We don't have all that much intelligent discussions anymore, so here's a good chance.

[INFESTA]

So I decided to start what could turn out to be an interesting discussion.
Recently there have been quite a few debates in my country over a series of issues (tolls on freeways, paying extra healthcare charges when you enter a hospital, etc.).
Even though all of these questions seem independent, I think the problem in all of them is the clashing of 2 different, I'd even say opposite conceptions of Modern Democratic Society:

- One of them preaches that solidarity is a pillar of our society, and with that in mind we should use tax money to help underdeveloped regions have freeways, hospitals, etc.

- The other philosophy, known as 'User Payer', advocates that only those who use certain equipments or commodities should pay for their maintenance. Of course, the individual fee is significantly higher than if it was being paid by everybody in the form of taxes.


I still haven't made my mind completely, although I naturally lean towards the solidarity thesis.
Is anyone as bored as me to have an opinion on this matter?

 

[Andrejs]

My vote would definitely go the the first version (solidarity).In capitalism its impossible to see that everyone are able to pay for themselves so the only way is to help other regions or people out but it isnt most likley to happen, for an example in Latvia there are TV ads in style "Help hospitals to buy this machine and you will save a childs life.Call on this number to donate a dollar". They never get the money togheter, even the politicians dont do ****, they dont even give out a penny from their huge sallary...

 

[Kibe Kru]

I'm not sure which one works best but as in phylosophy I prefer the first one..

 

[Virgo]

the thing is you'll still pay the same taxes Infesta, using public healthcare or not, that's just a way to scrape more money out of the public, really.

about the rest, well of course we have to help the underdeveloped regions, or else we might as well give the interior of the country to Spain, because everyone will move to the coast.

 

[henry#14]

The first option suits me better and seems to work the most in theory. But as we all know in real life....

 

[Vagegast]

The 'solidarity thesis' is a case for people to pay taxes. The opposite side of this argument wouldn't be the user argument but rather the Ayn Rand one: Government shouldn't interfere with this. Plus, if someone can't afford any of those (highway tolls, hospital) they should rely on private charity, not government charity. People shouldn't be forced, through taxing by the government, to pay for others.

So yeah, I agree with the solidarity-thesis even though it's not the ultimate solution. It's a stop-gap solution and always has been.

 

[jatin]

Wht do u guys study..economics??
Anyways..Think all countries have the 1st system in place like here in India and in theory it shud have worked wonders till now,but Theres just so much corrupton here tht peoples money just vanishes...

Here in bombay we have a range of people earning 50 bucks a day to 50 lakh bucks a day,its only fair to use the first system

 

[Virgo]

Originally posted by Vagegast
The 'solidarity thesis' is a case for people to pay taxes. The opposite side of this argument wouldn't be the user argument but rather the Ayn Rand one: Government shouldn't interfere with this. Plus, if someone can't afford any of those (highway tolls, hospital) they should rely on private charity, not government charity. People shouldn't be forced, through taxing by the government, to pay for others.

So yeah, I agree with the solidarity-thesis even though it's not the ultimate solution. It's a stop-gap solution and always has been.

See if you picture this...

the thing is we have public healthcare over here, like most developed countries in the world do except US. We pay a minimal symbolic fee everytime we need to go to the doctor or the hospital. If we don't want to use public healthcare we don't have to, there are lots of private hospitals, clinics, etc for the people who have cash. Although the rest doesn't work that bad, the major problem with this are the very big waiting lists for the more complicated operations in public hospitals... there are people who wait 3/4 years and more for operations. Most people tend to go have these operations in the private sector or else, they might as well wait to die, only the people who don't have much cash are in these waiting lists.

But now the government wants to charge people anyway, supposedly based on the yearly income of someone's family. This although seeming good in theory may be much more complicated to do than first thought about, and it's not that fair when you think that the people with larger incomes already pay much more taxes than others (if they don't escape taxes which they do a lot around here).


About highway tolls, it's obviously not the same as health, the user pays over here and he pays well. My only objection about this is that some tolls are ridiculously high priced, like in the Vasco da Gama bridge in Lisbon where they charge 2,5€ for just over 10km. They turned highway and bridge tolls into a giant money making machine at the pretext of road preservation.

 

[Rob]

It really does depend.

For road tolls I think it should be for people who use the road. I don't want to pay for a road (heres an example in Melbourne) the Scorsby freeway. It is on the other side of the city and the government wants to make it a Toll way.

I agree with this because I am never ever going to use this road unless I go on it what? Once every 3 years. If I don’t want to pay the toll and I live in the area I will take nearby roads no biggie.

As Virgo said, Health care and Roads are too different things. When it comes to health care I believe everyone should pay taxes towards it so you have the best system. Why? Because I am not the only one who will use it, my friends and loved ones will also and I want them to have the best treatment shall they fall ill.

If we have to wait, we wait or we can go private, but I think every situation should be taken on its merits and on the infrastructure a certain country or state has and the problems it faces.

 

[bigp]

Ideally everyone should agree with the 1st one but there is just so much corruption in the world that you don't really know if your tax money is going to the right places.

Roads should only have a toll if you want to cut pollution or just want to create a highway that would give u faster access to places.

Health care however should be free to everyone. You just don't know when you will be sick so there might be times where you don't have money but desperately need health care.

 

[Tom]

classic debate this and a great thread.

Personally i prefer the second option as it is more fair, i think you should only pay for something that you actually use. However, this has long term problems as people will always try to get around it.

Economically its also far worse, less revenue (via taxes) would be paid to the government, and the only way the could compensate would be to dramatically raise taxes, causing massive upheavel almonst the state.

Though taxes also has its more obvious problems, if you dont often get ill why should a hefty majority of your income go towards the NHS etc.

- Overall i think the pay as you go method is better but it will only help to create a society in which the rich will distance themselves from the poor (e.g poor people wont pay for anything), but im sure if i was on the breadline suffering from many diseases id want others to help me out, very hard decision

TROD.

 

[TOON ARMY]

This is why we are lucky, Trod. We have the choice to pay for our healthcare as well as free healthcare under the state. The upper classes especially will argue that they shouldn't have to foot the bill for an NHS which they don't use but when they're lying on the street fighting for their life in need of quick medical help they're all of a sudden not so hostile against the NHS are they?

Basically i agree with the first option.

 

[Elder]

Re: We don't have all that much intelligent discussions anymore, so here's a good cha

Originally posted by INFESTA
So I decided to start what could turn out to be an interesting discussion.
Recently there have been quite a few debates in my country over a series of issues (tolls on freeways, paying extra healthcare charges when you enter a hospital, etc.).
Even though all of these questions seem independent, I think the problem in all of them is the clashing of 2 different, I'd even say opposite conceptions of Modern Democratic Society:

- One of them preaches that solidarity is a pillar of our society, and with that in mind we should use tax money to help underdeveloped regions have freeways, hospitals, etc.

- The other philosophy, known as 'User Payer', advocates that only those who use certain equipments or commodities should pay for their maintenance. Of course, the individual fee is significantly higher than if it was being paid by everybody in the form of taxes.


I still haven't made my mind completely, although I naturally lean towards the solidarity thesis.
Is anyone as bored as me to have an opinion on this matter?

The reasons freeways exist is for commerce reasons only. Same with railroads and the like. They are all put in place to help ensure that people and goods can be transported at a rapid rate so that money can be made. The porblem with tolls is that they are usually put in place because the highway needs to be paid for... usually the tolls are still kept in place long after they've earned the money to pay for the road. They are a fraud and just another way for the government to collect more of your money. Once it's paid for, that should be the end of it.

A user pays system just wouldn't work. But I do wish the "lower" classes of people would quit bitching about the rich and how evil they are when they pay all of the taxes for the free **** they get. Start saying "thank you" for once.

 

[Parra Power]

Re: Re: We don't have all that much intelligent discussions anymore, so here's a good cha

Originally posted by Elder
A user pays system just wouldn't work. But I do wish the "lower" classes of people would quit bitching about the rich and how evil they are when they pay all of the taxes for the free **** they get. Start saying "thank you" for once.

 

[Elder]

Re: Re: Re: We don't have all that much intelligent discussions anymore, so here's a

Originally posted by Parra Power

So instead of your useless faces, why don't you point out where I am wrong?

 

[Andrejs]

Re: Re: We don't have all that much intelligent discussions anymore, so here's a good

Originally posted by Elder


A user pays system just wouldn't work. But I do wish the "lower" classes of people would quit bitching about the rich and how evil they are when they pay all of the taxes for the free **** they get. Start saying "thank you" for once.

Thank you for WHAT???

 

[Elder]

Re: Re: Re: We don't have all that much intelligent discussions anymore, so here's a

Originally posted by Andrejs
Thank you for WHAT???

If you didn't know, the "Rich" pay most of the income taxes in the United States. Therefore, that tax money goes into welfare programs, health care services, roads, etc. etc.

It's time for the poor people to say thanks for all the free **** they get.

 

[TOON ARMY]

Originally posted by Elder
A user pays system just wouldn't work. But I do wish the "lower" classes of people would quit bitching about the rich and how evil they are when they pay all of the taxes for the free **** they get. Start saying "thank you" for once.

Shouldn't the upper classes by saying thank you? Who made them rich in the first place? Please don't tell me they achieved their status because it's bull****.

FACT the upper classes/bourgeoisie ascribe their status through the hard work of the working classes who get very little in return.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by TOON ARMY
Shouldn't the upper classes by saying thank you? Who made them rich in the first place? Please don't tell me they achieved their status because it's bull****.

FACT the upper classes/bourgeoisie ascribe their status through the hard work of the working classes who get very little in return.

No, the lower classes should thank the people who have the imagination, drive, and determination to make their businesses succeed. If it wasn't for them, they wouldn't have jobs...

You have a totally warped concept of how reality works.

 

[TOON ARMY]

Originally posted by Elder
No, the lower classes should thank the people who have the imagination, drive, and determination to make their businesses succeed. If it wasn't for them, they wouldn't have jobs...

You have a totally warped concept of how reality works.

This is a two way process. I can see your point very well but if it wasn't for the hard work shown by the working classes in these jobs then the upper classes wouldn't be so successful would they? That's why i don't see it unreasonable for the upper classes to be paying higher taxes to put something back in society because the working classes certainly aren't going to have a decent standard of life on their wages alone.