Topic: Why are people scared of taxes? - page 42. (Read 31542 times)

I hate England, but il give it credit where it deserves, the fact we have a NHS is a fantastic thing, lets hope we can keep it intact for all the reasons above (nicely said Lethos) and more.

I dont think people are scared of paying taxes, but its fucking annoying when you see your money being spent on horse shit and thats where I think the fuss is made. Taxes in theory = awesome, in reality, frustrating as hell.

PS. Fuck George Osborne, wouldnt piss on the cunt if he was on fire.

No it's not entirely free, I did touch on how I pay taxes, but for the amount of cover I get and pay, it's far better than what I could get in the same situation and money, if I lived in any country which doesn't have a public health care system and instead has only private.
Sure when you have what appears to be free cover because it's taken as tax, people do use it more often. Personally I think the opposite is worse, people being afraid to get something checked out early because they are worried about how much it might cost them.
I've also never had a single argument over my cover or what I need to do. That however happens a lot with private insurers.

I believe what the USA are trying to do about getting a public health system in place is good step forward, but their mistake was compromising too much and involving the existing infrastructure of insurance companies. This seems to have lead to a forced insurance, with the same greedy corporations still somewhat in charge. It doesn't solve the problem of making sure no one is without insurance, without huge compromises. It's a failure when they can't see the difference forcing private insurance on people and tax based health cover by default system that doesn't really involve the insurance business at all.

Also many of the poorer workers pay very little in NI contributions (for the NHS), especially if you compare it % to other countries which rely on private only health care systems. They also often get exceptions and have access to the most benefits in the UK. I have been there and done that, as I am self-employeed and disabled individual I did need to use the benefit system at times and those which I still qualify for I still use.
I don't have a huge salary, average at best, but I know based on my dad's research insuring me in the USA would account for about 75% of my salary. Private insurance costs a fortune when they account for risk, NI doesn't, it means tested based on your income. Just like other taxes it works out as fairer. Comparing private to public it is nearer to 1/10th of the cost in public health care, it's one of the reasons why I never moved.
Again the benefit system, just like the NHS is all government funded with taxes, in some way and while some abuse it and it certainly agree it's not perfect it is very useful for those trying to get back on their feet and stops many who would otherwise go into a downwards spiral of debt if all done privately.

Regarding the NHS: obviously it is not free since it is paid for via forcible taxation, including the ugly regressive "National Insurance" tax which hits poorer workers hardest. I'm sure quite a few frivolous GP visits would be eliminated if they cost £100 a time.

Yes, the doctors and nurses (and cardiologists, radiologists, pharmacologists and what have you not) who work within the NHS system are always to be lauded - they are the salt of the earth - but because the NHS is a giant and unwieldy State bureaucracy, third only to China's army and India's railways, it does not really have to account for its outgoings properly (it has no customers!) and thus wastes humongous resources/money on such nonsense as "Diversity Officers" and all kinds of pointless bureaucrat/management positions. Indeed, it wastes more on these than it spends on good doctors and nurses.

The failings of the NHS do not in any way vindicate the mess they have in America, though. But that is not a free-market system anyway and hasn't been for many decades, since the federal government decided to intervene via Medicare/Medicaid, and pass more and more regulations that spurred on the growth of HMOs and stuff. (This spoken by a non-expert on US healthcare practices, mind.)

In Britain, though, the NHS is a bit of a holy cow and it is not considered politically acceptable to question it. I don't think that even the somewhat politically conservative UKIP would have the guts to prune the NHS, in honesty, much as Thatcher did not dare touch the NHS or Social Security in any way.

^ good points.

I remembered why I don't like the AnaCap model. Let me ask you this; Have you played a game called DayZ?

I don't like paying taxes, just like everyone else. I'm certainly not all for them, but they are necessary, as private business' have proven to act too greedy and all too concerned about profits in most industries to be trusted, to provide an affordable service for all.
I'd much rather keep hold of all my money if I could. A good accountant and a good understand of tax laws goes a long way to helping here. I think abusing the tax loops holes is bad too, however, if you make huge amounts of money, trying to pay an average of just single digits in taxes is just cheeky here.
I live in a country (UK), which overall taxes things quiet a lot, if you wanted to compare it even to other first world countries. We pay a lot in taxes, but there is a lot more benefits and government funded services because of it.

I remind myself of the huge benefits of those taxes are put towards, like Our National Health System, as probably the best example.

I don't pay a single penny, not a single fuss over payment at all, if I got rushed to the hospital, in an ambulance or by helicopter, had to spend an entire week in intensive care and then needed supportive care once I got discharged eventually. This could happen to me, due to the nature of a medical condition I have. I has already 3 times in my life. Yet I still work and contribute via my taxes, and it contributes maybe a low single digit % of my income. I'm not treated as a risky individual or taxed more because of my condition.

Not everyone will need this, but there are medical procedures/treatments that nearly everyone of my family and friends have had or will probably need over their life time, that I know cost 1000's or 10,000's+ privately, and it would of been a harder decision for them to even consider doing it, knowing it will cost them personal, or their insurance is going to fight to not pay it, even though you'd be paying premiums for years. I have friends all over the world and I have heard how they or their friends/family have managed to rack up medical debt bill so big it basically bankrupts and cripples their lives, through no fault of their own.

Yes I truly love the Free health care system here, especially when I talk to my Dad who moved to America (California) ~ 12 years ago and has to deal with being a diabetic and getting insurance + out of pocket expenses. It costs him a fortune and comparatively speaking, when you compare the taxes he paid towards NHS to what he now pays in America for the same on going treatment. Guess which costs him more. Luckily he is a highly skilled individual, but it's going to be a lot harder for him as he gets older.

Yes, Government services funded by taxes do end up with a lot of management types getting paid too much, in my opinion, but it's still nothing compared to the private sector and how much they pay theirs, and their shareholders, investors etc. That is your only option if you don't pay taxes to government for certain services, that services would go private and their is certain things I would not want to go private once you are on the receiving end of how big of difference their is between the two cost wise.

My Partner works for the NHS, not as a manager, just as an OT. So my experience is slightly bias, but I have experienced both our NHS and private health care in the UK. Yes our private health care is excellent, but it's silly expensive just like in the USA. How ever, the NHS standard is still very good.

wow, why would you support force on people?

So other people should be coerced, with threat of force, to pay for your convenience. Gotcha.

If voting could actually change anything and <1 elections were not decided by fraud, it would be illegal.

+1

I think it's more founded on the idea that if one lot of people disagree with another lot of people, sticking a piece of paper in a box is preferable to tearing chunks out of each other.

So taxes serve a convenient and logical purpose here. Allocation and implementation could be better, but it works out.

its more convenient to pay taxes and know i dont have to worry about not being able to travel freely because someone else owns the means of getting to another place

don't have those in car except cellphone

i was waiting for compromised solution but I'll just say the one I realized

most freeways are too congested. So have technically private owners but require current lanes maintained for public at no cost and allow the private owners to buy the area to be able to build additional lanes where they may charge fees and thus have less cars and be able to avoid traffic congestion

many problems are solved by the idea I lay out there

So is it better to pay a toll or a tax? You have to have one or the other if you like having roads worth using. There's no way to pay a toll without being tracked, and there are easier ways to track you than Fast/EZpass. Do you have OnStar? A later model car? Built in GPS? You can be located with that. Cell phone? Trilocated. Passport? RFID. Credit cards? Transactions are logged. Traffic cameras watch intersections 24/7, recording every car that passes by. There are much easier ways to track you than your toll pass.

Also i don't want to be chipped & tracked, and i dont want to stop and hand someone paper slowing down my travel time either.

i know how obscenely inefficient government is at maintaining roads

Roads are expensive to maintain, and a nightmare to upgrade. Toll roads result from the privatization of roads or bridges. Have you noticed how much nicer toll roads are? That's because the money from the tolls goes directly towards maintaining the road. Instead of being paid for by taxes, they're paid for by the toll. Think of it more like an immediately collected, direct tax. You will pay for using the road, it's just pay later to the government or pay now to the road manufacturer.

i am totally libertarian except for the idea of...who owns the roads and transportation?

right to travel i see as a RIGHT, and thus TOLL ROADS are restricting our right to travel

who can answer me?

So you define government as a force-bearing entity?

The question of who would pay for the roads has been discussed to death.

You assume any of those positions would be necessary.

No rulers does not mean no rules. If you damage someone, you're liable for recompense. No government also means no corporate protections, so the CEO doesn't get to let the company die while he skates with a "golden parachute."

If there is a need for these services, they will be provided, at better rates and with better service, by the market (ie, private companies), than by a violence-funded monopoly.

If they don't use force to achieve their goals or acquire their funding, they're not a government. Nor would they cause any problems in an AnCap society. What you describe is not the scenario that was suggested.

But what if they're not the biggest asshole on the block?
I'm sure you're familiar with the 'cult of personality' phenomena.
If someone with a very large amount of charisma, a natural leader started his own government, many would follow.
If they were following him because they believed in him, they would fight harder and better than any group of people that banded together because they were within 20 feet of each other. Besides, he wouldn't have to be aggressive to form a government. Just have a bunch of people under his wings, and when they have, or appear to have, things better than anyone struggling on there own, people will flock to him.

Click for full size:

Caption: Result of the successful, taxpayer-funded US Executive Branch false flag op to justify more "gun control" (victim disarmament), Operation Fast and Furious. The operation forced Federal Firearms Licensees (at threat of government force) to supply violent drug cartels with rifles, resulting in thousands of innocent deaths to date and untold more in the future. As a result, the FFLs were subjected to defamation, shutdown, criminal sanctions, and increased victim disarming-regulations while the government pretended that it wasn't 100% at fault for the entrapment, arming known felons, and violating numerous state and federal laws.