Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You should be BUT YOU AREN"T UNDER THIS PLAN.

thats the freeking point.

That is a pretty cool tax site. Thanks for that.

Although I was rather interested to see the American side of things (in terms of their tax and insurance premiums etc), it is good to have a more concrete idea as to what taxpayers in the UK would pay on the same wage.

Though I am given to understand that in terms of cost of living, $1 is worth more or less the same as £1, so it might be worth comparing £25,000 against $25,000 directly in terms of taxation/insurance etc...

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/study_most_children_strongly?utm_source=infocus

halonachos wrote:I mean a major retailer making $1,000,000 would lose (rounding to 40%) $400,000 to corporate tax alone. So they would end up with $600,000 left to pay employees and give benefits and buy products, etc. If the tax was reduced(McCain wanted 25%) they would lose $250,000 having $750,000 left to do the same.

Corporate taxes get levied against Profit, not Revenue. So, it a business have $1mill in revenue, spent $500,000 on payroll, another $200,000 on rent, and another $200,000 on other operating expenses - they would pay $40,000 not $400,000. Now, if they were making $1mill in Profit, yes, they'd pay $400,000 in taxes.

Kilkrazy wrote:Exactly. As I have pointed out earlier in this thread the US system consumes 50% more GDP than European style national systems for roughly the same result. I say roughly because there are many different areas within health where some nations are better or worse than others.

That's why extending coverage to everyone seems like a band-aid. The healthcare system needs some real reform, and this isn't it. It would help, becuase the insured wouldn't be paying for treatment to uninsured, but it's not the whole step. Malpractice insurance has sky-rocketed. There's a shortage of nurses, so their labor costs have gone up. There's a bureacracy that rivals the Imperium behind the whole thing.

Again, I don't want the fed gov't to take over health coverage. The US fed gov't has rarely shown itself to be fiscally efficient. Further, it depends on getting funding from Congress (unless they set up a separate fund, and if it's like Social Security, it'll run out of money at some point).

I don't have an answer, but what has been proposed seems like putting a band-aid on a broken leg.

Don't all the big American corporations simply move their HQS out of the country, sometimes just after taking record amounts off of the USA taxpayer through Govt. contracts ?

dietrich wrote:I don't have an answer, but what has been proposed seems like putting a band-aid on a broken leg.

Perhaps with everyone paying taxes for a better healthcare system rather than feeding the insurance industry, you would be able to get something better than a sticky plaster

SilverMK2 wrote:

dietrich wrote:I don't have an answer, but what has been proposed seems like putting a band-aid on a broken leg.

Perhaps with everyone paying taxes for a better healthcare system rather than feeding the insurance industry, you would be able to get something better than a sticky plaster

The government rarely does anything cheaper than private industry. And partially because the overhead for government employees is probably 25% to 50% higher due to better benefits. The system needs overhauled. People making money from the current system don't want to see it changed. Just switching private insurance to a government backed insurance isn't the whole answer. Now, if they switched everything to government sponsored and it reduced liability, etc. - then it could matter.

Again why? Why do you think government run anything would be better? (again this is a US only comment).

Not everyone is paying taxes. Only about 50% are paying income taxes at this point. Comparisons to late imperial Rome are...disconcerting. Personally, and i am speaking in the official context and not this discussion, unless you're paying taxes you should have no vote or say whatsoever in this.

dietrich wrote:The government rarely does anything cheaper than private industry. And partially because the overhead for government employees is probably 25% to 50% higher due to better benefits. The system needs overhauled. People making money from the current system don't want to see it changed. Just switching private insurance to a government backed insurance isn't the whole answer. Now, if they switched everything to government sponsored and it reduced liability, etc. - then it could matter.

I'm not going to argue there. Many systems get by year after year with patches slapped over the cracks. The chaos caused by putting the whole thing into dry dock for rebuilding would be too immense to most people to contemplate, and so the cycle moves on.

That whole tax thing is nice, but in America we have federal taxes, state taxes, social security, and sometimes other taxes depending on where you are.I don't know about england too much, but I don't think you guys have a "county tax" or something similar to a state tax. I think you only have something similar to the federal tax(main government) correct me if I'm wrong.

Still, most major retailers and gas comapnies will make the high margin profits that get heavily taxed. If a business can't thrive in america it would go elsewhere where they don't have to lose 40% of their profit.

However, removing liability is impossible. I mean if someone is willing to complain and sue over spilling coffee on themselves, then they would sue if a doctor slighted them in the least. Seeing as though there are 3x more lawyers in america than there are doctors and most politicians are lawyers, liability is here to stay.

Frazzled wrote:Again why? Why do you think government run anything would be better? (again this is a US only comment).

It works reasonably well in the rest of the world. Some of the best healthcare in the world is found in countries with a national health service.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html and to perhaps a greater extent http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html show how far behind the UK the US is in terms of the performance of its health service.

No matter how much we in the UK moan about the NHS, we are ranked 24th best in the world (in the second link), and ranked 18th in overall health system performance, with the US trailing at 72nd, with a a rank of 37th in terms of overall health system performance.

It also looks like, from the second link, the US spends more per capita on healthcare than any other nation on earth.

It is no guarantee that it would be better, but it indicates that, if you do it right, it can be significantly better and cheaper than leaving it in the hands of the private sector.

unless you're paying taxes you should have no vote or say whatsoever in this.

So, only those who torture people should be able to say whether torture is good or bad and should have any control over whether torture is fine or not?

Perhaps only people who use buses should be able to dictate where they run and if you drive, you have no say when the motorway is closed down to provide an ultra fast bus route free of cars?

taxes in the uk

halonachos wrote:However, removing liability is impossible. I mean if someone is willing to complain and sue over spilling coffee on themselves, then they would sue if a doctor slighted them in the least. Seeing as though there are 3x more lawyers in america than there are doctors and most politicians are lawyers, liability is here to stay.

Except that you can't sue the State unless the State allows you to. And working for the government, generally, protects the individual from a direct suit as well.

SilverMK2 wrote:
So, only those who torture people should be able to say whether torture is good or bad and should have any control over whether torture is fine or not?

Perhaps only people who use buses should be able to dictate where they run and if you drive, you have no say when the motorway is closed down to provide an ultra fast bus route free of cars?

No only people who actual skin in the game should have a say. Thats people who are paying those taxces, or have paid them in the past (retireds). People just voting themselves benefits should shut the hell up.

SilverMK2 wrote:

dietrich wrote:The government rarely does anything cheaper than private industry. And partially because the overhead for government employees is probably 25% to 50% higher due to better benefits. The system needs overhauled. People making money from the current system don't want to see it changed. Just switching private insurance to a government backed insurance isn't the whole answer. Now, if they switched everything to government sponsored and it reduced liability, etc. - then it could matter.

I'm not going to argue there. Many systems get by year after year with patches slapped over the cracks. The chaos caused by putting the whole thing into dry dock for rebuilding would be too immense to most people to contemplate, and so the cycle moves on.

If the UK managed it in the aftermath of WW2, I should think the USA can manage it if there is the political will.

This whole 'governments manage things badly' mantra is getting old and tired.

Blackwater defence contractors cost a lot more than US Army.

US private health insurance costs a lot more than European government managed health

Look at the current state of US car and banking industries and say that the private management managed all of that well.

Good managers manage things well. Bad managers don't. It doesn't matter if they are in the private sector or the public sector.

Blackwater's actually a good deal cheaper for what it does.

What has US government run well? Yep you can name examples of bad US companies but no one can ever provide examples of well run US government entities.
-Post Office
-military procurement
-nonmilitary procurement
-Amtrak
-NASA

Right...

Well, I understand what you are saying; only those who contribute to the nation should be permitted to shape it.

However, we are not talking about giving the poor/unemployed rights above and beyond the average tax payer, we are not talking about taking your house and TV away from you and letting some hobo have them.

We are talking about the provision of required care for all, without the worry that they will then have huge bills that they cannot pay.

What happens, for example, when you are injured (or become ill) and go to the doctor but that particular injury or illness is not covered by your insurance? You would be in (to my understanding), more or less the same boat as someone with no job living on the streets.

You could be treated (if it were a life or death treatment), but you would be stuck with a huge bill afterwards. Perhaps if the condition were not so urgent you might decide you could not afford to be treated, and would have to live with it. Hell, perhaps the insurance company would decide that you were too much of a liability and that one day soon they may have to shell out some of their party tokens on treating you, so they either bump your premiums through the roof or simply refuse to insure you.

Surely in the long run, everyone (or the vast majority) paying a little so that everyone has a basic level of care, free from the worries illustrated above is better than a sizable proportion of the population being unable to get the treatment they require, while you continue to pay top dollar for health insurance that you may never use anyway?

[I should posit beforehand that I am not saying the system has some problems and needs work…I mainly have an issue with these imncompentents trying to rush through a bad version in two weeks that won’t fix any issues.

SilverMK2 wrote:Right...

Well, I understand what you are saying; only those who contribute to the nation should be permitted to shape it.

However, we are not talking about giving the poor/unemployed rights above and beyond the average tax payer, we are not talking about taking your house and TV away from you and letting some hobo have them.

*Actually it will. Increased taxes on the middle class are coming. Less jobs will hammer the economy further. Billions of dollars are going to be pulled from Medicare which directly takes resources from Sr. Citizens.

We are talking about the provision of required care for all, without the worry that they will then have huge bills that they cannot pay.

But also limitations on care for said Sr. Citizens, and significantly increased taxes.

What happens, for example, when you are injured (or become ill) and go to the doctor but that particular injury or illness is not covered by your insurance? You would be in (to my understanding), more or less the same boat as someone with no job living on the streets.

What happens when its not covered by GovCare? What happens when GovCare determines you’re too old so no medical procedure for you? What happens when half the Medicare doctors bail on the program for Sr. Citizens because payments are reduced to govern GovCare?

Surely in the long run, everyone (or the vast majority) paying a little

Low estimates are $1.0TRN in increased costs, and that includes taking hundreds of millions out of Medicare and includes vaunted cost savings. Lets restate that number: $1.0TRN.

That's true dietrich I forgot about that whole the government must give you permission to sue it thing, however, the government would allow people to sue lest the people get really, really upset about it.


Thanks reds8n, it seems that you have the same types of taxes we have(for the most part) however, we still pay an income tax to both state and federal taxes. For example I had to use my entire federal tax return to pay my state taxes.

It depends what and why they're suing. If a private firm had designed the New Orleans levee system, they'd been sued off the planet. Because the Corps of Engineers did it, they haven't been.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:I should posit beforehand that I am not saying the system has some problems and needs work…I mainly have an issue with these imncompentents trying to rush through a bad version in two weeks that won’t fix any issues.

That's a thousand-or-so pages long. My guess is that most of Congress hasn't read it, at best, they've had an aide(s) read it and give them a summary. I have no faith in Congress doing something that makes sense. This is the same group that wants to give up Cap and Trade. My guess is they'll pass something with the best of intentions and the law of unintended consequences will just turn it into a disaster.

Hell they've said there's no use reading... thats just scary. This will be round four of this nightmare style of approval

TARP
Budget
Cap and Trade
This.

As of 2009, the United States government is spending about $1 trillion annually on defense-related purposes.

Now, don't get me wrong, but do you really need a huge fleet of Nuclear steath bombers, more nukes than you need to blow the planet in half a couple of times, etc etc...?

I don't have time to reply to all your points, as I am about to leave work (woo, paid to debate on the internet!), but I just thought that I would point out that £1trn is not actually a large figure when dealing with governments.

And what I do not think is factored into your costing is the fact that you can "increase taxes" quite considerably to cover the cost of healthcare, simply by rerouting a proportion of the employers wage package that used to go on medical insurance, leaving health insurance the province of choice, (as it is in the UK) rather than manditory.

*gone*

$1 Trillion is a lot of money, doesn't matter who is paying it.

dietrich wrote:
That's a thousand-or-so pages long. My guess is that most of Congress hasn't read it, at best, they've had an aide(s) read it and give them a summary. I have no faith in Congress doing something that makes sense. This is the same group that wants to give up Cap and Trade. My guess is they'll pass something with the best of intentions and the law of unintended consequences will just turn it into a disaster.

Hell, most of congress doesn't even show up to work. Have you ever watched c-span? There's like 50 people in the house and 13 in the senate.

Frazzled wrote:Blackwater's actually a good deal cheaper for what it does.

What has US government run well? Yep you can name examples of bad US companies but no one can ever provide examples of well run US government entities.
-Post Office
-military procurement
-nonmilitary procurement
-Amtrak
-NASA

Well it's true NASA never got to the Moon.

SilverMK2 wrote:I don't have time to reply to all your points, as I am about to leave work (woo, paid to debate on the internet!), but I just thought that I would point out that £1trn is not actually a large figure when dealing with governments.

Actually that's almost 2trn in american monies. Seeing as though our national debt is 11TRN, that is a whole hell of a lot of money.

The funny thing is, lots of government run things in other countries are great.

British Post Office used to be the best in the World.
British Rail worked much better before privatisation.
The NHS.

Maybe Americans are just rubbish at government.

Also to those nonbelievers, the moon has some gravity, not a lot but some so the flag would sag.

But the US government is well, stupid. NASA spent millions to develope a pen that would write in zero gravity, the russian space program used a pencil. We like to be high tech, not simple.

Kilkrazy wrote:Maybe Americans are just rubbish at government.

That could well be. There's a Friends episode, where Joey is describing his family, "The Tribianies aren't great leaders, or thinkers. And we don't run real fast. But, we can eat!" That's America.

SilverMK2 wrote:As of 2009, the United States government is spending about $1 trillion annually on defense-related purposes.

Do we really need to be defending Europe?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:The funny thing is, lots of government run things in other countries are great.

British Post Office used to be the best in the World.
British Rail worked much better before privatisation.
The NHS.

Maybe Americans are just rubbish at government.

Thats why I keep saying US government KK. While even we are better than your average banana republic, I have no proof that Europe's government is as blindingly incompetent as ours. I'm pretty certain the Singapore government is a Ferrari compared to our Nova.