Why do higher taxes on the rich historically correlate to higher economic growth

[SgtSpike]

And in those cases where people end up with nothing, those people die off.  What's the big deal?

Well, most people on earth realize that our society can only exist if we take care of everyone.
We are social animals and thus feel compassion for others because everyone knows that there is a good chance that they themselfs may need help at some point.
If everyone thought like you then we would not live in this relatively nice and stable world.
It would be dog eat dog and only assholes would survive.
Now, would you want to live in a world composed primarily out of assholes or is it enough for you to look in the mirror in the morning?

I don't see how society depends on taking care of EVERYONE.  Please elaborate.

You misunderstand me.

I do not believe individuals should be FORCED to help other individuals.  I believe they should do it out of the kindness of their heart.  I make donations to local organizations and give to individuals to help them out.  Especially if a family member or friend needs some help, I give it to them.  I make donations to charities that help people in other countries too.

But I do NOT believe in using tax dollars to "help" people.  It should be voluntary.  And yes, some people need to die off to avoid being too much of a burden on the people.  I'm not trying to be an asshole, that's just reality.

Let me ask you this - how much is it worth paying, out of taxpayer dollars, to save a person's life?  $5?  $10?  $1,000?  $1M?  $100M?  Think about it...

Well, the problem is that you say these things standing on the shoulders of society.
A lot of people that you don't care about helped the world get to this place.
Most charities are there to help wealthy people get rid of their guilt and are actually artrociously inefficient.

In our current society noone has to die because they are a burden. There is enough room to take care of these people.

The point is also that the world economy turned for the better when we started to take care of people as an integral part of society.
As i said before, we are social animals so once you start this kind of stratification there is no end.
Paris Hilton would propably shit on your head whenever she felt like because, you know, she is clearly the better human because she is in a better position than you. What would be her motivation to not put a bullet in your sorry head for not being as successfull in society as you?
So you have to realise that there are even greater assholes than you and they would think the same way about you as you about the people you want to leave for dead.

Fortunately this is not how most people think and actually most people realize we need each other. Economy is highly connected.
But what's even more crucial is that genetics are highly connected.
The whole pure genes/perfect human thing is a myth.
In our daily life we as a species completely fail at judging people on this level of connectedness altho it plays a major role in social dynamics.

If you want to look at humanity strictly as a tool for creating an economy then you can swap them out like light bulbs. But that is a groce oversimplification as the economy has a lot of symbiotic caracteristics that can only happen in these highly connected meshes of social relations.
A single idea from a disabled person can start a whole industry.

So the very least i can say is that things are not so simple that you can just say "let them die".
Of course you can have your opinion but i'm just telling you that it is not a healthy one for society.
What do you think will happen to the mental health of people that are for some reason near to the survival barrier? They will live under constant stress and think about their survival all the time. These people will have a much harder time participating in society because of the angst that may not have any food the next day.

'let them die' is just a very crude and uneducated opinion.

You make a lot of bold assumptions here...

If by "standing on the shoulders of society", you mean I am wealthy, you are completely wrong.  I have a net worth in the neighborhood of n negative $50k.

I agree charities are inefficient.  You are saying the government IS?  

Citation needed for the economy turning better after "caring for each other" (as if that wasn't happening before among family/friends, as it should be?)

I never said anything about success or about people putting bullets in another person's head - not sure where you pulled that from.

I never said anything about perfect genes.

I never said that a disabled person couldn't change the world.

Likely, someone who is "near the survival barrier" would have friends and family to live with and take care of them, or charities/organizations that take care of people in homes dedicated to the purpose.  That's how society has worked for so long, why can it not still work that way today?

You are acting like I am saying anyone who isn't healthy should be shot to death.  I do not understand that, because it is not what I am saying at all.  I am simply saying that people should not be supported by the government.  People should be supported by their friends, family, and/or charities.

[1713890950]

1713890950

[1713890950]

1713890950

[1713890950]

1713890950

[FreeMoney]

Because you can take more from people who are doing better without them removing your insides.

[mobodick]

And in those cases where people end up with nothing, those people die off.  What's the big deal?

Well, most people on earth realize that our society can only exist if we take care of everyone.
We are social animals and thus feel compassion for others because everyone knows that there is a good chance that they themselfs may need help at some point.
If everyone thought like you then we would not live in this relatively nice and stable world.
It would be dog eat dog and only assholes would survive.
Now, would you want to live in a world composed primarily out of assholes or is it enough for you to look in the mirror in the morning?

I don't see how society depends on taking care of EVERYONE.  Please elaborate.

You misunderstand me.

I do not believe individuals should be FORCED to help other individuals.  I believe they should do it out of the kindness of their heart.  I make donations to local organizations and give to individuals to help them out.  Especially if a family member or friend needs some help, I give it to them.  I make donations to charities that help people in other countries too.

But I do NOT believe in using tax dollars to "help" people.  It should be voluntary.  And yes, some people need to die off to avoid being too much of a burden on the people.  I'm not trying to be an asshole, that's just reality.

Let me ask you this - how much is it worth paying, out of taxpayer dollars, to save a person's life?  $5?  $10?  $1,000?  $1M?  $100M?  Think about it...

Well, the problem is that you say these things standing on the shoulders of society.
A lot of people that you don't care about helped the world get to this place.
Most charities are there to help wealthy people get rid of their guilt and are actually artrociously inefficient.

In our current society noone has to die because they are a burden. There is enough room to take care of these people.

The point is also that the world economy turned for the better when we started to take care of people as an integral part of society.
As i said before, we are social animals so once you start this kind of stratification there is no end.
Paris Hilton would propably shit on your head whenever she felt like because, you know, she is clearly the better human because she is in a better position than you. What would be her motivation to not put a bullet in your sorry head for not being as successfull in society as you?
So you have to realise that there are even greater assholes than you and they would think the same way about you as you about the people you want to leave for dead.

Fortunately this is not how most people think and actually most people realize we need each other. Economy is highly connected.
But what's even more crucial is that genetics are highly connected.
The whole pure genes/perfect human thing is a myth.
In our daily life we as a species completely fail at judging people on this level of connectedness altho it plays a major role in social dynamics.

If you want to look at humanity strictly as a tool for creating an economy then you can swap them out like light bulbs. But that is a groce oversimplification as the economy has a lot of symbiotic caracteristics that can only happen in these highly connected meshes of social relations.
A single idea from a disabled person can start a whole industry.

So the very least i can say is that things are not so simple that you can just say "let them die".
Of course you can have your opinion but i'm just telling you that it is not a healthy one for society.
What do you think will happen to the mental health of people that are for some reason near to the survival barrier? They will live under constant stress and think about their survival all the time. These people will have a much harder time participating in society because of the angst that may not have any food the next day.

'let them die' is just a very crude and uneducated opinion.

You make a lot of bold assumptions here...

If by "standing on the shoulders of society", you mean I am wealthy, you are completely wrong.  I have a net worth in the neighborhood of n negative $50k.

No i'm saying that you apparently have a computer and an internet connection and that you could not possibly have that if there was realy poor chinese juvenile in some underlit factory that helped making one for you.
Most people just don't realize just how much privileges they enjoy that are made possible by other people organised into a society.
I would say that 99.99% of the people on this forum live on the shoulders of society.
Things like food distribution, roads, rails, etc are all due to a big effort of lots and lots of people you don't know and part of those people you may have wished dead.
And in fact during the industrial revolution many people died becasue they worked under sub-human conditions. And today we still enjoy these works.
Take a look at how many people got disabled while building the Hoover dam. And Vegas until today uses the power that was generated there.

[SgtSpike]

And in those cases where people end up with nothing, those people die off.  What's the big deal?

Well, most people on earth realize that our society can only exist if we take care of everyone.
We are social animals and thus feel compassion for others because everyone knows that there is a good chance that they themselfs may need help at some point.
If everyone thought like you then we would not live in this relatively nice and stable world.
It would be dog eat dog and only assholes would survive.
Now, would you want to live in a world composed primarily out of assholes or is it enough for you to look in the mirror in the morning?

I don't see how society depends on taking care of EVERYONE.  Please elaborate.

You misunderstand me.

I do not believe individuals should be FORCED to help other individuals.  I believe they should do it out of the kindness of their heart.  I make donations to local organizations and give to individuals to help them out.  Especially if a family member or friend needs some help, I give it to them.  I make donations to charities that help people in other countries too.

But I do NOT believe in using tax dollars to "help" people.  It should be voluntary.  And yes, some people need to die off to avoid being too much of a burden on the people.  I'm not trying to be an asshole, that's just reality.

Let me ask you this - how much is it worth paying, out of taxpayer dollars, to save a person's life?  $5?  $10?  $1,000?  $1M?  $100M?  Think about it...

Well, the problem is that you say these things standing on the shoulders of society.
A lot of people that you don't care about helped the world get to this place.
Most charities are there to help wealthy people get rid of their guilt and are actually artrociously inefficient.

In our current society noone has to die because they are a burden. There is enough room to take care of these people.

The point is also that the world economy turned for the better when we started to take care of people as an integral part of society.
As i said before, we are social animals so once you start this kind of stratification there is no end.
Paris Hilton would propably shit on your head whenever she felt like because, you know, she is clearly the better human because she is in a better position than you. What would be her motivation to not put a bullet in your sorry head for not being as successfull in society as you?
So you have to realise that there are even greater assholes than you and they would think the same way about you as you about the people you want to leave for dead.

Fortunately this is not how most people think and actually most people realize we need each other. Economy is highly connected.
But what's even more crucial is that genetics are highly connected.
The whole pure genes/perfect human thing is a myth.
In our daily life we as a species completely fail at judging people on this level of connectedness altho it plays a major role in social dynamics.

If you want to look at humanity strictly as a tool for creating an economy then you can swap them out like light bulbs. But that is a groce oversimplification as the economy has a lot of symbiotic caracteristics that can only happen in these highly connected meshes of social relations.
A single idea from a disabled person can start a whole industry.

So the very least i can say is that things are not so simple that you can just say "let them die".
Of course you can have your opinion but i'm just telling you that it is not a healthy one for society.
What do you think will happen to the mental health of people that are for some reason near to the survival barrier? They will live under constant stress and think about their survival all the time. These people will have a much harder time participating in society because of the angst that may not have any food the next day.

'let them die' is just a very crude and uneducated opinion.

You make a lot of bold assumptions here...

If by "standing on the shoulders of society", you mean I am wealthy, you are completely wrong.  I have a net worth in the neighborhood of n negative $50k.

No i'm saying that you apparently have a computer and an internet connection and that you could not possibly have that if there was realy poor chinese juvenile in some underlit factory that helped making one for you.
Most people just don't realize just how much privileges they enjoy that are made possible by other people organised into a society.
I would say that 99.99% of the people on this forum live on the shoulders of society.
Things like food distribution, roads, rails, etc are all due to a big effort of lots and lots of people you don't know and part of those people you may have wished dead.
And in fact during the industrial revolution many people died becasue they worked under sub-human conditions. And today we still enjoy these works.
Take a look at how many people got disabled while building the Hoover dam. And Vegas until today uses the power that was generated there.

Ok, now I understand what you meant.  What does that have to do with the discussion?

[mobodick]

And in those cases where people end up with nothing, those people die off.  What's the big deal?

Well, most people on earth realize that our society can only exist if we take care of everyone.
We are social animals and thus feel compassion for others because everyone knows that there is a good chance that they themselfs may need help at some point.
If everyone thought like you then we would not live in this relatively nice and stable world.
It would be dog eat dog and only assholes would survive.
Now, would you want to live in a world composed primarily out of assholes or is it enough for you to look in the mirror in the morning?

I don't see how society depends on taking care of EVERYONE.  Please elaborate.



You misunderstand me.

I do not believe individuals should be FORCED to help other individuals.  I believe they should do it out of the kindness of their heart.  I make donations to local organizations and give to individuals to help them out.  Especially if a family member or friend needs some help, I give it to them.  I make donations to charities that help people in other countries too.

But I do NOT believe in using tax dollars to "help" people.  It should be voluntary.  And yes, some people need to die off to avoid being too much of a burden on the people.  I'm not trying to be an asshole, that's just reality.

Let me ask you this - how much is it worth paying, out of taxpayer dollars, to save a person's life?  $5?  $10?  $1,000?  $1M?  $100M?  Think about it...

Well, the problem is that you say these things standing on the shoulders of society.
A lot of people that you don't care about helped the world get to this place.
Most charities are there to help wealthy people get rid of their guilt and are actually artrociously inefficient.

In our current society noone has to die because they are a burden. There is enough room to take care of these people.

The point is also that the world economy turned for the better when we started to take care of people as an integral part of society.
As i said before, we are social animals so once you start this kind of stratification there is no end.
Paris Hilton would propably shit on your head whenever she felt like because, you know, she is clearly the better human because she is in a better position than you. What would be her motivation to not put a bullet in your sorry head for not being as successfull in society as you?
So you have to realise that there are even greater assholes than you and they would think the same way about you as you about the people you want to leave for dead.

Fortunately this is not how most people think and actually most people realize we need each other. Economy is highly connected.
But what's even more crucial is that genetics are highly connected.
The whole pure genes/perfect human thing is a myth.
In our daily life we as a species completely fail at judging people on this level of connectedness altho it plays a major role in social dynamics.

If you want to look at humanity strictly as a tool for creating an economy then you can swap them out like light bulbs. But that is a groce oversimplification as the economy has a lot of symbiotic caracteristics that can only happen in these highly connected meshes of social relations.
A single idea from a disabled person can start a whole industry.

So the very least i can say is that things are not so simple that you can just say "let them die".
Of course you can have your opinion but i'm just telling you that it is not a healthy one for society.
What do you think will happen to the mental health of people that are for some reason near to the survival barrier? They will live under constant stress and think about their survival all the time. These people will have a much harder time participating in society because of the angst that may not have any food the next day.

'let them die' is just a very crude and uneducated opinion.

I agree charities are inefficient.  You are saying the government IS?  

More efficient than the collective efforts of the charities, yes.

Citation needed for the economy turning better after "caring for each other" (as if that wasn't happening before among family/friends, as it should be?)

Citation needed?
Dude, look outside!
We have been fighting poverty for the past couple of hundred years because it has a direct detrimental effect on society.
Every country has this problem and every country is fighting it. It is an economic fact that if you let society just run that you will be leaving people out that could otherwise be very productive members of society.

Well, here's a citation: http://www.lisdatacenter.org/wps/liswps/188.pdf
You can find a table there on page 37 where you see poverty changes due to introduction of taxation.
A lot of these countries got rid of poverty in as much as 20% of the population.
Poor people cannot pay for school, for clothes, housing, healthy food etc etc. They are a detriment to society as a whole and there is no way they can reasonably crawl out of the hole that was created around them.

I never said anything about success or about people putting bullets in another person's head - not sure where you pulled that from.

Well, putting a bullet through a persons head would be more humane than just letting them die. I thought i'd make your suggestion more humane, that's all.

An i'm using the word success because that is the biggest difference between you and people you want to leave to die. They were apparently not successful in something and that lead to them being in that situation.
So short, what you effectively say is that they don't deserve any of the fruits you pick from society because they did not manage to be as successfull in society as you. You found the golden tree (which has been in a big part provided to you by society (sholder standing)) and now you say "It's mine, mine.. my precious. What, you want a piece? Fuck off, i don't know you so i don't care".

I think you are just blind to the fact of how much of what you have now is provided by others.
If we all thought like you then maybe your grandparents would have never been able to raise a family successfully enough to get you where you are now.

I never said anything about perfect genes.

No, but you do think that you are in some ways superior to others (that you don't care about and what to let die).
This inevitably leads to eugenetics and such. That is the end station of your train of thought. I thought i'd mention it early so you can think about it.
What you propose is a sort of evolutionary race and that is about genetics first and foremost. Dog eat dog, the strongest survives etc etc.

I never said that a disabled person couldn't change the world.

But you dismiss a lot of them as not worthy of societies attention.
You want to throw them at the mercy of charity where the chance that they get to develop these world changing ideas is minimal.

Likely, someone who is "near the survival barrier" would have friends and family to live with and take care of them, or charities/organizations that take care of people in homes dedicated to the purpose.  That's how society has worked for so long, why can it not still work that way today?

'Likely' just means you don't know how it works.
I can show you lots of people without a social circle (or a circle that is in a negative spiral) that will never be able to get out of the hole they are in by themselfs.
Want to get a job? Need clean clothes. So what do you do if you have no money to buy clothes?

You are acting like I am saying anyone who isn't healthy should be shot to death.  I do not understand that, because it is not what I am saying at all.  I am simply saying that people should not be supported by the government.  People should be supported by their friends, family, and/or charities.

But not all people are in a situation where they have friends or family that are able to help them and charities are not enough to take care of that problem on a big scale.
To fix this you need society wide structural solutions, not something uncertain like charity or friends and family.

Edit: messing up ma quotes  

[mobodick]

And in those cases where people end up with nothing, those people die off.  What's the big deal?

Well, most people on earth realize that our society can only exist if we take care of everyone.
We are social animals and thus feel compassion for others because everyone knows that there is a good chance that they themselfs may need help at some point.
If everyone thought like you then we would not live in this relatively nice and stable world.
It would be dog eat dog and only assholes would survive.
Now, would you want to live in a world composed primarily out of assholes or is it enough for you to look in the mirror in the morning?

I don't see how society depends on taking care of EVERYONE.  Please elaborate.

You misunderstand me.

I do not believe individuals should be FORCED to help other individuals.  I believe they should do it out of the kindness of their heart.  I make donations to local organizations and give to individuals to help them out.  Especially if a family member or friend needs some help, I give it to them.  I make donations to charities that help people in other countries too.

But I do NOT believe in using tax dollars to "help" people.  It should be voluntary.  And yes, some people need to die off to avoid being too much of a burden on the people.  I'm not trying to be an asshole, that's just reality.

Let me ask you this - how much is it worth paying, out of taxpayer dollars, to save a person's life?  $5?  $10?  $1,000?  $1M?  $100M?  Think about it...

Well, the problem is that you say these things standing on the shoulders of society.
A lot of people that you don't care about helped the world get to this place.
Most charities are there to help wealthy people get rid of their guilt and are actually artrociously inefficient.

In our current society noone has to die because they are a burden. There is enough room to take care of these people.

The point is also that the world economy turned for the better when we started to take care of people as an integral part of society.
As i said before, we are social animals so once you start this kind of stratification there is no end.
Paris Hilton would propably shit on your head whenever she felt like because, you know, she is clearly the better human because she is in a better position than you. What would be her motivation to not put a bullet in your sorry head for not being as successfull in society as you?
So you have to realise that there are even greater assholes than you and they would think the same way about you as you about the people you want to leave for dead.

Fortunately this is not how most people think and actually most people realize we need each other. Economy is highly connected.
But what's even more crucial is that genetics are highly connected.
The whole pure genes/perfect human thing is a myth.
In our daily life we as a species completely fail at judging people on this level of connectedness altho it plays a major role in social dynamics.

If you want to look at humanity strictly as a tool for creating an economy then you can swap them out like light bulbs. But that is a groce oversimplification as the economy has a lot of symbiotic caracteristics that can only happen in these highly connected meshes of social relations.
A single idea from a disabled person can start a whole industry.

So the very least i can say is that things are not so simple that you can just say "let them die".
Of course you can have your opinion but i'm just telling you that it is not a healthy one for society.
What do you think will happen to the mental health of people that are for some reason near to the survival barrier? They will live under constant stress and think about their survival all the time. These people will have a much harder time participating in society because of the angst that may not have any food the next day.

'let them die' is just a very crude and uneducated opinion.

You make a lot of bold assumptions here...

If by "standing on the shoulders of society", you mean I am wealthy, you are completely wrong.  I have a net worth in the neighborhood of n negative $50k.

No i'm saying that you apparently have a computer and an internet connection and that you could not possibly have that if there was realy poor chinese juvenile in some underlit factory that helped making one for you.
Most people just don't realize just how much privileges they enjoy that are made possible by other people organised into a society.
I would say that 99.99% of the people on this forum live on the shoulders of society.
Things like food distribution, roads, rails, etc are all due to a big effort of lots and lots of people you don't know and part of those people you may have wished dead.
And in fact during the industrial revolution many people died becasue they worked under sub-human conditions. And today we still enjoy these works.
Take a look at how many people got disabled while building the Hoover dam. And Vegas until today uses the power that was generated there.

Ok, now I understand what you meant.  What does that have to do with the discussion?

It is relevant because you aparently have no idea how society works.
So it's a bit strange actually that you're arguing taxes when you show no understanding of why they are there and how they help society.

I'm not sayig it all rosey and everything is going ok, but just denying their function is crude thinking (pre-industrialisation crude).

[SgtSpike]

I think you need to answer this question:

How much is a person's life worth?  If you could use $5 of taxpayer (or people who pay for healthcare) money to do it, would you?  $10?  $1,000?  $1M?  $1B?  $1T?

At what point is the drain on society as a whole too much to bear to save a single life?

[ElectricMucus]

I think you need to answer this question:

How much is a person's life worth?  If you could use $5 of taxpayer (or people who pay for healthcare) money to do it, would you?  $10?  $1,000?  $1M?  $1B?  $1T?

At what point is the drain on society as a whole too much to bear to save a single life?

never

But you are missing the point. With todays level of technology that sum is so marginal that it doesn't affect society more than random fluctuations in the market.
It truly is negligible.

[SgtSpike]

I think you need to answer this question:

How much is a person's life worth?  If you could use $5 of taxpayer (or people who pay for healthcare) money to do it, would you?  $10?  $1,000?  $1M?  $1B?  $1T?

At what point is the drain on society as a whole too much to bear to save a single life?

never

But you are missing the point. With todays level of technology that sum is so marginal that it doesn't affect society more than random fluctuations in the market.
It truly is negligible.

Never?  Really?  So you would have taxpayers pay $1T to save someone's life?  100 lives later, and you've increase the national debt to 7 times what it is now, forever indebting your descendents to live a life of slavery in vain attempt to pay off said debt?  And somehow, that is ok with you?

Individual instances do not add much, but unpaid healthcare costs as a whole are a huge burden on society.  The general attitude seems to be that every life is priceless, and everyone should be forced, via taxes or increased healthcare costs, to pay these priceless prices, but I think that is an inappropriate way to look at it.  There are other concerns at play, such as opportunity cost and quality of life.  Some procedures or series of procedures or ongoing health care can cost millions of dollars.  Most people won't make more than a million dollars (present value) in their lifetime.  And how many lives could be saved in third-world countries with the money spent on one procedure here in the US?  Is it appropriate for us to deem the lives of our countrymen that much more valuable than the lives of other people around the world?

If government is forcing us to "help" people in the way that they deem appropriate, then we have less funds available to help people the way we see fit, which, in some cases, might include saving a hundred lives of people in a third world country instead of one life in the US.  Why does the government get to make such a judgement call on an issue of morality like this?

[DannyHamilton]

This conversation seems to be hijacked. If I understood correctly, the original question was "Why have higher taxes on the rich historically correlated to higher economic growth?"  I didn't click through either of the original links, so I'm not sure if the OP presented reliable evidence to support the proposition as fact.  Regardless, none of the recent posts on this discussion thread seem to be attempting to answer or even discuss the question any longer.  Perhaps these posts belong in some other thread, or in a new thread of their own?

[SgtSpike]

This conversation seems to be hijacked. If I understood correctly, the original question was "Why have higher taxes on the rich historically correlated to higher economic growth?"  I didn't click through either of the original links, so I'm not sure if the OP presented reliable evidence to support the proposition as fact.  Regardless, none of the recent posts on this discussion thread seem to be attempting to answer or even discuss the question any longer.  Perhaps these posts belong in some other thread, or in a new thread of their own?

In my humble opinion (though many don't agree with me), threads/conversations are meant to wander.

[SaintDevil]

And in those cases where people end up with nothing, those people die off.  What's the big deal?

Well, most people on earth realize that our society can only exist if we take care of everyone.
We are social animals and thus feel compassion for others because everyone knows that there is a good chance that they themselfs may need help at some point.
If everyone thought like you then we would not live in this relatively nice and stable world.
It would be dog eat dog and only assholes would survive.
Now, would you want to live in a world composed primarily out of assholes or is it enough for you to look in the mirror in the morning?

+1.

Your explanation worth taking count. I believe the same way, we are a society that holds on social connections and thus helping each other in small ways can bring everyone up.
We slowly crawled to this point and if we wouldn't  then we would still live in era of poverty, wars and dictatorship.

[ElectricMucus]

I think you need to answer this question:

How much is a person's life worth?  If you could use $5 of taxpayer (or people who pay for healthcare) money to do it, would you?  $10?  $1,000?  $1M?  $1B?  $1T?

At what point is the drain on society as a whole too much to bear to save a single life?

never

But you are missing the point. With todays level of technology that sum is so marginal that it doesn't affect society more than random fluctuations in the market.
It truly is negligible.

Never?  Really?  So you would have taxpayers pay $1T to save someone's life?  100 lives later, and you've increase the national debt to 7 times what it is now, forever indebting your descendents to live a life of slavery in vain attempt to pay off said debt?  And somehow, that is ok with you?

As I said before you are missing the point.

Individual instances do not add much, but unpaid healthcare costs as a whole are a huge burden on society.  The general attitude seems to be that every life is priceless, and everyone should be forced, via taxes or increased healthcare costs, to pay these priceless prices, but I think that is an inappropriate way to look at it.  There are other concerns at play, such as opportunity cost and quality of life.  Some procedures or series of procedures or ongoing health care can cost millions of dollars.  Most people won't make more than a million dollars (present value) in their lifetime.  And how many lives could be saved in third-world countries with the money spent on one procedure here in the US?  Is it appropriate for us to deem the lives of our countrymen that much more valuable than the lives of other people around the world?

Isn't that what countries are supposed to do? But for the sake of argument: Lets say we spend as much as threat everybody in Zimbabwe for Aids and Malaria. And which point do you think the production methods would be efficient enough that costs per person are down one order of magnitude, two, three or four orders?
Why should that efficiency be lost for western patients for which the treatment costs would be negligible?

If government is forcing us to "help" people in the way that they deem appropriate, then we have less funds available to help people the way we see fit, which, in some cases, might include saving a hundred lives of people in a third world country instead of one life in the US.  Why does the government get to make such a judgement call on an issue of morality like this?

There are enough resources available to do it. The only reason why the current system isn't able to provide a good live for everybody is that it is inefficient. Heck if we switch to Thorium power every man woman and child could live a very high energy lifestyle, we could make the Sahara into an oasis, and there would still be enough time and resources to colonize motherfuckin space.

[SgtSpike]

I think you need to answer this question:

How much is a person's life worth?  If you could use $5 of taxpayer (or people who pay for healthcare) money to do it, would you?  $10?  $1,000?  $1M?  $1B?  $1T?

At what point is the drain on society as a whole too much to bear to save a single life?

never

But you are missing the point. With todays level of technology that sum is so marginal that it doesn't affect society more than random fluctuations in the market.
It truly is negligible.

Never?  Really?  So you would have taxpayers pay $1T to save someone's life?  100 lives later, and you've increase the national debt to 7 times what it is now, forever indebting your descendents to live a life of slavery in vain attempt to pay off said debt?  And somehow, that is ok with you?

As I said before you are missing the point.

Individual instances do not add much, but unpaid healthcare costs as a whole are a huge burden on society.  The general attitude seems to be that every life is priceless, and everyone should be forced, via taxes or increased healthcare costs, to pay these priceless prices, but I think that is an inappropriate way to look at it.  There are other concerns at play, such as opportunity cost and quality of life.  Some procedures or series of procedures or ongoing health care can cost millions of dollars.  Most people won't make more than a million dollars (present value) in their lifetime.  And how many lives could be saved in third-world countries with the money spent on one procedure here in the US?  Is it appropriate for us to deem the lives of our countrymen that much more valuable than the lives of other people around the world?

Isn't that what countries are supposed to do? But for the sake of argument: Lets say we spend as much as threat everybody in Zimbabwe for Aids and Malaria. And which point do you think the production methods would be efficient enough that costs per person are down one order of magnitude, two, three or four orders?
Why should that efficiency be lost for western patients for which the treatment costs would be negligible?

If government is forcing us to "help" people in the way that they deem appropriate, then we have less funds available to help people the way we see fit, which, in some cases, might include saving a hundred lives of people in a third world country instead of one life in the US.  Why does the government get to make such a judgement call on an issue of morality like this?

There are enough resources available to do it. The only reason why the current system isn't able to provide a good live for everybody is that it is inefficient. Heck if we switch to Thorium power every man woman and child could live a very high energy lifestyle, we could make the Sahara into an oasis, and there would still be enough time and resources to colonize motherfuckin space.

This discussion is getting stale.  I'm just going to agree to disagree with you at this point.

[firefop]

The basic issues I have with taxation is that it isn't fairly done. The secondary issue I have that it put barriers to growth in the worst places.

Why is there any sort of payroll taxes that an employer pays - this builds a barrier to growth into every business. Why does the percentage of income we pay increase (percentage-wise) as we make more money - this puts a barrier against growth.

Ideally we need a flat tax on sales and/or a flat tax on income - junk the payroll taxes entirely - and a flat tax on profit via capital gains.  Get rid of property tax entirely as part of the bargain. Ideally each tax would have the same percentage rate for everyone.

At about 10% we'd see gains on the money that's actually collected while at the same same removing the dis-incentives to business. Then we'd see some massive wealth creating and gdp growth in this country.

[mobodick]

I think you need to answer this question:

How much is a person's life worth?  If you could use $5 of taxpayer (or people who pay for healthcare) money to do it, would you?  $10?  $1,000?  $1M?  $1B?  $1T?

At what point is the drain on society as a whole too much to bear to save a single life?

never

But you are missing the point. With todays level of technology that sum is so marginal that it doesn't affect society more than random fluctuations in the market.
It truly is negligible.

Never?  Really?  So you would have taxpayers pay $1T to save someone's life?  100 lives later, and you've increase the national debt to 7 times what it is now, forever indebting your descendents to live a life of slavery in vain attempt to pay off said debt?  And somehow, that is ok with you?

Individual instances do not add much, but unpaid healthcare costs as a whole are a huge burden on society.  The general attitude seems to be that every life is priceless, and everyone should be forced, via taxes or increased healthcare costs, to pay these priceless prices, but I think that is an inappropriate way to look at it.  There are other concerns at play, such as opportunity cost and quality of life.

For the record, i agree on this.

  Some procedures or series of procedures or ongoing health care can cost millions of dollars.  Most people won't make more than a million dollars (present value) in their lifetime.  And how many lives could be saved in third-world countries with the money spent on one procedure here in the US?  Is it appropriate for us to deem the lives of our countrymen that much more valuable than the lives of other people around the world?

If government is forcing us to "help" people in the way that they deem appropriate, then we have less funds available to help people the way we see fit, which, in some cases, might include saving a hundred lives of people in a third world country instead of one life in the US.  Why does the government get to make such a judgement call on an issue of morality like this?

I don't think it's 'the government' that made this choice, it is society.
If there is a too big political steering then things go bad. It would be ideal if government only diverted a stream of funds to this cause and let more knowledgeable people decide on how to spend it.
But as an institution such basic care is very valuable to any society.
And i agree that there may be a limit to what procedures should be supported by society.
I mean i would not want to pay tax money because someone wants a nose correction or something like that.
These are indeed hard ethical questions. Where do we draw a line.
But i think that it is good if there is at least some basic care.

[Arto]

I can't believe nobody has as yet pointed out the glaringly obvious: correlation does not imply causation.

[mobodick]

I can't believe nobody has as yet pointed out the glaringly obvious: correlation does not imply causation.

Meh, it doesn't exclude it either.,

[johnyj]

Some high productivity people have small spending while low productivity people have no spending power. High productivity people are only a few, and their needs have mostly fulfilled, they will not generate enough consumption,  move some of those spending power from high productivity people to low productivity people will make the total consumption more even

In this process, those talent people might leave this country or move his operations abroad, so unless the same concept is applied everywhere in the world, it is difficult to set higher tax on rich people

[odolvlobo]

Correlation is not the same as causation. Perhaps you would like to rephrase your question?

Anytime a topic mentions correlation, this needs to be the first reply.