|
Tantrika
Miss Ann Thrope




Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
|
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: BANANA.MAN]
#26369821 - 12/08/19 08:58 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: 1. regardless, rich people pay more than everyone else. they would pay more if they didnt have offshore accounts. that doesnt change the fact that more revenue is collected from them as it is.and if you had your way it would be even more unfair. way to prove my point. you think they should pay even more than the disproportionately large sum they already pay.
think of all the jobs and developement that can happen now that the rich person can afford to invest in private business ventures.
I dont agree that the Canadian economy would be better. most innovation has been the result of private parties and individuals. but again ive had that discussion many times and am only interested in wrapping up this last conversation right now which is not about effectiveness. I dont want to keep jumping into new topics.
...
So what you are saying is, don't worry if the rich tax dodge more than everyone else, they are entitled to it simply by being wealthier than the rest of us
do you think the police will pay a visit to wealthy old Justin and subdue him for not paying his taxes in full?
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... 2. "you have also established that the police won't enact violence against anthony for that but will subdue anthony if he enacts violence against them
in the same way, it would be okay for Annie to defend herself from Robert's violence"
no once again you are twisting what I say every time. I established the opposite.
The police officer will initiate the violence by trying to subdue anthony SIMPLY for not paying the taxes. even if anthony doesnt do anything pshycial to him. If that werent the case then anthony could just not pay the taxes and nothing would happen. its the police odficer initiating the violence. ...
Anthony will initiate violence the second the police show up becuase he hates and fears them, the police will have no choice but to fight back
it's like how innocent people wouldn't get shot in the US if they just listened to what the officers said

Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... 3. realistically my rights have probably not been violated. I'm young and havent earned alot of money. I'm sure I can easily make the money ive spent in taxes back through services. but someone elses right is being violated
if everybody is paying the same amount then whats the point of socialized healthcare? the whole point is for the rich and healthy to subsidize the poor and sick. or else why would we have it? why wouldnt everyone buy their own insurence if there is no difference?
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/measuring-the-distribution-of-taxes-in-canada
...
from your link: "Measuring the Distribution of Taxes in Canada: Do the Rich Pay Their “Fair Share”? finds that this year, the top 20 per cent of income earners in Canada—families with an annual income greater than $186,875—will earn 49.1 per cent of all income in Canada but pay 55.9 per cent of all taxes including not just income taxes, but payroll taxes, sales taxes and property taxes, among others."
this demonstrates the unfortunate reality of the numbers the institute is trying to convince you that "the rich" is comprised by the top 20% when the rich actually comprise the top 1-5% the 15% behind that are getting screwed with the rest of us, they just have a bit more flexibility
what the data provided shows, is that people at the bottom of the top tax bracket get screwed over more than those at the (ceilingless) top
Someone making 500 000 dollars a year is making more than double the people at the bottom of their tax bracket which is a wider difference between the bottom of the top tax bracket, and the top of the bottom bracket the bottom bracket to top bracket is a difference of around 140 000 dollars per year; the difference between the bottom of the top bracket and the 1% is several hundreds of thousands
even worse is the comparison between a multi-income family at the 190 000 dollar income mark, vs. an individual at the 500 000+ mark
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... sso pelase clarify, do you not think money is redistributed in the canadian healthcare system? ...
Do you think that the preservation of life and liberty through being in good health and able to work and contribute to the economy is the same thing as being given money?
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... taking someone' property against their will and using it for someone else's benefit violates the right to property. what kind of evidence are you looking for? what would I need to show you for you to understand that? its about.
taking property (including money) away and giving it to someone else is by definition a violation of their right to property. what evidence am I supposed to show you?
That is your burden to figure out; you were the one who wanted to introduce philisophical concept of the burden of proof for assertions logically you should also be ready to pounce on the opportunity to provide proof for your own
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist



Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 28 days, 5 hours
|
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: Tantrika]
#26370088 - 12/09/19 01:43 AM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Tantrika said: If you don't like the rules in one country, you can move to another what you are complaining about is you don't want to participate in Canadian society at the same level as other contributing citizens and that you feel prepared to get violent with citizens who opt to try and put you into rehabilitation circumstances appropriate to the country
IF BananaMan is actually arguing against general participation, this makes sense Tantrika.
IF, as what I've gleaned from his posts, he's just stating the obvious, - And I love you Tantrika - then your answer here is unfortunately low quality. Isn't this exactly what staunch republicans in the USA tell everyone who won't nuclear family and church?I never got the vibe BM was looking to get violent with others, only stating the police will incite violence to uphold laws.
I'm willing to be wrong and simply have misread this thread.
All I've gathered is that he's saying taxes are collected at gun point, which is absolutely a fact. Don't pay taxes here in the USA and watch what happens. They will come to your house with guns and take you to jail. If you resist, the will kill you.
I have no idea how Canada works, but it sounds similar. I don't want to misperceive either of you, but on my initial perception (lol) it sounds like BM is just pointing out the facts there.
--------------------
  "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius
|
Tantrika
Miss Ann Thrope




Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
|
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: Loaded Shaman]
#26370140 - 12/09/19 02:38 AM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Loaded Shaman said:
Quote:
Tantrika said: If you don't like the rules in one country, you can move to another what you are complaining about is you don't want to participate in Canadian society at the same level as other contributing citizens and that you feel prepared to get violent with citizens who opt to try and put you into rehabilitation circumstances appropriate to the country
IF BananaMan is actually arguing against general participation, this makes sense Tantrika.
IF, as what I've gleaned from his posts, he's just stating the obvious, - And I love you Tantrika - then your answer here is unfortunately low quality. Isn't this exactly what staunch republicans in the USA tell everyone who won't nuclear family and church?I never got the vibe BM was looking to get violent with others, only stating the police will incite violence to uphold laws. ...
In either circumstance the bolded text does not actually make sense, that is the "point"
social mobility between countries is only that easy for the wealthy; even a family or an individual in just a comfortable financial state has large hoops to jump through to move and change citizenship
that statement was supplied as part of my broader sentiments regarding the expanded social freedoms associated with increased wealth
Quote:
Loaded Shaman said: ... I'm willing to be wrong and simply have misread this thread.
All I've gathered is that he's saying taxes are collected at gun point, which is absolutely a fact. Don't pay taxes here in the USA and watch what happens. They will come to your house with guns and take you to jail. If you resist, the will kill you.
I have no idea how Canada works, but it sounds similar. I don't want to misperceive either of you, but on my initial perception (lol) it sounds like BM is just pointing out the facts there.
it would significantly surprise me if it happened in Canada
US: 850 people have been shot and killed by police in 2019 Canada: Between 2000 and 2017, police were involved in at least 460 fatal interactions with civilians across Canada.
jail is also more forgiving in Canada, non-violent or unlikely repeat offenders go to minimum security prison which is effectively a shared residential household with no fences, where they are given a weekly allowance and required to shop for their own foods and prepare their own meals not even bars on the window
hence my frequent comments about an unwilling tax payer most likely being fed, housed, and cared for at the expense of willing tax payers
if you want a thorough (tho slightly dated) look into the Canadian prison system, this collection is really good:
minimum security "club fed" gets about a 10 minute mini-doc around 1:18:30 in the video
am not saying it is an impossibility to be treated with violence, but the most similiar circumstances that have taken place to my awareness is RCMP having shootouts with drug producers, which presumably weren't paying taxes either but serves as a pretty skewed point of data for purposes of this thread
am very much open to being wrong, as all cops are bastards it is not difficult to imagine a situation of violence and have there be an existing real world example already but have not come across data that shows such in this instance
perhaps looking in the wrong places, but then unsure of where to look
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist



Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 28 days, 5 hours
|
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: Tantrika]
#26370147 - 12/09/19 02:49 AM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Tantrika said:
Quote:
Loaded Shaman said:
Quote:
Tantrika said: If you don't like the rules in one country, you can move to another what you are complaining about is you don't want to participate in Canadian society at the same level as other contributing citizens and that you feel prepared to get violent with citizens who opt to try and put you into rehabilitation circumstances appropriate to the country
IF BananaMan is actually arguing against general participation, this makes sense Tantrika.
IF, as what I've gleaned from his posts, he's just stating the obvious, - And I love you Tantrika - then your answer here is unfortunately low quality. Isn't this exactly what staunch republicans in the USA tell everyone who won't nuclear family and church?I never got the vibe BM was looking to get violent with others, only stating the police will incite violence to uphold laws. ...
In either circumstance the bolded text does not actually make sense, that is the "point"
social mobility between countries is only that easy for the wealthy; even a family or an individual in just a comfortable financial state has large hoops to jump through to move and change citizenship
that statement was supplied as part of my broader sentiments regarding the expanded social freedoms associated with increased wealth
Quote:
Loaded Shaman said: ... I'm willing to be wrong and simply have misread this thread.
All I've gathered is that he's saying taxes are collected at gun point, which is absolutely a fact. Don't pay taxes here in the USA and watch what happens. They will come to your house with guns and take you to jail. If you resist, the will kill you.
I have no idea how Canada works, but it sounds similar. I don't want to misperceive either of you, but on my initial perception (lol) it sounds like BM is just pointing out the facts there.
it would significantly surprise me if it happened in Canada
US: 850 people have been shot and killed by police in 2019 Canada: Between 2000 and 2017, police were involved in at least 460 fatal interactions with civilians across Canada.
jail is also more forgiving in Canada, non-violent or unlikely repeat offenders go to minimum security prison which is effectively a shared residential household with no fences, where they are given a weekly allowance and required to shop for their own foods and prepare their own meals not even bars on the window
hence my frequent comments about an unwilling tax payer most likely being fed, housed, and cared for at the expense of willing tax payers
if you want a thorough (tho slightly dated) look into the Canadian prison system, this collection is really good:
minimum security "club fed" gets about a 10 minute mini-doc around 1:18:30 in the video
am not saying it is an impossibility to be treated with violence, but the most similiar circumstances that have taken place to my awareness is RCMP having shootouts with drug producers, which presumably weren't paying taxes either but serves as a pretty skewed point of data for purposes of this thread
am very much open to being wrong, as all cops are bastards it is not difficult to imagine a situation of violence and have there be an existing real world example already but have not come across data that shows such in this instance
perhaps looking in the wrong places, but then unsure of where to look 
I got you T, thank you for this post and the links. Digging as soon as this refills .
Canada is like an anomaly to most US citizens. It's actually interesting to see how different yet similar said countries are. I'm 3 hours from the Montreal border if that's any significance lol.
|
Tantrika
Miss Ann Thrope




Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
|
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: Loaded Shaman]
#26370156 - 12/09/19 03:08 AM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Loaded Shaman said: ... I got you T, thank you for this post and the links. Digging as soon as this refills .
Canada is like an anomaly to most US citizens. It's actually interesting to see how different yet similar said countries are. I'm 3 hours from the Montreal border if that's any significance lol.
The US seems strange to me in some regards as a Canadian citizen too for instance, now take for granted that in Canada inmates can vote apparently felons in the US lose that right
|
BANANA.MAN
Turd Ferguson

Registered: 01/11/15
Posts: 7,474
Loc: Ontario Canada
Last seen: 6 months, 2 days
|
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: Tantrika]
#26370661 - 12/09/19 10:39 AM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Tantrika said:
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: 1. regardless, rich people pay more than everyone else. they would pay more if they didnt have offshore accounts. that doesnt change the fact that more revenue is collected from them as it is.and if you had your way it would be even more unfair. way to prove my point. you think they should pay even more than the disproportionately large sum they already pay.
think of all the jobs and developement that can happen now that the rich person can afford to invest in private business ventures.
I dont agree that the Canadian economy would be better. most innovation has been the result of private parties and individuals. but again ive had that discussion many times and am only interested in wrapping up this last conversation right now which is not about effectiveness. I dont want to keep jumping into new topics.
...
So what you are saying is, don't worry if the rich tax dodge more than everyone else, they are entitled to it simply by being wealthier than the rest of us
do you think the police will pay a visit to wealthy old Justin and subdue him for not paying his taxes in full?
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... 2. "you have also established that the police won't enact violence against anthony for that but will subdue anthony if he enacts violence against them
in the same way, it would be okay for Annie to defend herself from Robert's violence"
no once again you are twisting what I say every time. I established the opposite.
The police officer will initiate the violence by trying to subdue anthony SIMPLY for not paying the taxes. even if anthony doesnt do anything pshycial to him. If that werent the case then anthony could just not pay the taxes and nothing would happen. its the police odficer initiating the violence. ...
Anthony will initiate violence the second the police show up becuase he hates and fears them, the police will have no choice but to fight back
it's like how innocent people wouldn't get shot in the US if they just listened to what the officers said

Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... 3. realistically my rights have probably not been violated. I'm young and havent earned alot of money. I'm sure I can easily make the money ive spent in taxes back through services. but someone elses right is being violated
if everybody is paying the same amount then whats the point of socialized healthcare? the whole point is for the rich and healthy to subsidize the poor and sick. or else why would we have it? why wouldnt everyone buy their own insurence if there is no difference?
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/measuring-the-distribution-of-taxes-in-canada
...
from your link: "Measuring the Distribution of Taxes in Canada: Do the Rich Pay Their “Fair Share”? finds that this year, the top 20 per cent of income earners in Canada—families with an annual income greater than $186,875—will earn 49.1 per cent of all income in Canada but pay 55.9 per cent of all taxes including not just income taxes, but payroll taxes, sales taxes and property taxes, among others."
this demonstrates the unfortunate reality of the numbers the institute is trying to convince you that "the rich" is comprised by the top 20% when the rich actually comprise the top 1-5% the 15% behind that are getting screwed with the rest of us, they just have a bit more flexibility
what the data provided shows, is that people at the bottom of the top tax bracket get screwed over more than those at the (ceilingless) top
Someone making 500 000 dollars a year is making more than double the people at the bottom of their tax bracket which is a wider difference between the bottom of the top tax bracket, and the top of the bottom bracket the bottom bracket to top bracket is a difference of around 140 000 dollars per year; the difference between the bottom of the top bracket and the 1% is several hundreds of thousands
even worse is the comparison between a multi-income family at the 190 000 dollar income mark, vs. an individual at the 500 000+ mark
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... sso pelase clarify, do you not think money is redistributed in the canadian healthcare system? ...
Do you think that the preservation of life and liberty through being in good health and able to work and contribute to the economy is the same thing as being given money?
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... taking someone' property against their will and using it for someone else's benefit violates the right to property. what kind of evidence are you looking for? what would I need to show you for you to understand that? its about.
taking property (including money) away and giving it to someone else is by definition a violation of their right to property. what evidence am I supposed to show you?
That is your burden to figure out; you were the one who wanted to introduce philisophical concept of the burden of proof for assertions logically you should also be ready to pounce on the opportunity to provide proof for your own
no im not saying they should be allowed to dodge taxes. I acctually never said that once. not once. you are putting words in my mouth once again. I think people should pay their taxes. but i dont think we should gave different tax brackets or fund redistributive programs.
I was using that to show you that the system is redistributive. and it would be even more redistributive if there werent tax evation.
You are asking for evidence that the system is redistributive and I showed you. I never said people SHOULD evade taxes.
heres what you are doing, you are framing the discussion in a dishonest way by turing it into a conversation about the benefits of socialized healthcare when you dtarted off asking about how it violates human rights. and you aare also twisting what I say and put words in my mouth. I never said I think people should avoid taxes. I never said that the tax avoider is innitiating the violence (I said the exact opposite) and youve been doing that the whole time.
2. I never said innocent people wouldnt get shot. innocent people do get shot by police. again you are putting words in my mouth.
no anthony wouldnt do anyrhing when the police showed up unless the police innitiated tge violence.
if the police never innitiated the violence by trying to subdue anthony he would have no need to even touch the police. he could just not go with them. see you are being dishonest. that makes no sense. the police officer would try to arrest anthony and the would be the innitiation of force.
3. Tantrika it doesnt matter if you consider them rich or not. the point is some people pay more i to the system, making the system redistributive. that was the point of that. you cant stay on topic. you have to reframe what we are talking about every single time.
4. being given free healthcare is the same as being given money. which it totally fine if someone voluntarily pays for your healthcare.
5. "That is your burden to figure out; you were the one who wanted to introduce philisophical concept of the burden of proof for assertions logically you should also be ready to pounce on the opportunity to provide proof for your own"
this isnt something you prove with data. I already used data to prove that tax dollars are redistributed. the fact that they are redistributed means by definition that property rights are violated by taking property for public use without just compensation.
Edited by BANANA.MAN (12/09/19 02:33 PM)
|
Tantrika
Miss Ann Thrope




Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
|
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: BANANA.MAN]
#26371122 - 12/09/19 03:12 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... no im not saying they should be allowed to dodge taxes. I acctually never said that once. not once. you are putting words in my mouth once again. I think people should pay their taxes. but i dont think we should gave different tax brackets or fund redistributive programs.
I was using that to show you that the system is redistributive. and it would be even more redistributive if there werent tax evation.
You are asking for evidence that the system is redistributive and I showed you. I never said people SHOULD evade taxes.
heres what you are doing, you are framing the discussion in a dishonest way by turing it into a conversation about the benefits of socialized healthcare when you dtarted off asking about how it violates human rights. and you aare also twisting what I say and put words in my mouth. I never said I think people should avoid taxes. I never said that the tax avoider is innitiating the violence (I said the exact opposite) and youve been doing that the whole time. ...
You brushed aside the reality that they dodge more tax payments than get paid
then you disregarded my legitimate question about whether you believed they would be subdued by the police for doing so
you have stated the rich and the poor have the same rights, so therefor the rich should be getting killed by the police for tax dodging in the manner you have stated would happen to you if you tax dodged
and you have not shown redistribution yet, because the people who pay taxes continue to benefit from tax funded services you just make excuses for why they may use them less than others
which has some truth -- people with enough wealth don't think they should be treated equally to other citizens and be stuck waiting in line so they pay for their surgeries in the US, because they consider themselves worth more expedient treatment than others
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... 2. I never said innocent people wouldnt get shot. innocent people do get shot by police. again you are putting words in my mouth.
no anthony wouldnt do anyrhing when the police showed up unless the police innitiated tge violence.
if the police never innitiated the violence by trying to subdue anthony he would have no need to even touch the police. he could just not go with them. see you are being dishonest. that makes no sense. the police officer would try to arrest anthony and the would be the innitiation of force. ...
Anthony is a horrible criminal with a huge arsenal of illegal weapons as soon as he hears the cops are coming, he sets up traps
see the problem with your scenario here is that you are trying to make up a theoretical angelic being and then telling me about tragedies in his life but since he is completely made up, he is subject to all other imagination
so it turns out Anthony is not actually the nice guy you think he is because you're so close to him
if you used an actual example of a real citizen rather than a made up concept, this example could not be altered since it is a made up example, the prospect that he is secretly massively violent and you are covering it up is just as valid as any other
my dishonesty here is only matching with yours, to reflect the dishonesty you are practicing by making up scenarios in lieu of providing a real case study to discuss
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... 3. Tantrika it doesnt matter if you consider them rich or not. the point is some people pay more i to the system, making the system redistributive. that was the point of that. you cant stay on topic. you have to reframe what we are talking about every single time. ...
Because you have not shown redistributive aspects yet you keep talking about how you think some people pay in more and benefit less and how you think some people pay in less and benefit more but you don't actually show data supporting that point
you get mad at me for pointing out that the ultra rich 1% are paying less in taxes than families in the same tax bracket but at the 190 000 dollar mark, due to massive 1% tax dodging, thus screwing over all of us at the bottom even tho the link you provided me showed the same information
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... 4. being given free healthcare is the same as being given money. which it totally fine if someone voluntarily pays for your healthcare. ...
How do you figure they are the same?
I could be given money and spend it on drugs and detract from the system further healthcare moves me into a position of contributing to the system instead of detracting from it
unless you mean that having more healthy workers in the workforce means that the business owners are basically being given free money at citizen tax payer expense could see this as a really valid point -- especially with how much business also tax dodge
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... 5. "That is your burden to figure out; you were the one who wanted to introduce philisophical concept of the burden of proof for assertions logically you should also be ready to pounce on the opportunity to provide proof for your own"
this isnt something you prove with data. I already used data to prove that tax dollars are redistributed. the fact that they are redistributed means by definition that property rights are violated by taking property for public use without just compensation.
Ah, so you have no data to support your point
and revert back to the fact that you feel the compensation is unjust when it has been shown that all who pay into the system benefit from it, making it just
Alright, if we are going to keep going in circles like this
should clarify that my respect for your position and feelings is still present and appreciate your efforts to show how the validity of your feelings pertains to legal distinctions of the protections of human rights
if your position of immoral taxes is that they make you feel bad rather than that there is data showing they have a negative impact on human rights then can at least sort of comprehend your view of the feeling taxes violating human rights
|
BANANA.MAN
Turd Ferguson

Registered: 01/11/15
Posts: 7,474
Loc: Ontario Canada
Last seen: 6 months, 2 days
|
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: Tantrika] 1
#26373982 - 12/10/19 09:04 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
"You brushed aside the reality that they dodge more tax payments than get paid
then you disregarded my legitimate question about whether you believed they would be subdued by the police for doing so
you have stated the rich and the poor have the same rights, so therefor the rich should be getting killed by the police for tax dodging in the manner you have stated would happen to you if you tax dodged
and you have not shown redistribution yet, because the people who pay taxes continue to benefit from tax funded services you just make excuses for why they may use them less than others
which has some truth -- people with enough wealth don't think they should be treated equally to other citizens and be stuck waiting in line so they pay for their surgeries in the US, because they consider themselves worth more expedient treatment than others" I said rich people pay more in taxes to show you that the system is redistributive. you then brought up tax evasion. I showed that rich people still pay more in taxes so my point still stands and now you're accusing me of brushing it off. Thats not what we were talking about. you cant just realize you are wrong then switch the topic and accuse the other person of brushing off random things you bring up.
I'd like to see the criteria for tax avoidance because alot of people get upset about legal methods (I know you brought up offshore accounts eariler. thats legal. those people arent breaking the law.) I'm sure most of it is stuff thats completely legal. there are all sorts of things you can do to pay less taxes, perfectly legally. for example you can reinvest all the profits for a business back into the business or you can reinvest a large portion. all sorts of things can alter your tax burden. for example someone with the same job and income could pay more property taxes than someone else simply because of the property they own.
are you saying people should go out of their way to pay the most they possibly can in taxes when they arent legally obligated to? or are we talking about tax evasion?
I thought we were talking about tax evasion and yes people, even rich people get arrested for that. and yes police would subdue the accused person and initiate force on them if they refused to comply with the arresting officer.
Anthony is a horrible criminal with a huge arsenal of illegal weapons as soon as he hears the cops are coming, he sets up traps
see the problem with your scenario here is that you are trying to make up a theoretical angelic being and then telling me about tragedies in his life but since he is completely made up, he is subject to all other imagination
so it turns out Anthony is not actually the nice guy you think he is because you're so close to him
if you used an actual example of a real citizen rather than a made up concept, this example could not be altered since it is a made up example, the prospect that he is secretly massively violent and you are covering it up is just as valid as any other
my dishonesty here is only matching with yours, to reflect the dishonesty you are practicing by making up scenarios in lieu of providing a real case study to discuss
In any situation where a police officer is attempting to arrest someone and they do not allow the officer to take them into custody and simply refuse to comply (without being violent) the officer will initiate force by attempting to cuff you. what do you think police will do if someone wont come with them? let them go. I wasnt being dishonest at all. I was using a theoretical situation with specific parameters so illustrate a point. I dont need to use a real person because thats just police protocol. arrest someone if they have a warrant out for their arrest. they dont get a say in the matter.
Because you have not shown redistributive aspects yet you keep talking about how you think some people pay in more and benefit less and how you think some people pay in less and benefit more but you don't actually show data supporting that point
you get mad at me for pointing out that the ultra rich 1% are paying less in taxes than families in the same tax bracket but at the 190 000 dollar mark, due to massive 1% tax dodging, thus screwing over all of us at the bottom even tho the link you provided me showed the same information
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/price-of-public-health-care-insurance-2017.pdf
there you go
I dont see how you could even disagree though. isnt that the point of having a public healthcare system? for people with less money to have to pay less. I didnt think that would be a revelation to you.
can you please send your link about the 1 % tax dodging again I had trouble finding it. I want to check the criteria they used more closely.
"How do you figure they are the same?
I could be given money and spend it on drugs and detract from the system further healthcare moves me into a position of contributing to the system instead of detracting from it
unless you mean that having more healthy workers in the workforce means that the business owners are basically being given free money at citizen tax payer expense could see this as a really valid point -- especially with how much business also tax dodge"
again you are reframing them the discussion.
whether its liquid cash or a good or service that has a cost there is still wealth being redistributed. you charge a rich person over 10 times what you charge a poor person for health insurance it doesnt change the fact that wealth is being redistributed.
you are making it about public healthcare being better for society than welfare because healthcare has a better outcome. thats a totally different discussion. we are talking baout whether or not the Canadian healthcare system is re distributive. stay on topic.
"Ah, so you have no data to support your point
and revert back to the fact that you feel the compensation is unjust when it has been shown that all who pay into the system benefit from it, making it just
Alright, if we are going to keep going in circles like this
should clarify that my respect for your position and feelings is still present and appreciate your efforts to show how the validity of your feelings pertains to legal distinctions of the protections of human rights
if your position of immoral taxes is that they make you feel bad rather than that there is data showing they have a negative impact on human rights then can at least sort of comprehend your view of the feeling taxes violating human rights"
I already showed you data that there is redistribution. you just brought up tax avoidence and somehow acted like that discounted what I provided. so now I have provided more evidence.
I was saying its not about data because I had already shown you the data to prove redistribution and from there, its isnt about data. taking money from someone and giving it to someone else is a violation of the right to property. you are again, misrepresenting what I have said.
I respect your feelings too.
Edited by BANANA.MAN (12/10/19 09:10 PM)
|
Near Dylan
Shitpost Artist


Registered: 07/29/15
Posts: 13,929
Last seen: 7 days, 1 hour
|
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: BANANA.MAN]
#26373996 - 12/10/19 09:12 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I refuse to read any of the posts posted on this page of the thread. Havent you guys ever heard of brevity?
--------------------
|
Tantrika
Miss Ann Thrope




Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
|
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: BANANA.MAN]
#26374029 - 12/10/19 09:42 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: "You brushed aside the reality that they dodge more tax payments than get paid
then you disregarded my legitimate question about whether you believed they would be subdued by the police for doing so
you have stated the rich and the poor have the same rights, so therefor the rich should be getting killed by the police for tax dodging in the manner you have stated would happen to you if you tax dodged
and you have not shown redistribution yet, because the people who pay taxes continue to benefit from tax funded services you just make excuses for why they may use them less than others
which has some truth -- people with enough wealth don't think they should be treated equally to other citizens and be stuck waiting in line so they pay for their surgeries in the US, because they consider themselves worth more expedient treatment than others" I said rich people pay more in taxes to show you that the system is redistributive. you then brought up tax evasion. I showed that rich people still pay more in taxes so my point still stands and now you're accusing me of brushing it off. Thats not what we were talking about. you cant just realize you are wrong then switch the topic and accuse the other person of brushing off random things you bring up.
I'd like to see the criteria for tax avoidance because alot of people get upset about legal methods (I know you brought up offshore accounts eariler. thats legal. those people arent breaking the law.) I'm sure most of it is stuff thats completely legal. there are all sorts of things you can do to pay less taxes, perfectly legally. for example you can reinvest all the profits for a business back into the business or you can reinvest a large portion. all sorts of things can alter your tax burden. for example someone with the same job and income could pay more property taxes than someone else simply because of the property they own.
are you saying people should go out of their way to pay the most they possibly can in taxes when they arent legally obligated to? or are we talking about tax evasion?
I thought we were talking about tax evasion and yes people, even rich people get arrested for that. and yes police would subdue the accused person and initiate force on them if they refused to comply with the arresting officer. ...
So you will be able to supply data points showing such
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... Anthony is a horrible criminal with a huge arsenal of illegal weapons as soon as he hears the cops are coming, he sets up traps
see the problem with your scenario here is that you are trying to make up a theoretical angelic being and then telling me about tragedies in his life but since he is completely made up, he is subject to all other imagination
so it turns out Anthony is not actually the nice guy you think he is because you're so close to him
if you used an actual example of a real citizen rather than a made up concept, this example could not be altered since it is a made up example, the prospect that he is secretly massively violent and you are covering it up is just as valid as any other
my dishonesty here is only matching with yours, to reflect the dishonesty you are practicing by making up scenarios in lieu of providing a real case study to discuss
In any situation where a police officer is attempting to arrest someone and they do not allow the officer to take them into custody and simply refuse to comply (without being violent) the officer will initiate force by attempting to cuff you. what do you think police will do if someone wont come with them? let them go. I wasnt being dishonest at all. I was using a theoretical situation with specific parameters so illustrate a point. ...
like your selection of "illustrate a point" here it seems to suggest that on a subconcious level you recognize that your imagined situation does not bear out in the real world
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... Because you have not shown redistributive aspects yet you keep talking about how you think some people pay in more and benefit less and how you think some people pay in less and benefit more but you don't actually show data supporting that point
you get mad at me for pointing out that the ultra rich 1% are paying less in taxes than families in the same tax bracket but at the 190 000 dollar mark, due to massive 1% tax dodging, thus screwing over all of us at the bottom even tho the link you provided me showed the same information
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/price-of-public-health-care-insurance-2017.pdf
there you go
I dont see how you could even disagree though. isnt that the point of having a public healthcare system? for people with less money to have to pay less. I didnt think that would be a revelation to you.
can you please send your link about the 1 % tax dodging again I had trouble finding it. I want to check the criteria they used more closely. ...
From your pdf:




so overall tax payments are larger for people with more sources of income but the real intersting thing is that people with more children end up paying slightly less on overall taxes (and subsequently on healthcare costs) because there are tax credit systems that subsidize having more children -- because it is presumed that educated multi-generation citizens having more children will result in greater benefit to the economy over the longterm
if this discussion is to shift from the morality of taxes for healthcare not violating human rights but having people subsidize the proliferation of children and how the morality of that may violate human rights due to unfair redistribution we could likely find some agreement
the "problem" with your pdf is it is all about the 'costs' and does not reflect any of the realities of the rate of consumption of benefit higher income earning families also use services at a higher rate than unattached individuals
but, fortunately, the document does touch briefly on why your perception is skewed on this matter:

the healthcare costs of adult individuals are typically higher than those of children; while it is possible you may have the misfortune of having a diabetic child adults who are frequently using pain pills, anti-depressants, insulin, sexual health and STD services, etc. will typically be having more weight on the system than children, who do require things like immunization, but a robust immunization system means the money that goes into those services is also less
the best link for the 1% tax dodging ended up being the one you provided it talks about how the highest taxed income contains the 1% who make substantially higher income than those at the bottom of their bracket also pay less in taxes
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... "How do you figure they are the same?
I could be given money and spend it on drugs and detract from the system further healthcare moves me into a position of contributing to the system instead of detracting from it
unless you mean that having more healthy workers in the workforce means that the business owners are basically being given free money at citizen tax payer expense could see this as a really valid point -- especially with how much business also tax dodge"
again you are reframing them the discussion.
whether its liquid cash or a good or service that has a cost there is still wealth being redistributed. you charge a rich person over 10 times what you charge a poor person for health insurance it doesnt change the fact that wealth is being redistributed.
you are making it about public healthcare being better for society than welfare because healthcare has a better outcome. thats a totally different discussion. we are talking baout whether or not the Canadian healthcare system is re distributive. stay on topic. ...
your position has been that you feel taxes should go to some services and not to others your position has been based on how you feel the healthcare system is redistributive of money but you have not shown how healthcare services are synonymous with money
but giving creedence to the possibility it is, then whether the healthcare system is redistributive is based on how much benefit individuals that pay into it derive from it someone who pays more into it because they own a business derives more benefit from it, by having it service their employees that enrich their business
am remaining on topic, if you want to weigh the costs and benefits of a system you have to realistically examine the benefits
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... "Ah, so you have no data to support your point
and revert back to the fact that you feel the compensation is unjust when it has been shown that all who pay into the system benefit from it, making it just
Alright, if we are going to keep going in circles like this
should clarify that my respect for your position and feelings is still present and appreciate your efforts to show how the validity of your feelings pertains to legal distinctions of the protections of human rights
if your position of immoral taxes is that they make you feel bad rather than that there is data showing they have a negative impact on human rights then can at least sort of comprehend your view of the feeling taxes violating human rights"
I already showed you data that there is redistribution. you just brought up tax avoidence and somehow acted like that discounted what I provided. so now I have provided more evidence.
I was saying its not about data because I had already shown you the data to prove redistribution and from there, its isnt about data. taking money from someone and giving it to someone else is a violation of the right to property. you are again, misrepresenting what I have said.
I respect your feelings too.
Think your post has shown great data regarding redistribution of tax money/wealth due to child subsidies even if that was not really what you were objecting to as immoral taxation
|
Tantrika
Miss Ann Thrope




Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
|
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: Near Dylan]
#26374036 - 12/10/19 09:46 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Near Dylan said: I refuse to read any of the posts posted on this page of the thread. Havent you guys ever heard of brevity?
Is that the new Brexit, but having run out of steam?
|
theRealrollforever
I DID-DENT



Registered: 08/31/13
Posts: 12,736
Loc: Bada-Bing!
Last seen: 2 days, 5 hours
|
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: Tantrika] 1
#26374060 - 12/10/19 10:00 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Banana man ftw. I got 3 to 1 odds on bman and I’m taking bets
--------------------
sunshine said: The order has to be secret and no one is sure.
|
Tantrika
Miss Ann Thrope




Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
|
|
Quote:
theRealrollforever said: Banana man ftw. I got 3 to 1 odds on bman and I’m taking bets

Me and Banana both have something better Canadian citizenship and the benefits of our healthcare system
|
theRealrollforever
I DID-DENT



Registered: 08/31/13
Posts: 12,736
Loc: Bada-Bing!
Last seen: 2 days, 5 hours
|
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: Tantrika]
#26374075 - 12/10/19 10:09 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
But that isn’t lucrative.
--------------------
sunshine said: The order has to be secret and no one is sure.
|
Tantrika
Miss Ann Thrope




Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
|
|
Quote:
theRealrollforever said: But that isn’t lucrative.

if that's what you are looking for from it, you're going to want to be the one who owns a cannabis business up here and hires one or both of us on
|
theRealrollforever
I DID-DENT



Registered: 08/31/13
Posts: 12,736
Loc: Bada-Bing!
Last seen: 2 days, 5 hours
|
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: Tantrika] 1
#26374109 - 12/10/19 10:40 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I would love that. Never gonna be a reality for me until it’s too late I’m sorry to say. The weed business is getting locked down by huge companies. Ever smaller companies had to merge into one larger to compete and not lose their way of life. For someone like me, no chance I’m gonna be making money at that as I have 0 connections. I can however make cool shit to get high out of
--------------------
sunshine said: The order has to be secret and no one is sure.
Edited by theRealrollforever (12/10/19 10:41 PM)
|
BANANA.MAN
Turd Ferguson

Registered: 01/11/15
Posts: 7,474
Loc: Ontario Canada
Last seen: 6 months, 2 days
|
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: Tantrika]
#26374133 - 12/10/19 10:52 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Tantrika said:
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: "You brushed aside the reality that they dodge more tax payments than get paid
then you disregarded my legitimate question about whether you believed they would be subdued by the police for doing so
you have stated the rich and the poor have the same rights, so therefor the rich should be getting killed by the police for tax dodging in the manner you have stated would happen to you if you tax dodged
and you have not shown redistribution yet, because the people who pay taxes continue to benefit from tax funded services you just make excuses for why they may use them less than others
which has some truth -- people with enough wealth don't think they should be treated equally to other citizens and be stuck waiting in line so they pay for their surgeries in the US, because they consider themselves worth more expedient treatment than others" I said rich people pay more in taxes to show you that the system is redistributive. you then brought up tax evasion. I showed that rich people still pay more in taxes so my point still stands and now you're accusing me of brushing it off. Thats not what we were talking about. you cant just realize you are wrong then switch the topic and accuse the other person of brushing off random things you bring up.
I'd like to see the criteria for tax avoidance because alot of people get upset about legal methods (I know you brought up offshore accounts eariler. thats legal. those people arent breaking the law.) I'm sure most of it is stuff thats completely legal. there are all sorts of things you can do to pay less taxes, perfectly legally. for example you can reinvest all the profits for a business back into the business or you can reinvest a large portion. all sorts of things can alter your tax burden. for example someone with the same job and income could pay more property taxes than someone else simply because of the property they own.
are you saying people should go out of their way to pay the most they possibly can in taxes when they arent legally obligated to? or are we talking about tax evasion?
I thought we were talking about tax evasion and yes people, even rich people get arrested for that. and yes police would subdue the accused person and initiate force on them if they refused to comply with the arresting officer. ...
So you will be able to supply data points showing such
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... Anthony is a horrible criminal with a huge arsenal of illegal weapons as soon as he hears the cops are coming, he sets up traps
see the problem with your scenario here is that you are trying to make up a theoretical angelic being and then telling me about tragedies in his life but since he is completely made up, he is subject to all other imagination
so it turns out Anthony is not actually the nice guy you think he is because you're so close to him
if you used an actual example of a real citizen rather than a made up concept, this example could not be altered since it is a made up example, the prospect that he is secretly massively violent and you are covering it up is just as valid as any other
my dishonesty here is only matching with yours, to reflect the dishonesty you are practicing by making up scenarios in lieu of providing a real case study to discuss
In any situation where a police officer is attempting to arrest someone and they do not allow the officer to take them into custody and simply refuse to comply (without being violent) the officer will initiate force by attempting to cuff you. what do you think police will do if someone wont come with them? let them go. I wasnt being dishonest at all. I was using a theoretical situation with specific parameters so illustrate a point. ...
like your selection of "illustrate a point" here it seems to suggest that on a subconcious level you recognize that your imagined situation does not bear out in the real world
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... Because you have not shown redistributive aspects yet you keep talking about how you think some people pay in more and benefit less and how you think some people pay in less and benefit more but you don't actually show data supporting that point
you get mad at me for pointing out that the ultra rich 1% are paying less in taxes than families in the same tax bracket but at the 190 000 dollar mark, due to massive 1% tax dodging, thus screwing over all of us at the bottom even tho the link you provided me showed the same information
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/price-of-public-health-care-insurance-2017.pdf
there you go
I dont see how you could even disagree though. isnt that the point of having a public healthcare system? for people with less money to have to pay less. I didnt think that would be a revelation to you.
can you please send your link about the 1 % tax dodging again I had trouble finding it. I want to check the criteria they used more closely. ...
From your pdf:




so overall tax payments are larger for people with more sources of income but the real intersting thing is that people with more children end up paying slightly less on overall taxes (and subsequently on healthcare costs) because there are tax credit systems that subsidize having more children -- because it is presumed that educated multi-generation citizens having more children will result in greater benefit to the economy over the longterm
if this discussion is to shift from the morality of taxes for healthcare not violating human rights but having people subsidize the proliferation of children and how the morality of that may violate human rights due to unfair redistribution we could likely find some agreement
the "problem" with your pdf is it is all about the 'costs' and does not reflect any of the realities of the rate of consumption of benefit higher income earning families also use services at a higher rate than unattached individuals
but, fortunately, the document does touch briefly on why your perception is skewed on this matter:

the healthcare costs of adult individuals are typically higher than those of children; while it is possible you may have the misfortune of having a diabetic child adults who are frequently using pain pills, anti-depressants, insulin, sexual health and STD services, etc. will typically be having more weight on the system than children, who do require things like immunization, but a robust immunization system means the money that goes into those services is also less
the best link for the 1% tax dodging ended up being the one you provided it talks about how the highest taxed income contains the 1% who make substantially higher income than those at the bottom of their bracket also pay less in taxes
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... "How do you figure they are the same?
I could be given money and spend it on drugs and detract from the system further healthcare moves me into a position of contributing to the system instead of detracting from it
unless you mean that having more healthy workers in the workforce means that the business owners are basically being given free money at citizen tax payer expense could see this as a really valid point -- especially with how much business also tax dodge"
again you are reframing them the discussion.
whether its liquid cash or a good or service that has a cost there is still wealth being redistributed. you charge a rich person over 10 times what you charge a poor person for health insurance it doesnt change the fact that wealth is being redistributed.
you are making it about public healthcare being better for society than welfare because healthcare has a better outcome. thats a totally different discussion. we are talking baout whether or not the Canadian healthcare system is re distributive. stay on topic. ...
your position has been that you feel taxes should go to some services and not to others your position has been based on how you feel the healthcare system is redistributive of money but you have not shown how healthcare services are synonymous with money
but giving creedence to the possibility it is, then whether the healthcare system is redistributive is based on how much benefit individuals that pay into it derive from it someone who pays more into it because they own a business derives more benefit from it, by having it service their employees that enrich their business
am remaining on topic, if you want to weigh the costs and benefits of a system you have to realistically examine the benefits
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... "Ah, so you have no data to support your point
and revert back to the fact that you feel the compensation is unjust when it has been shown that all who pay into the system benefit from it, making it just
Alright, if we are going to keep going in circles like this
should clarify that my respect for your position and feelings is still present and appreciate your efforts to show how the validity of your feelings pertains to legal distinctions of the protections of human rights
if your position of immoral taxes is that they make you feel bad rather than that there is data showing they have a negative impact on human rights then can at least sort of comprehend your view of the feeling taxes violating human rights"
I already showed you data that there is redistribution. you just brought up tax avoidence and somehow acted like that discounted what I provided. so now I have provided more evidence.
I was saying its not about data because I had already shown you the data to prove redistribution and from there, its isnt about data. taking money from someone and giving it to someone else is a violation of the right to property. you are again, misrepresenting what I have said.
I respect your feelings too.
Think your post has shown great data regarding redistribution of tax money/wealth due to child subsidies even if that was not really what you were objecting to as immoral taxation
1. actually i would like to see your data again. i had trouble finding it when i looked back its tough on my phone.
2. it does bear out in the real world I was trying to 'illustrate a point" about what happens in the real world. if someone is being arrested and does not comply with the police the police will initiate force.
3. you are right it doesnt address consumption of healthcare. I think we can assume healthcare consumption doesnt line up perfectly with tax burden. that would be extremely unlikely.
but if you need evidence then here.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4221677/
"Using a total sample of 91,223 adults (18 and older), we found that HCU status was strongly associated with being older, having multiple chronic conditions, and reporting poorer self-perceived health. Specifically, in the fully-adjusted model, poor self-rated health (vs. good) was associated with a 26-fold increase in odds of becoming a Top 1% HCU (vs. Bottom 50% user) [95% CI: (18.9, 36.9)]. Further, HCU tended to be of lower socio-economic status, former daily smokers, physically inactive, current non-drinkers, and obese."
4. spending money on someone else is still redistributing money even if you dont actually give them the liquid cash.
thats a huge reach to say that because someone's employees use public healthcare that its benefiting them directly. you have to be able to represent values as numbers. people are paying an actual number of dollars. if you want to show that they are getting their money back you have to show the numbers.
5.
"The 10% of Canadian families with the lowest incomes will pay an average of about $471 for public health care insurance in 2017. The 10% of Canadian families who earn an average income of $63,163 will pay an average of $5,789 for public health care insurance, and the families among the top 10% of income earners in Canada will pay $39,123."
did you miss this part?
Edited by BANANA.MAN (12/10/19 10:55 PM)
|
BANANA.MAN
Turd Ferguson

Registered: 01/11/15
Posts: 7,474
Loc: Ontario Canada
Last seen: 6 months, 2 days
|
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: BANANA.MAN]
#26374171 - 12/10/19 11:10 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
https://www.nj.com/news/2018/11/every_way_a_police_officer_is_legally_allowed_to_harm_another_person_from_a_to_z.html
"Officers across New Jersey are trained under state guidelines to use a reasonable level of force to quickly and safely make an arrest if a suspect resists or threatens to harm themselves or another person."
"“Resisting” can be as simple as going limp, holding onto a pole or just saying “no” to being handcuffed "
"A compliance hold is a painful maneuver using pressure points to gain control over a suspect.
The most common moves are arm bars and wrist locks, which are used to walk a person out of an area or toward safety to make an arrest. From 2012 through 2016, officers reported using compliance holds 56,928 times, or about 81 percent of the time when they used force, data shows.
If necessary, an officer can transition from a compliance hold into a takedown."
"Police are also authorized to kick or knee somebody who is refusing to comply with orders during an arrest."
This is about new jersey but this is all pretty common police protocol. I dont think there are many police departments who will give up on arresting people just because they say no.
Edited by BANANA.MAN (12/10/19 11:13 PM)
|
Tantrika
Miss Ann Thrope




Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
|
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: BANANA.MAN]
#26374195 - 12/10/19 11:30 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... 1. actually i would like to see your data again. i had trouble finding it when i looked back its tough on my phone.
2. it does bear out in the real world I was trying to 'illustrate a point" about what happens in the real world. if someone is being arrested and does not comply with the police the police will initiate force. ...
My miscomprehension, have at, would love any more researched data; your link about the relative % paid in the top tax bracket was really interesting
Quote:
Tantrika said: ... here was my first google result when typing in "Canada 1% tax": https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cra-corporate-taxes-1.5179489 https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cra-tax-gap-foreign-holdings-1.4726983 ...
it's quite likely google gives cbc as top result (with ctv coming in covering the same story 9 times out of 10) due to my checking the news every morning
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... 3. you are right it doesnt address consumption of healthcare. I think we can assume healthcare consumption doesnt line up perfectly with tax burden. that would be extremely unlikely.
but if you need evidence then here.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4221677/
"Using a total sample of 91,223 adults (18 and older), we found that HCU status was strongly associated with being older, having multiple chronic conditions, and reporting poorer self-perceived health. Specifically, in the fully-adjusted model, poor self-rated health (vs. good) was associated with a 26-fold increase in odds of becoming a Top 1% HCU (vs. Bottom 50% user) [95% CI: (18.9, 36.9)]. Further, HCU tended to be of lower socio-economic status, former daily smokers, physically inactive, current non-drinkers, and obese." ...
You will note my highlighting a different portion than you did not to simply be contrary but because people who are older with multiple chronic conditions often last longer in the system and elderly individuals are typically also in the lower socio-economic brackets due to being retired am going to dig through this report more thoroughly, so if you have already done so may come across more data that bears out your point but most noted to me so far has been:

the largest group of HCU individuals is 75+ can only relate to this anecdotally so far (so hopefully they get into it further) but my obese Grandmother who died in her early 80s(?) counted as a HCU for a shorter time than my healthy and still active 94 year old Nana so when considering how they were both having thousands of dollars of medications covered since their 70s many of which were the same (arthritis, osteoperosis, etc.) my Nana who has paid taxes longer, and now constitutes an "unattached individual" in the family tax bracketing has been drawing on more resources by sole virtue of living longer due to maintaining good health but won't start diverting into this thread too far into being about my gladness that my Nana survived multiple deaths on the operating table to make it to having a pacemaker and heart meds and still being with us for the holidays 
Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... 4. spending money on someone else is still redistributing money even if you dont actually give them the liquid cash.
thats a huge reach to say that because someone's employees use public healthcare that its benefiting them directly. you have to be able to represent values as numbers. people are paying an actual number of dollars. if you want to show that they are getting their money back you have to show the numbers. ...
please do recognize that it is not my position that redistribution is moral simply that the healthcare system does not necessarily play out as a redistributive model
again, an example through the data you provided earlier with the large tax cuts provided for having children there is potentially place for debate of redistributive taxes in that regard but it is also way too senstive of a topic to start examining whether associated healthcare funding of abortions keeping people as unattached individuals is better or worse than having them become 1 parent 2 children families
arguably someone's employees would benefit them less than fully automated and intelligent robotic staff

Quote:
BANANA.MAN said: ... 5.
"The 10% of Canadian families with the lowest incomes will pay an average of about $471 for public health care insurance in 2017. The 10% of Canadian families who earn an average income of $63,163 will pay an average of $5,789 for public health care insurance, and the families among the top 10% of income earners in Canada will pay $39,123."
did you miss this part?
looked at it in context of benefits
|
BANANA.MAN
Turd Ferguson

Registered: 01/11/15
Posts: 7,474
Loc: Ontario Canada
Last seen: 6 months, 2 days
|
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: Tantrika] 1
#26374253 - 12/11/19 12:21 AM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I have acctually never met anyone who claimed that public healthcare is not redistributive. Thats the whole selling point for most people.
The fact is that some people pay under 500 a year for public health insurance and some people pay over 39 000. I am not convinced that two people paying those prices for the same coverage are receiving equal benefit.
if insurance were privatized one could clearly afford better coverage than the other.
even if by some extremely statistically unlikely situation where all rich people use more healthcare than all poor people its healthcare that rich people largely funded in the first place.
"looked at it in context of benefits"
I'm not buying that frankly. people paying over 80 times what others pay for the same coverage, not because of your risk factor but your income, is a total bum deal.
Edited by BANANA.MAN (12/11/19 12:24 AM)
|
|