WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-22 16:03:18 +0000

Do we get to create a new government agency that will define and enforce what "good social behaviors" are? goody. _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-22 16:32:30 +0000

Sorry for trying to have a reasoned discussion.

Posted by Travis on 2005-08-22 16:46:50 +0000

vice taxes are wrong as they increase the burden on the living FACT - the elderly are ruining our government sponsored futures by living too long - surely if they were smoking 80 fags a day whilst drinking heavily and shoving dangerous narcotics down their throats and having wild unprotected sex with random partners they would: A) enjoy their retirement a bit more B) be more fun to hang out with C) die younger this way everyone’s a winner - the elderly get the retirement they gave up their 20's working for, we would all get grandparents that would be fun to hang out with and the social security system wouldn’t collapse under the strain of people living longer than their working lives in retirement as Garrison once said “come on die young” and on that note im off on two weeks holidays – biya!!

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-22 16:52:10 +0000

Not exactly what I had in mind, either.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-08-22 16:53:58 +0000

I do believe in vice taxes. It's simple - you abuse your body, you cost the government more in health care. That having been said, I also believe in socialised medicine. Higher taxes, better services. Boom.

Posted by frame609 on 2005-08-22 16:58:37 +0000

Since I don't have health care, I'm not putting a burden on the system, and should be allowed all the booze and smokes I want for free.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-08-22 17:00:18 +0000

The day I get free "monthly supplies", my friend, I will be all for that. Until that day, you = taxed!

Posted by frame609 on 2005-08-22 17:04:07 +0000

Dammit.

Posted by Miriam on 2005-08-22 17:04:40 +0000

Try 9.25% sales tax on just about everything! I'm gettin' slammed down here in TN. There's no income tax, but that's because the poor folks can't imagine that it would be better for them. Guess I have my campaign platform when I run for governor next decade.

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-22 17:23:35 +0000

here here. maybe Pam is refering to Amsterdam heathcare- does the Govt pay for HC over there? BTW from a language standpoint shouldn't the term "affordable healthcare" become two words that are polar opposites like military intelligence, jumbo shrimp, pretty ugly???? _______________________________

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-22 17:27:18 +0000

so if the argument doesn't go in the direction you steer it in, or uses humor, it's not reasoned discussion? _______________________________

Posted by Miriam on 2005-08-22 17:28:17 +0000

If I buy my own health insurance in TN it will cost less than $200/mth. If I sign on for COBRA from my old job in MA, it will cost over $500/mth.

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-22 17:47:58 +0000

If you could make it plain what your argument is, then I could decide. I think we all agree that recycling is a good thing, while robbing banks is a bad thing. I didn't intend to discuss how society best comes to an agreement on which behaviors are good and which are bad (which seems to be your point), but whether or not it's worthwhile or moral for a society to use positive and negative inducements on it's citizens.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-08-22 18:15:56 +0000

Dutch healthcare is socialised. I pay about 40 Euro per month on a combined medical/dental insurance (required for all employed people), and in return every doctor's visit, prescription, test/scan/whatever, is free. In all, my tax bracket (including national & regional taxes) is about 35% of my income.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-08-22 18:18:53 +0000

I like calling them Sin Taxes. I don't think drinking is a sin, so it's hard for me to support that this is the stick to recycling's carrot. I would prefer to see this in a category of entertainment taxes. I would still not support it, however. Taxes should be used strictly to fund government activity related to the revenue stream. Gas taxes for highway use, etc. Global government funding should come from income or property taxes. Then homeless and unemployed people at least get a break. Still don't see the bottle bill as a carrot, mind you, but we have another thread for that.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-08-22 18:21:26 +0000

But tobacco & alcohol use do lead to a bigger burden on healthcare later in life. Isn't that the same thing as gas taxes for highway use? I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand what the difference is in your eyes.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-08-22 18:24:59 +0000

"Do we get to create a new government agency that will define and enforce what "good social behaviors" are? goody." Yes, it's called "elections."

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-08-22 18:26:14 +0000

chortle

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-08-22 18:28:01 +0000

Thanks, darlin'

Posted by frame609 on 2005-08-22 18:30:57 +0000

Oh snap!

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-22 20:47:35 +0000

Incredible: affordable healthcare. If there is irony here it's that the US federal government currently spends more per capita on healthcare than some countries that provide "socialized" medicine.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-08-22 20:53:35 +0000

That's pretty crazy - I didn't know that. You know, as much as I am for socialised healthcare, I am absolutely enraged by the lack of doctor-patient communication here. People have no idea why they're prescribed anything, or what their prescription does, or why they need a certain test, or what the risks are for any given procedure... the Dutch public are like children in that way, with the medical establishment being Mommy. Mommy says "take this pill" and we say, "yes, Mommy!" When I go to my doctor and start asking questions, she gets all fidgety and acts like she's in the CIA.

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-22 21:11:06 +0000

Hence the apprehension to socialisation schemes for US healthcare. I don't think it has to be that way. Is the lack of communication a problem with the physician or a problem with how the physician is getting paid? I'm for socialising the insurance mechanism (more people in the pool, lower costs for all), I'm not for socialising the dispersment mechanism (you should be able to choose a doctor you are comfortable with).

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-22 21:24:10 +0000

You're only allowed to consume alcohol and tobacco if you _swear_ to have health insurance by the time you are 45. Or you _swear_ to kill yourself by said age via said methods.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-08-22 21:33:09 +0000

Socialized healthcare can be excellent, and it's easy to do. Pass a law stating that it is _illegal_ to pay for any healthcare above and beyond what the system will pay for you if you have an annual income over X dollars or are in any way employed by the government. This will not include vanity healthcare. Work out that law without any glaring loopholes and you'll have fantastic socialized healthcare in a week.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-08-23 07:46:14 +0000

I think it's cultural, to be honest. The Dutch feel that they have no "real" choice, and so there is little point in trying to understand our treatment. If the doctor recommends something, we can either take that advice (which is *probably* in our best interest) or not (which may be foolish). Because I come from a culture which is rich in choices (America), I feel *entitled* to understand my treatment and my doctor's decisions regarding that treatment. That attitude is seen as arrogant and rather silly here - like a client trying to tell a lawyer how to try a case. Which, come to think of it, Americans probably do too. As Americans, we understand much more about our treatment because we are given so many choices about that treatment, and we demand to know more about our treatment because we have seen things go wrong when you blindly follow whatever the doctor orders. From the Dutch perspective, your viewpoint as a patient is only important in that you are the client, you are the owner of the body in question, and you can say "that hurts" or "this feels wrong". I don't think payment or personality (in an individual sense) come into it - it's a symptom of socialised medicine as a philosophy. It's like our supermarkets - if you're lucky there are 6 choices of rice (white commercial name brand X, white commercial generic brand Y, brown commercial name brand X, brown commercial generic brand Y, white organic brand Z, brown organic brand Z). Think about how many choices of rices you have in your local supermarket - it's overwhelming to a European. But as a free market we Yanks like having all those choices. We don't find them overwhelming because we enjoy learning about our different choices. Europeans also like making choices, but not too many - that's what governments are for. Does that make sense? Am I rambling?

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-23 14:36:12 +0000

Is the government foolish to promote a good societal behavior like marriage by providing greater tax deductions?

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-23 14:45:41 +0000

A certain amount of choice is good, but there is a limit. Americans might have a higher tolerance for choice than Europeans. For instance, I was trying to purchase light bulbs the other day, very daunting.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-08-23 14:45:55 +0000

I think it's foolish to reward behavior which has its own rewards... I mean, honestly, does anyone get married for the tax benefits? Tax breaks for having kids, on the other hand, is an excellent idea. Kids are damned expensive. Being married isn't any more expensive than living together. But hell, if the government wants to give me money for it, it can be my guest.

Posted by Miriam on 2005-08-23 15:49:40 +0000

I like limited choices. Maybe that's why I like being vegetarian; there are generally fewer choices on the menu, so I can decide faster what I want to eat. I'm a debater and second-guesser when it comes to decision-making and am in favor of anything that helps me along the way.

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-23 15:54:20 +0000

It makes no financial sense for a couple in a committed relationship who are living together and sharing expenses not to get married. At least, the conditions where filing seperately are beneficial are very rare. I can see a scenario where people get married for tax benefits alone, definitely as part of the reasoning. People get married to avoid deportation, right?

Posted by G lib on 2005-08-23 16:04:20 +0000

All of my recently married friends tell me about the Marriage tax, which slams you in the first year of marriage. I don't know how it works, but apparently they pay more taxes than two people alone, and I've heard this from multiple sources. I think a more likely scenario is that people get married for the health insurance. ________________ --Feminazi

Posted by Miriam on 2005-08-23 16:07:19 +0000

Which is still more expensive for two people on a family plan than two individuals, each with their own coverage.

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-24 03:27:23 +0000

I thought we got rid of the so-called marriage tax? Anyone?

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-08-24 11:43:33 +0000

As best as I can understand it, the SCMT is a combination of a fucked up deductable (which truly is less than what two people deduct individually) and advancing tax bracket issues. I think it's really a DINK tax, because the government wants you married folks poppin em out. Fortunately for Natalie and I, our first year filing jointly we also get a dependent and a house, so no DINK tax, and the house should more than make up for the tax bracket thing... Ah, what do I know, I'm hiring a professional to do my taxes this year.

Posted by Honar the librarian on 2005-08-24 13:55:06 +0000

chop chop tgl, you don't want to be left behind;)

Posted by Miriam on 2005-08-24 17:19:11 +0000

Heh, heh. Parenting pressure. Heh, heh.