I don't want to pay taxes

[JoS]

I don't want to pay taxes, but I still want the government to subsidize my education, pay for my health care, take care of me if I lose my job and provide me with all kinds of other services and protection.

[AfroJustice]

u can have that, just get bushco and the neo cons to borrow more.

then u have debt =[

[Just-Think]

too bad

[Brick-top]

Then move to Polant, live there for a couple of years to pick up the accent and then immigrate to Britian. Honestly if you have a polish accent you can get any job and still get millions of different benifits lol

[Der-Lowe]

At 6/21/07 06:50 PM, AfroJustice wrote: u can have that, just get bushco and the neo cons to borrow more.

then u have debt =[

Sounds like a plan!
Oh no, wait, we learned something from the 90s.

[Korriken]

don't wanna pay taxes? move to Vatican City. as long as you're working there, you're a citizen, and they have no taxes, catholics pay for everything, LITERALLY.

[psycho-squirrel]

its called prison. they educate you, give you free medical, and such. or join the military for a long time.
otherwise, pay up.

[pashok]

werry sad this is situation:(

[rotciv351]

thats where mining huge amounts of natural resources comes in, like Kuwait! the government pays for everyones education and healthcare there because they have so much damn income from mining oil.

[cellardoor6]

At 6/21/07 06:46 PM, JoS wrote: I don't want to pay taxes

I like paying my taxes, I think it's fun. It keeps me sharp. I also like the process of filing for tax deductions, it's highly rewarding figuring out various schemes to get a fat check from the government in tax returns.

But the idea that much of my money is going to other people just because they don't work as hard as I do pisses me off.

but I still want the government to subsidize my education

I don't. It would be better if all schools were private. Why pay taxes for your education when you can pay a high quality school of your choosing with that money?

pay for my health care

See, I don't understand this wacky mentality Canadians have. You DO realize that private healthcare is A LOT better than universal healthcare right? Why would you want to give your money to your government to choose your healthcare for you and reap all the negative side effects? Why give them money to create a monopolized healthcare industry with all its inefficiency, bureaucracy, and cost-cutting when you could alternatively have a personalized, high quality healthcare plan from a highly competitive provider?

take care of me if I lose my job

Get a new job or apply for welfare. Don't immediately expect your government to babysit you the moment you get into problems. That's how it should be.

and provide me with all kinds of other services and protection.

Taxes should be limited to a few things only. Defense, infrastructure, nationally vital industry, and few others.

Most things should fall into the private industry only. When the government monopolizes something, that is ALWAYS a bad thing, any monopoly means low quality and inefficiency. When there are multiple competing parties, then quality goes up, and innovation is emphasized.

Taxes are needed for some things, but it is ridiculous when the government ends up distributing its citizens' money at its own whim to such a high degree as it is in places like Canada, and other countries with such a ridiculously high level of socialization.

[Sir-S-Of-TURBO]

At 6/23/07 05:46 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Most things should fall into the private industry only.

Isn't private industry supposed to generate the highest amount of profit and not quality?

[cellardoor6]

At 6/23/07 06:57 AM, Sir-S-Of-TURBO wrote:

At 6/23/07 05:46 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Most things should fall into the private industry only.

Isn't private industry supposed to generate the highest amount of profit and not quality?

That's what people like to say... however it's a pretty well know fact that when there are multiple competing companies, they tend to make the best product in order to get the most customers.

Competition sparks innovation... it lowers prices and increases efficiency. If too many people were displeased with their medial insurance company, they would nullify their plans, and get insurance from a different company.

When a government has a monopoly over something like healthcare, they don't have to excel in order to succeed, all the people hired by Ottawa in the Canadian healthcare industry get a government paycheck regardless of how they perform and of what quality product they provide. The government tries to keep costs low so they cut corners and have a low frequency of costly medical procedures in order to adhere to the budget.

In the US, insurance companies and other businesses in medicine that don't provide the best coverage tend to go out of business. Therefore the existing insurance companies do whatever they can to provide the best product to stay successful. Hospitals, medical companies of all sorts have a lot more room to grow, to invest as they see fit etc.. this makes better healthcare.

Nobody in their right mind can say that Canadian healthcare (or healthcare of any country) is better than American healthcare. People that have a slight clue as to what they are talking about make the point that 16% of the US can't afford private healthcare, though... so most of the US gets exceptional care, while a fraction gets no care at all. However, that's not even entirely true anyway because those who can't afford healthcare in the US are eligible for a mediocre, government-provided coverage plan similiar in quality to Canada's nation-wide universal health care. That is, of course, unless they are illegal immigrants, drug addicts etc..

[Sir-S-Of-TURBO]

At 6/23/07 07:20 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 6/23/07 06:57 AM, Sir-S-Of-TURBO wrote:

At 6/23/07 05:46 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Most things should fall into the private industry only.

Isn't private industry supposed to generate the highest amount of profit and not quality?

That's what people like to say... however it's a pretty well know fact that when there are multiple competing companies, they tend to make the best product in order to get the most customers.

Wouldn't that be most costeffective and thus most profitable product? No point in makeing the perfect product if everyone else goes elsewere for a cheaper one.

Competition sparks innovation... it lowers prices and increases efficiency. If too many people were displeased with their medial insurance company, they would nullify their plans, and get insurance from a different company.

Yup.

When a government has a monopoly over something like healthcare, they don't have to excel in order to succeed, all the people hired by Ottawa in the Canadian healthcare industry get a government paycheck regardless of how they perform and of what quality product they provide. The government tries to keep costs low so they cut corners and have a low frequency of costly medical procedures in order to adhere to the budget.

Well since all employees and everyone in touch with the healthcare system also have a say in who gets elected, as well as the ability to inform everyone else of flaws within the system then the government still has to provide a worthy product, unless they favor getting kicked out of office over healthcare policies.

In the US, insurance companies and other businesses in medicine that don't provide the best coverage tend to go out of business. Therefore the existing insurance companies do whatever they can to provide the best product to stay successful. Hospitals, medical companies of all sorts have a lot more room to grow, to invest as they see fit etc.. this makes better healthcare.

If by best you mean most cost effective then yes, but then again cost effective doesn't have to be a byword for bad. And the latter argument depends on what sort of government you have in place.

Nobody in their right mind can say that Canadian healthcare (or healthcare of any country) is better than American healthcare. People that have a slight clue as to what they are talking about make the point that 16% of the US can't afford private healthcare, though... so most of the US gets exceptional care, while a fraction gets no care at all. However, that's not even entirely true anyway because those who can't afford healthcare in the US are eligible for a mediocre, government-provided coverage plan similiar in quality to Canada's nation-wide universal health care. That is, of course, unless they are illegal immigrants, drug addicts etc..

About the 16% who are covered by the government.

Oh and thanks for takeing time to state your arguments.

[The-evil-bucket]

I don't want police, fire, or emergency services! I don't want laws, health care, road repair, or librarys. No one needs defense, permit control, any of that! Taxes are stupid!

[FatsMillion]

Don't we all? So don't complain!

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 6/23/07 10:56 AM, Tal-con wrote:

At 6/23/07 07:20 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Competition sparks innovation... it lowers prices and increases efficiency.

So should we privatize education?

Privatize it? No. Make it independent from Government? Yes.

Privatizing stuff is good, and has it uses, but there are certain things that shouldn't be. Education and healthcare are the main two in my mind.

But of course if they are government run, they're shit. No denying that. However, it would be easily feasible for such things to be made independent from Government, I.e, run by people who know what they're doing, but with Government funding.

Now of course you still have the problem of taxes etc, but considering the services would be no longer run by the Government, you'd see a rise in efficiency and possibly a decrease in cost as less would be wasted on bureaucracy.

[TheBasics]

At 6/22/07 12:52 AM, Korriken wrote: don't wanna pay taxes? move to Vatican City. as long as you're working there, you're a citizen, and they have no taxes, catholics pay for everything, LITERALLY.

Yeah but they have really low population there, in fact its considered its own country I think. It would be difficult to move there considering they probably have a close knit community.

[Cheekyvincent]

At 6/21/07 06:46 PM, JoS wrote: I don't want to pay taxes, but I still want the government to subsidize my education, pay for my health care, take care of me if I lose my job and provide me with all kinds of other services and protection.

not really possible coz where would the government get its cash from? goldmines?

[TheloniousMONK]

At 6/23/07 10:56 AM, Tal-con wrote: So should we privatize education?

Yes.

[Cheekyvincent]

At 6/23/07 06:17 PM, TheloniousMONK wrote:
Yes.

well, the people in that is a result of an experiment called "teenage pregnancies" but yeah, dumb kids dont get to school. However, some poorer kids are quite clever

[TheloniousMONK]

At 6/23/07 06:19 PM, Cheekyvincent wrote: well, the people in that is a result of an experiment called "teenage pregnancies" but yeah, dumb kids dont get to school. However, some poorer kids are quite clever

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[cellardoor6]

At 6/23/07 09:35 AM, Sir-S-Of-TURBO wrote:

At 6/23/07 07:20 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 6/23/07 06:57 AM, Sir-S-Of-TURBO wrote:

Wouldn't that be most costeffective and thus most profitable product? No point in makeing the perfect product if everyone else goes elsewere for a cheaper one.

Hmm? No... because there are people that want an expensive healthcare plan of the highest quality and widest coverage, and a healthcare plan that is of less quality, but less expensive. Either way, the insurance companies are competing so it is a balancing act between afford ability and quality, but this still leads to better quality overall.

Well since all employees and everyone in touch with the healthcare system also have a say in who gets elected, as well as the ability to inform everyone else of flaws within the system then the government still has to provide a worthy product, unless they favor getting kicked out of office over healthcare policies.

I find that to be a very silly argument. When the people try to persuade bureaucrats to be less bureaucratic... they still have to go through the bureaucratic mess to get any results, which will probably end up in no results or results so delayed that - when it's medical care you're talking about - it could be too late.

It's much better to have every citizen have the opportunity to pick and choose their own healthcare, and get to immediately change at any time to meet any new medical need or financial need.

Canadians don't really have a say, it is already a law and integral part of Canadian society. You have to pay taxes for healthcare, and you have to accept what the government gives you or else you have to go somewhere else. Hell, private healthcare within Canada is actually illegal. So... I doubt theres any room for improvement at the whim of the people. That is why a lot of Canadians that need better, more immediate medical care go to the US instead of taking up concerns with the government that doesn't listen, and even when they do listen, couldn't provide any timely results.

More Canadians are covered, but they are covered and given access to Medical care that is of lesser quality.

If by best you mean most cost effective then yes, but then again cost effective doesn't have to be a byword for bad. And the latter argument depends on what sort of government you have in place.

The actual medical care in the US is by far better than the Canadian medical care. An American with private insurance has care that is by far better than the universal healthcare in Canada. America is at the pinnacle of medical advancements and every segment of the medicine/health car industry is striving to do better than everyone else... this evolves the industry and makes it better and better while giving Americans freedom to control their financial and personal destiny. The negative of this is that a portion of the country can't afford it, and isn't eligible for government-provided care. Which definitely needs to be addressed someway or another, but not through government-take over.

What the Canadian universal health care system has in its favor is the fact that everyone is covered, the poor don't struggle as much etc... However, this has a lot of negative effects. There is no personalization, no freedom of choice, no quest for excellence, no innovation, no competitive agenda. The care that you get is a one-size-fits-all, mediocre plan that you cannot control, yet still have to pay for in taxes. It isn't free, and it isn't designed for YOU, it is designed to save costs, be organized, while maintaining quota and a certain level care that balances price cutting and maintains a tolerable amount of service. It doesn't strive to do the best, it is just another bureaucratic branch of a heavy-handed government that has a monopoly and therefore, no desire to strive for perfection because it wins no matter what.

Read this, and watch the movie

[cellardoor6]

At 6/23/07 10:56 AM, Tal-con wrote:

At 6/23/07 07:20 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Competition sparks innovation... it lowers prices and increases efficiency.

So should we privatize education?

No.

But that isn't applicable to the situation because in Canada, they don't have private and social healthcare, they outlawed private healthcare.

In the US, in education, we have a choice, you can go to a private school of higher quality if you can afford it. But in the meantime, there is a mediocre public education for those who can't afford it, or don't want private education.

Choice is good. Giving the government a monopoly fucks everything up.

[tony4moroney]

Privatize it? No. Make it independent from Government? Yes.

That's what people like to say... however it's a pretty well know fact that when there are multiple competing companies, they tend to make the best product in order to get the most customers.

When a government has a monopoly over something like healthcare, they don't have to excel in order to succeed

The government doesn't actually run a profit-making monopoly. You pay taxes and a % of those taxes go towards paying healthcare costs. There isn't innovation or excellence in privatised healthcare, only profit-making scams. "you need insurance for a life-saving operation/ anything costly that justifies having insurance in the first place? Oh, well under clause 2.11 youre not covered".
There's a reason why most westernised countries have Universal Healthcare and why its constantly proposed by US congressmen and presidential candidates. Its because those countries have a better overall healthcare system, plain and simple.
Why its not passed as a law? Search for government lobbyists, you'll be surprised how much money the health insurance companies like to throw at them.

Nobody in their right mind can say that Canadian healthcare (or healthcare of any country) is better than American healthcare.

Actually nobody in their right mind can conjure up a statement like that. Especially without any evidence. Stop making absurd childish claims.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/

Read: Irony. Yet again its funny how you have to eat your own words.

In the US, in education, we have a choice, you can go to a private school of higher quality if you can afford it. But in the meantime, there is a mediocre public education for those who can't afford it, or don't want private education.

Agreed. With healthcare and education there should be an option to both. I'd agree to privatized schools generally performing better overall but id say it doesnt necessarily relate to them having better teachers and standards. Mostly the socio-economics kicking in.

Choice is good. Giving the government a monopoly fucks everything up.

Agreed. Giving monopolistic power to anybody fucks everything up. The Government should intervene when an industry is out of control and just outright abusing a critical service or good it controls.
However, healthy competition leads to innovation, better efficiency, cheaper prices and consequentially the government shouldn't run a monopoly over any service.