doesn't mean it isn't an irrational belief and therefore an irrational vote.

So, can we pay off moral debt? Are we moral simply by having our moral acts (and all the good they do) outweigh the immoral acts (and all the bad they do)? — DingoJones

I don't believe in moral debt, per se. But I think as an analogy or metaphor it kinda works.

People here are suggesting that doing right all your life doesn't entitle you to suddenly murder anyone. True.

However, let's say you have a close loved one who's always had your back and they suddenly wrong you somehow, you're much more likely to refer to their previous goodness as a reason to forgive them (depending on the severity of the wrong, I suppose) than you would some stranger or not close acquaintance.

But as @Pfhorrest suggests, this is probably more due to our relative certainty that the loved one will not continue bad acts and the lesser known person might.

I think doing good things to "make up" for a bad deed aren't thus so much a way to eradicate "debt" as much as a way to prove regret, remorse, and reformation.

For instance, anti-abortion and lower taxes. — Benkei

Your argument works for the pro-life side of things.

But voting for lower taxes against social programs such as universal healthcare is precisely an example of such voters going against their own interests.

It's not infallible, — unenlightened

Right, because even an honest person knows when they're about to tell you something that sounds totally coo-coo-bananas.

The Atlantic Article

Not fake, per se, but misleading.

So, my analogy is accurate.

And here I thought it was the scientists predicting climate catastrophe!

Is this a version of what you will tell your doc when he informs you that you have Stage 3 cancer?

"Well, a voodoo priest and a gypsy with a crystal ball told me before that I would die and they were wrong, so on that basis I will proceed with caution regarding fact-checked medical advice."

It’s a common argument to pretend welfare states are socialist, and to pretend tax-payer funded services are the same. But it was Bismarck, a conservative anti-socialist, who instituted the first social health insurance system. And he arguably did it in spite of socialism. — NOS4A2

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?