| Author: |
[Politics] Topic: Fast Forward to November 7th |
|
be easy |
 View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
MVP
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 15378
Location: Pennsylvania |
#101 Posted: 9/22/2012 9:26:32 AM QUOTE Originally Posted by rick3117: It truly is unbelievable that there are A-holes sitting at home thinking of ways to economically punish people during the worst financial situation since the great depression, knowing full well that almost all of the taxes that are proposed are a direct assault on the working poor.
mattbrott is not an fool
i agree with what he's saying, people shouldn't be drinking soda. There's plenty of things people enjoy doing that negatively impact their health. I'm just of the mindset that wasting energy worrying about problems void of solutions is a crime in itself. I think we all know that drinking sugar drinks is unhealthy, same as we all know that smoking anything can negatively impact your health. I just don't see the purpose (in our system) of penalizing this type of activity with taxes.
For every government action, i always ask who benefits. In the case of the american cigarette smoker or the american soda drinker, i don't see how we are helping them by taxing them, nor how you or i am any better off. Wouldn't good information parlayed with help for addicts and those that struggle with abusing substances yield better results, then pointing fingers and casting blame on others and then helping them by taxing them?
|
|
quote |
|
rooster010 |
RSI  |
All-Star
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 10899
Location: Mongolia |
#102 Posted: 9/22/2012 12:15:35 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by be easy: mattbrott is not an fooli agree with what he's saying, people shouldn't be drinking soda. There's plenty of things people enjoy doing that negatively impact their health. I'm just of the mindset that wasting energy worrying about problems void of solutions is a crime in itself. I think we all know that drinking sugar drinks is unhealthy, same as we all know that smoking anything can negatively impact your health. I just don't see the purpose (in our system) of penalizing this type of activity with taxes. For every government action, i always ask who benefits. In the case of the american cigarette smoker or the american soda drinker, i don't see how we are helping them by taxing them, nor how you or i am any better off. Wouldn't good information parlayed with help for addicts and those that struggle with abusing substances yield better results, then pointing fingers and casting blame on others and then helping them by taxing them?
|
|
quote |
|
chilitokid |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
Captain
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 9870
Location: New Hampshire |
#103 Posted: 9/22/2012 1:55:18 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by mattbrot:
rep or dem -- who cares. Banning sodas is a good thing. Oh God!!! The only problem with your statement is you shouldn't tell me what I
should eat, drink or anything else.
You shouldn't be able to drink beer
or any alcohol and you can't eat steak then!!! Will you complain about
that? You also shouldn't be able to eat food off a barbecue!!!
What's the excuse for not being able to buy bottled water? Last I checked water is good for you?
|
|
quote |
|
Rush51 |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3469
Location: California |
#104 Posted: 9/22/2012 2:05:24 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by be easy: Obama has been re-elected.
what changes 
Nothing changes. Get used to the malaise that has engulfed our country. Obama gets re-elected. Republicans keep the House, Dems likely keep the Senate.... and the Gridlock continues.
Can anyone say more lackluster job growth and $Trillions more in debt. O'bama could learn a little something from Clinton.
It's hard to believe people want more of the same from the last four years... or believe this guy has the capacity to improve the economy.
|
|
quote |
|
Ktrain |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
Captain
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5352
Location: California |
#105 Posted: 9/22/2012 2:36:51 PM |
|
Posted using a mobile device.quote |
|
|
|
mightiestmojo |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
Veteran
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 4970
Location: Texas |
#106 Posted: 9/22/2012 3:17:15 PM |
|
quote |
|
Rush51 |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3469
Location: California |
#107 Posted: 9/22/2012 3:28:32 PM
|
|
quote |
|
be easy |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
MVP
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 15378
Location: Pennsylvania |
#108 Posted: 10/7/2012 10:18:45 AM QUOTE Originally Posted by Rush51:
Nothing changes. Get used to the malaise that has engulfed our country. Obama gets re-elected. Republicans keep the House, Dems likely keep the Senate.... and the Gridlock continues.
Can anyone say more lackluster job growth and $Trillions more in debt. O'bama could learn a little something from Clinton.
It's hard to believe people want more of the same from the last four years... or believe this guy has the capacity to improve the economy.
are we certain nothing changes?
OR, is a vote for Romney a vote for the Ryan Budget? Because so far as i've read and have come to understand, under the Ryan Budget, plenty changes,,,,
|
|
quote |
|
be easy |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
MVP
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 15378
Location: Pennsylvania |
#109 Posted: 10/7/2012 10:27:09 AM
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free
there ain't nothin else to talk about
|
|
quote |
|
rooster010 |
RSI |
All-Star
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 10899
Location: Mongolia |
#110 Posted: 10/7/2012 10:44:45 AM
im too lazy to paste that
not willing to risk the spiral downwards
|
|
quote |
|
rick3117 |
RSI |
All-Star
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12124
Location: West Virginia |
#111 Posted: 10/7/2012 11:18:26 AM QUOTE Originally Posted by mattbrot:
This is a good point. And spoken like a true democrat  . It is the same reason why the 9-9-9 theory of taxation was a regressive tax and why tax based on consumption (what you spend) is also a regressive tax.
And yes the cigarette tax does effect the poor more than others but what is the alternative?
The alternative is to allow free people to make their own decisions. Even if they are too stupid to realize the consequence.
Government has no mandate to protect me from myself.
|
|
quote |
|
be easy |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
MVP
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 15378
Location: Pennsylvania |
#112 Posted: 10/7/2012 12:10:28 PM
This assumes that because a cigarette tax already exists, that it is a solution to a problem
What is wrong with giving people good information and allowing them to decide what to do with it, and furthermore, succeed or fail from their actions? To whom does a citizen owe a tax for the privilege to smoke cigarettes, even if in your opinion it is to their own detriment?
|
|
quote |
|
rick3117 |
RSI |
All-Star
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12124
Location: West Virginia |
#113 Posted: 10/7/2012 12:37:21 PM That the health issues of a smoker will have an impact on the society as a whole if they can not afford health care.
Again I do not think that this is sound reason. We are saying that we all agree as a society that we are responsible for the hypothetical smoker's health care.
I think that we are not in any way shape or form responsible for the decisions made by individuals. If we want to say that we live in a free society. That is why universal health care flys in the face of individual liberty. It pre-supposes that there is some sort of contract between citizens, and it eliminates personal sovereignty on a whole host of fronts. -Diet -Exercise -Alcohol consumption -Tobacco Use -Living Conditions -Expectations of end of life care -Utilization of testing ETC.
|
|
quote |
|
rick3117 |
RSI |
All-Star
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12124
Location: West Virginia |
#114 Posted: 10/7/2012 12:45:17 PM If you are overweight you pay higher premiums. If you smoke, higher premiums.
I even think that cuts for body fat % or hours logged at a gym are free market innovations that could revolutionize health care.
Gym sponsorship by insurance agencies, along with the permission of the customer to log their hours, or even smart cards (like in slot machines) that track your actual workouts. Subsidies could be given to the gyms by the insurance agencies in the form of reduced memberships, and other reward programs that could include reduced rates for progress made in weight loss.
Because the initiative is taken by the individual, and it is 100% voluntary, there is no ill effects on personal liberty.
When you look at it Taxation as a form of penalty from the govt to stop bad behavior is not effective. It has been proven not to be effective, and it is disproportional detrimental to those at the lower rungs of our society. Just as the gas tax puts an unneeded burden on our economy so too will these health based sanctions when the government applies their ham-fisted methods to protect us from ourselves. |
|
quote |
|
be easy |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
MVP
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 15378
Location: Pennsylvania |
#115 Posted: 10/7/2012 12:46:52 PM
i don't think PPACA or the whole so called discussion about Oromneycare, has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH CARING ABOUT ANYONE'S HEALTH
Emancipation from the bondage of the soil, is not freedom for the tree
|
|
quote |
|
be easy |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
MVP
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 15378
Location: Pennsylvania |
#116 Posted: 10/7/2012 12:51:17 PM When you look at it Taxation as a form
of penalty from the govt to stop bad behavior is not effective. It has
been proven not to be effective, and it is disproportional detrimental
to those at the lower rungs of our society. Just
as the gas tax puts an unneeded burden on our economy so too will these
health based sanctions when the government applies their ham-fisted
methods to protect us from ourselves.
THis applies on all levels. If people are unjustly acquiring 'too much money' ie taxing the rich, i don't want the government to legitimize their actions by supposedly forcing them to pay a fee for the privilege, rather If it's wrong, then let's make it right
why do you think there was that shortlived bullshit campaign from 'the 1%' where they said "sure, tax us more". Because they have political privilege that they don't want to give up, so of course they'd pay a small tax to legitimize said privilege. Then we all pretend to look all confused with the end result (massive inequality) when it is rooted in political (dis)/privileges
|
|
quote |
|
thirdperson |
RSI |
Veteran
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1018
Location: |
#117 Posted: 10/7/2012 1:07:04 PM In some countries, high taxes on cigarettes have proven effective in reducing their sales because addicts can only afford less. However carbon tax is mostly ineffective in changing behavior when tax is too low. Since demand for necessities such as gasoline may be inelastic, consumption might not be reduced but governments still need the cash grab for their budgets. |
|
quote |
|
rick3117 |
RSI |
All-Star
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12124
Location: West Virginia |
#118 Posted: 10/7/2012 1:32:26 PM
I have not seen any data that would lead me to believe that Cigarette taxes have, -Lowered consumption -reduced lung and throat cancer
|
|
quote |
|
wallstreetcappers |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Covers Linesmen
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 47734
Location: United States |
#119 Posted: 10/7/2012 1:50:03 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by rick3117: The free market could be utilized in a much more effective manner.If you are overweight you pay higher premiums. If you smoke, higher premiums.
I even think that cuts for body fat % or hours logged at a gym are free market innovations that could revolutionize health care.
Gym sponsorship by insurance agencies, along with the permission of the customer to log their hours, or even smart cards (like in slot machines) that track your actual workouts. Subsidies could be given to the gyms by the insurance agencies in the form of reduced memberships, and other reward programs that could include reduced rates for progress made in weight loss.
Because the initiative is taken by the individual, and it is 100% voluntary, there is no ill effects on personal liberty.
When you look at it Taxation as a form of penalty from the govt to stop bad behavior is not effective. It has been proven not to be effective, and it is disproportional detrimental to those at the lower rungs of our society. Just as the gas tax puts an unneeded burden on our economy so too will these health based sanctions when the government applies their ham-fisted methods to protect us from ourselves.
rick,
You realize the exact "free market" solutions you are suggesting are the mirror of the government controls you abhor right?
Gym hours, body fat percentage, arbitrary and implausible terms to regulate premiums?
Free markets are a textbook myth of course but your suggestions are not solutions and they are not free market solutions.
Also, ANY member of an open society are effected by any other member of that society..you cannot isolate yourself from the concept of society, that is such a simple concept I have no idea why it is misunderstood? |
|
quote |
|
rick3117 |
RSI |
All-Star
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12124
Location: West Virginia |
#120 Posted: 10/7/2012 2:33:58 PM You do realize that don't you? The free market does not utilize implicit force to take away individual liberty. The only way it could work is if, of one's own free will, they decide to participate in these programs. Mandating at gunpoint is not how you do that.
There are free markets in the world. Textbook examples are black markets that rise out of the necisity to circumnavigate the Government's rule.
But that is not what we are talking about here.
We are talking about forcing people to do something at gunpoint, vs of their own free will. We are talking about the false notion that the government has a right to run our lives. and we are also talking about the idea that I am responsible for my neighbors lifestyle and decisions. |
|
quote |
|
wallstreetcappers |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Covers Linesmen
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 47734
Location: United States |
#121 Posted: 10/7/2012 3:12:29 PM
I dont see any difference, the only difference is WHO is controlling the "solutions".
So instead of the government it is a corporation with profit objectives and back tested data charts..neither is efficient.
Free markets is a textbook concept which has never happened in our country or anywhere in any scale.
Corporations dont force by gunpoint, rather they stick a gun in your back that you dont even know is there..which is worse to you, knowing there is a gun or not knowing?
Corporations run the government, corporations hide their intentions from open site and rob society like carbon monixide kills.
The reason government holds guns to your back is because of corporate infestation of governments via contributions, lobbying and appointments.
Funny how you blame the government when the corporations are the reason governments are sick. |
|
quote |
|
rick3117 |
RSI |
All-Star
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12124
Location: West Virginia |
#122 Posted: 10/7/2012 3:37:29 PM
Not one bit of what you are saying makes sense.
If we were to have incentives that were put into the market for good behavior it would work better than punishments rendered by the government. That is all I am saying.
It is not the role of government to monitor or weigh in on what I eat, what I smoke, or how we live our lives. It actually goes quite against our system of government to do so.
|
|
quote |
|
rick3117 |
RSI |
All-Star
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12124
Location: West Virginia |
#123 Posted: 10/7/2012 3:39:53 PM It would work much better than criminalizing arbitrary human behavior.
|
|
quote |
|
wallstreetcappers |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Covers Linesmen
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 47734
Location: United States |
#124 Posted: 10/7/2012 4:12:53 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by rick3117: And free markets do exist. To say that we could have a 100% free market economy is not realistic, but to say that we could take free market approaches to fixing healthcare is very realistic. It would work much better than criminalizing arbitrary human behavior.
Name examples of existing free markets of any scale..I will of course disprove any example. Maybe our definitions of free market are different..
I am saying corporations control the government..so if you are mad at the government then you should be mad at corporations because until money is out and corporate influence is removed, the government cannot properly do their jobs and be unbiased.
I am also saying that you are saying private sector arbitrarily determining policy rates based on profit driven incentive is no different than government determination or involvement. |
|
quote |
|
rick3117 |
RSI |
All-Star
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12124
Location: West Virginia |
#125 Posted: 10/7/2012 4:31:46 PM
I am mad at crony corporatism, but it is counterproductive to cry about corporations while rewarding government corruption with further control of the economy and our every day lives. I agree we need some serious reforms to make the markets more free as opposed to controlled by govt. cartels. Thank you for agreeing with me.
I am not saying it should be arbitrary. I am saying if people choose to lower their deductions by providing the insurer with more access to their health and fitness habits, it would be a boon to the market. Acting on further information actuaries could calculate into the underlying risk of an individual with a higher degree of accuracy with the ability to separate those who exercise and eat right with those who do not.
The difference here is that there is not government force, it is not mandated, there is no tax or penalty that the IRS will be involved with. It is a free market solution.
Sure I agree that the term "free market" gets thrown around, and the definition can be obfuscated in the rhetoric. Suffice it to say that what i have described is a non governmental way to make markets more efficient. To provide incentives, and more accurate pricing through increased data. The insurers profit through the ability to improve their models. The insured profit through cheaper premiums Society profits because there is no implication that you are responsible for anyone but yourself.
|
|
quote |