141–150 of 534 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I went to the ER thinking I was having a heart attack, and it turned out there was nothing wrong. The doctor who saw me afterwards thought it might have been intestinal spams. I got to pay $6,000 for that bit of entertainment.
Let me guess - your deductible is 6000$?
Individual US tax payers pay for most of the world's security. This is one tax of being the global super power, so it's not particularly surprising that when you include all things the US tax payer pays for privately that is taxed in other countries, you arrive at a number higher than other similar countries. In reality, there is no country with which we can fairly compare US tax rates.
>> Individual US tax payers pay for most of the world's security. Security from? Also, do you know that, in exchange, the rest of the world accepts US dollars as reserve currency?
Euro can eventually become a good alternative, but it has to build some "credit history".
Individual US tax payers pay for most of the world's security. This is one tax of being the global super power, so it's not particularly surprising that when you include all things the US tax payer pays for privately that is taxed in other countries, you arrive at a number higher than other similar countries. In reality, there is no country with which we can fairly compare US tax rates.
I'm not convinced that US military intervention in the last 40 years has led to a net increase in global security. Although the existence of the US military probably helps. As long as they don't do anything. I'm undecided on this one.
But the US has one of the largest all-volunteer armies in the world, with some of the most advanced technology, so it makes sense that it costs more. My comment is not a justification for America's military power, it is simply an observation that American tax payers pay for something the rest of the world gets to enjoy for free -- the threat that if another country attempts to upset the balance of power from which many countries profit (namely many of those in Western Europe), the United States (and only or mainly the United States) will stage an intervention.
For example, regardless of Norway's foreign policy, they benefit from American warfare (or threat of warfare) in the middle east which ultimately does lower the supply of oil. Same with Saudi Arabia. None of these countries contribute, which is why it makes sense that the american tax payer pays more.
Individual US tax payers pay for most of the world's security. This is one tax of being the global super power, so it's not particularly surprising that when you include all things the US tax payer pays for privately that is taxed in other countries, you arrive at a number higher than other similar countries. In reality, there is no country with which we can fairly compare US tax rates.
>> Individual US tax payers pay for most of the world's security. Security from? Also, do you know that, in exchange, the rest of the world accepts US dollars as reserve currency?
Security from currency instability via the use of the dollar as a reserve currency?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I grew up in Canada so I totally understand why people are against universal health care... Check out the wait times for MRI scans that are published by the various Canadian provinces. 90 days' wait is not uncommon. Meanwhile in the US it can be had in 3 days or so in every decent sized suburb or city.
As someone who grew up in Canada and actually paid attention, this common line is mostly BS. If you have an emergency, you essentially have no wait time for an MRI. If you have a condition that can wait, you go into the line and potentially wait for a long time. When the wait times become too long, it becomes a scandal and then improves. Every scandal then gets reported in the USA as stories about how horrible Canadi…
Queues are a good thing in that regard, they indicate efficiency of use, what we mostly argue about in countries with socialised medicine is "how long the queues should be?".
Ideally they are on average just long enough so that they never become empty when the usual various peaks/troughs of demand occur, plus have the capacity to handle all the life threatening cases on an urgent basis
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then there's education costs in the US, say you want your kid to go to CalArts, that's $50,000 a year just for tuition, so your kid gets out of school $500k in debt with a degree in performance art and a $3,000 a month student loan payment for life.
On the other hand, a typical state college is closer to $10,000. Yes, it's not Ivy League, but it does the job.
EDIT:
Doh! Just checked the cost of undergrad in some of those nations.
Umm, Yeah.
I guess if I were a German or French guy, I'd likely find tuition levels in the US a bit outrageous.
Individual US tax payers pay for most of the world's security. This is one tax of being the global super power, so it's not particularly surprising that when you include all things the US tax payer pays for privately that is taxed in other countries, you arrive at a number higher than other similar countries. In reality, there is no country with which we can fairly compare US tax rates.
I'm not convinced that US military intervention in the last 40 years has led to a net increase in global security. Although the existence of the US military probably helps. As long as they don't do anything. I'm undecided on this one.
Not so long ago it was nice to have a couple of tank divisions located in West Germany doing nothing. Doing nothing. Just looking at their Soviet colleagues stationed across the border.
Individual US tax payers pay for most of the world's security. This is one tax of being the global super power, so it's not particularly surprising that when you include all things the US tax payer pays for privately that is taxed in other countries, you arrive at a number higher than other similar countries. In reality, there is no country with which we can fairly compare US tax rates.
This can't be right. The bulk of US defense expenses in the last 2 decades for instance have been in needless middle east wars that destroyed those countries, killed millions and enriched US corporations and their employees. It created power vacuums and destabilized entire regions that allowed the rise of ISIS and other extremist groups. There is now slave trade in Libya which was one of the most advanced countries i…
Because, in general, maintaining the status quo (regardless of whether the status quo is good or bad) is good for perceptions of stability and security. Saying that American military might preserves the status quo of Western European / American global hegemony is not particularly controversial. Neither is pointing out that many many countries benefit from maintaining the status quo while contributing nothing to the force that maintains it.
This is not a justification of American military maneuvering, but simply an observation that many countries, individuals, and businesses benefit from it, while contributing nothing.
Your evil specter of big business is ultimately a distraction from the issue, because many non-American companies also got pretty good paychecks from American military involvement, despite them or their employees contributing anything to the United States's actions that gave them that money.
I'm unsure how an argument that attacks the ethics or morality of US action can at all counter an argument that US action maintains a status quo that benefits many people who do not pay for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>Socialized insurance rates in Germany are 15% of income. Unless your family doesn't earn any money, they have been paying far more than 50 Euros. Comments like this always miss the larger point, which is that healthcare overall is cheaper in socialized systems because the government as a large entity negotiates on behalf of citizens and puts strong downward pressure on prices.
Guess what, private insurance companies will also negotiate prices. What happens in socialized systems is that the government does price fixing , which makes healthcare worse and it limits supply . Try getting a specialist appointment with socialized healthcare in Germany, it can take several months. Get private insurance (or pay out of pocket) and suddenly appointments become available. Doctors are leaving the count…
They negotiate prices based on the size of the pool. This is why if you are a small business the rates you will get will be worse than if you were a large enterprise.
With socialized healthcare, the pool is the entire citizenry, which is what gives the government substantial leverage when negotiating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're paying into SS but that money is not being set aside for you, it's being used for current retirees. The next generation will have to pay into SS for you and betting that SS will not change it's payout conditions till then, in the midst of mounting debt liabilities and potentially shrinking contributions, is quite optimistic.
The SS trust fund is currently about $3 trillion. While the money you pay in isn’t specifically set aside for your own use (the whole point of the program is to pool everyone together), it’s not like a Ponzi scheme where contributions from people paying in are directly used to make payments to beneficiaries.