Yes, but I would hope that any U.S. law is also constitutional as well. While some things in the Constitution could be considered somewhat more difficult to interpret than others, it is mostly very clearly worded. Especially when it comes to the limits that are placed on the power of Congress.

Sure, and all the various issues have been litigated any number of times and they have all come back as Constitutional. Congress has the power to tax under the general welfare clause. Combine that with the necessary and proper clause and case law and the rest, and the inescapable conclusion is that income taxes are perfectly legal and constitutional.

I suppose that the people who are making the case for "free" health care would probably invision the money to pay for it coming mostly from income tax revenue. But I personally don't think it would be the only way to achieve something very close to that.

Money is fungible, and individuals pay 100% of all taxes, if indirectly. They pay, and they pay dearly.

Without income taxes, it will be much easier for many more people to pay for their own health insurance because they'll end up with more money.

Fine with me. End them all.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I don't know what to tell you, U.S. law is also created in other ways beyond the Constitution, and the Constitution is subject to interpretation.

Yes, but I would hope that any U.S. law is also constitutional as well. While some things in the Constitution could be considered somewhat more difficult to interpret than others, it is mostly very clearly worded. Especially when it comes to the limits that are placed on the power of Congress.

As much as I disagree with this, it seems that the Constitution does not mean what it actually says, but instead it means what the Federal Courts (especially the Supreme Court) says it means. As long as we have Judges in this country that persist in reading their own viewpoints and opinions into the Constitution, and thereby 'finding' all sorts of 'rights' in the Constitution that the Constitution's text makes absolutely no mention of, this will remain a problem.

It is my opinion that the Constitution should be literally interpreted, and that it explicitly means what it explicitly says... and only what it explicitly says. My Constitutional Philosophy can be best summed up as my being a 'strict constructionist'. Much of what the Federal Government does is, by my way of looking at it, totally Unconstitutional. Accordingly, I tend to vote for political candidates from political parties that share this viewpoint. And, just as an FYI, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans share this viewpoint.

They are separate issues, of course. However one cannot be consistent in supporting a program that could only be paid for by massive tax increases, and then advocate that taxes themselves are illegal and should not be paid. In that sense they are mutually exclusive because without the tax revenue, there could be no "free" health care.

I suppose that the people who are making the case for "free" health care would probably invision the money to pay for it coming mostly from income tax revenue. But I personally don't think it would be the only way to achieve something very close to that. Without income taxes, it will be much easier for many more people to pay for their own health insurance because they'll end up with more money.

Do a little research on what sources of tax revenue that the pre-16th Amendment Constitution actually authorizes for the Federal Government. Then do some research on various 'free trade' organizations and the general tendency for Governments around the world to eliminate import duties and tariffs. If the Income Tax were eliminated, alternate sources of revenue would have to be authorized even IF the US Federal Government eliminated all spending on programs of questionable Constitutionality. If the Income Tax were eliminated, the Federal Government would likely have to implement a National Sales Tax (which I, by the way support -- I have never been a fan of the so-called 'progressive' aspects of the Income Tax) to replace the revenue. A National Sales Tax is just about the only National Tax that could generate enough revenue. The ONLY alternative would be to allow the States do all the Taxing, but then somehow require the States to send a portion (and a Large one, at that) of their tax revenue to the Federal Government. There is really no constitutional way of doing so at this time.

So it appears that we are stuck with (at least over the medium term) the Federal Income Tax. It just really has no replacement available that many of the People would agree to.

Now then, lets say that the Federal Government in the USA does commit to a program of across-the-board Socialized medicine in this country. It would have to be paid for. The Federal Government would either have to raise taxes, increase budget deficits, cut other spending, restrict eligibility (both in who is covered and what is covered), or most likely a combination of all of these to pay for it. There would come a point, and rather quickly I might add, where tax rates could not be raised further without causing a massive economic downturn.

Furthermore, almost everyone agrees that, at least beyond a certain point, budget deficits are a bad thing. You might be able to push up deficits a certain amount, but sooner or later, just as with taxes, you are going to reach the point where higher deficits will damage the economy.

So, that leaves us with cutting back spending in other areas. But before I get to that, I would like to provide some information on just how much money we are talking about.

In 2004, health care spending in the USA was about 1.9 trillion US$. Yes, trillion with a T. That is, $1900000000000.00. The Gross Domestic Product(GDP) in 2004 was about US$11.7 trillion. So, health care spending in 2004 was about 16% of GDP.
Source: http://hspm.sph.sc.edu/Courses/Econ/Classes/nhe00/

At the same time, total government spending in 2004 was about US$2.2 trillion.
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf table on page 22.

So, while there certainly was some overlap between the two, we are looking at an amount of spending on health care in 2004 that comes very close to equaling the US Government's total spending in 2004.

So, back to spending cuts. Because of required payments on interest on the national debt, it is likely that even with cutting every other cent the Federal Government spends, the leftover money would likely not be enough.

So we are back to raising taxes. Without spending cuts, the Federal Government's tax revenue would have to approximately double. The average taxpayer in the USA pays about 1/3 of their income in Federal Taxes. The amount of state and local taxes paid raises this figure up to about 50%. Doubling the Federal Tax revenue would raise the average taxpayer's tax burden to 2/3'rds for the Federal Taxes, making his total tax burden to be about 83%. This is economically untenable.

Furthermore, since more people would be receiving care (as in the currently 'uninsured') the costs of supplying this health care would likely be greater than in the data I am using.

So then, we are left in the following situation. Either a draconian series of tax increases AND across-the-board spending cuts would have to be enacted, or there would have to be severe limitations on who would receive health care and for what conditions. Both would likely be necessary. And if you are going to limit who is covered, and what is covered, then I must ask what the entire POINT of Socialized health care is? For the poor? They already HAVE it. For the multimillionaire/billionaire rich? They can in any case afford their own. Socialized health care will only have the effect of totally screwing Joe Average (the middle-class taxpayer) six ways to Sunday. I've heard various government social program initiatives referred to as the 'New Deal', the 'Fair Deal', and the 'Great Society'. This one could only be referred to as the 'RAW Deal'.

It is my opinion that the Constitution should be literally interpreted, and that it explicitly means what it explicitly says... and only what it explicitly says.

Where's the fun in that?

Well, I'm off to the religious thread to read the many various Biblical 'interpretations'... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

All of my posts here are in the form of questions. I have never been political and am prone to make mistakes similar to those of younger persons. I have used catch phrases and promises of payment for proof against because I don't know for sure. I will debate with you but there are always two sides to every story. I may very well be wrong in much, if not all of what I post but can only learn by having people respond to my posts. I am not anti American. I am not a Communist sympathizer. I'm just looking for answers to my questions.

I don't want to fight with anyone for any reason, though I can be grumpy when attacked. I realize many people can't help me in this quest for knowledge and can't put down in writing what I'm looking for, but you must realize I am not an enemy. I love my country. Otherwise I wouldn't question things.

MrGray, of course you are not making mistakes. You are bringing up subjects that interest you in this and many similar threads. Those of us with similar interests enter into discussions with you (and each other) in these threads in what is hopefully a fair, civil, and respectful manner.

I have never called you anti-American, or a pinko commie-symp. In fact, your questioning of these things makes you more 'American' (in my book, at least) than many of those that do not. It shows that you are curious, and actually care about the way things are. In my opinion, you are doing fine!

Sometimes we agree, and that is just great! Other times, we disagree, and you know, that is just great too! After all, one of the cornerstones of American society is the right to have your own opinion on things.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

I knew you knew that but that was my disclaimer for everyone else.

;)

Nice to hear though!


:D

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Yes, but I would hope that any U.S. law is also constitutional as well. While some things in the Constitution could be considered somewhat more difficult to interpret than others, it is mostly very clearly worded. Especially when it comes to the limits that are placed on the power of Congress.

Sure, and all the various issues have been litigated any number of times and they have all come back as Constitutional. Congress has the power to tax under the general welfare clause. Combine that with the necessary and proper clause and case law and the rest, and the inescapable conclusion is that income taxes are perfectly legal and constitutional.

Congress might have certain limited power to tax under the general welfare clause, but that doesn't give the Congress the unlimited power to impose a direct tax. The powers that the Congress has with regards to taxation is more clearly defined in Article 1, Section 9. Furthermore, it's clarified in the general welfare clause that duties, imposts, and excises have to be uniform. It's quite clear that when the clause says excises, it's referring to indirect duties or taxes. The clause doesn't give the Congress authority to impose direct income taxes.

---

Can anyone explain in easy words to a poor european what's this fuzz about one particular tax is about, and what the bad things are with this kind of tax compared to others?

Or, if you don't want any tax at all, how the common goods should be financed?

I don't know what to tell you, U.S. law is also created in other ways beyond the Constitution, and the Constitution is subject to interpretation.

Yes, but I would hope that any U.S. law is also constitutional as well. While some things in the Constitution could be considered somewhat more difficult to interpret than others, it is mostly very clearly worded. Especially when it comes to the limits that are placed on the power of Congress.

As much as I disagree with this, it seems that the Constitution does not mean what it actually says, but instead it means what the Federal Courts (especially the Supreme Court) says it means. As long as we have Judges in this country that persist in reading their own viewpoints and opinions into the Constitution, and thereby 'finding' all sorts of 'rights' in the Constitution that the Constitution's text makes absolutely no mention of, this will remain a problem.

It is my opinion that the Constitution should be literally interpreted, and that it explicitly means what it explicitly says... and only what it explicitly says. My Constitutional Philosophy can be best summed up as my being a 'strict constructionist'. Much of what the Federal Government does is, by my way of looking at it, totally Unconstitutional. Accordingly, I tend to vote for political candidates from political parties that share this viewpoint. And, just as an FYI, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans share this viewpoint.

They are separate issues, of course. However one cannot be consistent in supporting a program that could only be paid for by massive tax increases, and then advocate that taxes themselves are illegal and should not be paid. In that sense they are mutually exclusive because without the tax revenue, there could be no "free" health care.

I suppose that the people who are making the case for "free" health care would probably invision the money to pay for it coming mostly from income tax revenue. But I personally don't think it would be the only way to achieve something very close to that. Without income taxes, it will be much easier for many more people to pay for their own health insurance because they'll end up with more money.

Do a little research on what sources of tax revenue that the pre-16th Amendment Constitution actually authorizes for the Federal Government. Then do some research on various 'free trade' organizations and the general tendency for Governments around the world to eliminate import duties and tariffs. If the Income Tax were eliminated, alternate sources of revenue would have to be authorized even IF the US Federal Government eliminated all spending on programs of questionable Constitutionality. If the Income Tax were eliminated, the Federal Government would likely have to implement a National Sales Tax (which I, by the way support -- I have never been a fan of the so-called 'progressive' aspects of the Income Tax) to replace the revenue. A National Sales Tax is just about the only National Tax that could generate enough revenue. The ONLY alternative would be to allow the States do all the Taxing, but then somehow require the States to send a portion (and a Large one, at that) of their tax revenue to the Federal Government. There is really no constitutional way of doing so at this time.

So it appears that we are stuck with (at least over the medium term) the Federal Income Tax. It just really has no replacement available that many of the People would agree to.

Now then, lets say that the Federal Government in the USA does commit to a program of across-the-board Socialized medicine in this country. It would have to be paid for. The Federal Government would either have to raise taxes, increase budget deficits, cut other spending, restrict eligibility (both in who is covered and what is covered), or most likely a combination of all of these to pay for it. There would come a point, and rather quickly I might add, where tax rates could not be raised further without causing a massive economic downturn.

Furthermore, almost everyone agrees that, at least beyond a certain point, budget deficits are a bad thing. You might be able to push up deficits a certain amount, but sooner or later, just as with taxes, you are going to reach the point where higher deficits will damage the economy.

So, that leaves us with cutting back spending in other areas. But before I get to that, I would like to provide some information on just how much money we are talking about.

In 2004, health care spending in the USA was about 1.9 trillion US$. Yes, trillion with a T. That is, $1900000000000.00. The Gross Domestic Product(GDP) in 2004 was about US$11.7 trillion. So, health care spending in 2004 was about 16% of GDP.
Source: http://hspm.sph.sc.edu/Courses/Econ/Classes/nhe00/

At the same time, total government spending in 2004 was about US$2.2 trillion.
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf table on page 22.

So, while there certainly was some overlap between the two, we are looking at an amount of spending on health care in 2004 that comes very close to equaling the US Government's total spending in 2004.

So, back to spending cuts. Because of required payments on interest on the national debt, it is likely that even with cutting every other cent the Federal Government spends, the leftover money would likely not be enough.

So we are back to raising taxes. Without spending cuts, the Federal Government's tax revenue would have to approximately double. The average taxpayer in the USA pays about 1/3 of their income in Federal Taxes. The amount of state and local taxes paid raises this figure up to about 50%. Doubling the Federal Tax revenue would raise the average taxpayer's tax burden to 2/3'rds for the Federal Taxes, making his total tax burden to be about 83%. This is economically untenable.

Furthermore, since more people would be receiving care (as in the currently 'uninsured') the costs of supplying this health care would likely be greater than in the data I am using.

So then, we are left in the following situation. Either a draconian series of tax increases AND across-the-board spending cuts would have to be enacted, or there would have to be severe limitations on who would receive health care and for what conditions. Both would likely be necessary. And if you are going to limit who is covered, and what is covered, then I must ask what the entire POINT of Socialized health care is? For the poor? They already HAVE it. For the multimillionaire/billionaire rich? They can in any case afford their own. Socialized health care will only have the effect of totally screwing Joe Average (the middle-class taxpayer) six ways to Sunday. I've heard various government social program initiatives referred to as the 'New Deal', the 'Fair Deal', and the 'Great Society'. This one could only be referred to as the 'RAW Deal'.

MajorKong, I understand how taxation policy might shift if the current income tax system were to be abolished. The government would most likely be looking to other places to make up for the huge loss that would result from the lack of those taxes. Taxation may end up resembling what it was pre-16th Amendment days. And with the newer 'free trade' agreements being what they are today, it would definately pose a problem.

The reason for creating the 16th Amendment was that bankers and their political friends knew that they couldn't get the money that they wanted even with increasing the taxes with the system that was in place at the time. They knew that there were limits to how much they could push and squeeze to get what they wanted.

I don't disagree with the points you made about the potential spending problems. The numbers are quite frightening. And I appreciate the additional information you provided. However, I think it's possible to cut down on the huge amounts of money that's being spent on health care by other ways. A couple of very important things can be done. One of the problems is that the health care system in general isn't as efficient as it could be. More strict universal medical standards should be applied when it comes to diagnosis and treatment.

If there was more spending on finding cures for diseases, and we're talking MUCH more spending, it would get rid of the need to have to spend the money that's being spent today. Also, some of the rights that drug companies have should be stripped away. It'll make a very big difference in government spending if other companies are allowed to pruduce drugs with the same ingredients at a small fraction of the cost. If they don't like it, tough.

Remember, I didn't say I believed in complete socialized health care. I did mention that it would be easier for many people to pay for their own insurance if the burdon of income taxes was lifted. Besides, socialized health care doesn't necessarily mean better health care. I partially disagree with you when you say that the poor already have access to health care. While it's true that in some places there are medical facilities that take care of the poor, it's not like that everywhere.

---

Can anyone explain in easy words to a poor european what's this fuzz about one particular tax is about, and what the bad things are with this kind of tax compared to others?

Or, if you don't want any tax at all, how the common goods should be financed?

Americans are big whiners about taxes. They want all the services, but they also want someone else to pay for them. As a matter of fact, the United States is about the lowest taxed country in the industrial world.

---

Account frozen...

Can anyone explain in easy words to a poor european what's this fuzz about one particular tax is about, and what the bad things are with this kind of tax compared to others?

Or, if you don't want any tax at all, how the common goods should be financed?

Good question, Saenger! Let me try to give you an answer.

1. Nobody really enjoys paying taxes. Most all of us know it is a necessity, though, but that still doesn't mean we have to like it.

2. The Federal Income Tax (taxes collected on income of all sorts, including wages, interest on savings, dividends on stock, and proceeds from sale of assets such as real estate) is administered and collected by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), part of the US Treasury Department. This tax is hated by many in the USA because of several reasons. First, it is one of the most noticeable taxes because it is directly withheld from most employee paychecks. On the paycheck stubs that most everyone gets with their paychecks, an itemized list of 'withholdings' is present. Federal Income Tax (along with taxes for the Social Security system) generally are at the top of the list.

3. Second, the IRS has virtually unchecked and unlimited powers to collect it. Even an honest mistake (such as incorrectly claiming a deduction) can result in a HUGE penalty in ADDITION to the back taxes owed. Even acting on the advice of an IRS agent is not defense against this. The Income Tax code is HUGE, and not even experienced IRS agents know it ALL. For everyone except those with the simplest situations, filling out the yearly (and often quarterly) tax forms is a huge chore. You make honest mistakes, you are screwed. If your situtation changes in the middle of the year, you MAY be screwed. If you intentionally dodge paying, you can have all your assets seized by the IRS, and you can be Jailed for quite some time indeed. The IRS is perceived by many in the USA as 'public enemy #1'.

4. As I mentioned, the Income Tax code is Huge, tens of thousands of pages. And much of it changes from year to year. The Federal Income Tax is used by the Federal Government as a vehicle for Social Engineering. That is, the Government uses it to encourage some activities, and discourage others. As such, it is EXTREMELY complex. Tax Deductions for this... Tax Credits for that.. Additional tax owed for this other... Arrgh! If ONLY it was as simple as 'pay the govt. x% of your total income', but it isn't.

5. Members of the public on all socioeconomic levels perceive the Income Tax as 'unfair'. Those below the poverty level don't pay much, if any, Income Tax and may even get money back from the IRS (Earned Income Credit payments), so they are not who I am discussing. Those just ABOVE the poverty level complain that they are the least able to afford to pay the tax, so why don't the 'rich' pay a bigger share since they CAN afford it. Those with higher levels of income see that those with lower incomes pay a lower rate, so they claim unfairness. Also, there are many deductions, generally increasing in number as income level increases. Those that cannot claim some deductions complain that it is unfair that others can. Generally, the lower income people complain that the Income Tax System is unfair because the higher income people have too many deductions. Note here that the lower income people have a valid point, since they are less able to afford to pay.

6. The Federal Income Tax is what as known as a 'Progressive' Tax. In my opinion, the choice of the terms 'Progressive' and 'Regressive' is a bad one, for the terms themselves bias the minds of those that hear them. But, anyway... The Income Tax is 'Progressive'. This means that the tax rate starts off lower, and as income increases the rates get higher. The way that Income Tax implements this is as follows. Those with incomes less than, lets say 'A', pay no tax. Those with incomes between 'A' and 'B' pay 'X'% of the income they had between 'A' and 'B'. Those with incomes between 'B' and 'C' pay 'X'% of (B-A) plus 'Y'% of the amount over 'B'. Those with incomes between 'C' and 'D' pay, 'X'% of (B-A) + 'Y'% of (C-B), + 'Z'% of the amount over 'C'. Etc. (A<B<C<D, and X<Y<Z) The Income Tax system is MUCH more complicated than this, but this is a general idea of what a 'Progressive' tax system is. Generally, the higher income people complain that the Income Tax system is unfair because the lower income people pay a lower rate. Note that the higher level income people have a valid point here since even if everyone paid the same % rate, the higher level income people would still pay MORE in total $ than the lower level income people.

In short, almost EVERYONE except Accountants (who make a LOT of their living performing the ARCANE calculations required to figure out people's tax bills), Congressmen (who enjoy the power trip they get from their 'Social Engineering' experiment) and IRS employees (who make their living off of collection and enforcement of the Income Tax, as well as some who 'get off' on being jack-booted thugs) has ample reason the HATE the Federal Income Tax in the USA.

That, Saenger, is why the Federal Income Tax is so unpopular in the USA.

I don't disagree with the points you made about the potential spending problems. The numbers are quite frightening. And I appreciate the additional information you provided. However, I think it's possible to cut down on the huge amounts of money that's being spent on health care by other ways. A couple of very important things can be done. One of the problems is that the health care system in general isn't as efficient as it could be. More strict universal medical standards should be applied when it comes to diagnosis and treatment.

If there was more spending on finding cures for diseases, and we're talking MUCH more spending, it would get rid of the need to have to spend the money that's being spent today. Also, some of the rights that drug companies have should be stripped away. It'll make a very big difference in government spending if other companies are allowed to pruduce drugs with the same ingredients at a small fraction of the cost. If they don't like it, tough.

This is hilarious and demonstrates a serious lack of basic economic knowledge. When you impose massive costs on people (taxes, tariffs, regulations, restricts, quotas, pick your favorite or any combination thereof) they cease to produce. They very quickly learn that any effort beyond the bare minimum is a complete waste of their time and effort and they stop.

This one is a scream: "One of the problems is that the health care system in general isn't as efficient as it could be." Oh YEAH, and all we need the the gov't to ORDER it to become more efficient. Them damn hell ass doctors simply aren't PRODUCING enough--more laws will certainly help that out.

Ask Nixon how his direct price controls worked out. Ask Carter how he feels being blamed for the results. See how well the Soviets did. Check with all the corporations in the DPRK (where some of their rights were stripped away) to see their thoughts on the matter. Oh, right, there aren't any. Check with all the NHS type countries to see how costs keep rising every year. How about all the massive pharmaceutical companies in Romania. Or Venezuela. Or the DPRK. Oh, right, there aren't any. Denmark actually had the right idea, they buy all of their medical supplies, equipment, and pharmaceuticals from a branch of their gov't that produces all those things. Oh, wait, that's not true at all, they buy them on the open market.

Trying to lower costs with the use of ever more increasing restrictions, taxes, regulations, loss of choice, and economics by gov't fiat is one of the stupidest things humans have ever embraced because it never works. Costs. Go. Up. When they do, advocating ever more of the above to fix it makes matters worse.

What a great plan.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Americans are big whiners about taxes. They want all the services, but they also want someone else to pay for them. As a matter of fact, the United States is about the lowest taxed country in the industrial world.

Which is why is has one of the highest standards of living. Why it has one of the largest economies (especially per capita). Why it is the market of last resort. Why it's currency is the world reserve.

Taxes don't create anything, they destroy things. Over all, they are a net loss.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Which is why is has one of the highest standards of living.

Actually, every single American citizen is about 30,000 dollars in debt. (see national debt)... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Actually, every single American citizen is about 30,000 dollars in debt. (see national debt)... ;)

Another in the long series of worthless non-sequiturs.

The post didn't mention debt, or per capita debt, or U.S. gov't debt as applied to individuals, it mentioned standard of living, which is something else entirely.

But the U.S. does finance it's standard of living on the backs of the rest of the world. They line right up and say, oh yes, please do, someone else is paying for it.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I don't disagree with the points you made about the potential spending problems. The numbers are quite frightening. And I appreciate the additional information you provided. However, I think it's possible to cut down on the huge amounts of money that's being spent on health care by other ways. A couple of very important things can be done. One of the problems is that the health care system in general isn't as efficient as it could be. More strict universal medical standards should be applied when it comes to diagnosis and treatment.

If there was more spending on finding cures for diseases, and we're talking MUCH more spending, it would get rid of the need to have to spend the money that's being spent today. Also, some of the rights that drug companies have should be stripped away. It'll make a very big difference in government spending if other companies are allowed to pruduce drugs with the same ingredients at a small fraction of the cost. If they don't like it, tough.

This is hilarious and demonstrates a serious lack of basic economic knowledge. When you impose massive costs on people (taxes, tariffs, regulations, restricts, quotas, pick your favorite or any combination thereof) they cease to produce. They very quickly learn that any effort beyond the bare minimum is a complete waste of their time and effort and they stop.

This one is a scream: "One of the problems is that the health care system in general isn't as efficient as it could be." Oh YEAH, and all we need the the gov't to ORDER it to become more efficient. Them damn hell ass doctors simply aren't PRODUCING enough--more laws will certainly help that out.

Ask Nixon how his direct price controls worked out. Ask Carter how he feels being blamed for the results. See how well the Soviets did. Check with all the corporations in the DPRK (where some of their rights were stripped away) to see their thoughts on the matter. Oh, right, there aren't any. Check with all the NHS type countries to see how costs keep rising every year. How about all the massive pharmaceutical companies in Romania. Or Venezuela. Or the DPRK. Oh, right, there aren't any. Denmark actually had the right idea, they buy all of their medical supplies, equipment, and pharmaceuticals from a branch of their gov't that produces all those things. Oh, wait, that's not true at all, they buy them on the open market.

Trying to lower costs with the use of ever more increasing restrictions, taxes, regulations, loss of choice, and economics by gov't fiat is one of the stupidest things humans have ever embraced because it never works. Costs. Go. Up. When they do, advocating ever more of the above to fix it makes matters worse.

What a great plan.

Accusing me of lacking basic economic knowledge is silly considering that I mearly aknowledged that the goverment would most likely be looking elswhere to make up the money they would otherwise get from the current income tax system. I may believe that other taxes authorized by the Constitution could be used in certain goverment programs, but I didn't say that massive costs should be imposed on people by the ways you described. On the contrary, I'm firmly against such actions. I think you may be under the impression that I'm a Democrat, which I am not.

I doubt that stripping away some of the rights drug companies have on drug ingredients would cause them serious harm. Sure they'll make less, but not to the point where they'll be bankrupt. Thier stocks will still be worth a lot. If they do go down, well, fine by me, let them die. Other companies that fit in a new environment will take their place. And there'll be plenty of other research institutions that will pick up the slack.

---

Accusing me of lacking basic economic knowledge is silly considering that I mearly aknowledged that the goverment would most likely be looking elswhere to make up the money they would otherwise get from the current income tax system.

That you got it right there, does not mean that you got it right in the rest of your posts.

I may believe that other taxes authorized by the Constitution could be used in certain goverment programs, but I didn't say that massive costs should be imposed on people by the ways you described. On the contrary, I'm firmly against such actions. I think you may be under the impression that I'm a Democrat, which I am not.

I haven't taken a position either way concerning you. However, anything that you impose is just an additional cost. The kind of impositions that would result from a socialized system are massive costs.

I doubt that stripping away some of the rights drug companies have on drug ingredients would cause them serious harm. Sure they'll make less, but not to the point where they'll be bankrupt. Thier stocks will still be worth a lot.

Once again, a serious lack of economic knowledge, regardless that you understand that gov't will replace revenue.

If they do go down, well, fine by me, let them die. Other companies that fit in a new environment will take their place. And there'll be plenty of other research institutions that will pick up the slack.

Uh huh. Sure they will. You know, because the entry costs have now gotten significantly higher. How precisely do you draw the conclusion that when costs of entry get higher and profits get lower, that more people decide to enter markets?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

MajorKong, I understand how taxation policy might shift if the current income tax system were to be abolished. The government would most likely be looking to other places to make up for the huge loss that would result from the lack of those taxes. Taxation may end up resembling what it was pre-16th Amendment days. And with the newer 'free trade' agreements being what they are today, it would definately pose a problem.

The reason for creating the 16th Amendment was that bankers and their political friends knew that they couldn't get the money that they wanted even with increasing the taxes with the system that was in place at the time. They knew that there were limits to how much they could push and squeeze to get what they wanted.

Yes, the 16th Amendment was 'necessary'. Something had to be done, that much is true. But was the 16th Amendment the best solution, especially using a long-term view of the situation? Probably not. But, unless something changes in a drastic way, it is what we are stuck with.

I don't disagree with the points you made about the potential spending problems. The numbers are quite frightening. And I appreciate the additional information you provided. However, I think it's possible to cut down on the huge amounts of money that's being spent on health care by other ways. A couple of very important things can be done. One of the problems is that the health care system in general isn't as efficient as it could be.

You speak of efficiency. One of the greatest inefficiencies in the health care system today is excessive Government regulation. The bureaucracy made necessary by these regulations eat up money at ALL levels.

More strict universal medical standards should be applied when it comes to diagnosis and treatment.

Hmm... While medical treatment of each individual has many similarities, there are some slight differences in each of us. A treatment that might work on some people might not work on others (and may even be harmful or fatal). As an example, lets take my case. Suppose I have a condition that requires antibiotic treatment (and I currently do, a streptococcus infection on my leg). Now then, one could impose a treatment using more common, cheaper antibiotics as part of your cost-controlling 'standards'. Now that might work on many people. It might not work on some people, due to drug resistance of the strep. With others, it might (or even likely would) be fatal, due to antibiotic allergies (this is my case). I *require* treatment with newer, VERY expensive antibiotics, if I am to be treated for it at all. The antibiotic I have to take is extremely expensive compared to other, older antibiotics. It sells *WHOLESALE* for US$8.00 a pill in lots of 1000. Retail price (getting it filled at a drug store) is considerably more. And since it is somewhat new, there *is* no 'generic equivalent'.

These cost-controlling standards you mention, while they sound good in 'theory' or on paper, would only save money by preventing some patients from getting treatment that they need. Lets leave treatment decisions to the physician, ok?

If there was more spending on finding cures for diseases, and we're talking MUCH more spending, it would get rid of the need to have to spend the money that's being spent today.

While research on finding cures for diseases, and new, better drugs is important, I submit to you that there is another huge cost-saver around. Preventative medicine. Too often, people get sick due to poor choice of lifestyle. They eat too much. They eat the wrong 'foods'. They don't get enough exercise. They smoke. The list goes on and on. Lets jack up the money we spend on this too, and reap the cost-savings on expensive medical treatments.

Also, some of the rights that drug companies have should be stripped away. It'll make a very big difference in government spending if other companies are allowed to pruduce drugs with the same ingredients at a small fraction of the cost. If they don't like it, tough.

Companies ALREADY do this in the USA. These 'discount' drugs are called 'Generic Drugs'. The Government health care programs ALREADY takes advantage of this. They REQUIRE a drug prescription be filled with a Generic equivalent is one is available, as do most private insurance policies that cover prescription drugs.

Once the patent expires on new drugs, other companies are free to produce Generic equivalents. Perhaps you are suggesting reducing the length of these patents. This may or may not be helpful. Remember 'Big Pharma' are pretty much the ONLY ones able to research new drugs. A good portion of their income on their current drugs goes to research new ones. By reducing the length of their patents, you remove some of both the financing and the incentive to research new ones. If you eliminate patents on drugs altogether, you will do nothing but guarantee that very little if any research on new drugs happens. Is there room for at least some amount of reform of this process? Certainly. But a knee-jerk, hasty reaction will be nothing but counter-productive in the long run.

Remember, I didn't say I believed in complete socialized health care. I did mention that it would be easier for many people to pay for their own insurance if the burdon of income taxes was lifted. Besides, socialized health care doesn't necessarily mean better health care. I partially disagree with you when you say that the poor already have access to health care. While it's true that in some places there are medical facilities that take care of the poor, it's not like that everywhere.

If the burden of income taxes are lifted, other taxes would have to be put into place. The burden of ALL taxes falls on private individuals either directly or indirectly. Getting rid of the income tax would only change the name of the tax burdening us all, it would not eliminate that burden.

As to access to health care by the poor. I can't speak for the other states, but most counties in the State of Texas have a 'county hospital'. Those that don't contract with a neighboring county for access to their county hospital. These county hospitals must take charity cases. Now, granted this treatment might not be convenient. You may have to wait a LONG time (hours) in the waiting area before they get to you for non-emergency cases. But guess what? You know how hard it is to get an appointment at a doctor's office, even with private insurance? My experience is a week or two. Depending on where you live, you may have to drive across the city, or even into the next county to get to your designated county hospital. Or, if you are sick enough, get someone else to drive you. But again, guess what? With private health insurance, you might have to do this as well, to get to a physician that is 'allowed' by your plan. There are places where there is no 'county hospital' available within any sort of sane distance due to it being a sparsely populated, extremely rural area. One of my favorite vacation spots is like this. But even *if* you have private insurance, you are still screwed there. The nearest health care of ANY sort is about 75 miles away, and the nearest hospital of any sort is over 100 miles away. Rich or poor, there are places in the country where there just isn't any health care available. Not even Socialized medicine would change this.

Not the entire movie. Sorry

Enough to get the wheels turning, though.

Keppler: I meant that this should be enough to get you thinking.

you will never get me to disagree that income tax is evil

Well as long as everybody who has an income or a win above the poverty limit have to pay these taxes in a just amount of percentage, and as long as these taxes are covered in the Laws, so why not? Unfortunately there are so many loop-holes especially for the rich ones and for big companies that the main part of income taxes still comes from middle class and lower.

---

Account frozen...

Accusing me of lacking basic economic knowledge is silly considering that I mearly aknowledged that the goverment would most likely be looking elswhere to make up the money they would otherwise get from the current income tax system.

That you got it right there, does not mean that you got it right in the rest of your posts.

I may believe that other taxes authorized by the Constitution could be used in certain goverment programs, but I didn't say that massive costs should be imposed on people by the ways you described. On the contrary, I'm firmly against such actions. I think you may be under the impression that I'm a Democrat, which I am not.

I haven't taken a position either way concerning you. However, anything that you impose is just an additional cost. The kind of impositions that would result from a socialized system are massive costs.

I doubt that stripping away some of the rights drug companies have on drug ingredients would cause them serious harm. Sure they'll make less, but not to the point where they'll be bankrupt. Thier stocks will still be worth a lot.

Once again, a serious lack of economic knowledge, regardless that you understand that gov't will replace revenue.

If they do go down, well, fine by me, let them die. Other companies that fit in a new environment will take their place. And there'll be plenty of other research institutions that will pick up the slack.

Uh huh. Sure they will. You know, because the entry costs have now gotten significantly higher. How precisely do you draw the conclusion that when costs of entry get higher and profits get lower, that more people decide to enter markets?

No, if you go through all of my posts in this thread you'll see that I wasn't advocating that tax increases from other forms of taxes cover what is currently covered by income taxes. I just said that it's possible to use other taxes that are clearly allowed by the Constitution. And I certainly wasn't advocating a socialized system.

Rush, the government has been lifting protection that drug companies have on drug ingredients for a long time. This is done because no one in thier right mind thinks that any single drug company should have exclusive rights to life-saving medications. That's a monopoly. Drug companies have used the protections to keep development costs high. Development costs they have been intentionally overstating. Shortening the amount of time a drug is protected under patent will lead to more competition, while making the companies reduce their development costs. I disagree with your statement on entry costs. It's too speculative.

This thread has gotten far away from the intended topic. :D

---