#Debate1

Hi folks, I've decided that I'm going to start up some debates on random topics maybe once a week or every other week to bring more life to off topic. The first topic will be your thoughts on whether or not people who make lifestyle choices that affect their health, such as smoking, should be allowed to have free healthcare. In other words, should people who make bad decisions that adversely affect their health and cause health problems (emphysema, cancer) be allowed to receive health services payed for by the public.

I'll try my best to stay neutral in the debates. If it gets a bit dry I'll add some questions in to stir discussion or steer it somewhere else. If I feel that the topic is dead I'll give it my rubber dead stamp



and call it over. I'll be semi moderating this so don't post hateful comments please (#NoBalkanProblemsHere). Anyway, let it begin!

Edit: I won't be responding to anyone for the most part to keep my opinion out of these. Sorry in advance if you're offended by this action!

In my opinion, the public should not have to pay for anyone else than their own personal families. I should not be responsible for you, and you should not be responsible for me.
If I made a decision to smoke, and I get cancer from it, I should pay for it myself.

Give me one good reason why I should be responsible for your health care. Outside of atWar I do not know you, I don't even know where you live. Why then should I have to take care of you and myself? I didn't make the bad decision you possibly made, you did and you should pay the consequences.

The problem in today's society is that there is an entitled mentality. Everyone thinks that someone else owes them something. In the words of Phoenix, "You don't owe anyone anything, and nobody owes you anything."
I, as a white person, should not be held accountable for my forefathers actions of owning slaves. I never have owned slaves, and I never will. However, some black people think that I owe them something because my great, great, great, great, great ... great, grandfathers owned slaves.

So to conclude, I do not owe anyone anything, whether they make health affecting decisions or not.

Napisano od Zenith, 12.04.2016 at 20:31

In my opinion, the public should not have to pay for anyone else than their own personal families. I should not be responsible for you, and you should not be responsible for me.
If I made a decision to smoke, and I get cancer from it, I should pay for it myself.

So are you against taxes?

Napisano od Pheonixking929, 12.04.2016 at 20:34

Napisano od Zenith, 12.04.2016 at 20:31

In my opinion, the public should not have to pay for anyone else than their own personal families. I should not be responsible for you, and you should not be responsible for me.
If I made a decision to smoke, and I get cancer from it, I should pay for it myself.

So are you against taxes?

Pretty much yes. The government doesn't deserve any of my income whatsoever.

Napisano od Zenith, 12.04.2016 at 20:59

Napisano od Pheonixking929, 12.04.2016 at 20:34

Napisano od Zenith, 12.04.2016 at 20:31

In my opinion, the public should not have to pay for anyone else than their own personal families. I should not be responsible for you, and you should not be responsible for me.
If I made a decision to smoke, and I get cancer from it, I should pay for it myself.

So are you against taxes?

Pretty much yes. The government doesn't deserve any of my income whatsoever.

SO what about the roads you drive on? Or the police/fire department/military that protects you? School that educates your child so they can find a job and be exposed to other people and ideas?

Nobody should get free healthcare

Napisano od Zenith, 12.04.2016 at 20:31

In my opinion, the public should not have to pay for anyone else than their own personal families. I should not be responsible for you, and you should not be responsible for me.
If I made a decision to smoke, and I get cancer from it, I should pay for it myself.

Give me one good reason why I should be responsible for your health care. Outside of atWar I do not know you, I don't even know where you live. Why then should I have to take care of you and myself? I didn't make the bad decision you possibly made, you did and you should pay the consequences.

The problem in today's society is that there is an entitled mentality. Everyone thinks that someone else owes them something. In the words of Phoenix, "You don't owe anyone anything, and nobody owes you anything."
I, as a white person, should not be held accountable for my forefathers actions of owning slaves. I never have owned slaves, and I never will. However, some black people think that I owe them something because my great, great, great, great, great ... great, grandfathers owned slaves.

So to conclude, I do not owe anyone anything, whether they make health affecting decisions or not.

You gave up your natural rights to the state, and therefore your freedom is not absolute. Welfare is vital for the stability and well being of the state and its citizens. How else is the elderly and the incapacitated suppose to pay for their medical bills? Disability and full time employment should guarantee healthcare.

A man should have the right to drink, smoke, and do all the crazy drugs he wants.

A man that does all these things and fucks up his body should suffer the consequences.

It's called personal responsibility. Men should be treated like adults not entitled babies.

Napisano od Dereny, 12.04.2016 at 19:25

The first topic will be your thoughts on whether or not people who make lifestyle choices that affect their health, such as smoking, should be allowed to have free healthcare.

The government makes a killing out of cigarette taxes, i think it should at the very least use those taxes as loans for those who are ill as the result of smoking. If the patient survives, the costs should be deducted from his income until the fees are fully paid. (Per say, if the person has 20k in Health Related fees, 150$ should be deducted from his income on a monthly basis, assuming he is expected to be alive in 10 years). If the patient died, then the loan dies with him.

Here's something else for you all to chew on. I will be using smoking as an example since it is the simplest one to use.

A smoker is 30x more likely to develop lung cancer (If I remember the statistic correctly). This increase leads to more premature deaths. Now it is common knowledge that as a person ages, he or she is more likely to be afflicted with mental illnesses even if they lived a healthy lifestyle. These afflictions include dementia, multiple sclerosis, and Alzheimer's to name a few. Billions of dollars in the US is spent on the care and treatment of these diseases. Now a person who smokes is more likely to die at a younger age and therefore not develop any of these diseases. One could say that because they won't live to be old enough to get these diseases, helping them out at an earlier age could "cancel" out the amount it would take to treat them because by them dying early, they won't get these diseases, most likely, and therefore money won't be spent on their care.

Social programs are a necessity, but who qualifies should be strictly regulated. You want to smoke drink and make bad decisions? Well here is 35% health care tax, you want an abortion? That's fine the state won't be paying for it though. You don't make enough money for groceries? Well that's fine prove it at a monthly hearing with all the receipts of purchases that month. You should get what you put into society nothing more for stupidity, nothing less for being hard worker.

There exists certain things that should simply be provided by the State for the overall well-being of the society. All members of society, rich or poor, man, woman, and child, has the right to enjoy such public goods as public roads, the police, or military protection equally and without discrimination. So it should be with healthcare also. Engaging in unhealthy behaviour such as smoking should not exclude a person from public healthcare, the same way being a criminal does not exclude a person from the protection of the police.

However, those people that smoke, refuse vaccinations, and engage in otherwise unhealthy behaviour should be required to compensate for their higher demands on the public healthcare system through higher taxes. Said taxes would likely be collected as excise taxes on cigarettes and other harmful products.

For those people saying that nobody deserves their money except themselves, especially in healthcare, seriously? How is it that in wealthy western societies with GNI per capita well into five digits in USD, healthcare is not yet considered a public necessity? As can be seen in other public goods, such as the fire department, society has decided that there are certain things that everyone simply must have, and I would argue that healthcare is as important as fire protection in a life worthy of human dignity.

Yes, of course the sick can pay for themselves. Unfortunately, sickness and accidents are pretty much almost always unexpected, and being hammered with huge medical bills at the wrong time can just ruin somebody's life.

And yes, there exists such things as insurance companies. However, corporations in general and in this case insurance companies in particular are profit-driven. Which is, in fact, a good thing; the purpose of corporations is to make money. But in this case, it means that insurance companies are often driven to some horrible acts to make more money. This is not a theoretical scenario, either. The NHS is awful, but their flaws pale in comparison to the horror story that is the US healthcare system. It's not a coincidence that 48% of US insurance complaints are related to health insurance.

The State has less such problems. The State is not profit-driven. The State is fair.

Napisano od Zenith, 12.04.2016 at 20:31

The problem in today's society is that there is an entitled mentality.

The thing is, if you live in any society anywhere ever, you are entitled to various things. It's not a mentality of entitlement, but rather a case of people actually being entitled to some things.

In most countries today, citizens are entitled to public protection and security. In most countries today, citizens are entitled to a free and public education. So on and so forth. No society in the history of the planet has guaranteed nothing to its members. People, as long as they belong to a society, are always entitled to somebody else's help.

The question here is not "should people be entitled to the products of other people's labor?" They are. The question here is, how much?

Napisano od Pheonixking929, 12.04.2016 at 21:04

Napisano od Zenith, 12.04.2016 at 20:59

Napisano od Pheonixking929, 12.04.2016 at 20:34

Napisano od Zenith, 12.04.2016 at 20:31

In my opinion, the public should not have to pay for anyone else than their own personal families. I should not be responsible for you, and you should not be responsible for me.
If I made a decision to smoke, and I get cancer from it, I should pay for it myself.

So are you against taxes?

Pretty much yes. The government doesn't deserve any of my income whatsoever.

SO what about the roads you drive on? Or the police/fire department/military that protects you? School that educates your child so they can find a job and be exposed to other people and ideas?

Why can't they government pay for the roads? I would much rather give of my own money to the fire/police department than have the government do it for me. Public schools are junk. IDK if you live in America, so you might not have seen this new common core they are teaching for math. It's horrendous.

Napisano od Tundy, 12.04.2016 at 21:25

Napisano od Zenith, 12.04.2016 at 20:31

In my opinion, the public should not have to pay for anyone else than their own personal families. I should not be responsible for you, and you should not be responsible for me.
If I made a decision to smoke, and I get cancer from it, I should pay for it myself.

Give me one good reason why I should be responsible for your health care. Outside of atWar I do not know you, I don't even know where you live. Why then should I have to take care of you and myself? I didn't make the bad decision you possibly made, you did and you should pay the consequences.

The problem in today's society is that there is an entitled mentality. Everyone thinks that someone else owes them something. In the words of Phoenix, "You don't owe anyone anything, and nobody owes you anything."
I, as a white person, should not be held accountable for my forefathers actions of owning slaves. I never have owned slaves, and I never will. However, some black people think that I owe them something because my great, great, great, great, great ... great, grandfathers owned slaves.

So to conclude, I do not owe anyone anything, whether they make health affecting decisions or not.

You gave up your natural rights to the state, and therefore your freedom is not absolute. Welfare is vital for the stability and well being of the state and its citizens. How else is the elderly and the incapacitated suppose to pay for their medical bills? Disability and full time employment should guarantee healthcare.

How about the people who can work that won't they sit around on their butt doing nothing for as long as they can get by. Why do we pay them?
Also, why should I be responsible for anyone else. Did I cause Mr. Johnson's broken leg or Mrs. Smith's old age?

Most of you made arch-mistake about public spending on healthcare.

It is free - to use as a patient, but you pay for it through your taxes. Atleast that's how it is in Europe/Russia, i don't know about America.

Here, when we pay taxes, healthcare tax is also included, it is about 5% of average salary. That money goes directly to Ministry of Health, they allocate to hospitals, clinics, sanatoriums, medical university and medical research. Then, when someone in the country get sick, and visit the doctor, he does not pay because hospital have money provided by MoH. That's how it is free for the patient.

It is very good system which works - as proved in Europe/Russia. Because some people never get sick and therefore never visit doctors and hospitals, while others have misfortune of having cancer, aids, some hard illness which need long treatment and alot of money.



Example:

Netherland: 16 million population, 8 million workers, 5% of their salary goes to healthcare.
Average Dutch salary €3,000, 5% is €150, times 8,000,000 = €1.2 billion x 12 months = €14.4 billion
Average check for medication/prescription and hospital visit: €50
If 8 million Dutch to visit doctor once a year = €400 million
Dangerous illness is rare, lets say 10,000 people have it, require €300,000 = €3 billion
Overall: €3.4 billion bills + €5 billion doctor/nurse salaries + hospitals maintaining €1 billion = €9.4 billion
Saved: €5 billion

Medical research is usually funded by other financial providers like fund for tech-science research.

----

And i didn't even mention Pension fund, for retired workers. How some people complain it is expensive and large old population is draining government budget. Myth bigger than Hitler being good.

Averate Dutch salary €3,000, 5% goes to pension fund €150, times 12 months = €1,800
Working time 40 years (from 20 to 60) x €1,800 = €72,000

No one can persuade me that €72,000 is not enough to spend in your retirement age, when you have family and children who work and possible partner who also have pension. If they are retired couple that is €72,000 x 2 = €144,000. Which makes homeless elderly, hunger and poverty a myth.

Napisano od For Antioch, 13.04.2016 at 10:24

In you post, you named two taxes which already add up to 10% of a person's pay. Add to it the taxes for everything else (roads, security, etc), and what is left of the pay?

Tito didnt name two taxes... he named contributions.
By person's pay... do you mean salary?... because contributions and taxes arent payed out of that amount, they are added cost for a employer for his worker.

Goblin support Tito? What the hell is this!!

I demand a refund !!!

Napisano od For Antioch, 13.04.2016 at 10:24

The problem is that what you are promoting as a "solution" is nothing more than massive redistribution of wealth. In you post, you named two taxes which already add up to 10% of a person's pay. Add to it the taxes for everything else (roads, security, etc), and what is left of the pay?

You are also suggesting that the populace increase their reliance on the government, a very dangerous proposition. If a person needs the government to provide them with all of these things, that person will never be free or independent. You will be unable to stand against the government as they trample your rights, because you have no where else to turn.

Rather, we ought allow each citizen to determine where his money goes and what coverage he gets. Like I said in my previous post, if you can work, you can afford healthcare, but that choice is up to you.

It is not redistribution of wealth, it is simply a common fund from which all people can benefit from (but usually aren't, because not many get sick, but if you do, that fund will cover you, that's the whole point). That reduces stress, trauma, worries and provide population happy life.

I also have to mention that it is not the government which control it, but the state. Government is composed of ministers and their leader (prime minister/premier). Only one of them have access to the fund and vote in it - minister of health. Ministers are elected politicians, while state workers are buearocrats (non-elected workers), they control the fund.

State can create such fund, but it does not force people to give money (taxes) for that, it only promote. There are private funds for that as well, like insurance companes. Population is free to decide where to give money, whether to the state, or private company, or no one.

Companies and employers are forced to pay benefits for their workers (usually 50% of their salaries, in Europe/Russia). But workers are not forced to pay nothing, except income tax.


Let me just do the math to show you how much money is that (primary source of income for the state):

Netherland, 8 million workers, average salary €3,000, 50% is €1,500 x 12 months = €18,000 x 8 million workers = €144 billion


--------

Therefore, the people do not rely on the state/government, neither they lose freedom, neither state/government trample your rights. It is simple basket where people leave money to use to spend when they get sick. Europe would not use it if it doesn't work, yet, Europe is democratic, capitalist and ranks always in top lists as developed continent.

If Dutch doesn't have that system, and god forbid get very sick, he would have to pay for healthcare from his own pocket, and what if health bill is €300,000? He won't have money to pay, he will have to take bank loan, and then.. he will be in debt and his rights trampled during bank night calls, bank harassing and bank selling debt to criminal organizations called 'debt collectors' who use violence.

And i didn't even mention private pharmaceutic companies which make deals with insurance companies and fix prices to get more money from ill people. I didn't even mention doctors working for the state not healing patients but send them to their friend doctors in private clinics claiming how state hospital doesn't have proper equipment and private clinic has, no matter cost is 100x higher and they don't give you receit.

Now i am getting deeper into that ideology, but it is called Liberalism. We in Russia call it 'Wild Capitalism', since Capitalism failed here. Both Communism and Capitalism failed here. It is not working because it does not make people live of their work, they can't buy basic goods with their salaries. Even in America you have pensioners working two jobs so they can pay medication (provided by private companies), watch 'Sicko' by Michael Moore.

Like Communism, Capitalism is also good on paper, giving freedom to people to organize or work alone, prosper based on merit and hard labor. But it doesn't work, few people will organize (like private insurance and pharma companies) and they will drain money from the people.

So you are wrong there, your work and profit cannot afford healthcare.

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 13.04.2016 at 14:10

But workers are not forced to pay nothing, except income tax.

Napisano od Goblin, 13.04.2016 at 14:44

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 13.04.2016 at 14:10

But workers are not forced to pay nothing, except income tax.

snip

Let's be nice now. English may not be his first language so a few mistakes can go through

Napisano od Zenith, 13.04.2016 at 06:20

Why can't they government pay for the roads? I would much rather give of my own money to the fire/police department than have the government do it for me. Public schools are junk. IDK if you live in America, so you might not have seen this new common core they are teaching for math. It's horrendous.

Fire/Police Departments, Military, Health System, Education System, it's all (if public) under the Government. Roads are technically paid by the State using the income they got from the citizens (taxes for example) and other sources of income.

By paying taxes you are already paying for the Fire/Police Departments, Military, Health and Education Systems, so you are indeed giving your own money to them already, through the government.

If what you pay does not correspond to the level of service you want (Public schools as you mentioned in America) than it is the citizen's job to appeal to the government or respective councils to reform the system.

So yes, I agree that the citizen, as part of a society/country and as someone that uses State's services and Infrastructures that were built by the state using Tax money or any other money should of course pay taxes, proportionally (in a way) to their annual income. A person that earns let's say 4000€ (per month) should pay proportionally more than what a person that earns 1000€ per month pays.

Referring to healthcare, and coming from a country that has free healthcare, I think there should be two ways of healthcare, to give the citizen the ability to choose what they want, and also to take some load off the State:

The private healthcare system (private clinics, hospitals etc..) that are of course held by private institutions, companies etc.. which gives the citizen the option to choose the quality of treatment and what treatment they wish to receive. If they can afford private healthcare, then nothing stops those people from going into this type of healthcare, however, the tax that the citizen paid can still be applied to the public healthcare system (of course);

The public healthcare system, held under the Ministry of Health (State), comprising of hospitals, clinics, etc...This healthcare system should be free and universal to every citizen of this country (if let's say there's a foreigner that uses public healthcare system, they should pay for the treatment, since they didn't pay any tax whatsoever), because the citizen paid their taxes, taxes of which are used to sustain the whole "State machine", which includes Health system and all other public systems.

However, in order to keep the Public Healthcare System (PHS) free and universal to every citizen (or people that paid taxes in the country) in the country, that country needs to have a big working force, which generates more taxes, which then means more money to sustain the State and its systems like PHS. Today, in countries of Southern Europe and even in Europe in general, these PHS are 'bankrupt'/deficitary because the population of those countries is in its majority (or in a considerable number) old and requires lots of medical care, which translates in lots of expenses, superior to the money allocated to the health system, combined with a reduced working force due to low birth rates, contribute for the continuous deterioration of the PHS provided by the State, which ultimately results in people recently resorting to Private Healthcare System, where the quality is generally good, to get medical treatment.

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 13.04.2016 at 08:38

How some people complain it is expensive and large old population is draining government budget.

Pension fund in Countries whose population is in a considerable number old/retired are indeed expensive and costly to the State, thus draining government budget, that must be allocated to Pension Fund.

Of course, you can say that those retired people already gave part of their income each month for decades to their Pensions and so the Pension Fund shouldn't be expensive because the money was 'stored' for those people in the future. It's true you're right, and that's why I strongly oppose pension cuts as austerity measures (it's just not fair).

The thing, Pension Fund got too expensive, and almost unsustainable in countries like mine because the population is old, due to low birth rates and the working force isn't enough to maintain the Pensions assured, unfortunately. The unsustainability of the Pension Fund can only be fixed in a very very long run, on my point of view, because it can only be 'fixed'/balanced when the birth rate is superior to death rate. (More Birth rate= Bigger Working Force in the future= more income to the state).

People that smoke in the UK already pay many times their cost to the NHS in taxation on cigs. But yes, a greater incentive for good health should be promoted if healthcare is nationalized. Obesity is a problem and you can't tax it. Health and fitness should be promoted at a young age but it's the parents responsibility to enforce it. But parents don't because half the children come from single parent homes where mothers either don't work or have to work multiple jobs and don't have the time or ability to properly nurture children.

All of the dysfunction stems from progressive social policy. A society without homogeneous heterosexual families with good work ethic will always fall apart.

Napisano od The_Empirezz, 14.04.2016 at 13:36

There should be a Healthcare that does not cover 100% of the medical costs, around 80% is enough.

nah man I agree with most of the stuff you said, but the people that depend from free health care are not the type of people that have those remaining 20% in their pockets.

I am putting this debate on the cutting block. If by the end of tomorrow no one adds any new content to the debate I will give it my stamp and make a new debate for Sunday.

Edit: People are still debating so a new one will come out at the latest on April 20.

Napisano od Zenith, 13.04.2016 at 06:20

Napisano od Pheonixking929, 12.04.2016 at 21:04

Napisano od Zenith, 12.04.2016 at 20:59

Napisano od Pheonixking929, 12.04.2016 at 20:34

Napisano od Zenith, 12.04.2016 at 20:31

In my opinion, the public should not have to pay for anyone else than their own personal families. I should not be responsible for you, and you should not be responsible for me.
If I made a decision to smoke, and I get cancer from it, I should pay for it myself.

So are you against taxes?

Pretty much yes. The government doesn't deserve any of my income whatsoever.

SO what about the roads you drive on? Or the police/fire department/military that protects you? School that educates your child so they can find a job and be exposed to other people and ideas?

Why can't they government pay for the roads? I would much rather give of my own money to the fire/police department than have the government do it for me. Public schools are junk. IDK if you live in America, so you might not have seen this new common core they are teaching for math. It's horrendous.

Not sure if you messed up in your first comment which I read as "Why can't THE government pay for the roads?" If this si the question, it is because the government can only pay for roads through taxes (which you appear to be against). As for paying for police/fire department- there use to be fire insurance. What would happen is if you paid for fire insurance, you would get a logo on your house showing you had fire insurance. If you had a neighbor who did not have this logo )ie. no fire insurance) then the fire department would not stop any fire in that house. Even if you were connected to this house, the fire department would only intervene if the first spread to your house. And even when the fire department intervene, it was only on your property, not where the first was at.

Fire companies would actually race each other to fires tryign to claim who put out a fire first (and therefor got paid). What eventually happened is these fire departments began to get in street fights with each other instead of putting out the fire.

So what happens if a police department or fire department are in a poor neighborhood with little to no tax base, where crime is rampant because of poverty. How are these units funded?

As for schools, there are many issues with education. But to think that cutting funding would solve these problems is a grave mistake.

I would agree with you that the only bad word in the english language is taxes, but they are needed to provide at least basic services. You say you live in the US (I do as well). We have fairly low taxes compared to countries like France and Sweden. And yet, even with those low taxes compared to the higher tax rates in Sweden, our standard of living is very much similar. To cut taxes would essentially cut all services. There would be chaos in figuring out who gives money to what and frankly, it would be more expensive. How would we decide how much to pay the police, the schools, th ehospitals, the army, the trashmen, the fire department, the electric company, the water company, and many other services?

Napisano od Pheonixking929, 15.04.2016 at 18:32

I would agree with you that the only bad word in the english language is taxes, but they are needed to provide at least basic services.

What's with people and taxes? I'd gladly pay my share of taxes, because I'm paying for the whole system, for my school, for access to healthcare, for the protection by my Armed Forces, by my Police Departments, by Fire Departments...so I wouldn't exactly say Taxes are bad. Taxes are our civil obligation to our country, our countrymen, and our society. So yes, Taxes isn't a bad word at all. A Bad word would be demagogy

Napisano od Al Fappino, 15.04.2016 at 23:08

Napisano od Pheonixking929, 15.04.2016 at 18:32

I would agree with you that the only bad word in the english language is taxes, but they are needed to provide at least basic services.

What's with people and taxes? I'd gladly pay my share of taxes, because I'm paying for the whole system, for my school, for access to healthcare, for the protection by my Armed Forces, by my Police Departments, by Fire Departments...so I wouldn't exactly say Taxes are bad. Taxes are our civil obligation to our country, our countrymen, and our society. So yes, Taxes isn't a bad word at all. A Bad word would be demagogy

Taxes are fine when the taxes are spent on the people, and not career politicians and there agendas to get rich off a corrupt system, ahem hillary. Some studies iv read in the past have said 25 to 35% of all taxes can not be accounted for in United States and that is my problem with taxes. That and corporate tax cuts loop holes and a failing welfare system, and you get a failed system, I was gonna move to belgium..... but Belgistan doesn't seem so much a fantasy any more, so I geuss I'll see if I can get into australia. God I hate this tiny blink in human history, it will go down in time as one of humanities greatest failures if we don't kill ourselves off.

Napisano od Al Fappino, 15.04.2016 at 23:08

Napisano od Pheonixking929, 15.04.2016 at 18:32

I would agree with you that the only bad word in the english language is taxes, but they are needed to provide at least basic services.

What's with people and taxes? I'd gladly pay my share of taxes, because I'm paying for the whole system, for my school, for access to healthcare, for the protection by my Armed Forces, by my Police Departments, by Fire Departments...so I wouldn't exactly say Taxes are bad. Taxes are our civil obligation to our country, our countrymen, and our society. So yes, Taxes isn't a bad word at all. A Bad word would be demagogy

No one likes seeing the government take your hard earned money and place it in some "general fund" where you can't tell how or where it's being spent. It irritates me that there is a gas tax that's suppose to be used to fix up roads and yet every morning I drive I must see over a dozen potholes. Most people would like to keep all of their pay to spend or sve but we all understand on some level that if taxes were abolished, it would be mayhem.

Napisano od Pheonixking929, 16.04.2016 at 06:40

Napisano od Al Fappino, 15.04.2016 at 23:08

Napisano od Pheonixking929, 15.04.2016 at 18:32

I would agree with you that the only bad word in the english language is taxes, but they are needed to provide at least basic services.

What's with people and taxes? I'd gladly pay my share of taxes, because I'm paying for the whole system, for my school, for access to healthcare, for the protection by my Armed Forces, by my Police Departments, by Fire Departments...so I wouldn't exactly say Taxes are bad. Taxes are our civil obligation to our country, our countrymen, and our society. So yes, Taxes isn't a bad word at all. A Bad word would be demagogy

No one likes seeing the government take your hard earned money and place it in some "general fund" where you can't tell how or where it's being spent. It irritates me that there is a gas tax that's suppose to be used to fix up roads and yet every morning I drive I must see over a dozen potholes. Most people would like to keep all of their pay to spend or sve but we all understand on some level that if taxes were abolished, it would be mayhem.

What I wonder is, how did the government pay for everything before taxes.
I need to do a bit more research, but I'm pretty sure taxes came about during the depression to help the economy. It was said of them that they would be removed, but it never happened.