Philosophy of Taxation

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Off topic a bit...One thing I think would be a sure result of the government handling health care, is they'd be motivated to put caps on the malpractice awards.  Right now they are outlandish and screwing over doctors across the country.

[Precious Roy at work]

If you want to get technical, the purpose of (most) taxes is NOT to raise money for the government, but rather to reduce waste in an economic system.  I will admit, though, that the sole purpose of income tax is to raise revenue.

There is no salary job I have ever seen, blue collar, white collar, or otherwise, in which you recieve twice the pay for double the work.  The concept is ridiculous.  

And I would say more (and maybe, at some point, I will) but I must go back to work, sadly.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Don't feel like jumping into the taxation debate just yet, but I will reply to what Bondo just said. How would you feel if you were having a relatively common operation and something catastrophic happened to you (such as having your penis removed, paralysis, or something else serious)? You would be pissed as hell if you were told you could only sue for only $100,000 (a proposed cap).

If the government wanted to step in, they should create penalties for filing frivolous lawsuits and potentially cap what insurance companies can charge the doctors they cover.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I never said what the cap should be, just that I think there should be a cap.  No screw up, no matter how blatant, deserves more than a couple million compensation.  There could be a tiered cap system based on the severity of the injury, the effects it has on one's life and the degree of negligence on the part of the doctor.

[Ace]

I never said what the cap should be, just that I think there should be a cap.  No screw up, no matter how blatant, deserves more than a couple million compensation.  There could be a tiered cap system based on the severity of the injury, the effects it has on one's life and the degree of negligence on the part of the doctor.

Just to be a dick (more commonly referred to as 'Devil's Advocate'), but if a doctor cut off my both arms, I sure as hell would want more than a couple million dollars. Not only do you lose your ability to make a living effectively, but that really fucks up the rest of your life.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Boo-fucking-hoo Ace.  How much would you want?

Seeing as that would be some significant malpractice it would likely be in the upper category of payments, unless there were injuries to both your arms and they would have been lost with no care.  I think you deal with $5 million and try to move on.  It isn't like you can't live without working for your whole life off of $5 million.  Just because you are handicapped by a mistake in a hospital shouldn't make you rich.  It should merely pay for the harm (lost wages and a bit of anguish as it were).

[EUR_Zaitsev]

There must be a permanent lower class because otherwise its not Capitalism. Its the concept that says everyone should be above average, while thats impossible. At any rate When both your arms are gone what will 10 million dollars do for you? You can get the thousand dollar hoes (i.e. Forrest Gump...legs...) but what else?

 Let me tell you a story. Two guys I knew died in a car crash in the past week. Now the driver had been drinking while the passanger was not legally drunk. After the wreck someone said that the passengers family could sue the drivers family. The question is would that make the passenger come back to life? Would the money make the famalies loved one back? No. Its abserd and I dont know how it has to do with the Philosphy of Taxation I just didnt want to read the mid section of page #1 and bellow

[tasty]

Bondo I agree with Ace and Sin. Malpractice caps are a bad idea, its not lawyers fault but the insurance company's fault. Its already hard enough to put a monetary value on something priceless. And if you want to say boo fucking hoo, maybe doctors shouldnt whine so much when they already make 500,000 a year.

[Mr. Lothario]

If you want to get technical, the purpose of (most) taxes is NOT to raise money for the government, but rather to reduce waste in an economic system.  I will admit, though, that the sole purpose of income tax is to raise revenue.

There is no salary job I have ever seen, blue collar, white collar, or otherwise, in which you recieve twice the pay for double the work.  The concept is ridiculous.

     How does drawing money out of a process reduce waste? I'm not following you on that concept, but I'm intrigued. An explanation would be welcome.

     I deliver pizzas. I make, on average, $12/hour. A construction worker can easily make twice that, or $24/hour. A construction worker does at least twice the amount of work I do. A store manager at Claim Jumper (a chain restaurant) makes around $100,000/year. At a forty-hour work week, that's $48/hour. A store manager at Claim Jumper does at least twice the amount of work that a construction worker does. Twice the money for twice the work is hardly an iron-clad economic rule, but it does act as a guideline that is often true.

[tasty]

Loth, the same anecdotal examples can be made to the opposite. I work as a cashier/stocker at Sam's Club (The WalMart subsidiary) and I make 8.50 an hour. I work damn hard for that eight fitty, mostly lifting heavy items like 50 pound bags of cat litter and tubs of motor oil. My friend is getting paid 18 dollars an hour by a hospital to wheel patients in wheelchairs from room to room. He doesn't actually work very much at his job, and spends most of his time reading while on the clock. He got the job from his father, who is a cardiologist. I work probably 4 times harder than him and earn less than half the amount. And I've already brought up the disparities between management salaries and laborers. I have the same skills (probably better since I'm more friendly and harder working) to do the job my friend does, yet since I don't have the nepotism of a wealthy father at work for me.

[cookie]

Obviously, its impossible for everyone to be rich.

Actually, this may be mind boggling, but if the resources in the world were all equally distributed a new standard of what constitutes "rich" would be created, and thus everyone could be rich. Things would just cost less. The world market would adjust.

Also, the philosophy of capitalism is better put "anyone can get rich, provided they are CAPABLE."

capable meaning endowed with certain traits necessary to succeed in the economy today (ex. being frugal). Some people just can't save money, myself included. It burns a hole in their pockets, thus they probably are never going to be rich on their own. I am sad.

now this is going to turn into soem incredibly confusing equivocal debate now. i can feel it.

[Mr. Lothario]

     Tasty, that means that you're in the wrong line of work. Get a construction job.    In all seriousness, no individual HAS to work a job that doesn't pay. Lots of people choose to, but that's another issue entirely.

     

Actually, this may be mind boggling, but if the resources in the world were all equally distributed a new standard of what constitutes "rich" would be created, and thus everyone could be rich. Things would just cost less. The world market would adjust.

     Ah, who needs it? Create new resources. Same result, no communism. Of course, we've already had the nuclear-power-as-global-savior discussion on this board, but nobody but me was interested in it. Suckers.  

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Loth, I took Environmental Economics this Spring which had a good bit on Energy and how nuclear energy was mainly just a transfer fuel between outright fossil fuels and things like wind and solar power.  I have found no evidence supporting Bucc's claim that nuclear power now is very efficient with less to no long term radioactive waste.  I'm not saying he is a lier, I just haven't seen it (Bucc, if you have any type of link to information about this system, it would be appreciated).

Anyway, I think energy efficiency is the number one goal of the future, eliminate waste, then think about how that energy is being made.

As for everyone not being able to be above average, that is true...but everyone can be above what the average is now, we just need to raise the average and more importantly lessen the range.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Cookie you are right but also when  we were saying its impossible for everybody to be rich we added "in capitalism" thus is you distributed all the worlds resources it wouldnt be capitalism would it? And I think Construction workers work damn hard but then theres different views of hard. I mean they carry hundreds of pounds and George Bush signs papers and takes advice, but who gets payed more? Logically Work shold correspond to pay but then again Logically people with the most votes from a country should be the leader.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Logically Work shold correspond to pay but then again Logically people with the most votes from a country should be the leader.

LMAO, that was great Zait.

Anyway, Tasty, I think you are being a bit cruel to doctors talking about their salaries as if they are greedy.  For one I think you exaggerate on them bringing in 500k a year except for the extreme specialists.  Secondly, being a doctor is an extremely specialized, skilled job.  They earn a high salary for getting a long expensive education and being in demand.  It is the same reason people working at McDonalds get paid poorly.  They aren't in demand.  A doctor deserves 500k more than a CEO deserves 500k (or as is more realistic in the bigger companies 50 million).