How does health care in Europe work?

[magma]

Healthcare: Are you human? Are you sick? Here, have some treatment.

Budgeting for Healthcare: How many people did we have to treat last year? Let's set tax accordingly this year.

Healthcare costs too high? Educate the population so they live healthier lives.

Simple, isn't it? Pretty much every other part of the argument is superfluous... people love padding this sort of thing out with guff about it being poor people's fault that they get sick when they've got no money to get better. They eat fatty food! They smoke! They're not members of £100/month gyms! Fuck that noise. If it's human, it deserves respect, care and love until the day it dies no matter how it got itself in its current position.

Fuck insurance policies, fuck nationalities, fuck E111s, fuck running at profit, fuck adverts for cancer medicine and fuck anyone so far above the safety net that they want to get rid of it.

We're all brothers and sisters. Treat us as such.

[wub]

How does health care in Europe work?

1) Get corporate job
2) Free private cover


Simple.

[Genevieve]

You're trolling or you're just stupid.

what would you suggest people with low incomes do if there house is on fire? Or if they get robbed? Or if they fall over and brake a leg? Are they meant to magically find the money to pay for private company's?

How are people with disabilities meant to live? Like someone who was born blind?

Whos going to pay for streetlamps? Or roads to be built and maintained?

Yeah, and who would pick the cotton when we free up the slaves?

Doing that would just separate the rich from the poor.

That's modern monetary policy is doing just fine, actually. Robbing the middle and lower class of income and transfering the wealth to the top 1%.

[magma]

Doing that would just separate the rich from the poor.

That's modern monetary policy is doing just fine, actually. Robbing the middle and lower class of income and transfering the wealth to the top 1%.

And you propose to solve this by taxing thm less?

I wish I lived somewhere that less money in the pot meant more for everyone. Must be a pretty view from up in cloud cuckoo land!

[Genevieve]

Doing that would just separate the rich from the poor.

That's modern monetary policy is doing just fine, actually. Robbing the middle and lower class of income and transfering the wealth to the top 1%.

And you propose to solve this by taxing thm less?

I wish I lived somewhere that less money in the pot meant more for everyone. Must be a pretty view from up in cloud cuckoo land!

How would taxing poor people less transfer more wealth to the wealthy?

[magma]

Doing that would just separate the rich from the poor.

That's modern monetary policy is doing just fine, actually. Robbing the middle and lower class of income and transfering the wealth to the top 1%.

And you propose to solve this by taxing thm less?

I wish I lived somewhere that less money in the pot meant more for everyone. Must be a pretty view from up in cloud cuckoo land!

How would taxing poor people less transfer more wealth to the wealthy?

I'm not suggesting taxing poor people less. I'm suggesting taxing rich people a LOT more.

Profit seekers will seek profits no matter how much they're taxed... but if they're left to amount massive reserves of cash, even the most committed philanthropist finds it impossible to "trickle" enough down to the people to truly redistribute income. Just ask Warren Buffett...

Theory from Economics textbooks is all well and good. But we live in a real world populated by human beings. You've got to legislate for their weakness.

[Genevieve]

I'm not suggesting taxing poor people less. I'm suggesting taxing rich people a LOT more.

Profit seekers will seek profits no matter how much they're taxed... but if they're left to amount massive reserves of cash, even the most committed philanthropist finds it impossible to "trickle" enough down to the people to truly redistribute income. Just ask Warren Buffett...

Theory from Economics textbooks is all well and good. But we live in a real world populated by human beings. You've got to legislate for their weakness.

Yeah, that legislation has been working real great.

I'm glad we have people like you deciding what shortcomings are, though.

Do you think that taxing the rich 35% is enough?

[nowaysj]

Maybe like 75% for over 500,000k a year in income, sliding upwards, as well as auditors who r incentivized by a marginal cut of tax revenue recovered.

There will always be worthless slobs whose only validation in life is lording their power and wealth over people, as well as lazy bums who'll never lift a finger to help themselves, and a huge mass of people who are willing to trade their labor for the opportunIty to enjoy their lives and families. All Of these types of people will be in the system, and not to account for them creates imbalance. IMO there should be a fair amount of compression and limiting to reduce the dynamIc range between the poles, otherwise the mix will sound like shit. Too much and it will sound like shit, too. You just have to get it right.

[Genevieve]

I'm surprised by how pro-violence a lot of people here are.

'This is my stuff'
'oh I want it'
'you can't have it'
'yes I do, I have guns'
'oh here you go'

And where does any one get the correct taxrate from? How is it calculated? Why would anyone wanna make above 500 thousand per year if they're going to lose so much of it that they have far less? If they can no longer make this much money, wouldn't they downsize? Who would supply the products that they previously offered before downsizing since government killed the market in it? If they downsize and pay less taxes, how does government pay for everything? Or should they just print money and give free money to everyone?

Considering both regulations AND the difference between the poor and rich has increased, at what point will regulating even more FINALLY bridge that gap?

[nousd]

Why would anyone wanna make above 500 thousand per year if they're going to lose so much of it that they have far less? If they can no longer make this much money, wouldn't they downsize?

As noways & magma say, there'll always be people who want more than others because that's their motivation.
The reality is that such people, when thwarted by what they see as too high a tax impost, move or attempt to cheat.
That's no reason to relieve them of their social responsibility to, at least partly, share the wealth.
Otherwise we are accepting that they are intrinsically entitled to privilege
whichever way they've acquired wealth,
including prostitution, arms peddling, exploitation of low-paid workers, inheritance, better opportunity etc.
Is that what you believe?

[pikeymobile]

just thought i'd chime in with this, in Wales we get free prescriptions

[joeki]

free prescriptions for ket prolly....them Welsh.

[nowaysj]

And where does any one get the correct taxrate from? How is it calculated? Why would anyone wanna make above 500 thousand per year if they're going to lose so much of it that they have far less? If they can no longer make this much money, wouldn't they downsize? Who would supply the products that they previously offered before downsizing since government killed the market in it? If they downsize and pay less taxes, how does government pay for everything? Or should they just print money and give free money to everyone?

Considering both regulations AND the difference between the poor and rich has increased, at what point will regulating even more FINALLY bridge that gap?

G, disagree with so many of your premises here, noting two points here however, that one, you are far smarter and versed in these issues than me, and that our conversation is as superfluous as a couple of football (geographically agnostic) fans discussing a particular team's strategy and personnel.

But where do you get the tax rate from? From experimentation and observation. It is calculated from the analysis of various approaches/rates and their actual outcomes.

People want to make more because they want to make more, it is as simple and illogical as that. I refuse to believe that these titans of industry would just sulk off and pout that they can't make more money. They can always make more, but returns on investment diminish to the point where there isn't such colossal inequality and environmental devastation. Not saying that investment, ingenuity, hard work, sacrifice, etc. are bad bad things, they're awesome, and define humanity imo, but what starts out as noble traits seems to inexorably lead to destitution for the overwhelming majority.

As to the reduction of available products... is that a bad thing? Perhaps a refocusing on essential products like food, shelter, water, infrastructure, education, healthcare, security, and (yes) entertainment would produce better outcomes, ie greater equality amongst people, more widespread investment/acknowledgement in/of common interests and goals?

[Liam92]

The NHS is great imo, not perfect, but what is?

just thought i'd chime in with this, in Wales we get free prescriptions

Same in Scotland but I got to be honest, it is a great idea in theory but like everything else people take the piss. People just take a free prescription for things like paracetamol which cost ~20p and they could easily afford it

[tyger]

ppl with a really large amount of money are just playing a game against one another, to see who can get the most tokens. if they were taxed more heavily, they'd just be paying with fewer tokens. and then resources could (well, depending where the money goes!) be distributed to better meet the needs of poorer ppl. which is more important than how many tokens the rich ppl have.

tax rates for the very rich: ppl usually just talk about the top rate of income tax, but if you're rich enough, you have the option putting your wealth inside private corporations or trusts, so generally you'd pick whichever has the lowest tax rate. so in the UK, the top rate of income tax is 50%, but corporation tax is 24%, so that's mostly what the very rich are paying. or less, because corporations can pay interest with 0% withholding tax deducted, and if it's paid to an entity in a tax haven then no tax need ever be paid on it. if you want to tax the very rich more, the main thing is not the top rate income tax; you need to introduce a withholding tax, and increase corporation tax.

[Genevieve]

G, disagree with so many of your premises here, noting two points here however, that one, you are far smarter and versed in these issues than me, and that our conversation is as superfluous as a couple of football (geographically agnostic) fans discussing a particular team's strategy and personnel.

But where do you get the tax rate from? From experimentation and observation. It is calculated from the analysis of various approaches/rates and their actual outcomes.

But what is moral? If a company releases a product and is rewarded for it through voluntary payment, the contract has been met? So why should someone else decide what their money should be spent on? Why do you trust a business less than a government that spies on its own people, has gone into unwinnable, bloodthirsty wars that have only benefited the rich, that lock-up thousands of minorities for years in the drug war?

First you gotta, but seeing as regulation always has unwanted additional consequences, meaning more problems are created than they are solved, requiring more government departments and more money to fund them, so the list goes on and on and on. So the government requirements go on too, so the wealthy aren't the only ones who are gonna be taxed the poor too and taxing anyone is bad, especially the poor. It just opens up the possibility of an endless cycle of government expanasion.

People want to make more because they want to make more, it is as simple and illogical as that. I refuse to believe that these titans of industry would just sulk off and pout that they can't make more money. They can always make more, but returns on investment diminish to the point where there isn't such colossal inequality and environmental devastation. Not saying that investment, ingenuity, hard work, sacrifice, etc. are bad bad things, they're awesome, and define humanity imo, but what starts out as noble traits seems to inexorably lead to destitution for the overwhelming majority.

Yep and people have gotten more because of government. Government is like one big corporation and the actual corporations are stockholders in them and use their great wealth to lobby for more restrictions and wealth (like the tarp bailouts).

In a free market, the degree in which the wealthy can become too wealthy is limited by consumer choice, rather than helped by government legislation. And without a monopoly of violence (which the government essentially is, as per my earlier example of how taxation workse) the playing field is more leveled. It also helps that consumers get an ultimate in what is money and what isn't and it's not monopolized by the government either. Direct control over currency means direct control over the market.

A disparancy between the poor and the rich due to market dynamics is a myth perpetuated for this reason. Like I've said earlier, if regulation is the answer and we're being regulated more and more while the richer are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, at which point do we have enough regulation to close that gap? Modern pro-regulatory rhetoric says one thing, but history says the other.

As to the reduction of available products... is that a bad thing? Perhaps a refocusing on essential products like food, shelter, water, infrastructure, education, healthcare, security, and (yes) entertainment would produce better outcomes, ie greater equality amongst people, more widespread investment/acknowledgement in/of common interests and goals?

No one is to decide that. And who said that these products aren't essential?

That's the thing. Most of these arguments stem from 'well, I think it might be best if...', but none of us are capable of deciding or dictating that. Isn't it best left up to individuals (not government or monopolies) what is best for them? And what if the success of one market innitiates the creation of another that in turn humanity at large benefits from? To go back to my earlier comment on 'who would pick the cotton'. Before the slaves were freed, one of the concerns was that the economy would fall and no one would pick the cotton. However, once the slaves were free and it was left to the market, there were some great technological advances that society's benefited from and not to forget, economic progress. It's the best example of how leaving things up to a free market, where the only restrictions are the non-aggression principle, things flourish. And I'm not talking about a huge violent corpocracy (corporations are inventions of the state anyway, without a state, a corporation wouldn't exist) where monopolies run the game (again, look at all modern monopolies, they got where there they are through government lobbying and using that lobbying power to legislate the market in their advantage, not free market principles). Market choice is the culimination of millions of individual selfish choices and are therefore a far better representation of the needs and wants of society than voting for legislation. And not to forget, it's without the violence nature of government.

[nowaysj]

Again, there is a tun there that I take issue with, but if you don't believe that truly free markets will end in monopoly, there is nothing further to be said

[bigfootspartan]

Maybe like 75% for over 500,000k a year in income, sliding upwards, as well as auditors who r incentivized by a marginal cut of tax revenue recovered.

There will always be worthless slobs whose only validation in life is lording their power and wealth over people, as well as lazy bums who'll never lift a finger to help themselves, and a huge mass of people who are willing to trade their labor for the opportunIty to enjoy their lives and families. All Of these types of people will be in the system, and not to account for them creates imbalance. IMO there should be a fair amount of compression and limiting to reduce the dynamIc range between the poles, otherwise the mix will sound like shit. Too much and it will sound like shit, too. You just have to get it right.

No offense, but 75% is absolute bullshit. I'm plenty happy to pay my 40% here in Canada, but if it ever moved over 50% I'd be itching to move somewhere else.

I used to feel for people who made less, I come from a farming family that didn't make a ton of money (my dad worked a full time job plus managed the farm to make ends meet). But instead of whining about how unfair it was I went to school and worked my ass off and pretty soon I'll be making a pretty decent salary. Maybe that sounds like entitlement to you lot, but when I look at my friends who have been working labour jobs since high school netting upwards of $100,000, and then look at myself after 7 years of school and $100,000 of debt, I figure there's no way in hell I'd be willing to pay a ridiculous amount of tax simply because some lazy chavs feel entitled to my hard work.

The whole "99%" bullshit just made me realize how entitled most of the world feels. In the states, sure. I agree that the government using tax money to bail out large banks (who then paid their executives full bonuses and salaries) is ridiculous. But here in Canada (and I assume in the UK) nothing of the sort happened. Instead all I saw were either entitled young 20 somethings who wanted to have everything the executives had for no hard work, or 40 somethings who had horrendous money management skills who were complaining that they had mortgages and car leases that were too high for them. Hearing their "solutions" to the "problems" they were outlining was just as ridiculous. They used vague terms such as "income redistribution" to vent their anger against the "corporations" because they felt undervalued.

[bigfootspartan]

ppl with a really large amount of money are just playing a game against one another, to see who can get the most tokens. if they were taxed more heavily, they'd just be paying with fewer tokens. and then resources could (well, depending where the money goes!) be distributed to better meet the needs of poorer ppl. which is more important than how many tokens the rich ppl have.

tax rates for the very rich: ppl usually just talk about the top rate of income tax, but if you're rich enough, you have the option putting your wealth inside private corporations or trusts, so generally you'd pick whichever has the lowest tax rate. so in the UK, the top rate of income tax is 50%, but corporation tax is 24%, so that's mostly what the very rich are paying. or less, because corporations can pay interest with 0% withholding tax deducted, and if it's paid to an entity in a tax haven then no tax need ever be paid on it. if you want to tax the very rich more, the main thing is not the top rate income tax; you need to introduce a withholding tax, and increase corporation tax.

First off, I largely disagree. I'm in no way rich, but when I look at my motivation for making investments I'm looking at how I can save money now, so that when I have kids in the future I don't have to work 50+ hours a week. Most of my classmates (and other healthcare professionals who make a decent wage, like pharmacists) that I talk to feel the same way. We aren't looking to earn a huge amount so that we can simply have a better car or house than everyone else, we want to earn a large amount now so that we can work less in the future once we have families.

Secondly, again I'm not sure if it's like this in the UK, but in Canada there's no tax shelter for corporations. Corporations in Canada pay 15% tax, however if any of that money is to be used for personal use, you pay full income tax on it. So for example, if you have a corporation that grosses $100,000 you immediately pay $15,000 in federal tax. The $85,000 is your net if you want to reinvest that into the corporation. If you want to pay yourself a dividend you pay an extra 25% tax on that (totalling 40%) which is exactly what anyone else would pay for income tax. If you want to keep the $85,000 in the corporation to invest in growth, then you don't pay any extra tax.

The only advantage that has is that you can "sprinkle" dividends if you have a non-working spouse, which will leave you in a lower income tax bracket. The advantage of that is that it encourages investment into corporations so that more jobs can be made. I don't know about huge corporations, but in my case it will simply let me pay off a clinic faster, and let me invest in further technology for my clinics so that I can actually increase the standard of care I can provide my patients.

Again, I can't help but feel like there's a wave of self-entitled people who can't look past the fact that the faceless "corporations" are somehow stealing their money to buy huge boats and cars and houses.

[Genevieve]

The whole "99%" bullshit just made me realize how entitled most of the world feels.

Especially considering that they have educations, food, clean drinking water, etc. Fuck, they have fucking computers with high speed internet. I'm not saying that we're not in a mess, but compared to most of the world, the 99% in the west is the 1%. If they'd give up on their fucking luxuries like fancy computers, cellphones, big TVs, brand name clothing.. I'm sure they could collectively feed a lot of hungry people worldwide. So if they're SO convinced that the super-wealthy can contribute more, why don't they do it themselves to most people? Considering they ARE super wealthy compared to most?

This seriously is the age of entitlement. Ugh.

I sympathize with the "99%". The economy is a mess and there is an unfair distribution of wealth. There's people like you, who work hard. But there's also 1%ers who got where they are in large part due to government funded monopolies. Instead of protesting the wealthy, who are merely people who look out for themselves like most people would, they should protest the system that actively FAVORS the 1% and keeps them from failing where they would fail in a free market system. It's the GOVERNMENT that enables this, so why do they want to give the government MORE power instead of less?