VAT on the way?

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: XS650
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Exactly! We want it all.............but won't pay for it.


This dead French dude was very prescient.

Quote:
A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Alexis de Tocqueville


And you were speaking of an excess of lawyers..
Quote:
The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by private citizens.
Alexis de Tocqueville






I've paraphrased this wise man in my own way for a couple of decades now.

The congress buys our votes with our money.

Feel free to use that if you see fit.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Win


If that makes me a bad person......


That's the way of it with some here and with those currently in power. You are the current "demon". One leading guy even said you are being unpatriotic....one prominent poster here says you should be killed.....wait...he only said if your income is over his imaginary limit and you hold certain bonds or bond funds you should be killed.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
The welfare / nanny state needs to be cut back, not expanded.


Then, ultimately, you have to abandon economic growth ..or allow dystopia to reign free.

Help me out here with my (il)logic train.


100% of all people's earnings/holdings is currently in the market, correct? That is, unless you stash paper currency in a shoe box, sequestering it from the economy, it's "right there" in a real or virtual sense.

All economic growth comes from the obligation of debt with the creation of "new money". Any debt service must be paid for with the future obligation of more debt, correct?

All proceeds from expansion (increased wages, ROI, speculation, etc..etc..etc.) all were derived from more and more people amassing more and more debt of all kinds, correct?

I equate debt with poverty, in that it is "future poverty not yet realized". One could give it the name of enslavement or whatever ..but I look it as "banked poverty".

So, would it be safe to say that anyone who experiences gains in their debt to holdings ratio (low debt:higher worth ratio), 100% relied on others ..many others... diving deeper into debt and having a net higher debt/holding ratio?

..and that those who see continuing gains, regardless of their skill set or "productivity" as it is rewarded in terms of wage are beneficiaries of more and more people moving deeper and deeper into this high debt: low worth status.


Yet those of higher holdings are "producers" and are entitled to be divorced from those who have too high a debt (include obligations to the national debt) to worth ratio?


Where have I got it wrong?


Quote:
I don't care. /
If that makes me a bad person, sorry, but that's the way I feel about it.


If you concede to the above observational slant ..then kudos to you for being one of the few candid people I've run into.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: XS650
My total bill including medication was about $110. Everything was done very well (confirmed by my doctor when I got home), the only thing dodgy about it was the anti-inflmatory and pain killing medications he prescribed. Fortunately my travel kit had better alternatives.

The hospital was a regular Indian hospital, not a fancy tourist hospital. I was the only Westerner I saw there.


How is $110 affordable for the typical Indian? I mean, the non-upper cast ones that are living in poverty? I think you went to an upscale upper cast hospital.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Win
Why should anyone be taxed extra for twits that buy boats and Harleys instead of insurance? They shouldn't. I certainly don't want to be.


That's the exact reason why we should raise taxes on boats and Harleys to pay for health insurance, so stupid people can't waste money on these toys and have someone bail them out eventually when their health deteriorate and the toys worn out.

 

[XS650]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: XS650
My total bill including medication was about $110. Everything was done very well (confirmed by my doctor when I got home), the only thing dodgy about it was the anti-inflmatory and pain killing medications he prescribed. Fortunately my travel kit had better alternatives.

The hospital was a regular Indian hospital, not a fancy tourist hospital. I was the only Westerner I saw there.


How is $110 affordable for the typical Indian? I mean, the non-upper cast ones that are living in poverty? I think you went to an upscale upper cast hospital.


I saw an upscale hospital, this was nothing of the sort.

By regular Indian hospital I meant regular middle-upper middle class. The Indian patients in there weren't upper class, it was obvious by the way the dressed and acted.

I'm going there again in November. I'll dig a little deeper into what a person with a decent job does for medical care there.

 

[oilyriser]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
All proceeds from expansion (increased wages, ROI, speculation, etc..etc..etc.) all were derived from more and more people amassing more and more debt of all kinds, correct?


It's only *measured* using debt money. The actual wealth is built from physical or intellectual materials. If all money were to disappear suddenly from a financial crisis, all of our cities and factories would not suddenly disappear into a cloud of failed debt.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: Win
Why should anyone be taxed extra for twits that buy boats and Harleys instead of insurance? They shouldn't. I certainly don't want to be.


That's the exact reason why we should raise taxes on boats and Harleys to pay for health insurance, so stupid people can't waste money on these toys and have someone bail them out eventually when their health deteriorate and the toys worn out.


Exactly. Not just throw a party with the proceeds of misadventure in financial decisions that result in "good things for good people" and then play Pontius Pilate when the other shoe drops.

You can't ..well you can try to .. have a one way check valve on "good" ..but it 100% depends on (many) someone else NOT following your "good plan".


This is the "inequitable mutual benefit program":

I buy a boat. My BIL wants to use it. We come to an agreement that we'll divide the maintenance/repairs based on hours of usage. We'll otherwise pay for our own gas. As the boat ages, my BIL says that he wants to opt out of the agreement. The boat is now due for a refit......

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
All proceeds from expansion (increased wages, ROI, speculation, etc..etc..etc.) all were derived from more and more people amassing more and more debt of all kinds, correct?


It's only *measured* using debt money. The actual wealth is built from physical or intellectual materials. If all money were to disappear suddenly from a financial crisis, all of our cities and factories would not suddenly disappear into a cloud of failed debt.


You need to bring that into some form of Garyspeak for me to figure out how wealth isn't moved into one's possession without someone taking on debt to facilitate it ..yet that wealth "doesn't count" when the debt service comes to bear.

 

[pbm]

Win:
You hit the nail on the head. Why should we subsidize your friend with the boats and Harleys while he enjoys himself. Why should I be taxed to pay for health care for a person who eats junk food and does no exercise.

Americans need to take RESPONSIBILITY for themselves (and their families) and stop expecting the goverment (your fellow taxpayers) to cover you.

 

[stockrex]

wow, from VAT to indian hospitals,

Cost Structure of HealthCare
I have said before, just like detroit, current cost structure of healthcare is not sustainable, if you think you are not paying for the uninsured then wake up, put down the ganja stick and take a cold shower with your sugar mama (or daddy) ;-).
There was an article in the major papers last week about average insured person paying mucho mulas for the care given to uninsured.

It is not a question of "I don't want to pay for someone with without health insurance"
It should be more "OK I am willing to pay for it for reduce the cost by 70%" cost! not the price. else the hospitals will find a way to gouge someone else.

many years back we fought proper working conditions, then equality of races, and then gender. Now we should put our foot down for equality or uniformity in healthcare cost.

We have a lot to learn from other nations around the world, when it comes to providing care at bargain basement price.

I am not worried about or speaking for myself, I pay $20 a month for full HMO coverage. I am speaking for those in our we have choosen to leave behind. An 18 year old in the state of CA not eligible for any form of care other than visiting the county hospital.

We need to reduce cost of providing healthcare, we need to comeup with a way to pay for it and we need to ensure everyone has a source to avail healthcare at the same cost.

I disagree with the notion that govt. does everything wrong (that was the ex-presidente), why do you pay taxes then? they will just waste it! if there is a will and ABLE leadership in the helm, it can be done.

When there is lack of leader and accountability, then you get senarios like semi-trucks full of ICE driving around for days without a destination.

 

[oilyriser]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
You need to bring that into some form of Garyspeak for me to figure out how wealth isn't moved into one's possession without someone taking on debt to facilitate it ..yet that wealth "doesn't count" when the debt service comes to bear.


Most people have some kind of debt, but only a small portion have net debt. In the old days, gold was tied up in little disks that were passed around. It could have been put to use. Debt money systems put everything to use, all the time (except these days when banks are officially allowed to cook the books by foreclosing on homes then not selling them, and still valuing them at their pre-crash prices because they haven't been sold yet).

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Most people have some kind of debt,


It's a requirement for our heralded growth. 100% essential.

Quote:
but only a small portion have net debt.


I beg your pardon? There has to be some wiggle/fudge/obi-wan "true from a certain point of view" factor here.

Quote:
Debt money systems put everything to use


If you're saying that it keeps the pipeline full (in a manner of speaking) ..sure. Proving this as a benefit to a social system ..well, you're not proving it with the statement itself. I'd say we had a grand utilization curve that stretched the phase relationship of having and paying out into some temporal mechanics "new math" in pushing the envelope.


I still don't see how this divorces your buoyancy from xx number of supporting columns beneath you.

Your "weight" has to be distributed among varied amounts of burden born by others. There's no other way to hold you aloft.

As the columns get weaker, you add more columns.

What happens if you just remove all the weak columns? Not throw them on the scrap heap (dysfunctional types) ..but just remove all of the alleged consumers of "low grade" ..do you maintain your buoyancy? You're a producer, correct? It's solely by your own upward trust that you're held aloft, correct? You're not dependent upon those columns beneath you. They're anchors that are holding you back.

Is that correct?

 

[Shannow]

The "nett" debt was a trick pulled by our former treasurer a few years ago.

He went from "paying off the $80 budget black hole, left by the previous Govt" to paid off, and no nett debt.

The budget hole was $80B, but once he paid it down to $50b, he could in theory have sold the federal assets of the country and paid off the $50b.

No nett debt is when someone else could take back everything that you "own", and leave you with nothing.

 

[oilyriser]

Banks and a lot of businesses run that way. They have very small assets and make a cut of the flow-through.

"Your "weight" has to be distributed among varied amounts of burden born by others. There's no other way to hold you aloft."


more of the same bizarre "the rich steal from the poor" attitude...

 

[Gary Allan]

Not at all, oily. There's no stealing involved with it. If I succeed as an Amsoil dealer ..advance, it will be due to having other dealers working just as hard or harder below me. My advancement is dependent upon their productivity. Their success is dependent upon them finding ample numbers of people willing to route a portion of their productivity through them ..

You're not robbing someone. But don't confuse that with you being some island of "production" ..like you're some radiator and the rest of the society is soaking up your heat. They fuel you. You just object to paying for waste management of the spent fuel casings.

Or can you just move to an island ..all alone ..and be just as wealthy?

 

[oilyriser]

No, they are enriching themselves partly due to *your* work teaching them how to do business, and partly from their own energies. They are more productive because of you, and pass on a share of that extra to you.

 

[Gary Allan]

Agreed, but ..unless I'm a very fundamental producer (in real terms) ..let's say a grizzly bear (actually a consumer - but let's go with it for a moment) ..and we're viewing society as an endless stream of salmon where salmon are in varied supply ..and I deserve my bounty due to being the most motivated and shrewd grizzly ...then I am totally dependent upon having others productivity routed through me to maintain my status.

For example, buggy whip producers only existed to "serve" the needs of horse drawn carriage owners. Without them, they were worthless. When horse drawn transportation went away, they were no longer having any productivity channeled through them.

So who was the real producer in that or any scenario? The buggy whip producer, or the horse drawn carriage trade that gave them a purpose??

In the short form: Just what are you without so many pawns to give you a purpose? Are you ONLY benefiting them? Or is there a symbiosis that has to reach some sensible balance of exchange?

 

[oilyriser]

Both benefit eachother. That is why your "pay pack to society" idea is flawed. The payback has already been made, long ago.

 

[Gary Allan]

I don't think I said anything about payback. You're in a complex social system that has costs. The higher earner, who currently has a greater proportion of the society's productivity flowing through him, has a greater vested interest in maintaining said environment to maintain his/her status quo. A healthy sustainable environment should be the goal.

That's assuming you desire a functional and vital society.

..and as far as the spent fuel casings .... just like legacy costs ..super fund sites ...land fills ..TCE ..Love Canal ..air polution ..whatever ...

..you have to deal with them anyway.