Read http://rightwingnews.com/2009/11/tax-facts/ for analysis and http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/taxwatch-fall2009.pdf for the original data.
No wonder people think government services are “free”. They are – for them. At least directly.
The groups who advocated for the Constitution of 1787 believed the federal government should--and would--focus on taxes of consumption. The natural virtue of such taxes, they argued, is that there were self-regulating. If the taxes became too high, it would drive down demand for the goods or services being taxed, and would thus naturally reduce the revenue.
And they were right.
That's also the fair and, surprisingly enough, ecological solution.
Has anyone considered each according to his/her needs?
People have stopped dreaming and are actively TAKING doctor's "good fortune" for themselves (which, I don't actually have yet )... years more of med school where you study and work 16-20 hours a day and sleep 4 only to be labeled a rich parasite and be taxed into oblivion? No thanks. (after all, sleep deprivation is "torture" now).
What ever happened to you get what you pay for?
Only if you're Al Quida.
Thats dirty capitalism talk! From each according to his means, to each according to his needs! [/sarcasm]
I'm all for buying American (and do when I can). The problem now is that the politicians and lawyers have us neck deep in trade agreements and free market principles. Playing fair is all nice and everything, but when the competition is paying its workers 2 dollars a day, fair is just a term they use to get into our markets. The US used these tactics to help the developing world, now the world is using it to drain us dry. We always assume the rest of the world shares our value of fair play... big mistake.
So, you are a Marxist, been listening to Hannity a lot haven't you?
Something tells me Bettyinlove will be losing her (?) account soon.
If you’re one of the 47 million Americans without health insurance, finding a place for insurance in your budget may seem like an insurmountable task. However, there are options out there, and the expenses involved in these options should be weighed against the cost of an unexpected medical emergency – a $ 50,000 emergency surgery is a lot harder to cope with than a few hundred dollars each month. One option for lowering your costs is to consider a high-deductible health plan, which will give you a smaller monthly payment in exchange for a lower level of coverage. It’s not ideal – you’ll have to pay out of pocket for any doctor’s appointments or tests until you reach your deductible – but it will prevent major medical expenses from causing you to go bankrupt.
...and that's the real fly in the ointment, isn't it? Why? Because we don't know how many of these people could have insurance, but just don't want it (too cheap, think they are invincible, whatever). Soon (if this bill is passed) they won't have a choice, except between insurance or a fine. Forced charity, or compassion, or whatever term you wish to choose. Of course nothing that would actually lower the medical costs and that's what congress doesn't want you to see. Where is the insurance portability? Across state line access? Tort reform? No the Democrat plan relies on continued suffering of the masses (without it a big portion of their constituents go away), wealth building for select partners (lawyers, and other faithful supporters), and the illusion on helping the unfortunate (those unwilling to see past the scam, blinded by the next entitlement), giving them just enough crumbs to keep them in power. Does anyone actually believe they have your best interest at heart?
You are correct.